Middle East Conflict Megathread (Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc)

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

I find it ironic that the same people who support Israel as a force of law and order in the middle east, tend to ignore the illegal Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights, something even the UN has criticized, demanding that it be returned to Syria.

There are numerous reasons for the occupation of the Golan Heights, principally relations with Syria haven't ever been normalized in the way that they were with Egypt and Syrian control of the Golan Heights could severely undermine Israel's ability to defend itself against artillery/sniper strikes. The occupation itself is arguably legal so long as a state of belligerence and hostility persists. The settlements are, however, illegal.

This is a rational and reasonable viewpoint. Kudos.

[NeuPolska]

I guess I’ve passed over this thread pretty much every time I saw it featured as getting a lot of replies. The whole Israel-Iran shitshow as of late has got my attention, though. Syria itself is whatever but with Russia being an Iranian ally and Israel being damn near a satellite state of the US, and with the recent bit where we blew the shit out of a few Russian mercenaries, we might maybe actually be going to war sometime in the near future?

Or we’ll just get another bullshit proxy war. Oh well.

[New Bradenia]

In other news, the UAE seized an island from Yemen. Specifically, the side they were supporting.

That's True https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socotra

It's de jure is Yemen while UAE is de facto

[Improved werpland]

I just read an interesting piece on Moqtada al-Sadr. Thoughts?

[Yanitza]

I just read an interesting piece on Moqtada al-Sadr. Thoughts?

I can believe his non sectarian focus and Iraqi nationalism when Moqtada first took up arms against the U.S he claimed his fight was the same as the Sunni's in Falleujah. The article claiming his endorsement of a secular state I wasn't aware of.

[Socialist Czechia]

Both Syria and Iraq are IMO artificial states made up by Franco-British deals.

Iraq should be dismantled in three way: Largest Shia part to Iran, Small Sunni part can be recreated as Hashemite kingdom (perhaps in personal union with Jordan) and of course independent Kurdistan.

Syria much like the same: Kurdish parts would join iraqi Kurdistan and there would be mostly Sunni Syria and Alawite Syria on the coast.

[Yanitza]

Both Syria and Iraq are IMO artificial states made up by Franco-British deals.

Iraq should be dismantled in three way: Largest Shia part to Iran, Small Sunni part can be recreated as Hashemite kingdom (perhaps in personal union with Jordan) and of course independent Kurdistan.

Syria much like the same: Kurdish parts would join iraqi Kurdistan and there would be mostly Sunni Syria and Alawite Syria on the coast.

Many states are artificial. How would that be any less artificial, no Kurdish state has existed before, the Jordan and the Hashemite kingdom is a creation of Britain, and I do not think their is a large desire among Iraqi shi'a to be integrated into the Iranian state. Maybe in Syria you have the precedent of the Alawi state but this was a French invention, just as Syria was.

[MERIZoC]

Both Syria and Iraq are IMO artificial states made up by Franco-British deals.

....so here's me, a westerner, to give my opinion on how the borders should be constructed!

[The East Marches II]

I just read an interesting piece on Moqtada al-Sadr. Thoughts?

The author lives in a dream world and should probably never submit an opinion piece again, alas given the state of the New York Times post cuts, he is likely the best they can manage.

[MERIZoC]

I just read an interesting piece on Moqtada al-Sadr. Thoughts?

The author lives in a dream world and should probably never submit an opinion piece again, alas given the state of the New York Times post cuts, he is likely the best they can manage.

Saddam is dead, TEM, you need to move on.

[The East Marches II]

The author lives in a dream world and should probably never submit an opinion piece again, alas given the state of the New York Times post cuts, he is likely the best they can manage.

Saddam is dead, TEM, you need to move on.

N-no, t-the dream l-lives on

[Socialist Czechia]

Both Syria and Iraq are IMO artificial states made up by Franco-British deals.

....so here's me, a westerner, to give my opinion on how the borders should be constructed!

Since my ancestors lived in Austria-Hungary, a territory, which calmed down only after WW2, when moreless homogenous nation states were created, with solid ethno-religious borders, yes, I dare to say such things.

