Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS) II

[HMS Vanguard]

Many people think "westernizing" a nation should be our goal, or "bringing X shithole to modern times", or even "bring democracy to their backyard" when we have no idea of the issues within these regions.

Our missions should not be to "civilize those fucking backwater hippies", to be fair; and it is ethnocentric and even racist to think that the West, and only the West, has the answers to a regional problem.

Ok so what about Afghanistan then. Was it really racist to get rid of the Taliban government and give them a chance at something better? Rather than saying screw it and leaving them to their own devices.

We gave them the chance to choose and they chose Karzai, a radical Islamist.

The difference between Karzai and the Taliban is that the Taliban will execute you for not being Muslim whereas Karzai will commute the sentence to life imprisonment.

If we were to impose Western values, rather than just political structures, it would be against the will of the population and would encounter a lot of resistance.

[Novus America]

Belgian Congo is used to refer to the free state.
Yes. You said 1900 was good for the third world. Not so good in the Congo.

The Congo Free State wasn't directly connected to Belgium; it was personal property of the man who was also King of Belgium. The Belgian Congo refers to a Belgian colony that replaced the Free State.

For the colonies as a whole, 1900 was a good year.

Pol pot was horrible. But at least there were no world wars after the European Empires declined. Sure beats WWI and II.

Pol Pot was worse than WWI and WWII for Cambodia, even worse for Cambodia than WWI and WWII were for Europe. However I think this is a red herring; WWI and WWII weren't caused by colonialism, it was tangential, my point being in my first post that if the US had assumed responsibility for the colonies (or backed the Europeans doing so) after WWII, we would have had a considerably more peaceful and stable world. Instead the US aligned with the USSR to create the Third World.

Again it was not good for Congo, India, German South West Africa.

And the World wars were all about European imperialism. With the Japanese too. And despite the issues you do realize wealth in most of the third world has soared in the post colonial era?

The Ruropean colonies were just rentier states with the wealth exported. Did some colonies become independet prematurely? Sure. But the colonial era was horrible. And actually WWII was just as bad for Poland as Pol Pot was for Cambodia but again a some countries ending up worse off in the 60s and 70s beats world wars.

The third world on the whole is not some impoverished heart of darkness. With some exceptions.

India no longer has the mass famines and massacres of the British era.

[HMS Vanguard]

Nor is the Third World good for everyone; I have not said colonialism was perfect, but that it was better than the Third World. What's more its imperfections tended to be resolved; the Congo Free State was abolished at the height of New Imperialism by the Belgian government, and replaced by a well-governed colony, not by anti-colonialists and replaced by an independent state. When anti-colonialists got their hands on Congo, it collapsed into a failed state. Belgian (not Leopoldian) rule is the high point of Congolese history.

WWI and WWII were about control of land in Europe, specifically in Eastern Europe. Only Japan was motivated to war primarily by the division of colonies. The European wars were not caused by colonialism.

[Genivaria]

Nor is the Third World good for everyone; I have not said colonialism was perfect, but that it was better than the Third World. What's more its imperfections tended to be resolved; the Congo Free State was abolished at the height of New Imperialism by the Belgian government, and replaced by a well-governed colony, not by anti-colonialists and replaced by an independent state. When anti-colonialists got their hands on Congo, it collapsed into a failed state. Belgian (not Leopoldian) rule is the high point of Congolese history.

WWI and WWII were about control of land in Europe, specifically in Eastern Europe. Only Japan was motivated to war primarily by the division of colonies. The European wars were not caused by colonialism.

'Third World' is a term that didn't even come into existence until the Cold War.
You clearly haven't a clue of the history of Colonialism.

[HMS Vanguard]

Nor is the Third World good for everyone; I have not said colonialism was perfect, but that it was better than the Third World. What's more its imperfections tended to be resolved; the Congo Free State was abolished at the height of New Imperialism by the Belgian government, and replaced by a well-governed colony, not by anti-colonialists and replaced by an independent state. When anti-colonialists got their hands on Congo, it collapsed into a failed state. Belgian (not Leopoldian) rule is the high point of Congolese history.

