NationStates

At this point I'd just settle for not having a genocide whenever the Turks get around to pulling out of Idlib.

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:What do you think about the Syrian Democratic People's Party ? If there was a party that defended the rights of Baathist social-liberal minorities and supported social democracy and perlementerism against the Assad administration, what would its counterpart in Syria be ?

(Image)

We havent seen much of them as a government. But I'd say they would certainly do a better job than Assad at rebuilding Syria and better progress towards Peace.

Obama should have been much aggressive against Assad. The only solace we can take now is that Assad will be more careful before gunning people down so as to avoid a repeat of this disaster.

Theriok wrote:Obama should have been much aggressive against Assad. The only solace we can take now is that Assad will be more careful before gunning people down so as to avoid a repeat of this disaster.

Assad is a colossal prick, but Obama's hands were effectively tied. If he had been more aggressive against Assad (and he already took a hawkish stance), he ran the triple risk of both pissing off Russia to the point of no-return, sinking the Iran deal, and allowing a power vacuum to further cement itself, potentially allowing for radical Islamist groups to find a way to power in Syria.

As much as Obama's foreign policy deserves critiques, he did quite alright in Syria.

Major-Tom wrote:

Theriok wrote:Obama should have been much aggressive against Assad. The only solace we can take now is that Assad will be more careful before gunning people down so as to avoid a repeat of this disaster.

Assad is a colossal prick, but Obama's hands were effectively tied. If he had been more aggressive against Assad (and he already took a hawkish stance), he ran the triple risk of both pissing off Russia to the point of no-return, sinking the Iran deal, and allowing a power vacuum to further cement itself, potentially allowing for radical Islamist groups to find a way to power in Syria.

As much as Obama's foreign policy deserves critiques, he did quite alright in Syria.

What would Russia's "point of no return" been for Syria? An invasion of Western Europe? Putin cares about Syria, sure, but not enough to start a thermonuclear war over it.

The Iran deal is fairer criticism, but as we saw: A) that sank, admittedly though due an unforeseeable candidate; and B) I don't think Iran would have backed out over Syria. The country is desperate for the deal, and desperate for anything to avoid worldwide sanction.

The power vacuum would have been minimized the earlier Obama would have acted. As the war progressed, and the rebels desperately turned to jihadist elements, it became more likely.

Syria was Obama's biggest weak point - his "red line," alone, was a terrible embarrassment even by his own admission.

Theriok wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:
Assad is a colossal prick, but Obama's hands were effectively tied. If he had been more aggressive against Assad (and he already took a hawkish stance), he ran the triple risk of both pissing off Russia to the point of no-return, sinking the Iran deal, and allowing a power vacuum to further cement itself, potentially allowing for radical Islamist groups to find a way to power in Syria.

As much as Obama's foreign policy deserves critiques, he did quite alright in Syria.

What would Russia's "point of no return" been for Syria? An invasion of Western Europe? Putin cares about Syria, sure, but not enough to start a thermonuclear war over it.

The Iran deal is fairer criticism, but as we saw: A) that sank, admittedly though due an unforeseeable candidate; and B) I don't think Iran would have backed out over Syria. The country is desperate for the deal, and desperate for anything to avoid worldwide sanction.

The power vacuum would have been minimized the earlier Obama would have acted. As the war progressed, and the rebels desperately turned to jihadist elements, it became more likely.

Syria was Obama's biggest weak point - his "red line," alone, was a terrible embarrassment even by his own admission.

Obama had about two to three years to deal with Syria before Russia got involved. He would have likely had turkish and arab support too had he been decided to go decisively after Syria. Instead he didn.

Theriok wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:
Assad is a colossal prick, but Obama's hands were effectively tied. If he had been more aggressive against Assad (and he already took a hawkish stance), he ran the triple risk of both pissing off Russia to the point of no-return, sinking the Iran deal, and allowing a power vacuum to further cement itself, potentially allowing for radical Islamist groups to find a way to power in Syria.

As much as Obama's foreign policy deserves critiques, he did quite alright in Syria.

What would Russia's "point of no return" been for Syria? An invasion of Western Europe? Putin cares about Syria, sure, but not enough to start a thermonuclear war over it.

The Iran deal is fairer criticism, but as we saw: A) that sank, admittedly though due an unforeseeable candidate; and B) I don't think Iran would have backed out over Syria. The country is desperate for the deal, and desperate for anything to avoid worldwide sanction.

