Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Describing Syria as a puppet state of Iran is simply ahistorical to say the least. Aside from the fact that the Syria is for all intents and purposes a secular state while Iran is a theocracy, the relationship between Syria dates back to the founding of the Islamic Republic. Syria was the first Arab nation to recognize the provisional government of Iran was the first Arab country to recognize the provisional government of Mehdi Bazargan following the ousting of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 1980, it was Syria that provided material support to Iran following Iraq's invasion - remember which side the U.S. was on? So, I find the sponsor/client relationship between the two allies as simply unsustainable. They like many alliances share common enemies and objectives, but neither are at the bidding of each other.
Again, that is simply incorrect. The uprising that began peacefully in March of 2011, was staged by a broad spectrum of Syrians, socialist, Kurds, Assyrians, Sunnis, and even more diverse collection of pro democracy forces. As a result of the brutal crackdown on otherwise peaceful demonstrations, defectors from the Syrian Army formed the Free Syrian Army, headed by former Col. Raid Al-Assad. It wouldn't be until Jan of 2012 that Jabhat al-Nusra forms Syria's al-Qaeda first Syrian affiliate which led one month later to Al-Qeda head Ayman al-Zawahiri's call for militants across the region to join the fight against Assad. Unfortunately for the west, al-Qaeda's forces were far more disciplined and effective fighters that the moderate forces opposed to Assad and gradually rest more territory and loyalty that their erstwhile allies.
Which Iranian supported ground troops, I say that somewhat facetiously because I find it strange that most folks seem to ignore the fact if anyone is a puppet state of Iran it is Iraq, headed by members of the Islamic Dawa Party whose headquarters was in Teheran from 1979 until the U.S. invasion, in 2003. And for all of the handwringing about Obama's "desertion" of Iraq, but it was Iran through its "puppets" in the major Shi parties that insisted through President Maliki that all U.S. troops be withdrawn from Iraq base upon the time table of withdrawal negotiated by the Bush administration in 2008.
What time frame would that have been? As I pointed out above, al-Qeada had developed enough support within Syria after only five months of fighting to openly declare its affiliation with the international network, and within that five month window god only knew who the "legitimate" armed opposition was and god wasn't telling Washington.
A lot of pie in the sky with a tinge of neo-con fantasy in that post. Daesh (my preferred name) was founded in Iraq in 1999 when it went by the name Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad under the leadership of Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq it joined the Sunni led Mujahideen Shura Council. Following killing of al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda in Iraq went to ground, some argue to distance itself from al-Zarqawi's tactical errors only reemerge in 2006 as the Islamic State of Iraq under the leadership of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.
As a result of the surge, al-Baghdadi is killed and MSC goes to ground, not destroyed, only to reemerge in 2010 under the present leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi with the assistance of former officers military and intelligence officers under Hussein and embarks upon the recapturing its former strongholds in Anbar Provence and an escalation of suicide bombings in Baghdad. It wasn't until after MSC had reestablished itself in Irag and its subsequent rebranding, that Daesh moved into the Syrian civil war.
In the meantime the government of Iraq essentially disbanded the Sunni Awaking who had played as important a role in the defeat of the the MSC, aggressively pursuing the purge of Sunnis in the government and otherwise turning back the clock on the reforms imposed by the Surge as well as insuring the U.S. forces left Iraq by the 2013 deadline, which I repeat was at the behest of the Iranian government. Which leads me to the conclusion, that absent the radical de-Baathification dreamed up by J. Paul Bremer in 2003, the inability at anytime to establish a unifying government free from Iranian influence the situation in Iraq and Syria would be much different. That is not to say that this is solely the fault of the Bush administration. Iran put into play the very policies through its allies in the Iraq government that the rise of Daesh was assured. And like the failed policies of the Bush administration, Iran is now faced with the fact that Daesh threatens not only its ally in Iraq, but Syria as well. So no, this isn't in my opinion a grab on the part of Iran for regional hegemony but rather an attempt to protect its regional allies.
