Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Kobani is expected to fall to ISIS. But according to the Pentagon, it's no big deal.

I have absolutely no clue what they are getting at here. I understand that airstrikes are limited, and not as effective as we'd think. But a statement trying to downplay the effect of Kobani's fall does the exact opposite. If you are on a losing streak, it is best to stay quiet about the loss, not downplay it. That will only draw more attention and create another propaganda victory for ISIS.

I see what you're trying to get at. Yes, you obey the law because the police will punish you if you don't enforce it, but who enforces the police to do their job right? What causes them to serve? What stops them from doing whatever they want?

However, power in a system is not completely top-down. People act in their self-interest. Think about North Korea under Kim Jong-Il. Why did the military all obey a frail, weak old man? What could he have done to stop a coup?

People aren't mind-readers. Nobody knows the other's intentions. If a North Korean soldier believed if he were to rally and he'd have the support of the military, he would do so in a heartbeat. But since there is uncertainty of who wants to cause a coup and who wants to keep the status quo, it is more difficult for people, who have free will, to act, since it's possible it could lead to their demise.

So government isn't anarchy, and the world isn't held by the honor system. It's always about the ability to enforce your desires, and most of us do not have that ability.

At 10/5/14 09:04 PM, Feoric wrote:

Using the 2006 Lebanon War as an example, I disagree -- ISIS would be a dangerous opponent, especially if the IDF is fighting ISIS on their turf. If there was one thing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan taught us, it's that conventional Western militaries with the latest in high tech weaponry does not grant a guaranteed victory over insurgency warfare. The IDF is not immune to this, and was given a black eye by Hezbollah. Given the fact that ISIS has mastered the art of non-conventional warfare, I would not be so quick to overstate Israel's capacity to fight this kind of warfare, especially given their track record.

I have to agree. Israel is all too often used as an example of successful counterinsurgency, and I don't think its situation has gotten better in a long time. Now that the US is friendly with Vietnam, I would love for former VietCong leaders to come to DC and teach Americans how to launch a successful counterinsurgency. Interestingly enough, the United States has one of the few historical examples of counterinsurgency - the Philippines in the 1800s. I'd love to see what we did there to squash the Philippine Insurrection, and see if it an apply to ISIS.

Dealing with ISIS requires above all pragmatism. No ideas of soft power or hard power alone can contain them.

At 10/5/14 08:13 AM, Korriken wrote: Of course, ISIS can't stand against a country that will stand and fight. They've been mostly dealing with militaries that cut and run when confronted. ISIS would stand a snowball's chance in hell vs Israel.

ISIS has been fighting the Syrian Army, which is still fairly powerful. And while they would have a hell of a fight against Israel, I don't think that is their target quite yet. If ISIS were to successfully expand into Jordan, they would most likely consolidate control and build up the military before actually attacking. But what an enormous political boost it would be.

At 9/30/14 02:34 AM, Ranger2 wrote: The reason for the protest is that the Chinese government recently announced that the Chief Executive of Hong Kong would be elected by universal suffrage and not directly by the people of Hong Kong.

I'd like to correct what I said earlier. The Chinese government recently announced that candidates for Chief Executive must be selected by Beijing, not universal suffrage.

In more recent news, the UK and Turkey recently voted to begin military strikes on ISIS. This conflict is heating up by the day. ISIS continues to behead any foreigners it can find, and has captured several key cities throughout Iraq and Syria.

It's a make-or-break moment for the Arab countries. I hope it's a wake-up call for the wealthy royals in Saudi Arabia and Qatar that supporting groups like these has consequences. ISIS has recently been eying Jordan as a new target, and with that monarchy's stability being iffy at best, we may see swaths of Jordan fall.

If ISIS takes part of Jordan, they will become central to the Israel-Palestinian issue. Recently, Fatah and Hamas have been talking about healing their rift and forming a united front against Israel. I don't know if the rise of ISIS has anything to do with this, but I believe that if ISIS gets into Jordan we may see a new branch of the civil war: Fatah-Hamas vs. ISIS. Fatah and Hamas can claim longtime legitimacy over governing the Palestinians, but ISIS would be able to point to its own growth and tell the Palestinians "we, unlike Fatah and Hamas, can actually conquer land. Join us and we will destroy Israel!" With tensions still high over the recent military action in Gaza, I have no doubt if given the choice between ISIS and Fatah-Hamas, the Palestinians would choose ISIS.