The power vacuum would have been minimized the earlier Obama would have acted. As the war progressed, and the rebels desperately turned to jihadist elements, it became more likely.

Syria was Obama's biggest weak point - his "red line," alone, was a terrible embarrassment even by his own admission.

Russia invaded Ukraine and Georgia, the West condemned 'em, but never forcefully put a stop to it. And how could they, what are they going to do, start a war (like you said)? No, of course not. Putin would not have invaded Europe, but had Assad gone down thanks to aggressive US intervention, I could just as easily see Russia trying to "pick up the pieces" in Syria and establishing a presence. Not an occupation, but a hail-mary pass to re-prop up the some continuation of an Assad-like regime, so to speak. Syria was and is a major strategic country for Russia, and that should not be underestimated.

As for Iran, Iran had continually made threats and demands over the Iran deal before Trump was ushered in. It is not crazy to suggest that they would've amplified this had the US been more aggressive.

We can say what we want about a power vaccum, but we acted early in Libya, very early and preemptively, but still ended up leaving Libya with an "unforseen" power vaccum. The Jihadists around at the time in Libya that managed to make some serious inroads were puny in contrast to the numbers and organizational prowess of groups within Syria.

I don't know, to me, it seemed like Obama had a slew of bad options, and his cautious approach was the least-worst of all of them.

Senkaku wrote:At this point I'd just settle for not having a genocide whenever the Turks get around to pulling out of Idlib.

Speaking of which- how do you think that's going to turn out? How long would Turkey be willing to secure a rebellion in one province while the rest of Syria moves forwards? And how will that turn out if that support dries up?

And what of the Syrian Kurds?

Major-Tom wrote:
Russia invaded Ukraine and Georgia, the West condemned 'em, but never forcefully put a stop to it. And how could they, what are they going to do, start a war (like you said)? No, of course not. Putin would not have invaded Europe, but had Assad gone down thanks to aggressive US intervention, I could just as easily see Russia trying to "pick up the pieces" in Syria and establishing a presence. Not an occupation, but a hail-mary pass to re-prop up the some continuation of an Assad-like regime, so to speak. Syria was and is a major strategic country for Russia, and that should not be underestimated.

Ukraine and Georgia actually confirm my point. Putin has already confirmed that the West will bend over for outright invasions and annexation of territory; US threats of retaliation are now meaningless. It was a foreign policy win for him, but one I understand was inevitable.

The same applies to Syria - at most, he could engage in a proxy war there with the U.S., but global proxy wars are not something Russia can win. Invading neighboring countries over limited territorial claims is one thing; engaging in a global cold war with the Western world is quite another. Russia has the GDP of Italy - it really cannot compete with Western or even American capabilities. Putin cares about Syria, but he cares about his private dacha far more.

By intervening there aggressively and quickly, Obama could have forced Putin to either: A) back down, and face the same foreign policy defeat the U.S. faced in Ukraine and Georgia; or B) engage in a proxy war Russia would have no hope of winning.

The U.S. chose the worst of all worlds by making vague, empty threats on Syria, then backing down at even the hint of a challenge. It strengthened Russia but, more importantly, accelerated the decline of American soft power

Major-Tom wrote:As for Iran, Iran had continually made threats and demands over the Iran deal before Trump was ushered in. It is not crazy to suggest that they would've amplified this had the US been more aggressive.

Iran makes threats for domestic reasons more than foreign. They live in desperate fear of American invasion and internal revolt. The former would become a nightmarish quagmire for American forces, certainly, but it would destroy the power of the Iranian establishment. The latter is a possibility increasing every day.

Major-Tom wrote:We can say what we want about a power vaccum, but we acted early in Libya, very early and preemptively, but still ended up leaving Libya with an "unforseen" power vaccum. The Jihadists around at the time in Libya that managed to make some serious inroads were puny in contrast to the numbers and organizational prowess of groups within Syria.

I don't know, to me, it seemed like Obama had a slew of bad options, and his cautious approach was the least-worst of all of them.

This is the strongest criticism against intervention and one that does have concrete examples behind. Libya is a disaster right now, but that is largely the trait of American (and in this case, European) interventions involving the eradication of a hostile establishment and then quickly leaving. That very predictably leaves a power vacuum, and the US needs to stay at least for some time to prop up a friendly regime.

All we did in Libya was bomb some convoys. We did nothing whatsoever to establish a legitimate government in the aftermath.

