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.
US activity in Syria has not been about obtaining a Syrian client State. I think there have been 3 to 4 primary goals:
1) Obtain an end-state with the Syrian government in power, but Assad under house arrest or otherwise out of power.
2) Increase pain on Russian and Iranian efforts to retain an allied power in Syria.
3) Secure a semi-autonomous zone for Kurds.
4) Obtain leverage over Iran for wider settlement of ongoing, region-wide disputes.
ISIS was never going to take control of Syria.
Firstly the US has been promising the Kurds something to a semi-autonomous state for years but that is a pipe dream being as it is politically impossible and countries like Turkey will not stand for it.
As for the rest of your points obviously (as I have been saying) the US wants Assad out to hurt Russian and Iranian influence in the country but that goal is niether benifical to US security or peace and stability in that country being as Syria has always been aligned with Russia and Iran in peace and relative security.
As for your point that that influence is bad and the US needs to usurp it I would argue the US-Saudi axis of influence in the region has been more damaging than the Iranian-Russian axis.
My final point would be is even if you think the US needs power over the Syrian state (as Russia has now) throwing arms at terrorists groups in the region leads (as you can see) to a humanitarian crisis that is not worth more power over Syria.
President Trump has decided to end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. official.
Officials said the phasing out of the secret program reflects Trump’s interest in finding ways to work with Russia, which saw the anti-Assad program as an assault on its interests.
“This is a momentous decision,” said a current official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a covert program. “Putin won in Syria.”
Some analysts said the decision was likely to empower more radical groups inside Syria and damage the credibility of the United States.
“We are falling into a Russian trap,” said Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, who focuses on the Syrian resistance. “We are making the moderate resistance more and more vulnerable. . . . We are really cutting them off at the neck.”
Ending this support was the right thing to do. There are no "moderate" militias in Syria.
As for the Russians and you comment that Trump bent over for Putin... you do realize that Trump sent 60 US Navy cruise missiles into an air base in Syria that was manned by 120 Russian soldiers. You know that, right?
As for Trump, he is all over the place with the issue. First he says he wants to work with Assad, then he bombs his airfield, then he says Assad has no role in Syria, and now he appeases Assad and Putin with this move, and offers no explanation (and gets nothing in return). God knows what his goals are, since he clearly has no idea.
Firstly the US has been promising the Kurds something to a semi-autonomous state for years but that is a pipe dream being as it is politically impossible and countries like Turkey will not stand for it.
As for the rest of your points obviously (as I have been saying) the US wants Assad out to hurt Russian and Iranian influence in the country but that goal is niether benifical to US security or peace and stability in that country being as Syria has always been aligned with Russia and Iran in peace and relative security.
As for your point that that influence is bad and the US needs to usurp it I would argue the US-Saudi axis of influence in the region has been more damaging than the Iranian-Russian axis.
My final point would be is even if you think the US needs power over the Syrian state (as Russia has now) throwing arms at terrorists groups in the region leads (as you can see) to a humanitarian crisis that is not worth more power over Syria.
On your first paragraph: Turkey is (for now) where the buck stops in terms of the US supporting Kurds. Like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the US would love to see a partially autonomous Kurdish region in Syria.
On your second paragraph: why do you think that the US goal is peace and stability in Syria?
On your third paragraph: I am not making a moral judgment about the four goals I outlined. I am only suggesting that they are the reason for US intervention. There was never an effort on the US's part to truly overthrow the Syrian government or obtain a Syrian client state.
On your last point: what constitutes a terrorist group in Syria? Are you defining terrorist group to mean any armed resistance to the central government? The Kurdish forces in the North? The FSA? ISIS? One of the half dozen other armed organizations operating in that country? I don't think the US is looking for a Syrian client State. I think the US is looking to destabilize Syria.
Are any other Democrats paranoid that Trump might also stop arming Mexican drug cartels through Obama's plans like Fast and Furious, which have seen over 300 Mexicans and counting get killed with Obama-Assault-Rifles --- not to mention a few Americans (Diversity - we got it!)