WWI and WWII were about control of land in Europe, specifically in Eastern Europe. Only Japan was motivated to war primarily by the division of colonies. The European wars were not caused by colonialism.

'Third World' is a term that didn't even come into existence until the Cold War.
You clearly haven't a clue of the history of Colonialism.

I am using the Third World to refer to the independent non-aligned stated created by decolonisation. This is also the original meaning.

[Mugrul]

Ok so what about Afghanistan then. Was it really racist to get rid of the Taliban government and give them a chance at something better? Rather than saying screw it and leaving them to their own devices.

We gave them the chance to choose and they chose Karzai, a radical Islamist.

The difference between Karzai and the Taliban is that the Taliban will execute you for not being Muslim whereas Karzai will commute the sentence to life imprisonment.

If we were to impose Western values, rather than just political structures, it would be against the will of the population and would encounter a lot of resistance.

Ok? And the new president is married to a Maronite Christian.

Something tells me they're more interested in stability than fundamentalism. Not that the Afghan government has done a superb job at that though.

[Novus America]

Nor is the Third World good for everyone; I have not said colonialism was perfect, but that it was better than the Third World. What's more its imperfections tended to be resolved; the Congo Free State was abolished at the height of New Imperialism by the Belgian government, and replaced by a well-governed colony, not by anti-colonialists and replaced by an independent state. When anti-colonialists got their hands on Congo, it collapsed into a failed state. Belgian (not Leopoldian) rule is the high point of Congolese history.

WWI and WWII were about control of land in Europe, specifically in Eastern Europe. Only Japan was motivated to war primarily by the division of colonies. The European wars were not caused by colonialism.

Some countries were better off perhaps. Not most. I said some countries became independent to early. Congo has struggled. The Phillipines did better under latter US rule. (And we did bad things too). On the other hand Singapore and India have been much better off free.

[Genivaria]

Considering that colonialism is the main CAUSE of the instability in former colonial nations it's pretty fucking stupid to think that what they need is MORE colonialism.
If the Zulu for example weren't wiped out by the British then they might have gone on to build their own nation-state in South Africa.
Compared to most Japan got off very lightly in terms of colonialism and was thus free to rapidly industrialize in relative peace from European interference.
Others like say China didn't have that luxury.

I wonder what a Zululand that hadn't been wiped out might look like today?

They likely wouldn't have industrialized in the same manner that Japan did (or at least as rapidly) simply because of the geography but from what I understand the leader of Zululand during the Zulu Wars was a rather reasonable man who was willing to talk with British ambassadors (as opposed to Japan which had foreigners executed before Matthew Perry forced their gates open 10 years after the Zulu Wars) so it's possible that a number of western ideas could've made their way into the country and a natural nation-state may have formed.

[HMS Vanguard]

Nor is the Third World good for everyone; I have not said colonialism was perfect, but that it was better than the Third World. What's more its imperfections tended to be resolved; the Congo Free State was abolished at the height of New Imperialism by the Belgian government, and replaced by a well-governed colony, not by anti-colonialists and replaced by an independent state. When anti-colonialists got their hands on Congo, it collapsed into a failed state. Belgian (not Leopoldian) rule is the high point of Congolese history.

WWI and WWII were about control of land in Europe, specifically in Eastern Europe. Only Japan was motivated to war primarily by the division of colonies. The European wars were not caused by colonialism.

Some countries were better off perhaps. Not most. I said some countries became independent to early. Congo has struggled. The Phillipines did better under latter US rule. (And we did bad things too). On the other hand Singapore and India have been much better off free.

India had ethnic pogroms, fell apart (this is what the British called India), endured 40 years of economic stagnation, and is now poised on the brink of atomic civil war.

You're right it did better than most.

Singapore is a very rare example of a county that positively thrived after decolonisation. On the other hand, its trajectory was not much different to that of Hong Kong, which remained a colony.

