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.
The strife in Syria is very complex, and very concerning. It involves numerous factions, most of which oppose each other, who are trying to maintain their power in the area. It's easy to simply throw our hands up in the air and blame Obama for this, but this is a complex situation. I will also operate with the understanding that while Obama and Republicans generally want the same thing for the region, even if they differ on the methods to achieve it: strong U.S. influence, free societies, and of course, easy access to Middle Eastern oil. So here goes my understanding.
In 2011, there was the Arab spring, where Moderate Democratic Syrians (1) rallied against their president Bashar al-Assad (2). Also involved in the rallying against (2) were Radical Islamists (3). The United States (4) generally backed (1), although not particularly strongly. Iran (5) backed (2), whereas wealthy Arab oil nations (6) backed (1) and (3). Of particular importance here: (4) is friendly with (6), despite having vastly different ideologies. (5) is an enemy of both (4) and (6).
At some point in this war, some from (3) became increasingly extreme and violent, and formed ISIL (7). (7) wanted to subject (1) to their barbaric rule, and wanted to war with (2), (4), and (5). They also wanted to do battle with other minority groups such as the Kurds (8). (4) turned to their ally Turkey (9) for help against (7), but they (9) used the chaos as an excuse to attack (8), who they regard as enemies. Many people from (6) are secretly supporting (7) because they follow a radical Islamist ideology as well. Finally, Russia (10) entered in on the side of (2) and (5). While not openly hostile, (10) is generally opposed to the goals of (4).
So to sum it up:
It's ISIL vs. (almost) everyone else, with Shia (backed by Iran and Russia) vs. Sunni (generally backed by the United States) thrown in, and some old feuds between Iran and the United States, Russia and the United States, and Turkey and the Kurds to make things just even more volatile.
Yuck.
In hindsight, the United States probably needed to be more decisive in 2013, when they needed to deal with the issue of whether to focus on taking out Bashar al-Assad, or whether to remove the increasingly menacing threat of Islamic extremism in fighting against Bashar al-Assad. You generally had the McCain war drum faction vs. the Tea Party Isolationist faction. Both groups would pin any responsibility on Obama. Of course, Obama (under some political pressure) chose the politically expedient path of a middle ground solution, which basically just let both enemies strengthen themselves.
What do we need to do now? I think we need to stop pandering to governments in the region - particularly the wealthy Arab oil nations, and also Turkey. We need to encourage stronger ties to develop between general Americans and general moderate Syrians and other Middle Easterners to help undermine the pull of groups like ISIL. Finally, I think we need to be smart in how we deal with immediate threats (ISIL) vs. those of a longer term nature (Iran, Russia.)
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.