Therefore, I have suspicion, that main problems in Middle East would also ceased by creating solid ethno-religious borders.
Like 99% Shia Iraq and 99% Sunni Iraq and 99% Kurdish state. Same as 99% Alawite Syria (although, obviously, small as Lebanon).

You need united, massive ethno-religious majority of some sort to have a stable state. It's always more complicated and tricky, when you have to deal with conflicts and compromises among dozen of large minorities.

This should work better, with some population transfers, of course, like the one after last Greek-Turkish War.

Like, really, we have so many, many examples in history, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire...and we still believe that we can create total ethno-religious mixture and nothing bad can't ever happen.
And according to right-wingers, we communists dream nonsense, when we think that people can share stuff
Internationalism, yes, we should work on cooperation between nations, but multiculturalism is an obvious nonsense only leading to civil wars and uprisings, eventually.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

....so here's me, a westerner, to give my opinion on how the borders should be constructed!

Since my ancestors lived in Austria-Hungary, a territory, which calmed down only after WW2, when moreless homogenous nation states were created, with solid ethno-religious borders, yes, I dare to say such things.

Therefore, I have suspicion, that main problems in Middle East would also ceased by creating solid ethno-religious borders.
Like 99% Shia Iraq and 99% Sunni Iraq and 99% Kurdish state. Same as 99% Alawite Syria (although, obviously, small as Lebanon).

You need united, massive ethno-religious majority of some sort to have a stable state. It's always more complicated and tricky, when you have to deal with conflicts and compromises among dozen of large minorities.

This should work better, with some population transfers, of course, like the one after last Greek-Turkish War.

Like, really, we have so many, many examples in history, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire...and we still believe that we can create total ethno-religious mixture and nothing bad can't ever happen.
And according to right-wingers, we communists dream nonsense, when we think that people can share stuff
Internationalism, yes, we should work on cooperation between nations, but multiculturalism is an obvious nonsense only leading to civil wars and uprisings, eventually.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you said but you are basing your authority on the matter on your ancestors having lived in a state that collapsed 100 years ago due to foreign dismantling? Hm.

[Socialist Czechia]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you said but you are basing your authority on the matter on your ancestors having lived in a state that collapsed 100 years ago due to foreign dismantling? Hm.

Not sure if you actually studied the topic (i did, by the way), but Austria-Hungary was in state of decay since 1848, and would crumble regardless how Great War would end.

Divisions were massive, not just ethno-religious divisions, but also economic, social and bureaucratic - foreign debt of A-H was crippling alone, due to maintenance of police state and re-armament (Austrian Dreadnoughts, for example). Hungarians were constantly on verge of rebellion and basically were allowed to do whatever they wanted (since 1867).
Emperor Charles I. was weak, and Franz Ferdinand, if he lived, would decentralized the monarchy further: that would be end of Empire, too. Aside from German Austrians, only Poles in Galicia-Lodomeria and Jews were truly loyal to Vienna in 1914.

Same as Ottoman Empire, foreign powers actually prolonged it's existence, as Ottomans without foreign help wouldn't made it through 19th century. Not even through 1850.
Same, even if Central Powers victory happened, Arabs would still revolted. Kurds and Armenians and Greeks would remain rebellious. And not even Germans guaranteed, that Bulgarians won't decide to take Adrianople and Constantinople for themselves, with Greek support. With perhaps Egyptians and Persians attacking as well.
Ottomans were doomed too.

[NeuPolska]

The Austro-Hungarian Empire did nothing wrong

[Soviet-mongol]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you said but you are basing your authority on the matter on your ancestors having lived in a state that collapsed 100 years ago due to foreign dismantling? Hm.

Not sure if you actually studied the topic (i did, by the way), but Austria-Hungary was in state of decay since 1848, and would crumble regardless how Great War would end.

Divisions were massive, not just ethno-religious divisions, but also economic, social and bureaucratic - foreign debt of A-H was crippling alone, due to maintenance of police state and re-armament (Austrian Dreadnoughts, for example). Hungarians were constantly on verge of rebellion and basically were allowed to do whatever they wanted (since 1867).
Emperor Charles I. was weak, and Franz Ferdinand, if he lived, would decentralized the monarchy further: that would be end of Empire, too. Aside from German Austrians, only Poles in Galicia-Lodomeria and Jews were truly loyal to Vienna in 1914.