A possible counterargument to this would be the idea of Palestinian nationalism, that Palestinians don't want to be part of a broad caliphate, but have their own state in Palestine. Even if Palestinian nationalism is stronger than Syrian, Iraqi, or Lebanese nationalism (note: none of them were strong) I think the appeal of destroying Israel and ending the occupations and blockades would be far stronger than any sense of nationhood.

I don't know what plans are made already for helping out Jordan. But with pro-ISIS rallies occurring near its border with Iraq, a third front may soon be opening.

At 9/30/14 09:45 PM, Korriken wrote: Police might not but the military will. Do you think China is going to tolerate continued dissent and protests, especially if they believe that dissent may spread to the mainland? They won't. They'll shut down the protests one way or another.

I don't think dissent will spread to the mainland. Beijing's government is stable, and with China's economy booming, people are happy with the status quo. The protests have been fairly orderly, so I doubt it'll come to that.

It's the Ukraine situation all over again. Politicians may talk big, and demand China stop, but unless someone decides to actually DO something, China is free to do as it pleases.

Reminds me of a Thucydides quote: The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

For the past several days, there have been protests and civil disobedience in the Chinese territory of Hong Kong. The reason for the protest is that the Chinese government recently announced that the Chief Executive of Hong Kong would be elected by universal suffrage and not directly by the people of Hong Kong.
This puts at odds the status quo of "one country, two systems." Since the UK handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, the Chinese government has promised to preserve elements of Hong Kong's liberal democracy and economic system. Chinese communism is not popular in Hong Kong, and the protestors know that any election for the Chief Executive via universal suffrage will certainly mean a communist victory.

While I am happy that these protests are going on - mostly because anything that makes China look bad is fine with me - I think that like the 2009 Iran protests, they won't lead to much. The Chinese government has stated that it is refusing to back down, and there's no way to stop them. China, the world's second largest economy, may no longer need to abide by the Sino-British Joint Declaration promising to preserve Hong Kong's economic system for 50 years. Hong Kong is unquestionably under Chinese control, and too many nations are interdependent on Chinese trade to do anything should China decide to communize Hong Kong.

At best, this may lead to China reneging on its current liberalizing economic path, which has served it well these past few years. As our major competitor, I'd have no problem with China stumbling a bit. But I don't think that will happen. This is not China battling capitalism. It's China deciding that since it is becoming a superpower, why should it bother abiding by a treaty signed with the UK, a far weaker country? I think the protests will be squashed by force, and because Hong Kong is still prosperous. Prosperity is not conducive to a real revolution - many of the protestors are reported to go home at night, or leave for work later in the day. These protests are likely activists, not revolutionaries.

Who knows, maybe this will have larger consequences I'm not seeing. But I think this will at most be like Occupy Wall Street: starts off strong, but leads to nothing substantial.

At 9/26/14 12:12 AM, Feoric wrote: I don't think so, a lot has changed between pre and post 2001...The message they are trying to convey is that radical Islam can exist in a legitimate form that can effectively challenge global (Western) imperial powers, and honestly not a whole lot has been done to counteract that point. As long as the Islamic State continues to exist in its current form then jihadism in the name of ISIS bears more and more credibility for those who wish to carry out attacks.

So perhaps while as a state ISIS may be more constrained in carrying out 9/11-style attacks on the West, its propaganda strongly invites lone wolves to try?

At 9/25/14 08:22 PM, Feoric wrote: From what I understand the oil refineries they hold are pretty major sources of income, I think they collectively net around 50k barrels per day. That's a mere ~.07% of the global supply, but for a terror group that's not a negligable amount of cashflow. Hopefully we can at least manage to drive them back underground where they bear absolutely zero semblance to a functioning "state," but rather a shadow organization.

What do you think about the Free Syrian Army's ability to fill that power vacuum were we to drive ISIS underground? I wonder if ISIS would be more likely to attack the US as a shadow organization than a state? As a state, they are much more centralized and have more to lose. As a terror organization their goal is to inspire and attack, but as a state they have real responsibility, and use up more of their resources pacifying the people. Think of it this way: it was not the Taliban but Al-Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. It was not the Serbian government but the Black Hand that assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. These terror groups were able to put all of their effort into attacking their enemies; perhaps ISIS would be more constrained as a state than a group?

