The Confused Situation in Syria

[jsteele]

In several threads there have been discussions about the various sides in the Syrian conflict. Given that there are very few -- if any -- "good guys" fighting and the fact that "good guys" is more often attributed to groups the US supports regardless of the relative "goodness" of the groups, reporting on the situation can become quite complicated. Take this article from today's Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/us-backed-rebels-rival-insurgents-clash-in-syria-20-killed/2015/11/30/2f45aef8-9760-11e5-aca6-1ae3be6f06d2_story.html

The headline is "US-backed rebels, rival insurgents clash in Syria, 20 killed". The article goes on to say:

"The fighting between the so-called Democratic Forces of Syria, which is led by Kurds, and Islamic militants has flared in recent days in the northern province of Aleppo."

Which one of these groups do you suspect is the "US-backed" group? Would you guess it is the "so-called Democratic Forces of Syria" which is led by Kurds or the "Islamic militants"? The article does not clarify. If you are confused, you can be excused because both groups are US-supported. As they say, "let's go to the tape":

https://twitter.com/HK2307/status/671004318682750976

This tweet shows the "Islamic militants" capturing a building formerly occupied by the Kurds and burning their flag. The tweet identifies the two groups as the FSA (Free Syrian Army) and the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces). The FSA is actually a US-backed coalition of anti-Assad forces. Watching the video, it becomes clear that the FSA group is actually Jaysh al-Thawar, which while Islamic, is far from being an extremist Islamic group in the Syrian context. So, what really happened here is that two US-backed groups -- one Arab and one Kurdish -- got in a fight with each other. The media apparently spun the dial to see who were the "good guys" today and it landed on "Kurds". It could just as easily have landed on "Free Syrian Army", but luck was not with them and rather being described as "anti-Assad moderates" as they may have been another day, they became "Islamic militants".

[Anonymous]

Would things in the region been better if Obama had the balls to act on his imaginary line in the sand?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Would things in the region been better if Obama had the balls to act on his imaginary line in the sand?

That is a very vague question. How do you understand Obama's so-called "red line"? Do you believe that red line was crossed? What is involved with having "the balls to act"? Even defining these things is less than straight-forward. Regardless, I think I can pretty conclusively say that things would not be better.

[Anonymous]

This was recently going around FB.


If in case it was all too confusing for you, here's a summary:

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) while some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

So the Americans (who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

There is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is good) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so the U.S. says they are bad while secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin (who is bad because he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks, including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi, has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing (!?).

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons with which to bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad which is good, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that silly anti-Semite who leads the Labor Party, Mr. Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (super bad -- see Paris, November 2015).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS and, because Putin and Iran are also fighting IS, that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr. Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good?) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only consistently bad).

To Sunni Muslims an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War. Therefore, the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (duh).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point?) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad ) many of whom are looking to IS (good/bad ) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (now, straining credulity, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started.

Got it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was recently going around FB.


If in case it was all too confusing for you, here's a summary:

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) while some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

So the Americans (who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

There is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is good) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so the U.S. says they are bad while secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin (who is bad because he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks, including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi, has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing (!?).

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons with which to bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad which is good, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that silly anti-Semite who leads the Labor Party, Mr. Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (super bad -- see Paris, November 2015).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS and, because Putin and Iran are also fighting IS, that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr. Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good?) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only consistently bad).

To Sunni Muslims an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War. Therefore, the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (duh).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point?) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad ) many of whom are looking to IS (good/bad ) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (now, straining credulity, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started.

Got it?

This is what happens when you try to conduct foreign policy based on the notion of "good guys" and "bad guys".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was recently going around FB.


If in case it was all too confusing for you, here's a summary:

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) while some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

So the Americans (who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

There is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is good) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so the U.S. says they are bad while secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin (who is bad because he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks, including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi, has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing (!?).

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons with which to bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad which is good, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that silly anti-Semite who leads the Labor Party, Mr. Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (super bad -- see Paris, November 2015).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS and, because Putin and Iran are also fighting IS, that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr. Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good?) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only consistently bad).

To Sunni Muslims an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War. Therefore, the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (duh).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point?) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad ) many of whom are looking to IS (good/bad ) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (now, straining credulity, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started.

Got it?

I see very little meaningful evidence that either Russia or Iran are fighting IS.

[Anonymous]

It's been this way for many many centuries. Peace in the ME is a fairy tale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would things in the region been better if Obama had the balls to act on his imaginary line in the sand?

You are probably one of those people who wanted to "stand up to Putin" but are crying now that Turkey shot down one of his planes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's been this way for many many centuries. Peace in the ME is a fairy tale.

Myth. The centuries under Ottoman rule were largely peaceful while European states were engaging in a number of bloody wars.

[Anonymous]

It would've been easier to send in US troops then you would have no question who is bad vs good.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:It would've been easier to send in US troops then you would have no question who is bad vs good.

Another senseless post. Sending in US troops is never easy. One of the biggest challenges for US troops in recent conflicts has been telling friend from foe. You probably can't even articulate what US troops would do in Syria.

[Anonymous]

Analysts have looked at the map showing the Russians' account of how the jet was shot down, and conclude the Russian map is a lie, because the SU-24 could not have possibly made the sharp right turn shown on the map.



Dishonesty piled on dishonesty, all looking to provoke. Question is, who is foolish enough to take the bait?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Analysts have looked at the map showing the Russians' account of how the jet was shot down, and conclude the Russian map is a lie, because the SU-24 could not have possibly made the sharp right turn shown on the map.



Dishonesty piled on dishonesty, all looking to provoke. Question is, who is foolish enough to take the bait?

True, but the same analysts also concluded that the Turks lied about the length of time involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Analysts have looked at the map showing the Russians' account of how the jet was shot down, and conclude the Russian map is a lie, because the SU-24 could not have possibly made the sharp right turn shown on the map.



Dishonesty piled on dishonesty, all looking to provoke. Question is, who is foolish enough to take the bait?

True, but the same analysts also concluded that the Turks lied about the length of time involved.

Only when predicated on the notion that the Russian fighter only made one pass - but the Turkish radar data shows that it's likely the Russian fighter circled and made two passes and was shot down on the second pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was recently going around FB.


If in case it was all too confusing for you, here's a summary:

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) while some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

So the Americans (who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

There is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is good) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so the U.S. says they are bad while secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin (who is bad because he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks, including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi, has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing (!?).

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons with which to bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad which is good, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that silly anti-Semite who leads the Labor Party, Mr. Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (super bad -- see Paris, November 2015).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS and, because Putin and Iran are also fighting IS, that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr. Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good?) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only consistently bad).

To Sunni Muslims an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War. Therefore, the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (duh).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point?) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad ) many of whom are looking to IS (good/bad ) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (now, straining credulity, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started.

Got it?

It's scary to think that millions who subscribe to FB will read this and come away thinking they know the facts.

It is nonsense such as this that defines ignorance.

The author could have saved himself the trouble by writing:

The crisis in Syria was caused by the US trying to destroy Syria to the US' own geopolitical and strategic advantage by creating and fueling a civil war to oust another democratically elected president unwilling to bend to Washington's will.

End of story.