Same as Ottoman Empire, foreign powers actually prolonged it's existence, as Ottomans without foreign help wouldn't made it through 19th century. Not even through 1850.
Same, even if Central Powers victory happened, Arabs would still revolted. Kurds and Armenians and Greeks would remain rebellious. And not even Germans guaranteed, that Bulgarians won't decide to take Adrianople and Constantinople for themselves, with Greek support. With perhaps Egyptians and Persians attacking as well.
Ottomans were doomed too.

So there we have it. Even if France or UK were today 100% white in demographics it would have not be different than today.

[Purpelia]

Not sure if you actually studied the topic (i did, by the way), but Austria-Hungary was in state of decay since 1848, and would crumble regardless how Great War would end.

Divisions were massive, not just ethno-religious divisions, but also economic, social and bureaucratic - foreign debt of A-H was crippling alone, due to maintenance of police state and re-armament (Austrian Dreadnoughts, for example). Hungarians were constantly on verge of rebellion and basically were allowed to do whatever they wanted (since 1867).
Emperor Charles I. was weak, and Franz Ferdinand, if he lived, would decentralized the monarchy further: that would be end of Empire, too. Aside from German Austrians, only Poles in Galicia-Lodomeria and Jews were truly loyal to Vienna in 1914.

To be fair, a further decentralization might have helped the empire stay alive in some form even until today. Even if it became an EU like entity with minimal centralization.

[Aulus Maximus]

Not sure if you actually studied the topic (i did, by the way), but Austria-Hungary was in state of decay since 1848, and would crumble regardless how Great War would end.

Divisions were massive, not just ethno-religious divisions, but also economic, social and bureaucratic - foreign debt of A-H was crippling alone, due to maintenance of police state and re-armament (Austrian Dreadnoughts, for example). Hungarians were constantly on verge of rebellion and basically were allowed to do whatever they wanted (since 1867).
Emperor Charles I. was weak, and Franz Ferdinand, if he lived, would decentralized the monarchy further: that would be end of Empire, too. Aside from German Austrians, only Poles in Galicia-Lodomeria and Jews were truly loyal to Vienna in 1914.

To be fair, a further decentralization might have helped the empire stay alive in some form even until today. Even if it became an EU like entity with minimal centralization.

Maybe it would, but it'd say as much as the HRE post 30 years war perhaps.

[Salus Maior]

The Austro-Hungarian Empire did nothing wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaPVNtLXRMM

[Shofercia]

The Austro-Hungarian Empire did nothing wrong

Didn't they get their butts kicked in most wars?

I'm sure as a Pole you'd sympathize

(I'm just messing around)

[Salus Maior]

The Austro-Hungarian Empire did nothing wrong

Didn't they get their butts kicked in most wars?

I'm sure as a Pole you'd sympathize

(I'm just messing around)

The Poles in the Austro-Hungarian Empire were actually pretty pro-Empire iirc.

Well, most Catholics were. It was the damn Orthodox who ruined things smh (I kid).

[Shofercia]

In Libya's case, it wasn't an improvement. Human Rights consist of two categories, Social Rights and Civil Rights. Without Social Rights, Civil Rights are pointless, as you can simply buy the vote and elect Darth Vader as mayor. Think I'm joking?

I understand your point and you're largely correct.

Want Darth Vader as mayor of Odessa? I can make that happen for a couple million bucks. The reason is quite simple: people need housing, heat during winter, healthcare, clean water, food, non-leaky roofs, and so on. If a candidate's party provides that stuff for the people, he can support kitten rape and still be elected.

Again, you're not incorrect.

Sadly, it comes from experience. I saw votes given away in Russia in the 1996 Presidential Election in exchange for a month's supply of food.

In the case of Libya, we saw a massive destruction of Social Rights; as a result, the neutrals shifted to a leader that's been providing them for his faction, General Haftar, who might end up becoming a military dictator. Would the Libyans care? Not most of them, they just want their Social Rights back.