At 9/24/14 11:57 PM, gcalvert wrote: Fuck their land grab campaigns. Get who you need to get (like the guys on tape beheading americans) and gtfo. No need to spend even more money, and risk even more lives, and cause even more collateral damage, especially not over guys using Dell laptops from 15 years ago.

Gcalvert, what is your end goal? If you want to contain ISIS but not destroy it, then your plan works. But ISIS isn't a snake; it's a hydra. If you think your plan of going in and killing a few people will destroy ISIS, then how come it didn't work for al-Qaeda?

In more recent news, The U.S., as well as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E., have begun bombing sorties on ISIS territory, in particular its capital, Raqqah.

There are several noteworthy things about this. First off, this is a move that is supported not just by many NATO and non/NATO countries, but the Arab countries involved have also been doing actual fighting. Besides just logistics and radar support, fighters from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E. have been flying alongside U.S. fighter jets on sorties.

What's also noteworthy is the lack of contact with al-Assad. The targets were all ISIS, with no raids against al-Assad's government. al-Assad does have Russian made AWACSs, and while I do not think it would be much of a threat against the combined air forces attacking, no attacks against al-Assad's government were held.

The Free Syrian Army also spoke about its support for the action. With new money and weapons coming in, the force may seem more relevant than it has in a long time. It said that the current situation does not necessitate U.S. or foreign boots on the ground, and I agree.

I think the strike has good intentions, however I would caution to the President the following:

-Don't waste too much ammunition bombing Raqqah. Force will not make the people under the Islamic State's rule any friendlier towards its enemies. It's fine to bomb the capital in a show of force, but bombing raids won't weaken the stability of the regime. The best result is that some of its weapons are damaged and it loses some self-confidence. The best places to bomb are contested areas where ISIS does not have a monopoly on violence.

-Figure out what you are going to do about al-Assad. Before you were just a spectator. Now you are an active player in the game. You could have possibly gotten away with just attacking ISIS, or just arming the Free Syrian Army. But now that you are actively aiding al-Assad's enemy AND putting your soldiers in its airspace, al-Assad has no choice but to attack your forces. Simply arming the FSA and attacking ISIS is not an option anymore. al-Assad needs to be addressed.

For our sake, I hope that the Free Syrian Army is able to become strong enough to combat ISIS and al-Assad. Because now the war has become three-sided instead of two. In arming the Free Syrian Army, we have thrown our weight behind a group that was (is) in danger of disappearing altogether. I still believe it would have been easier to attack ISIS and leave it ready for a reconquista by al-Assad. But that's too far gone. We now have a dog in this fight.

And whatever you do, NO U.S. boots on the ground.

Great, what's the purpose of this? Are you trying to convince us that the US is horrible and that the USSR was great? Or is this food for thought, and what spurred this?

At 9/17/14 01:42 AM, Warforger wrote: That's not true at all. Getting sprayed with pig blood won't do anything in Islam to hurt their chances of going to heaven anymore than masturbating or having a period will (which aren't as big of a deal in Bible/Koran, contrary to popular belief masturbating is not "sin" according to the Bible). Eating it is just "unclean" which isn't the same thing as sinning.

Let's be careful not to turn this into a debate over whether or not ISIS is truly following Islam, because it's irrelevant. The reason ISIS is so effective at recruitment is that it is telling an Arab world that is disenfranchised, hungry, angry, and unemployed that they are hiring and open for business. It's a job opportunity more than anything else. ISIS is well funded and well organized. They are providing people whose income and livelihoods have been torn up by war with jobs.

Following Allah? Being true Muslims? That's just rhetoric to endear themselves to the people, who have become more extreme because of the instability. They use the words "pious" and "Islamic" as the West uses the words "liberty" and "democratic." If war had not come to Syria and Iraq, and the people had stable livelihoods and governments, it wouldn't matter how Islamic ISIS could say it is, it would be ineffective.

Let's take a step back to 2011 and look at why the revolutions happened in the first place. If ISIS was on the rise just because more people believed in returning back to fundamentalist Islam, then why was the rhetoric in Egypt, Libya, and Syria in the early part of the revolutions overwhelmingly nationalistic? The focus was on rising food prices and a lousy economy. The anger was at government inefficiency, not secularism. It wasn't until the situations deteriorated even further that you had radicals like ISIS get in. Terrorist groups like ISIS are opportunists above all. They didn't start the revolutions, but they sure as hell piggybacked onto them when things got worse.

