There is another big distinction between Syria and Iraq from a Western policy standpoint. It is best for everyone if Syria remains distracted by internal difficulties. Alternatively, Iraq occupies strategically important ground, not a place that we want getting lost in an intractable civil war.
Didn't I preface that with "from a Western policy standpoint," or some such wording? Put another way, I'm not talking about what's best for Syrians.
Well, strategically important is a matter of perspective. Syria is much more important than Iraq when you take the big picture and do some networking with that other crisis in Ukraine. That is because Russia operates its only mediterranean naval base at Tartus, Syria. It's the main (and maybe only) reason Putin supports Assad. It's not a large or even fully featured base but pretty much the only port the Russians could go to if there was some kind of misunderstanding in the Med. I'm sure more could be arranged in a worst case scenario. When you look at current happenings in a certain way, one could come to a certain conclusion*. That is, the cold war is far from over. It just lay dormant for a few years. Russia might still the enemy and we're once again fighting proxy wars. *Yes I know, this borders on conspiracy theory territory in a very dangerous way. I'm not saying it is so. Just sayin'.
Why is it best from a western policy standpoint? Not to mention that if your best interests appear to require hundreds of thousands of people to die in a war, then it is probably best that you reconsider those interests.
It's best because it distracts Syria from supporting external terrorism and otherwise meddling in the rest of the M.E. Can you explain why Syrian lives matter? Yes, I recognize that's an extremely cold blooded question, but I'm looking at two situations in which people might die. One causes problems to Western interests, one does not, how should I select the preferable scenario?
Was it not in the best interest of the US (and the world as a whole naturally) for us to hold back a bit and let the Nazis and Soviet grind themselves into dust on the Eastern Front?
The problem is that a grinding stalemate between the Germans and Soviets was not a forseeable and predictable outcome. Though some dismiss it, the possibility of a clear German victory and German seizure of resources from the Soviet Union (especially oil) was in fact there.
I'm not sure what grounds you assume that Syrians will automatically be sponsoring anti-western terrorism if they aren't killing each other. Why do you apply that logic to Syria and not to every other country in the world? In fact, given that IS originates in Syria, the argument that warfare there is an impediment to terrorism is not convincing at all.
Syria has a history of invading/occupying Lebanon, attacking Israel, and supporting rebels in Turkey and Iraq. Pretty sure they have a history of aggression toward Jordan, too. It's hard to run a coordinated externally aggressive policy when they are dealing with folks like ISIS in larger numbers internally. Yeah, it's too bad a bit of that spilled over in to Iraq, but you seem to ignore what preceded this civil war.
Which part of Syria does IS and it's leader Abu Bakr Al-BAGHDADI come from? IS comes from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which combined with a number of other insurgent groups in 2006 to create the Islamic State of Iraq. They proclaimed Baquba their capital and we (3rd SBCT) smashed the shit out of them back in the summer of '07 in Operation Arrowhead Ripper. They then melted away a bit. In the chaos of Syria, yeah they got a bit of a foothold, but they most definitely didn't originate there.
In my opinion, unless you have a heavy handed occupation of the region by a dominant power, you will always have Islamic militants of some sort "melting into the landscape" and waiting till things cool off to rise again (and no, Israel can't do it, demographics).
Saddam did a pretty good job of suppressing Islamic fundamentalists. He also acted as a regional rival to both Saudi Arabia and Iran and was a good counterpoint against both. Maybe we should have thought about that before we got rid of him. Yes, he was a bloody dictator and tyrant. But are Iraqis better off now? Not only are they dealing with this radical uprising and spillover from neighboring countries, but they must be wary of becoming an Iranian puppet state. Their infrastructure is demolished, their standing army is drastically reduced, and they lack a strong leader willing to go to extremes to stabilize the country. I'm not defending Saddam, but if we are looking at what situation would be most favorable to American interests... maybe we should not have been so hasty in overthrowing him until we had fully worked out the problems that could arise when such a large power vacuum had been created. Afghanistan is somewhat of a different situation since it was never a regional power. It was a hellhole then and it is a hellhole now.
For everybody who doesn't get who's fighting whom in the region, here's a friendly chart for you: The Mideast Friendship Chart. As everything there, this could change at any time. It's also missing the quieter players like Jordan or the Gulf emirates.
So everyone hates ISIS and ISIS hates everyone? Time to ramp up the bombings and send in Special Forces to hunt down ISIS leadership. And this shouldn't be placed squarely on the shoulders of the United States. Other countries (including my own) need to pony up and stop these motherfuckers. Diplomacy ain't gonna work.
All the governemnts hate ISIS. The people.... ISIS isn't truly scary yet. The scary scenario is them joining forces with the Wahhibi extremists. The House of Saud have used the Wahhabi to cement their power going back a century. The problem now is control there. There is a large segment of the Saudis who would like nothing more than to unite with ISIS and establish the caliphate - with control of both the greatest holy places in Muslim reckoning granting them a veneer of legitimacy and the vast oil wealth. They are about 70 miles from the border in some places - and like Al Qaeda's call for martyrs for the battle of Manhattan (in their parlance), a large number of their supporters come from Saudi Arabia.
I completely agree. It's time to wake up for Obama (still golfing?) and the EU leaders (sunbathing in Italy?). Nine djihadists were arrested in Austria today. Those fuckers are here, right now. I wonder when the first suicide bomber will go up in a crowded mall or something.
I say we give them exactly what they want. Recognize the legitimacy of the Islamic State. ISIS militants would then be state actors with all that implies. We get Congress to authorize war, do it up right. Welcome to the community of nations.
I'm serious. People on all sides used to bust President Bush's chops for not having an "exit strategy" in Iraq. Maybe that criticism was justified. Maybe not. But it is worth asking. After you get your "official declaration of war"........then what? Send in ground troops and occupy the lands for two generations. Bomb periodically until everyone is tired of the conflict? Killed a certain number of Muslim radicals? All wars must end. You need to define the point at which you want the war to end and under what conditions.
I think this would end with the defeat of the enemy on ground of our choosing. There is no exit strategy required for something like this, because we would fight/kill/leave, and then Iraq security forces would take over. Not saying I think we should necessarily go this route, just responding to the suggestions in this thread and your related question.
Yes, by all means, let's let ISIS gets its own country. Then--as always--the international community will rise to the occasion and put that bad regime out of business. We're going to have to go back to Iraq and finish the job or else today's ISIS will be tomorrow's terror state.