This has largely come as a result of the more ideological aspects of the revolution. Had Qaddafi loyalists not been excluded from government, there would have been a better chance of a smooth transition. Had the West supported stability in the aftermath of Qaddafi's toppling, this wouldn't have been a problem either. There are still a plethora of options available. The problem is that our governments have been vacillating on such matters for years. A bit of decisiveness could make a lot of difference. With regard to Haftar, he's been one of the creators of the present crisis and appears intent on amassing power at the expense of the nation as a whole. When he creates order, it is to his personal benefit. There are few if any devoted national servants in Libya. Much the worse for them.

The problem is that in that area, the dictators are quite good at keeping the opposition separated from each other. Once they're toppled, the opposition goes into a "we don't trust you guys" mode very quickly and is instantly fractured. Heck, we've even seen this with the Kurds in Iraq. After the central authority falls, the people want their turf, and they trust their tribes over someone trying to build a coalition. Essentially, in order to ensure a smooth transition, a coalition has to be built before the intervention.

The problem with that is that the dictator will see who's who in the coalition, and focus his energies, (once it's determined that he's going to lose,) on suppressing its most centrist players, ensuring its failure, as a poison pill to those who intervened in his or her country. The best solution is to work out a gradual compromise, and ensure that said leader steps down "voluntarily", while being guaranteed a life of luxury. It sucks, but it's better than the alternative.

I was referring to the 1999 Bombing of Belgrade. The incident that was the trigger for the bombing, the so-called "Racak Massacre" didn't stand up in an actual Court of Law, specifically during Milosevic's trial at the ECHR. Milosevic proved that there was reasonable doubt as to whether or not Racak was a massacre, and then died, thus humiliating the intervention and causing lots of butthurt among Neoliberals.

Given the conviction of Karadzic, it's probable that Milosevic would have been found guilty of at least a number of the allegations against him, even if the Racak Massacre couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable, largely due to the restrictions placed on the Finnish team by the Serbian government. We've wandered a bit from our initial point of contention though, no?

Karadzic wasn't involved with Kosovo. The original conflict was a mess. Kosovo was just NATO rubbing it in and showing their might to the World, by fucking over the Serbs, without realizing that it would be the first step of alienating the Russians. Whoops. I'm guessing the Chinese are thankful.

As far as Syria is concerned - where would you place the Sunni State? The current division between the Kurds and Assad is clear - the Euphrates. How does a Sunni State insert itself into the region?

You could employ the mountainous terrain that separates the Alawite-dominated portion of the country as a natural boundary. It might even be plausible to include some Sunni-dominated regions to the east as well, at least where Assad loyalists predominate. The present borders aren't organic or reflective of the ethnic/religious demographics. A degree of autonomy might well ease some of the social tensions and drive Sunnis away from supporting the FSA, al-Nusra, the Southern Front, etc. Of course, Assad could also just govern better.

So then you're not talking about an independent state, but rather a degree of autonomy - right?

Even if he uses chemical weapons, why would he use them at the very end? Wouldn't it make more sense to use them throughout the campaign and the battle? If my guys are about to take your positions, I'd use cluster bombs, not chemical weapons, because then my guys don't have to wait until the chemical weapons dissipate - they can just take your positions.

He's been using them for awhile now according to most international sources. Really, the only people attempting to deny it are those in Assad's camp and the Russians, who have made a number of eccentric claims about everyone from the UK to the Syrian opposition of late. And, mind you, I believe Putin has been one of the better leaders Russia has had recently in terms of reestablishing Russian hard-power and accomplishing foreign policy objectives. That doesn't mean that honesty is valued, however. Assad likely did use chemical weapons and likely did indiscriminately bomb heavily populated areas. You get to decide if that's justified or not.

Civil Wars don't magically prolong themselves without foreign intervention. The Civil War would've been over by now, Ghadaffi would've won, and the HDI would've been largely restored, had there been no Western Intervention.

I'm skeptical that Qaddafi could have won. Even prior to the imposition of the no-fly zone, high-level government officials and some military officers had begun to defect and Qaddafi gave a speech vowing to die a martyr rather than step down from power. Approximately half the military and around two hundred thousand volunteers, mostly native to Libya, fought on the rebel side by the time the conflict ended. They outnumbered Qaddafi loyalists almost five-to-one. International intervention just sped things along to their natural conclusion.