If you take away ISIS's funding and provide everyone in the Middle East with a stable source of income, ISIS could preach how it is the true unabashed Islamic caliphate all it wants, but no one would come. People are motivated by self-interest more than their perceived morals. And while there are those who are in it for the religion, they are the minority. If ISIS were truly motivated by martyring themselves for Allah, there would be no senior leadership - they'd all have blown themselves up years ago.

So is ISIS Islamic? Frankly, it doesn't matter.

At 9/14/14 01:07 PM, Feoric wrote: ISIS is absolutely Islamic. Saying they aren't because they do the most reprehensible things imaginable is like saying the Crusaders weren't Catholic. In both instances there are a lot of political reasons that can explain why things were done to a very large degree, but that doesn't negate the fact that religious furor was also a significant component and a driving ideology for a lot of people. Obama saying "ISIL is not Islamic" wasn't tailored for the non-Muslim audience who watched his speech; he was just driving home the point that they don't represent Islam.

I think what President Obama meant by that was that Islam is not the driving force behind their actions. Yes, ISIS is Islamic, but ideology is not what makes them go. What makes them go is anger at the Shia government in Iraq and the Alawite-dominated government in Syria, which has made them feel left out of their own affairs. It's anger at rising food prices and a lackluster economy. And it's been largely spread by the violence that has befallen the region. Violence does beget violence.

The role of their ideology can't be overstated, as it often is. You draw parallels to the Crusades; the Crusades were overtly religious but their true purpose was to bring wealth and power to the European kingdoms. Islam's role in ISIS is comparable to evangelism's role in Britain colonizing the world and spreading the gospel: it's a way to romanticize taking others' land for your own gain. ISIS's leaders do what they do for power, as many Islamic fundamentalists before them have.

At 9/12/14 06:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Our problem is we don't understand rabic culture or history and we can't seem to care. We may be able to build a European style nation (see Germany and Japan) but we suck (harder than an ASU girl toward everything with 2 legs) at nation building other styles. Even then, we were not politically ready to do what was needed, at we definitely are not politically ready now. It took us 8 years of full military occupation in Japan where they were happy to have us. Even then, we left tens of thousands of troops behind.

The difference is, the US is not planning a repeat of Iraq. We cannot build democracies in that region. Lesson learned. And nobody, not even the White House, is trying to argue we can. President Obama's words have mostly talked about degrading ISIS, not invading and setting up a democracy. This is containment, not rollback. If anything, the Iraqi war this is more comparable to would be the Gulf War, or the no-fly zones in Iraq. Our goal is not to eliminate ISIS and put in a democracy, but to weaken ISIS and put it in a corner.

At 9/11/14 02:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So, I repeat a point I made earlier. If it was US that made it so shitty there, why the hell does anyone with half a brain think that WE are the logical solution?

Because they represent a threat to us, and because nobody else is stepping up. The US is not charging into this confidently and eagerly as we did in 2003. Obama has been working with other NATO and Arab countries and has acknowledged this will be a tough battle.

At 9/11/14 09:53 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

First off, why the hell is it our responsibility to defeat ISIS? They pose no threat to us. They pose no threat to our interest in the region (Israel).

Because they threaten the stability of the entire region. They would create throughout the Arab World the conditions that led to the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. And a large regime filled with angry people would quickly set its sights on attacking the West. This is not about "liberating the people." It's about saving our own skin.

My biggest question is, where the hell are, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia in this mess? This is THEIr problem not ours we should stop wasting our precious debt dollars and stop putting the lives of our soldiers at risk because the Arab League to too damn lazy to do their fucking work.

Because they're struggling enough as is. Jordan's kingdom has always been shaky, Egypt is dealing with an insurgency, Iraq and Syria are splintered, and Turkey has its own issues. Yes, they are absent in a crisis and expect the US to bail them out. Unfortunately they are unable to get their act together and must rely on us.