Theriok wrote:All we did in Libya was bomb some convoys. We did nothing whatsoever to establish a legitimate government in the aftermath.

I just realised that I had always wanted to hear an american say that.
I salute you my brother (or sister)

Dowaesk wrote:

Theriok wrote:All we did in Libya was bomb some convoys. We did nothing whatsoever to establish a legitimate government in the aftermath.

I just realised that I had always wanted to hear an american say that.
I salute you my brother (or sister)

It is an unfortunate common problem of American interventionism.

Theriok wrote:Obama should have been much aggressive against Assad. The only solace we can take now is that Assad will be more careful before gunning people down so as to avoid a repeat of this disaster.

Who must go?

Theriok wrote:Obama should have been much aggressive against Assad. The only solace we can take now is that Assad will be more careful before gunning people down so as to avoid a repeat of this disaster.

And plunge Syria into even more chaos? No thanks.

Who will win the elections: Assad, or Assad?

I think it will be Assad.

Auze wrote:Who will win the elections: Assad, or Assad?

I think it will be Assad.

Nah mate its gonna be Assad

I would shriek with laughter if the choices on the ballot were Bashar Al Assad and Bashir AlAsad.

Roblox Crossroads wrote:

Auze wrote:Who will win the elections: Assad, or Assad?

I think it will be Assad.

Nah mate its gonna be Assad

Can't Mossad the Assad :^)

Auze wrote:Who will win the elections: Assad, or Assad?

I think it will be Assad.

I'm thinking Assad, but it's gonna be close.

Wonder how Assad will deal with Rojava once he "wins" the election

Perikuresu wrote:Wonder how Assad will deal with Rojava once he "wins" the election

Most likely grant some autonomy the region whilst being apart of Syria, I guess something like North Ireland

Roblox Crossroads wrote:

Perikuresu wrote:Wonder how Assad will deal with Rojava once he "wins" the election

Most likely grant some autonomy the region whilst being apart of Syria, I guess something like North Ireland

Very unlikely. Assad will establish a very authoritarian governance over them and clamp down on anyone who stands up against him.

Dowaesk wrote:

Roblox Crossroads wrote:Most likely grant some autonomy the region whilst being apart of Syria, I guess something like North Ireland

Very unlikely. Assad will establish a very authoritarian governance over them and clamp down on anyone who stands up against him.

Isn't Rovaja still independent from Assad's regime (not in a sense of a country but more in the context that they're not under his rule)

Perikuresu wrote:

Dowaesk wrote:Very unlikely. Assad will establish a very authoritarian governance over them and clamp down on anyone who stands up against him.

Isn't Rovaja still independent from Assad's regime (not in a sense of a country but more in the context that they're not under his rule)

They are trying to create Kurdistan (Not gonna happen)

Assad's victory is essentially Putin's victory. Russian support was absolutely key and the fact that jihadists took over the rebel movement only gave them the perfect excuse to brand them all as "terrorists".

I don't think Russia cares that much about Syria though. Russia intervened for Putin's sake, not for Assad's. The timing of the intervention comes right as Russia was facing an economic crisis derived from sanctions over its illegal actions in Ukraine and low oil prices. It was essentially a way to shore up Putin's domestic support in the face of hardship by stoking nationalist support, by showcasing that Russia is powerful enough militarily that it can still shore up its failing allies.

And I don't think that the US could've done much more than what it did.

Theriok wrote:The Iran deal is fairer criticism, but as we saw: A) that sank, admittedly though due an unforeseeable candidate; and B) I don't think Iran would have backed out over Syria. The country is desperate for the deal, and desperate for anything to avoid worldwide sanction.

Absolutely not. In fact, hardline elements of the regime openly oppose reengaging with the global economy altogether. Yeah, most Iranians do not want extra sanctions because they are suffering through them, but Iran's government is only superficially accountable to the people (but to be fair, more than Syria is).

Perikuresu wrote:Wonder how Assad will deal with Rojava once he "wins" the election

To Assad the best scenario would be to destroy the autonomy he has denied them for decades at this point and resume total control. However, I don't think he'll be able to do that given that armed Kurd militias continue to operate in the region. I think Assad will try to reestablish control but that large swathes of Rojava will be de facto outside of significant government control, enjoying a high degree of forced autonomy.

More of a generic response to the topic of Syria than the specific subject of their upcoming show election, but it's worth saying: Assad is an evil piece of shit but everything the West has done against him as made everything so much worse.