[Genivaria]

'Third World' is a term that didn't even come into existence until the Cold War.
You clearly haven't a clue of the history of Colonialism.

I am using the Third World to refer to the independent non-aligned stated created by decolonisation. This is also the original meaning.

Then you're wrong, colonialism did far more harm to the colonial nations then good and we're still seeing the effects of it today.

[HMS Vanguard]

I am using the Third World to refer to the independent non-aligned stated created by decolonisation. This is also the original meaning.

Then you're wrong, colonialism did far more harm to the colonial nations then good and we're still seeing the effects of it today.

No, we're seeing the effects of decolonisation. Entirely new problems caused by decolonisation that would have seemed crazy and unimaginable in 1900 (e.g. nuclear stand-off between two fragments of the British Raj) are blamed on the ghost of colonialism for want of any better defence.

[Samnoreg]

No. Let's get out of the middle east, our presence only continues to screw shit up further. I'm not opposed to going in and taking them out as part of a coalition of many nations, but we cannot be the world police, especially since it seems we are fairly unwelcome there in the mideast. We do not need to perpetuate endless wars in the middle east. Break the cycle, cmon.

[Genivaria]

Then you're wrong, colonialism did far more harm to the colonial nations then good and we're still seeing the effects of it today.

No, we're seeing the effects of decolonisation. Entirely new problems caused by decolonisation that would have seemed crazy and unimaginable in 1900 (e.g. nuclear stand-off between two fragments of the British Raj) are blamed on the ghost of colonialism for want of any better defence.

Then you're delusional.
There's not a shred of evidence to suggest that decolonization is the culprit and not the entire notion of colonialism.

Do you think that such Empires would or should still exist today? Refusing to allow people to govern themselves? Exploiting peoples and taking their resources for yourself?
How would this work exactly? Would you just gun down any protesters as historically happened quite often? How about when they get ahold of automatic weapons? What then?

You're wish to condescendingly control others is not only immoral, it's unsustainable.

[Novus America]

Some countries were better off perhaps. Not most. I said some countries became independent to early. Congo has struggled. The Phillipines did better under latter US rule. (And we did bad things too). On the other hand Singapore and India have been much better off free.

India had ethnic pogroms, fell apart (this is what the British called India), endured 40 years of economic stagnation, and is now poised on the brink of atomic civil war.

You're right it did better than most.

Singapore is a very rare example of a county that positively thrived after decolonisation. On the other hand, its trajectory was not much different to that of Hong Kong, which remained a colony.

Smaller India works better. The nuclear stand off has stopped wars. And more important is India is rapidly improving. While it was stagnant and starving under colonial rule.

But decolonialism was neccesary. In some cases it came too soon before a proper civil society developed. But it still needed to happen.

[HMS Vanguard]

No, we're seeing the effects of decolonisation. Entirely new problems caused by decolonisation that would have seemed crazy and unimaginable in 1900 (e.g. nuclear stand-off between two fragments of the British Raj) are blamed on the ghost of colonialism for want of any better defence.

Then you're delusional.
There's not a shred of evidence to suggest that decolonization is the culprit and not the entire notion of colonialism.

Do you think that such Empires would or should still exist today? Refusing to allow people to govern themselves? Exploiting peoples and taking their resources for yourself?
How would this work exactly? Would you just gun down any protesters as historically happened quite often? How about when they get ahold of automatic weapons? What then?

In the 1930s when the British parliament was discussing the question of India it seemed to strongly believe - and consistent with the evidence - that ordinary Indians didn't even possess rifles in any significant numbers. The division of India into antagonistic ethnostates occurred because of decolonisation. These states were able to obtain nuclear weapons because of decolonisation.

Gunning down protesters happened, but rarely. If you gun down protesters, you just don't get a whole lot of protesters.

I don't oppose property rights in India, don't propose stealing things from their honest owners, and nor did the Raj.