At 9/10/14 10:51 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: After 2 american journalists deaths and a few rounds of golf, Obama Will Bomb ISIS In Syria, Train Rebels

That's not good news. It is far too late in the game to seriously court moderate Syrian rebels. We will be propping up groups that have neither the means nor the perceived legitimacy to conquer and defend. I understand why the President is doing this, but although it's the most politically safe move, it's not a good strategic one.

I wish President Obama all the best in his efforts, but I cannot say in confidence he is doing the best thing to defeat ISIS. I think this is just a waste of money and ammunition, and will further inflame the already bad tensions with Syria.

At 9/2/14 11:37 PM, Feoric wrote:

I don't think anyone has any idea what the endgame really is, and I think you're taking the prospect of an Assad victory for granted. In the last month we have seen the SAA lose some really serious battles to ISIS on top of taking heavy casualties. If the fall of Tabqa airport is a taste of things to come, which I think it is, then Assad may be well and truly fucked without some game changing assistance. A lot of regime supporters are starting to see the writing on the wall:

This should be scaring the shit out of Assad way more than ISIS; if this sentiment is allowed to fester, then his core base will eventually cross over from casual outrage from battle losses to eventually believing that the revolution had some legitimate reasons for starting in the first place.

Even if what you're saying is true, where is the solution that will hold ISIS back? If we simply say "there is no endgame" and do nothing, then most likely ISIS will defeat al-Assad or at least maintain hold on much of Syria. You yourself admitted that the moderate rebels have been swept off to the side. If al-Assad falls, who will pick up the pieces? Most likely ISIS, who would likely play off the already ensuing chaos between al-Assad loyalists and those who "see the writing on the wall."

I can't speak to the stability of the al-Assad regime but I believe its fall would mean nothing good. Any entity that would replace al-Assad after a coup would be greatly weakened and divided. With moderate rebels sidelined, and ISIS growing stronger by the day, it seems the only gains are zero sum. Anything that hurts al-Assad will serve only to strengthen ISIS. The time is too late to call upon moderate rebels. Frankly I'm surprised that timeframe lasted as long as it did.

In the news President Obama has been talking not as much about destroying ISIS but on making it manageable. It's certainly not politically popular to admit you don't have a strategy yet on ISIS, but I think it's the most practical so far. That sort of talk makes it sound like we will work to contain ISIS as we did the Soviets (something I've been advocating for awhile.) Whether or not this is his strategy I do not know. But whatever we think about al-Assad, we can agree that ISIS needs to be contained. I believe that there is no way for al-Assad to fall without ISIS making serious gains towards the ocean. Your thoughts?

At 8/27/14 03:26 PM, Feoric wrote: The US doesn't give a shit about influencing Syria like that. Assad does not matter...You talk about alienating people -- what kind of message would it send to the rest of the Arab world when the US starts openly supporting the guy who used sarin on his own people? ISIS is confined to the east/northeast of Syria. Hitting ISIS assets in that part of the country does not require the help of Assad. Let Russia and Iran continue to prop him up.

What worries me is that leaves us with a good present but a bad endgame. After ISIS is put in its corner you'd have an even more powerful Iran and Syria, which means more Chinese and Russian influence in the area. That can't be good for the West. Yes, we may have Saudi Arabia but it is still too full of people willing to support ISIS, and I'm getting tired of their backstabbing. I'm not saying ditch the Saudis or arm al-Assad but it would behoove us to at least normalize relations with him. We can let Iran and Russia continue to give him money, but when his position becomes even more strategic it would be best for us to at least not hate each other. I can understand not arming al-Assad, so let's take the middle path.

Anyone notice how this political cartoon portrays the TPPA as some big evil American enterprise (note the US flag hats on the pigs) even though the US is still negotiating to be in the TPPA and is not even one of the official signatories?

Something tells me this is less about economics and more about politics.

At 8/27/14 12:23 PM, Feoric wrote: I agree, that would be bad. Fortunately there's no feasible way of ISIS getting to water because of the demographics of Syria. That would not change if we don't actively support Assad, though. They don't stand a chance in Alawite neighborhoods. Iranian and Russian arms dealers would have a field day.

The moderate rebels, as we've both said, are weak and growing weaker, and al-Assad stand fairly strong on the coast supplied by Russia and Iran. If anything that gives us more of a reason to form a relationship with him. His rule is here to stay, and whether or not we cooperate with him on attacking ISIS he will grow stronger. Why not take advantage of this by nudging out Iranian and Russian influence by extending an olive branch to him? Syria will be a major player against ISIS, and it would be best to have such a strategic country be friendly to the US.