#Save Barack's legacy - Make Trump arm ISIS and Mexican Drug Cartels!
On your first paragraph: Turkey is (for now) where the buck stops in terms of the US supporting Kurds. Like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the US would love to see a partially autonomous Kurdish region in Syria.
On your second paragraph: why do you think that the US goal is peace and stability in Syria?
On your third paragraph: I am not making a moral judgment about the four goals I outlined. I am only suggesting that they are the reason for US intervention. There was never an effort on the US's part to truly overthrow the Syrian government or obtain a Syrian client state.
On your last point: what constitutes a terrorist group in Syria? Are you defining terrorist group to mean any armed resistance to the central government? The Kurdish forces in the North? The FSA? ISIS? One of the half dozen other armed organizations operating in that country? I don't think the US is looking for a Syrian client State. I think the US is looking to destabilize Syria.
Three things, first of all your previous comment mentioned putting Assad under house arrest, while you may not mean tear down the entire government structure as was done in Iraq and Lybia putting Assad under house arrest would require him to be replaced and under the guise of American backed fighters that would most likely entail an American friendly dictator which wouldn't necessarily mean Syria is now our client state but it would mean that the US has gained more influence over Syria rather than Russia/Iran which is what I was claiming in my last post.
As for the Kurds Turkey wouldn't want any Kurdistan forming being as it's existence would put into threat regions of Turkey that are majority Kurd. Like I said the US has been promising Kurds their own space but we won't do it if it hurts our relationship with the Iraqi government and others in the region. It is just not something that is going to happen.
As for your comment on terrorists I believe any group under the FSA umbrella that is working with Islamist groups and/or are being supported by the MB should be considered terrorists. Sadly this requirement is filled out by nearly every FSA member.
You really do not understand what Trump gave away with this latest dumb move of his, do you. For every action, there is a reaction. That agreement kept us in the driver's seat as far as being able to control what arms the Syrians were allowed to possess, now they can have surface to air weapons and Putin is licking his chops at that prospect.
We realize that you Trumpees cheer at everything Trump does, but you really need to look into the whole picture as to what this change will create. It is a sweetheart deal for the Russians and not good for us.
That's total nonsense. The Syrians can get any weapons they desire through the Russians and there's nothing we can do to stop them from getting those weapons.
Three things, first of all your previous comment mentioned putting Assad under house arrest, while you may not mean tear down the entire government structure as was done in Iraq and Lybia putting Assad under house arrest would require him to be replaced and under the guise of American backed fighters that would most likely entail an American friendly dictator which wouldn't necessarily mean Syria is now our client state but it would mean that the US has gained more influence over Syria rather than Russia/Iran which is what I was claiming in my last post.
As for the Kurds Turkey wouldn't want any Kurdistan forming being as it's existence would put into threat regions of Turkey that are majority Kurd. Like I said the US has been promising Kurds their own space but we won't do it if it hurts our relationship with the Iraqi government and others in the region. It is just not something that is going to happen.
As for your comment on terrorists I believe any group under the FSA umbrella that is working with Islamist groups and/or are being supported by the MB should be considered terrorists. Sadly this requirement is filled out by nearly every FSA member.
If the US were successful in its Assad house arrest/out of power goal, then the likeliest situation would be an insider in the existing military/political power structure taking over as Head of State. The status quo--the Syrian government aligned with Iran and Russia--would persist. This would be a solution negotiated primarily by Russia and the United States.
The US has been supporting Kurds at the expense of the Iraqi government from the start of the invasion. Turkey's voice is the only limit on US support for the Kurds. And the US has been increasingly uninterested in hearing from Turkey in the last 2 years. There is already a semi-autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq.
Your analysis on terrorism is not very rigorous. I would define as terrorists those who commit acts of terror. Acts of terror are politically-motivated acts of violence contrary to the laws of war and targeting non-combatants.
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.
.