[Leudal (Ancient)]

Swathes of territory don't mean much if you can't get supplies there, and that's what the government troops are currently doing, securing their supplylines and crippling those of their enemies, making room for easier and quicker battles to get the desired territory.
As for Deir-ez-Zor, i'm afraid it will still be a long battle there. I'm honestly quiet amazed at how long the government managed to keep hold of that part of the city. Thing is that Daesh can easely resupply their men there so i'm not entirely sure if the government will go and attack the city right away.

Frankly, the government is doing well with what it can do, but it simply can't yet secure swathes of territory, even with good supply lines. It took a lot of supply lines around Aleppo, but has yet to take Aleppo, or make significant inroads into Idlib province. Securing the supply lines is a good plan, but it was also their only viable plan, so I don't really see it as a strategic coup. Moreover, given the relatively compact territory Assad holds, this was always going to be the easier part for him - its easier for the SA to redeploy up and down the central axis of Damascus to Aleppo (which they held before the major push at the end of last year), so I never really considered their main areas in danger of being cut off, aside from a vulnerable highway to Aleppo, and various outposts (Deir ez-Zor, whatever goes on in Hassakh). So, its good, but not indicative of Assad being able to make wider gains against the 'regular' rebels, or having enough strength for a separate push east against IS.

I was looking it up, and Daesh is still outnumbered by government forces (by about 2:1). Secondly, I think both sides have other priorities, and so aren't using their full force. I'm curious to see how it grinds on, but mostly I was using it as an exmaple simply as IS and Assad aren't clashing that much. Maybe Palmyra & environs is a better case study to watch, but perhaps after the symbolically significant recapture of the town, Assad might just not press further.

E: I see that Deirez-Zor might be targeted next, since Palmyra has been recaptured

True true but i think this very much counts for all sides. Even Daesh and the FSA aren't capable of holding all of Syria. Probably a good reason for the government, the FSA and the Kurds to get around a deal. Perhaps that's even the reason why the government forces currently go after the major supplylines. Its a pretty good way to de-motivate rebels and it would give him a good edge in any talks about peace. But i suppose it remains to be seen what everybody there is going to do.

Its true Assad and IS aren't moving against eachother that much, or at least not until recently, more or less starting with the government advances on Aleppo. And as for Deir ez-Zour, it would be pretty interesting to see how that goes. If the Syrian army indeed manages to reclaim it it would be a serious blow to Daesh, cutting a pretty important route from Ar-Raqqah towards Mosul might be just what both the government, rebels and Kurds need. Ofcourse Iraq would benefit from it aswell, something that might also proof vital as i'm wondering what the Popular Mobilization Forces (Mainly the big shia players) are going to do after Daesh faced its defeat in Iraq. If they would continue their fight into Syria it would be a pretty big boost for the government there. I feel we just have to wait and see how these things are going to play out but in the end something needs to happen as neither side seems to be capable of making the big gains they want to make.

The thing is, that pit they crawled out of was in fact opened up because of western intervention. If anything we should have learned by now that interventions from the outside will only make matters worse.

Even without western intervention things would likly be just as bad. The Arab Spring would have still happened and turned Iraq into a Syria like mess.

The Arab people are rightly angry at their so called "leaders" who are most corrupt and incompetent and have left the region a mess. Problem is they have no workable plan as to what to do after said leaders are gone.

Things would indeed still be a mess but i doubt it would be at the point where it is now. In the end the only thing outside of foreign meddling that ruins the region are the internal powerstruggles between Iran, Saudi-Arabia and to some extend Turkey.
I feel that as long as these powerstruggles continue conflicts will continue to escalate and will continue to dominate the Middle-East for the coming decades.
I think it depends on what you call a workable plan. A big problem i noticed is that they are often pressured to push for a western style democracy, a kind of democracy i don't think really works for them, if only for the ethnic, religious and tribal tentions in many of these nations. They should instead be pressured and pushed to set up a form of government that makes sure everybody has a say in matters while still keeping some level of democratic value to it.