Numbers don't always dictate the course of battle. I think there was a case where an ISIS battalion ended up running in a SpetzNaz Platoon. The Russians took no casualties, inflicted massive casualties on ISIS, and achieved all of their objectives, while ISIS was forced to withdraw, demoralized and shamed, despite the Russians being outnumbered 30 to 1. Out of Libya's Military, on the brigade under the command of Khadaffi's son functioned properly, and it could've taken out ten brigades of its size with ease.

Actually, he was. The holdouts were a few strongholds, which he could've blockaded and cut power and water to said strongholds. How long would they have lasted? Worse case scenario - he lets 10% of Libya go. Best case scenario - he wins. Take a look at how quickly Haftar snagged a chunk of Libya. He's essentially following Khadaffi's policies, and the only difference is that he hated Khadaffi because Khadaffi back stabbed him during the Toyota War. He wants Khadaffi's policies back in Libya, and he's winning.

Again, Qaddafi loyalists were severely outnumbered even prior to the no-fly zone and had been repelled from multiple rebel strongholds. Once they realized that they could win the war, the writing was on the wall. A dictator can retain power only by means of love or fear, and Qaddafi had lost both.

Numbers don't mean much against effective action. During the Ossetian War, two VDV companies were able to rout a Georgian Volunteer Brigade, taking a single casualty, despite being outnumbered ten to one. If I had to choose between the Brigade of Khadaffi's Son, and five other brigades, randomly chosen, I'd pick the one led by his son.

Haftar's a good deal stronger at present than either democratic government, I'll grant you that. I'm not familiar with his policies other than his staunch opposition to Islamists and his criticism of the GNC government, which he attempted to topple ineffectually. He's winning around Benghazi, but from what I've read he has mixed reactions everywhere else. He's also aging and might not have enough time to piece the country together before he dies.

Oh, he could've wiped them out, but he wants international recognition, and he realized that he wouldn't get that if he wiped them out. He wasn't stopped militarily; he was stopped diplomatically. The GNC, in a military sense, is horrendously inept.

Symbolism doesn't work in modern warfare, outside of Hollywood.

Nonsense. It conveys the message that violating laws that your country agreed to doesn't go without a response. Eventually, if the outcry becomes large enough and Assad has to wonder whether he'll have NATO dropping into his backyard, he might behave.

I'm fairly certain that by this point, he's not worried about NATO dropping in his backyard, not to mention that most Americans are against yet another Middle Eastern quagmire.

The anti-Serb campaign in Kosovo was vicious. There's a reason that the Serbs in North Kosovo don't want any part of the Pristina Administration, no matter what concessions are made; because Thaci's Regime was so vicious in expelling Serbs, they lost all trust among most Serbs. And instead of letting North Kosovo secede, they're talking about the territorial integrity of a region created by self-determination. What the actual fuck? Either you have self-determination or you don't. You can't claim the right to self-determination as an oppressed minority, and then turn around and claim territorial integrity against the minority that you oppressed.

Do you propose partitioning the Balkans on a street-by-street basis then? They've all behaved like ethnic-cleansing barbarians in the recent past and clearly can't get along within common borders. We have to draw the line somewhere and Kosovo is itself a clearly defined, historical region within the Balkans. The intervention arguably had a moderating effect, even if it cost us a whole bunch of resources for little tangible gain and resulted in certain groups suffering as opposed to a larger number of other groups. And, yes, I'm upset that we even have to have conversations about murdering people for their ethnicity or religion.

While it would be fun to partition the Balkans street by street, just because I'd get a kick out of pronouncing their street names, I doubt that would be effective. However, North Kosovo has clear cut boundaries, and the extreme majority of its citizenry want to be with Serbia. Crimea's Reclamation certainly didn't raise any local boundary issues; why should North Kosovo's?

Ordered the mob? Do you think that agencies that burn people get official Government orders? No Government would be that fucking stupid, as to order the burning of people. So of course there's no proof of an actual order. Have you proof of the Southern States ordering the KKK to enact the Mississippi Plan?

Given the police officers actively attempted to halt the Ukrainian hyper-nationalists and managed to save several Russian protesters, I'd take that as evidence that the government wasn't a hundred percent on board with burning people alive. Otherwise, those officers were ignoring orders and deserve some measure of praise for it.