Al-Assad's goal is to reunite Syria, and he still sees the people in the east as Syrians. Although the eastern Syrians beg to differ, there will eventually be a stalemate between Syria and ISIS. If we help al-Assad, then when that happens he will say "well, at least the US helped us," and will be able to seriously compete with Iranian or Russian influence. If we do not form a relationship with Syria, then where there is a stalemate or ceasefire, al-Assad will point at us and say "the Americans are still the enemy because they attacked both of us when we divided."

At 8/26/14 05:44 PM, Feoric wrote: Frankly we shouldn't even bother trying to find a solution to Syria, at the very least not right now. There clearly isn't one. It's beyond repair and will be broken for decades to come. The goal is not regime change, it's to hit ISIS where it hurts most. It makes no sense to focus exclusively on Iraq when ISIS can just move all their equipment over the border and stick their tongues out at us. We're gonna have to hit ISIS inside Syria, but beyond that there's not much else we should do other than to avoid mission creep.

Let's look at this geographically too. A major advantage we can exploit while we still have it is this: ISIS is a landlocked country. I agree that the goal is not regime change, but we need to remember that al-Assad has a strong grip on the Mediterranean. Moderate rebels control only small areas inland, and there's no way they'll get enough power to oust al-Assad on the shore. Is it in our interest then to sabotage, even a little bit, the one thing holding ISIS back from becoming a maritime power?

You're right, the goal is not regime change. It should be containment. al-Assad is a bastard but he is the only thing holding ISIS from the sea. And imagine if G-d forbid if ISIS were to expand to the Persian Gulf.

At 8/26/14 09:57 PM, Lorkas wrote: I don't even have to read the thread. In fact I didn't read a single word. Didn't even finish reading the topic name. The only thing I know is that ISIS understands only one language - the AGM-114 Hellfire Missile language. It's an ancient language, it has no grammar or pronunciation. It will strike you before you can say a word.

You have no idea what you're talking about. If only it were that easy. Either read the post before responding, or stay quiet and let the adults talk about this.

At 8/26/14 04:14 PM, Feoric wrote: The flaw here is presupposing that we can't fight ISIS without supporting Assad. We probably can. We can fight ISIS while at the same time helping anti-regime forces. Syria has no functioning SAM sites in the East/Northeast. We can do whatever we want over there without the Syrian government even knowing until the bombs go off. Partnering up with Assad has horrible ramifications for the administration and is likely a non starter. We're no doubt warming up to Iran, but warming up to Assad is too much of a stretch. No matter what the US does they're going to alienate a ton of people -- it's a sectarian conflict. There are no good choices.

What anti-regime forces in the East/Northwest? You mean the Kurds? I'll admit they could prove to be useful allies, if they're anything like their Iraqi counterparts. But what about the rest of Syria? I see no force that is strong enough to create a stable non-radical government, much less a democratic one. What anti-regime forces do you believe we could support, and how much would it require of us to do so?
In a nutshell, the rationale behind just supporting a democratic, anti-regime force is the same line of thought the Bush Administration had in setting up Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi exiles.

I understand your hesitation in supporting al-Assad, and trying to cozy up to him is like jumping off of a political cliff not knowing if there are pillows or spikes underneath you. But Syria is a hellhole right now and people are afraid more than anything else. When people are fearful they look for scapegoats and tend to stick with "their own kind." They will see liberal secular groups with suspicion, because they will seem like outsiders. The fact that no group like this in Syria has power is even worse. When trying to fill a power vacuum with a group of your choice, it goes so much further beyond arms. It requires massive humanitarian aid to get the people to support your group. This is time-consuming, expensive, and relies on trusting groups that are not very powerful or organized. Supporting al-Assad, while not as democratic, removes the responsibility of deciding how to fill the power vacuum. Al-Assad will be able to crush dissent because he is more powerful, and he already has some legitimacy because he already ruled.