[Novus America]

No, we're seeing the effects of decolonisation. Entirely new problems caused by decolonisation that would have seemed crazy and unimaginable in 1900 (e.g. nuclear stand-off between two fragments of the British Raj) are blamed on the ghost of colonialism for want of any better defence.

Then you're delusional.
There's not a shred of evidence to suggest that decolonization is the culprit and not the entire notion of colonialism.

Do you think that such Empires would or should still exist today? Refusing to allow people to govern themselves? Exploiting peoples and taking their resources for yourself?
How would this work exactly? Would you just gun down any protesters as historically happened quite often? How about when they get ahold of automatic weapons? What then?

You're wish to condescendingly control others is not only immoral, it's unsustainable.

Yeah. Just see France in North Vietnam. It was not US pressure but military defeat that forced the French out.

Some cases decolonized too fast. But it needed to be done. The best off ones were ones with the most autonomy and self rule as well.

[HMS Vanguard]

India had ethnic pogroms, fell apart (this is what the British called India), endured 40 years of economic stagnation, and is now poised on the brink of atomic civil war.

You're right it did better than most.

Singapore is a very rare example of a county that positively thrived after decolonisation. On the other hand, its trajectory was not much different to that of Hong Kong, which remained a colony.

Smaller India works better. The nuclear stand off has stopped wars.

The nuclear stand-off has stopped wars that only happened because the British were no longer enforcing the peace, replacing those wars with the small matter of the nuclear stand-off, something that threatens to blow up the world at a moment's notice. And don't think you are unaffected, Osama Bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan only being possible because of the Pakistani bomb. A smaller India is the only way an independent India can work, and in that sense works better; however this is to arbitrarily rule out the possibility of just not having an independent India.

And more important is India is rapidly improving. While it was stagnant and starving under colonial rule.

It was stagnant from about 1650 to about 1985. India starts growing when India adopts market reforms. This did not coincide with independence.

But decolonialism was neccesary. In some cases it came too soon before a proper civil society developed. But it still needed to happen.

It was an ideological imperative, not a practical one.

[Genivaria]

Then you're delusional.
There's not a shred of evidence to suggest that decolonization is the culprit and not the entire notion of colonialism.

Do you think that such Empires would or should still exist today? Refusing to allow people to govern themselves? Exploiting peoples and taking their resources for yourself?
How would this work exactly? Would you just gun down any protesters as historically happened quite often? How about when they get ahold of automatic weapons? What then?

In the 1930s when the British parliament was discussing the question of India it seemed to strongly believe - and consistent with the evidence - that ordinary Indians didn't even possess rifles in any significant numbers. The division of India into antagonistic ethnostates occurred because of decolonisation. These states were able to obtain nuclear weapons because of decolonisation.

Gunning down protesters happened, but rarely. If you gun down protesters, you just don't get a whole lot of protesters.

I don't oppose property rights in India, don't propose stealing things from their honest owners, and nor did the Raj.

I didn't ask if they HAD automatic weapons, I said what happens when they GET THEM?
And the division of India as it happened would not happened if it wasn't colonized in the first place, why is this so difficult for you to understand?

You're like a mugger claiming that the only reason you shot your victim was because they defended themselves, if you weren't mugging them they wouldn't of had to.

[Novus America]

Then you're delusional.
There's not a shred of evidence to suggest that decolonization is the culprit and not the entire notion of colonialism.

Do you think that such Empires would or should still exist today? Refusing to allow people to govern themselves? Exploiting peoples and taking their resources for yourself?
How would this work exactly? Would you just gun down any protesters as historically happened quite often? How about when they get ahold of automatic weapons? What then?

In the 1930s when the British parliament was discussing the question of India it seemed to strongly believe - and consistent with the evidence - that ordinary Indians didn't even possess rifles in any significant numbers. The division of India into antagonistic ethnostates occurred because of decolonisation. These states were able to obtain nuclear weapons because of decolonisation.

Gunning down protesters happened, but rarely. If you gun down protesters, you just don't get a whole lot of protesters.