The local police wasn't on board. However, judging by the lack of investigation at the national level, it sounds like they were completely on board, or at the very least not even remotely interested in investigating mass murder.

Certainly not all - just an extremely big part of it. If Assad did something similar, you'd be calling for regime change. But with the Saudis, it's something that you simply "quite ardently oppose" rather than calling for regime change.

Assad has done that in certain regions and cities. Ghouta for instance.

And you've never called for regime change against Assad?

How does that address my point?

Political victories matter in war, however small they might be.

All victories matter to some extent; why the focus on politics?

It's a bad thing to use chemical weapons, or depleted uranium when bombing cities, or to use starvation as a weapon.

I'd say we agree on this much, and on the fact that war should be a last-ditch option.

So why not follow the Realist Model of Foreign Policy?

Also, what demographic crisis did the Houthis create? Did they have too many babies for Yemen to handle?

They initiated the war. Wars tend to have a negative effect on the stomachs of ordinary citizens. Oddly enough, their political program does hold some appeal once you remove the random Antisemitism and Anti-Americanism.

I thought it was just the fact that they were oppressed by the previous administration, and went onto a variation of "this land is my land" rather than some greater Anti-Americanism theme.

Here's the thing about Referendums - if you do it, you have to do all three. You can't just say "I want option B and C on the Referendum, but not A." You either have all options, or you don't. California, my state, is a Referendum State. We have some propositions that are fucking retarded and have no way of passing. We still allow them a path to the ballot. For instance, there was a proposition to split California into six states according to randomly drawn lines. It failed. But people had a chance to campaign for it, and might've ended up voting on it, probably against it.

So you have to decide if you're pro or anti Democracy. If you want B & C on the ballot - will you also place A on the ballot? Remember, it's the people who vote.

I'm pro-democracy with stipulations is probably the best answer I can give. I don't think it's conducive o stability to have random regions seceding all the time, whether that be Crimea or Azawad. I like the idea of self-determination, of course, but the Russian people already have a nation-state. This comes off as Russia trying to throw its weight around against weaker countries.

I'm pro-Referendum, no matter what the result in most cases, because, unless the Referendum is something like "execute all Southern Belles posting on NSG" it's usually something better than the Government would've proposed. Time and time again, I see Referendum Law as substantially better than what the laws passed by the Government. I see nothing wrong with the locals wanting to leave a country that mismanaged them, for another country. In order to get an active secession going, you have to fuck up. Really fuck up. The Californian Independence movement is in the single digits. For some odd reason, no Belarussian or Kazakh regions want to leave for Russia. Adjara chose to remain with Georgia.

Secession requires someone to fuck up. It doesn't happen overnight. Usually it requires something truly radical, like a complete economic meltdown, continuous oppression on the basis of ethnicity, treating the inhabitants like second class citizens, etc. One of the smartest things Lukashenko did when the 2009 Economic Crisis hit, is to ensure that everyone was treated equally, and was equally fucked. It worked. When the economy began to recover, the people helped each other, bonded, and didn't feel the need to continue with their separate identity.

If you go to California, you'll see plenty of separate identities getting along. The sole issue with immigration in California is the amount of people coming in, but everyone has to deal with that amount, so we just ship the extras to Compton, Victorville, and other population reduction centers

Secession is a serious issue. It's not something that the people take lightly. The California Secession Referendums are a joke. The ones in Ukraine are serious. There's a reason for that. And it's not just Russia.

[Fahran]

The Austro-Hungarian Empire did nothing wrong

Didn't they get their butts kicked in most wars?

I'm sure as a Pole you'd sympathize

(I'm just messing around)

General Piłsudski is not amused.

I'll reply as soon as I can, Shof. I'll have you know this conversation is probably longer than half the essays I've written.

[Aulus Maximus]

Appereantly 52 dead and over 2000 wounded Palestinians during clashes over the US opening its embassy in Jerusalem.

Source

[The Transhuman Union]

Appereantly 52 dead and over 2000 wounded Palestinians during clashes over the US opening its embassy in Jerusalem.

Source

But don't worry, because America "First"!