It's nice to think that we can support a democratic, anti-regime force to counter al-Assad and ISIS, but look how poorly the Iraqi Governing Council was received -- and Iraq back then was better than Syria is today. The Middle East has no history of democracy and with sectarian tensions running as high as they are, liberal democracy just won't catch on. I don't think we can even resurrect a Sykes-Picot borders Syria. Our best bet is to help the Syrians recover what land they can and back ISIS into a corner. This is not going to be resolved in some grand glorious battle. ISIS is here to stay for at least a few decades. This'll be a war of attrition.

At 8/26/14 02:44 PM, Ranger2 wrote: His departure could bring about even further stability

I meant to say al-Assad's departure could bring about even further instability.

So Feoric and Lapis, what should the end goal be for Syria? I understand your contempt for al-Assad, and morally he has no right to rule but the world does not run on morals, as much as we'd like it to be. I see no viable alternative to ISIS or al-Assad, and I'd rather have al-Assad at the helm than not. His departure could bring about even further stability, and at worst strengthen ISIS even further. They have the tools and the motivation necessary to pacify any place (and any people) they take over

Our main goal should be to treat ISIS as we did the Soviet Union-contain it and wait for it to extinguish itself. It makes no sense to me why we are striking ISIS without building a relationship with al-Assad. Now we have 100% of those in Syria angry with us, when that number could be significantly less if we partner with al-Assad. It gives both sides a somewhat credible chance to say "It's all America's fault! They're the ones dividing us and playing us against each other!" And you know what, I wouldn't blame them for thinking that way.

I know this policy smacks of "supporting evil corrupt dictatorships" but finding moderate rebels to support isn't an option. We have to choose between al-Assad or ISIS, and after all the rhetoric we've put in, and our commitments to Iraq, choosing to stay out of it isn't an option. It sucks to support corrupt regimes but what choice do we have? Without their support ISIS will grow like a cancer. Our best option is to support (and if we can't manage that, at least not hinder the efforts of) al-Assad's Syria, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iraq, and Turkey to form a barrier around ISIS. Second, we need to form relations with tribal leaders to get them out of ISIS's grip. Difficult, yes, and by no means democratic, but if we are serious about getting rid of ISIS we will have to partner up with less-than-pleasant leaders.

Obama has authorized strikes on ISIS in Syria, but has no intention of working with the Syrian government. This decision absolutely baffles me. What is our end goal in Syria? It would at least make sense for us to say we're not going to work with al-Assad if we had armed the Free Syrian Army years ago. But when taking out ISIS, it's clear that the administration has not given any thought to who will fill that power vacuum. Moderate rebels? Not likely.

If we are going to attack ISIS in Syria we need to do so with the cooperation of the Syrian government. Otherwise we are a) leaving power vacuums we have no clue how to fill and b) alienating Syrians.

I've said this before as a broken record, but it is time to form a relationship with al-Assad and form a united front against ISIS. Otherwise we will still look like the odd outsider in Syria, which frankly we look like enough already.

At 8/25/14 02:21 AM, Light wrote: A lot of people think JFK made up for this with his adroit handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is widely considered to be the tensest moment in the Cold War. Former Soviet Union military officers confirmed that they would've launched nuclear missiles on American troops if they invaded Cuba. In that regard, President Kennedy made the right choice in refusing to have the island invaded in spite of the recommendations made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff(They were said to hate his guts). Still, a student of history should wonder if the Cuban Missile Crisis wouldn't have happened had JFK decided not to approve the Bay of Pigs invasion a year and a half earlier.

True. What happened in Cuba was similar to what happened in Vietnam. Castro and Ho Chi Minh were at their cores nationalists. They were communist, to be sure, but they weren't taking orders from Moscow. However, once the US tried to kill Castro and aid the French in Vietnam, their leaders (especially Castro) got in bed with the Soviets. Since they were communist it's doubtful the US ever would have been friends with them but there was no reason for us to be enemies.

Some people think JFK wouldn't have invaded Vietnam, as his successor did. Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know, but I can say with reasonable certainty that there's not much evidence that the wouldn't have invaded. He was pretty hawkish, which was par for the course for U.S. presidents during the height of the Cold War. He did express reservations about escalating American involvement in the Vietnam War, but he never outright said that he wouldn't invade or anything.

I think he was hawkish until the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that case JFK used skill and massive amounts of luck to get the Soviets to back down. But I think that scared the bejeezus out of him so much he changed his tune - read the American University Speech from June 1963 - and became less of a hawk. - and became less of a hawk.