I don't oppose property rights in India, don't propose stealing things from their honest owners, and nor did the Raj.

Yeah, what about the right to not starve?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

[HMS Vanguard]

In the 1930s when the British parliament was discussing the question of India it seemed to strongly believe - and consistent with the evidence - that ordinary Indians didn't even possess rifles in any significant numbers. The division of India into antagonistic ethnostates occurred because of decolonisation. These states were able to obtain nuclear weapons because of decolonisation.

Gunning down protesters happened, but rarely. If you gun down protesters, you just don't get a whole lot of protesters.

I don't oppose property rights in India, don't propose stealing things from their honest owners, and nor did the Raj.

I didn't ask if they HAD automatic weapons, I said what happens when they GET THEM?

Ah, I read "nuclear weapons". Automatic... so what?

And the division of India as it happened would not happened if it wasn't colonized in the first place, why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Of course it wouldn't have happened "as it happened". Saying that specific circumstances would be different given a massive alteration in the course of history is obviously true and uninteresting. But it would have happened, or else (more likely) India would have had conventional ethnic wars, in which millions or tens of millions would have died. The British did not invent the Hindu-Muslim hatred; the British came to India just as an Islamic empire was falling apart, rolling back a tide of Muslim conquest to the areas actually inhabited by Muslims. The British froze this conflict, temporarily creating an India with something like free movement.

[Novus America]

Smaller India works better. The nuclear stand off has stopped wars.

The nuclear stand-off has stopped wars that only happened because the British were no longer enforcing the peace, replacing those wars with the small matter of the nuclear stand-off, something that threatens to blow up the world at a moment's notice. And don't think you are unaffected, Osama Bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan only being possible because of the Pakistani bomb. A smaller India is the only way an independent India can work, and in that sense works better; however this is to arbitrarily rule out the possibility of just not having an independent India.

And more important is India is rapidly improving. While it was stagnant and starving under colonial rule.

It was stagnant from about 1650 to about 1985. India starts growing when India adopts market reforms. This did not coincide with independence.

But decolonialism was neccesary. In some cases it came too soon before a proper civil society developed. But it still needed to happen.

It was an ideological imperative, not a practical one.

Again
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

Now those famines no longer occur. Nuclear stand off is not that bad anyways.

Yes, it should have been done in a more practical fashion. But it still had to be done.

[HMS Vanguard]

In the 1930s when the British parliament was discussing the question of India it seemed to strongly believe - and consistent with the evidence - that ordinary Indians didn't even possess rifles in any significant numbers. The division of India into antagonistic ethnostates occurred because of decolonisation. These states were able to obtain nuclear weapons because of decolonisation.

Gunning down protesters happened, but rarely. If you gun down protesters, you just don't get a whole lot of protesters.

I don't oppose property rights in India, don't propose stealing things from their honest owners, and nor did the Raj.

Yeah, what about the right to not starve?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

This article states that, apart from the war famine of 1943 caused by the Japanese, the last famine under British rule ended in 1906, about half a century before independence.

[Genivaria]

I didn't ask if they HAD automatic weapons, I said what happens when they GET THEM?

Ah, I read "nuclear weapons". Automatic... so what?

And the division of India as it happened would not happened if it wasn't colonized in the first place, why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Of course it wouldn't have happened "as it happened". Saying that specific circumstances would be different given a massive alteration in the course of history is obviously true and uninteresting. But it would have happened, or else (more likely) India would have had conventional ethnic wars, in which millions or tens of millions would have died. The British did not invent the Hindu-Muslim hatred; the British came to India just as an Islamic empire was falling apart, rolling back a tide of Muslim conquest to the areas actually inhabited by Muslims. The British froze this conflict, temporarily creating an India with something like free movement.

I'm gonna have to hammer my point in with a sledgehammer aren't I.
PEOPLE DON'T LIKE BEING DOMINATED ON AND WILL USE FORCE WHEN THEY HAVE TO IN ORDER TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
THESE EMPIRES YOU LOVE SO MUCH CAN EXIST ONLY SO LONG AS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH SUPPRESSING THE NATIVE UPRISINGS.
IF THE NATIVES SUDDENLY HAVE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS THEN THEM EMPIRE IS GOING TO LOSE.