Now do to time and the complexity of the issue, I won't go into what I think is going on between Daesh and Istambul, the Kurdish factor in all of this, but I think that it is enough to make the point that any policy pursued by the U.S. is exceedingly complicated by political factors in the region. Sorting out the interlocking alliances, motivations and ambitions of a multitude of parties doesn't make, at least in my mind, for simple policy prescriptions.
This has got to be some kind of record for me, this is by far the longest post that I've ever devoted to this forum. As a result I've spent way too much time on it, so I apologize for any grammatical errors cause I'm just not going to go back and edit this thing.
Thank you, I couldn't have put it any better and too be honest I knew it would require that level of detail to address that poster's last post.
It is exactly because of the complexity of working out who is who, which is why I form the opinion we should stay out. Any action would have unintended consequences. At present in western circles Assad is now the good guy, when only a short time ago concrete efforts were under way to support rebel groups fighting against him.
The neo-con position is too simplistic. I think Turkish interests are particularly compelling as they also wish to check the rise of a Kurdish state in their backyard. I found the refusal of Turkish troops to allow Turkish Kurds to help relieve their ethnic kin across border in Kobane during the siege very telling...
Last edited by nograviti; 09-04-2015 at 02:30 PM..
It is exactly because of the complexity of working out who is who, which is why I form the opinion we should stay out. Any action would have unintended consequences. At present in western circles Assad is now the good guy, when only a short time ago concrete efforts were under way to support rebel groups fighting against him.
Here is something else to chew over, Assad was our friend in 2003 when he assisted he U.S. in the war against Iraq and the so-called war against terrorism. At the time was had no problem with Syria's human rights abuses when the CIA established "enhanced interrogation" sites in Syria.
We also had no problem with chemical warfare or the "crimes against his own people" when we provided and our "proxies" provided everything from sophisticated weapons, to the precursors for chemical warfare to the regime of Saddam Hussein!
I have come to believe that the nature of the American political system renders it woefully incapable of pursuing consistent foreign policy objectives. Unlike the Cold War that was essentially bilateral and ridiculously simple by comparison to today's foreign policy issues. When your foreign policy is limited to a four to eight year life span it is impossible for any one administration to have the institutional knowledge required to respond to the challenges presented by the present day world especially when you have politicians in both parties who can't remember past their last sound bite.
... but I think that it is enough to make the point that any policy pursued by the U.S. is exceedingly complicated by political factors in the region. Sorting out the interlocking alliances, motivations and ambitions of a multitude of parties doesn't make, at least in my mind, for simple policy prescriptions.
THAT we can agree on at least. And that's my last word on the topic.
I have come to believe that the nature of the American political system renders it woefully incapable of pursuing consistent foreign policy objectives. Unlike the Cold War that was essentially bilateral and ridiculously simple by comparison to today's foreign policy issues. When your foreign policy is limited to a four to eight year life span it is impossible for any one administration to have the institutional knowledge required to respond to the challenges presented by the present day world especially when you have politicians in both parties who can't remember past their last sound bite.
That's astute, but you have to factor in that the Pentagon doesn't change hands quite as frequently. The top, figure heads do, but the day-to-day work is done by long time players.
I think we have had our hand slapped pretty hard by the events in Iraq. It's not that the war was wrong or right, and boy did our military might crush with force, but that our system of living was rejected. We assumed that after ww2 and the cold war, everyone would be naturally inclined to freedom, markets and liberty. That simply isn't the case now and we are ourselves soul searching as our own society declines.
That's astute, but you have to factor in that the Pentagon doesn't change hands quite as frequently. The top, figure heads do, but the day-to-day work is done by long time players.
I think we have had our hand slapped pretty hard by the events in Iraq. It's not that the war was wrong or right, and boy did our military might crush with force, but that our system of living was rejected. We assumed that after ww2 and the cold war, everyone would be naturally inclined to freedom, markets and liberty. That simply isn't the case now and we are ourselves soul searching as our own society declines.
Oh please don't still drink Bush brand Koolaid, you think W invaded Iraq to promote American system of living? Let me clue you in, no one wants the American system of living, look at the obesity rate, look at all the school shootings. The American way of life ain't all that great.
Bush and Co invaded Iraq because it benefitted his backers and their interests, simple as that.
