Syria

[rawhide]

How many groups included in the Assad rebel opposition are comprised of recognized terrorist organizations?

 

And the AK's and RPG's are our ME version of fast and furious?? Not that any of these weapons could ever travel from Syria to Afghanistan or Turkey.

 

I'm just grateful that we aren't getting involved in a civil war. Well, no boots anyway; YET. That we know of.

[walksalone]

How many groups included in the Assad rebel opposition are comprised of recognized terrorist organizations?

 

And the AK's and RPG's are our ME version of fast and furious?? Not that any of these weapons could ever travel from Syria to Afghanistan or Turkey.

 

I'm just grateful that we aren't getting involved in a civil war. Well, no boots anyway; YET. That we know of.

 

At this point, the question might be, which groups "aren't" in Syria...

[BigRedBuster]

How many groups included in the Assad rebel opposition are comprised of recognized terrorist organizations?

 

And the AK's and RPG's are our ME version of fast and furious?? Not that any of these weapons could ever travel from Syria to Afghanistan or Turkey.

 

I'm just grateful that we aren't getting involved in a civil war. Well, no boots anyway; YET. That we know of.

 

At this point, the question might be, which groups "aren't" in Syria...

 

 

Oh Goodiiee.

 

We now get to give terrorist organizations weapons and help them get to power....

 

Foreign relations....VICTORY!!!!!

[carlfense]

Oh Goodiiee.

 

We now get to give terrorist organizations weapons and help them get to power....

 

Foreign relations....VICTORY!!!!!

Has anyone said anything about a foreign relations victory regarding the civil war?

 

The ODS might be even more virulent than I suspected.

[carlfense]

repost.

Another view . . .

 

http://drezner.forei..._realism_stupid

 

Quite the theory.

Carl, you have to sign up to read this. What did it say in a nutshell?

That US interests might be (brutally) served by prolonging the conflict in Syria. The goal being the decimation of Hezbollah (on Assad's side) and the al-Queda affiliated jihadists (on the rebel side). Also, an outside shot of drawing the Iranian regime into the conflict and thereby further straining them.

 

The idea is basically that "for the low, low, cost of arming rebels" we are advancing our own agenda without risking American lives. In theory.

 

. . . To recap, the goal of that policy is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible.

 

This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished.... at an appalling toll in lives lost.

This policy doesn't require any course correction... so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. A faltering Assad simply forces Iran et al into doubling down and committing even more resources. A faltering rebel movement, on the other hand, does require some external support, lest the Iranians actually win the conflict. In a related matter, arming the rebels also prevents relations with U.S. allies in the region from fraying any further.

 

So is this the first step towards another U.S.-led war in the region? No. Everything in that Timesstory, and everything this administration has said and done for the past two years, screams deep reluctance over intervention. Arming the rebels is not the same thing as a no-fly zone or any kind of ground intervention. This is simply the United States engaging in its own form of asymmetric warfare. For the low, low price of aiding and arming the rebels, the U.S. preoccupies all of its adversaries in the Middle East.

 

. . .

[Mavric]

But how is getting rid of something that we're pretty sure happened but has very little to do with the ongoing situation . . .

Are you referring to the civil war?

The civil war is the ongoing situation, yes. I was imprecise in my statement. Getting rid of the chemical weapons will have very little impact on the ongoing civil war in that the war will still be going on and many will obviously keep dying/being murdered.

[Mavric]

. . . was mostly forced by Putin . . .

And you don't wonder why Putin acted now?

I don't know for sure why he acted now. My speculation is he saw an opportunity to either delay any possible US action at worst and at best get the US to agree to not get involved with any direct attack.

[Mavric]

. . . be considered a "huge foreign policy victory"?

I doubt that you need this explained to you.

I'm interested in your opinion.

[carlfense]

The civil war is the ongoing situation, yes. I was imprecise in my statement. Getting rid of the chemical weapons will have very little impact on the ongoing civil war in that the war will still be going on and many will obviously keep dying/being murdered.

True. But one less dictator (or even worse . . . al Queda groups) will have chemical weapons if this works.

[carlfense]

I don't know for sure why he acted now. My speculation is he saw an opportunity to either delay any possible US action at worst and at best get the US to agree to not get involved with any direct attack.

I don't know for sure either . . . but I suspect that the threat of US action forced his hand.

[zoogs]

This is simply the United States engaging in its own form of asymmetric warfare. For the low, low price of aiding and arming the rebels, the U.S. preoccupies all of its adversaries in the Middle East.

 

On the one hand, yea! Go us!

 

On the other,

This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished.... at an appalling toll in lives lost.

 

[carlfense]

. . . be considered a "huge foreign policy victory"?

I doubt that you need this explained to you.

I'm interested in your opinion.

Because a world where neither Assad nor the various rebel groups have chemical weapons would be a better place.

 

(If it works. Already a minor victory that Assad signed chemical weapons decree.)

[rawhide]

But to most dictators/megalo's any decree/agreement is just paper. Kinda like a TRO is to a domestic violence offender. They play their game, we play ours.

 

But I also agree; chem/bio weapons should be prohibited by EVERYONE. Someday, maybe Nukes too.

[rawhide]

Food for thought; as it were:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/us-arsenal-lessons-syria-chemical-weapons-071108793--politics.html

[walksalone]

. . . be considered a "huge foreign policy victory"?

I doubt that you need this explained to you.

I'm interested in your opinion.

Because a world where neither Assad nor the various rebel groups have chemical weapons would be a better place.

 

(If it works. Already a minor victory that Assad signed chemical weapons decree.)

 

Great, he signed a piece of paper... Some dudes signed a piece of paper called the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868, how'd that work out??

 

Unless there are U.N. personnel there making sure that the weapons are handed over, thats when this will be a "win". If you take Putin at his word, that he'll make sure these weapons are "disposed" of, you need your f*ckin' head examined...