DO...YOU...COMPREHEND...ENGLISH!?

[Novus America]

Frankly, the government is doing well with what it can do, but it simply can't yet secure swathes of territory, even with good supply lines. It took a lot of supply lines around Aleppo, but has yet to take Aleppo, or make significant inroads into Idlib province. Securing the supply lines is a good plan, but it was also their only viable plan, so I don't really see it as a strategic coup. Moreover, given the relatively compact territory Assad holds, this was always going to be the easier part for him - its easier for the SA to redeploy up and down the central axis of Damascus to Aleppo (which they held before the major push at the end of last year), so I never really considered their main areas in danger of being cut off, aside from a vulnerable highway to Aleppo, and various outposts (Deir ez-Zor, whatever goes on in Hassakh). So, its good, but not indicative of Assad being able to make wider gains against the 'regular' rebels, or having enough strength for a separate push east against IS.

I was looking it up, and Daesh is still outnumbered by government forces (by about 2:1). Secondly, I think both sides have other priorities, and so aren't using their full force. I'm curious to see how it grinds on, but mostly I was using it as an exmaple simply as IS and Assad aren't clashing that much. Maybe Palmyra & environs is a better case study to watch, but perhaps after the symbolically significant recapture of the town, Assad might just not press further.

E: I see that Deirez-Zor might be targeted next, since Palmyra has been recaptured

True true but i think this very much counts for all sides. Even Daesh and the FSA aren't capable of holding all of Syria. Probably a good reason for the government, the FSA and the Kurds to get around a deal. Perhaps that's even the reason why the government forces currently go after the major supplylines. Its a pretty good way to de-motivate rebels and it would give him a good edge in any talks about peace. But i suppose it remains to be seen what everybody there is going to do.

Its true Assad and IS aren't moving against eachother that much, or at least not until recently, more or less starting with the government advances on Aleppo. And as for Deir ez-Zour, it would be pretty interesting to see how that goes. If the Syrian army indeed manages to reclaim it it would be a serious blow to Daesh, cutting a pretty important route from Ar-Raqqah towards Mosul might be just what both the government, rebels and Kurds need. Ofcourse Iraq would benefit from it aswell, something that might also proof vital as i'm wondering what the Popular Mobilization Forces (Mainly the big shia players) are going to do after Daesh faced its defeat in Iraq. If they would continue their fight into Syria it would be a pretty big boost for the government there. I feel we just have to wait and see how these things are going to play out but in the end something needs to happen as neither side seems to be capable of making the big gains they want to make.

Even without western intervention things would likly be just as bad. The Arab Spring would have still happened and turned Iraq into a Syria like mess.

The Arab people are rightly angry at their so called "leaders" who are most corrupt and incompetent and have left the region a mess. Problem is they have no workable plan as to what to do after said leaders are gone.

Things would indeed still be a mess but i doubt it would be at the point where it is now. In the end the only thing outside of foreign meddling that ruins the region are the internal powerstruggles between Iran, Saudi-Arabia and to some extend Turkey.
I feel that as long as these powerstruggles continue conflicts will continue to escalate and will continue to dominate the Middle-East for the coming decades.
I think it depends on what you call a workable plan. A big problem i noticed is that they are often pressured to push for a western style democracy, a kind of democracy i don't think really works for them, if only for the ethnic, religious and tribal tentions in many of these nations. They should instead be pressured and pushed to set up a form of government that makes sure everybody has a say in matters while still keeping some level of democratic value to it.

Why? Raging civil wars happened without intervention. The Libyan intervention was not great, but it did turn a violent civil war into a more peaceful stand off. The problems are certainly more than just external power struggles. The economy, and education systems for example.

I actually do prefer Jordan's system over trying to force western democracy.