Here is something else to chew over, Assad was our friend in 2003 when he assisted he U.S. in the war against Iraq and the so-called war against terrorism. At the time was had no problem with Syria's human rights abuses when the CIA established "enhanced interrogation" sites in Syria.
We also had no problem with chemical warfare or the "crimes against his own people" when we provided and our "proxies" provided everything from sophisticated weapons, to the precursors for chemical warfare to the regime of Saddam Hussein!
I have come to believe that the nature of the American political system renders it woefully incapable of pursuing consistent foreign policy objectives. Unlike the Cold War that was essentially bilateral and ridiculously simple by comparison to today's foreign policy issues. When your foreign policy is limited to a four to eight year life span it is impossible for any one administration to have the institutional knowledge required to respond to the challenges presented by the present day world especially when you have politicians in both parties who can't remember past their last sound bite.
Definitely, we also had no problem with using Saddam to fight Iran by proxy during the Iran-Iraq war. We were happy to support him, then later reinvented him as a villain when he invaded Kuwait.
You made a great point about the American political system rendering it incapable of consistent foreign policy objectives especially after the end of the Cold War. But I would say this problem afflicts almost all western countries, you only need to look at the west's bungled handling of relations with Russia.
The question of Western short-termism in terms of foreign policy has been raised before and the electoral cycle is often cited as the cause. Henry Kissinger identified this as a future problem when faced by nations like China, who take a much longer term view in terms of foreign policy. While the US has gone in guns blazing into the Middle East, China has quietly bought parcels of land in Africa for food production and signed lucrative resource extraction deals across Africa/South America. The implications of this are yet unclear, but China's positioning (assuming they avoid internal political/social unrest) will work to the disadvantage of the US.
Last edited by nograviti; 09-05-2015 at 05:52 PM..
Oh please don't still drink Bush brand Koolaid, you think W invaded Iraq to promote American system of living? Let me clue you in, no one wants the American system of living, look at the obesity rate, look at all the school shootings. The American way of life ain't all that great.
Bush and Co invaded Iraq because it benefitted his backers and their interests, simple as that.
Oh, I drink alright. Liberal lemonade, conservative gin, kool-aid, libertarian tea..
But you know, it doesn't really matter anymore why. Bush may not even know, or I should say Donald. Donald had an intuition.
If you read through the events of 9/11 it's hard to think that everything is so random which happens. They may have been used for a higher purpose, if you get my drift. I'll await the experts on the divine to opine on how low intellect that thought is in light of our Freedom, liberty and markets, which have made us all too smart for non human agency. Just a thought to consider; they themselves may not know why they did what they did looking back.
Oh, I drink alright. Liberal lemonade, conservative gin, kool-aid, libertarian tea..
But you know, it doesn't really matter anymore why. Bush may not even know, or I should say Donald. Donald had an intuition.
If you read through the events of 9/11 it's hard to think that everything is so random which happens. They may have been used for a higher purpose, if you get my drift. I'll await the experts on the divine to opine on how low intellect that thought is in light of our Freedom, liberty and markets, which have made us all too smart for non human agency. Just a thought to consider; they themselves may not know why they did what they did looking back.
Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor, actually I think he deliberately goaded Japan into attacking US soil. Pearl Harbor was definetely used for a higher purpose, at the end of the day the government doesn't give a tiny rat's @ss about the people, we are all just a pawn in a large elaborate game of deceit and greed.
Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor, actually I think he deliberately goaded Japan into attacking US soil. Pearl Harbor was definetely used for a higher purpose, at the end of the day the government doesn't give a tiny rat's @ss about the people, we are all just a pawn in a large elaborate game of deceit and greed.
Sometimes it sure seems that way. But the more I learn, and when you put the pieces together, I can't see how we haven't killed ourselves, all of us, a dozen times over.
The US is kind of an experiment in a whole society self governing its own body. That makes us somewhat like a collective, like a bee hive or a swarm. But individual people do have these flashes of insight, reasons they can't explain, and do things which impact the world. I would love to have a lunch with Donald R because he absolutely had one. And he took the entire world with him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
