Support NeoGAF

[mercenar1e]

I mean, yeah, which is why I'm saying early involvement and alliances with an organized revolutionary group (the Free Syrian Army) and aid in establishing a stable government for a few years after the war would go a long way. We can't just topple the dictator and peace the fuck out, fingers crossed the bad guys don't take over in the power vacuum.

Stepping in EARLY and aiding the freedom fighters leads to a new democratic government that's closely allied with us while also changing the perception of the west to the civilians, in a region where that's really, REALLY needed.

Stepping in early would require boots on the ground for a prolonged period of time. I wouldn't support that after the failed experiment of Iraq.

 

[BajiBoxer]

What can we do more then air support and weapon supplies that are already happening?

Sending in our own troops (from the EU or US) will definitely not improve anything.

At least we should have understood the situation better and how viable the groups we were giving weapons and support to were. If we weren't going to send in ground troops and remove Assad from power we really shouldn't have intervened. Half measures of arming weak splintered rebel groups rarely work out well for anyone. In fact, has that strategy ever worked? We knew ahead of time violent Islamists made up a decent chunk of the rebels, and we also knew Assad was friendly with Russia.

 

[thefro]

At least we should have understood the situation better and how viable the groups we were giving weapons and support to were. If we weren't going to send in ground troops and remove Assad from power we really shouldn't have intervened. Half measures of arming weak splintered rebel groups rarely work out well for anyone. In fact, has that strategy ever worked? We knew ahead of time violent Islamists made up a decent chunk of the rebels, and we also knew Assad was friendly with Russia.

The Saudis and others were already arming the various rebel groups like crazy before the US stepped in. I don't think the US actually started arming the rebel groups until ISIS was well-established.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

I'm trying to think of an example of a functioning and successful democratic country after the Arab Spring and I can't come up with any. In Egypt they managed to topple a dictator and replaced him with a radical group (surprise, surprise) so another dictator had to come in and try to restore order. In Libya they toppled a dictator in the early stages of the conflict and now the country is torn with several groups trying to take over.

lets not get started with the brilliant work over in Iraq.

Tunisia and Morocco. The latter enacted sweeping reforms during protests and the former was the start of the Arab Spring.

 

[Kenshin001]

If Israel is strong enough to maintain relative stability and peace within its borders despite bordering a country that wants it literally wiped off the map, I don't see why a democratic Syria couldn't do the same. What makes Israel so special?

Perhaps it's blind faith and pure anecdotal evidence on my part, but the majority of Syrians I've spoken to don't like Assad and were (literally) praying for US aid when the revolution started. The people know what they want, and it isn't radical control. All they need is actual military support to protect themselves from radical Islamists. Not unlike Israel.

That is a good question. Israel's history is different I guess in that they were largely settled by Europeans, never under a dictatorship or split along sectarian lines and the radical violent element was controlled early in their history by Israelis themselves. In the ME you are always going to have radical Islamists wanting to establish a state governed by laws inconsistent with a liberal democracy. Probably a lot of the Syrian population themselves would reject Western style democracy in favour of Islamic law.

 

[Darkangel]

If Israel is strong enough to maintain relative stability and peace within its borders despite bordering a country that wants it literally wiped off the map, I don't see why a democratic Syria couldn't do the same. What makes Israel so special?

Perhaps it's blind faith and pure anecdotal evidence on my part, but the majority of Syrians I've spoken to don't like Assad and were (literally) praying for US aid when the revolution started. The people know what they want, and it isn't radical control. All they need is actual military support to protect themselves from radical Islamists. Not unlike Israel.

Modern Israel is closer to a European colony than a native Middle Eastern state. It's a country with a completely different tradition and history than the surrounding Arab nations. There are a lot of educated Syrians, but a large section of their country still holds radical beliefs. I know it's controversial, but I think that Islam/religion is a major issue in the struggle for Middle Eastern democracy. How can you negotiate with someone who legitimately thinks they will go to hell for conceding?

Any country that requires the military to keep a subset of their population in line will be inherently unstable. The Israeli army is strong, but it's primarily used to protect against external threats rather than internal. Israeli citizens aren't the ones planning to overthrow and topple the government.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

50+ dead civilians already via Russian airstrikes. Homs province (not isis held)

Thing is, they need to hold Aleppo , Damascus and Homs before going inland.

 

[GSG Flash]

I doubt very much ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and all the other fundamentalist nutjobs would have just stood by on the sidelines and cheered that on. Look at Iraq. Rather than embrace the opportunity provided with the fall of Saddam even the Shiites who had been oppressed started killing American and British soldiers and the country degenerated into a mess.

Pretty sure this isn't true, or atleast not on any significant scale. From talking to my Shia Iraqi friends, the general feeling I get is that Shia Iraqis blame the state of the country more on the Sunni Arabs(Iraqi + GCC Arabs) than they do on the western military presence or anything else.

 

[spineduke]

It's what I expected out of Putin. The Russians have already admitted that they are targetting all sorts of groups. Bombing out all the opposition, especially the moderates between the regime and IS will increasingly push their narrative(and Iran's) for Assad as the only viable choice in a post war Syria, while the rest of the world watches.

 

[goomba]

The Saudis and others were already arming the various rebel groups like crazy before the US stepped in. I don't think the US actually started arming the rebel groups until ISIS was well-established.

Seems to me that there is a link between western support of rebels and then the rise of ISIS , armed with US weapons and hardware..

 

[Engell]

Seems to me that there is a link between western support of rebels and then the rise of ISIS , armed with US weapons and hardware..

this is the kind of game where you can pick up the opponents weapons after you kill them..

 

[TarNaru33]

Seems to me that there is a link between western support of rebels and then the rise of ISIS , armed with US weapons and hardware..

You are right... It is actually because the west didn't support the rebels earlier that attributed to the rise of ISIS. A lot of the rebels left the FSA and such for Al Nusra and ISIS due to support (Saudis and other Gulf states).

 

[MisterFalcon]

Seems to me that there is a link between western support of rebels and then the rise of ISIS , armed with US weapons and hardware..

ISIS is mostly armed with Soviet era weaponry looted from Syrian bases.