[Discussion] Syrian Conflict General Discussion

A thread to discuss the ongoing Syrian conflict.

Here's an article by an award-winning foreign affairs reporter on Assad's role in *deliberately* allowing ISIL to form and establish itself as an enemy within Syria and Iraq, while manipulating much of the ISIL leadership, which was literally built by Syrian intelligence in Sednaya prison, a "five star" incubator of Islamist extremism dedicated to providing leaders for extremist movements to fight Americans in Iraq, and later to subvert the civil revolution. We've long had several narratives competing here; one that the US is entirely the cause of the rise of ISIL (via the invasion of Iraq), and one that the conflicts origins are much more complex and depended on the choices of the leadership of various countries as well as American involvement. This article provides a lot of depth on the Syrian origins of the conflict. It is the result of a two year investigation.

This three-part series documents the Syrian dictator's sinister contributions to this tale of terrorism and horror. First, he tried to ingratiate himself with Western leaders by portraying the national uprising against him as a terrorist-led revolt. When that failed, he released jailed Islamic extremists who’d fought against U.S. troops in Iraq, then staged phony attacks on government facilities, which he blamed on terrorists. Far from fighting ISIS, Assad looked the other way when it set up a state-within-a-state with its capital in Raqqa, and left it to the U.S. and others to counter the Islamic extremists.
This series charts Assad’s major role in the rise of Islamic extremism from the inside. Based on exclusive interviews with high-level defectors from the regime’s security apparatus, it sheds new light on key decisions

—like sending volunteers to fight the U.S. occupation of Iraq, which helped establish the forerunner of the Islamic State, releasing more than 1,000 former al Qaeda militants from Syrian prisons in 2011, and rarely fighting the Islamic State militants.
It also reveals how:

— the regime likely staged bombings of its own security facilities in 2011 and 2012 to foster the impression that al Qaeda had an armed presence in Syria long before it did.

— Syrian intelligence received orders to stand by when al Qaeda fighters crossed from Iraq into Syria in 2012.

— Syrian intelligence has penetrated the leadership of extremist jihadist groups and at critical moments can influence their operations.

Remarkably, several high-level former Syrian security officials who spoke on the record with this reporter said that U.S. intelligence agencies never debriefed them. The ex-officials viewed this as a major lapse, not only because they were privy to, and complicit in, the inner workings of Assad’s role in organizing a terrorist insurgency against U.S. forces in Iraq, but also because they were well-placed to advise on the establishment of a new state security apparatus should Assad’s police state collapse or be overthrown.

The Obama administration apparently wasn’t interested. A former top U.S. diplomat said the CIA had little interest in Syrian defectors and debriefed them only if the diplomat insisted.

Dendal was introduced to this reporter by a former regime judge from Aleppo who deserted to the opposition. Interviewed in a café in Istanbul’s popular Fatih district, which is now packed with Syrian refugees, he estimated that half the commanders in ISIS are working with the regime today; other defectors from the security sector say it’s about one third. According to Naser, most of the top commanders of Daesh in Raqqa are linked with Syrian intelligence.

The article is worth reading, it hits hard, and shows that the mess in Syria is even worse than we believed.

Cripes

Second article. Discusses the staging of "Al Quaeda" bombings by the Assad regime.

Another piece of evidence arguing that the bombings were staged, rebel supporters say, was the speed with which state television aired a report blaming al Qaeda for the attack. The first report ran within minutes. Later that day, state television offered a 45-minute special program that contained more than 40 interviews with purported witnesses or “irate” citizens. It also depicted demonstrations all around Syria that same day condemning terrorism and reported that Syrians had donated blood for the wounded.

“There was a pattern that after every explosion you could see it on TV,” said Bassam Barabandi, a former Syrian diplomat close to the opposition who now lives in Washington and is seeking political asylum. “Syrian TV was there in no time. It was as if they were sitting there, waiting for it.”

The second suicide bombing that hit Damascus on Jan. 6, 2012, took place on the eve of an Arab League meeting. “It got to be a joke between police officers,” Ali said. “Any visit of an Arab or international official or even media delegations meant there must be explosions.”

The government said at least 25 people were killed and 46 wounded in the suicide bomber’s attack on a police bus in the Midan district, an area ringed by regime checkpoints. A Syrian television reporter was at the scene and broadcast reports showing bodies being removed, but police again were not allowed to investigate, according to Ali.

The next major suicide car bombing occurred in Aleppo Feb. 10, inside the military intelligence compound—protected by multiple checkpoints—killing 28 and wounding 235, the Syrian government said.

But the actual numbers were smaller, according to Abdullah Hakawati, an activist who helped organize anti-government protests in Aleppo. He said a government intelligence official had told him that the blast had been staged. Hakawati provided the name of the officer, but he could not be reached to verify the account.

The “terrorists” were in house, said Khaled Shehabuddin, a regime judge in Aleppo at the time who’s now the spokesman for a major moderate rebel group. He said Syrian intelligence officers told me him that they had prepared the explosives in the military intelligence branch. “Those poor soldiers didn’t know what they were doing,” he said.

I'm really not sure what to make of this anymore. We can shrug our collective shoulders and say "that sucks", we can try to bomb/drone strike Assad's forces, or we can send in troops in a massive war effort. We've basically decided (in America, at least) as a country that we don't want to take in any of the refugees. I don't see how most of the UN could afford a real war. I'm pretty much at the "I hope they don't have to suffer for too long" point of the whole middle east conflict. Maybe Trump will end the fighting there by nuking them?

Trump sort of supports Assad, mostly because he's more afraid of ISIS than he is concerned about what Assad is doing. He's more likely to help out with the bombing.

Right, America will switch to support Assad, which will drive the rebels we've supported to this point over to ISIS or to become a guerilla terrorist group themselves that hates America because we betrayed them, and then pretty soon we'll be fighting guerilla groups that are using weapons we gave them and a new or stronger terrorist group will exist because of our actions. Again.

While this is a terrible humanitarian crisis, the last thing we need is more U.S. intervention in another country's affairs. Use of military force will be viewed as the U.S. killing more Muslims. And often times the devil we don't know isn't necessarily better then the devil we do. Who would believe that we'd miss the stable dictatorial rule of Sadam Hussain?

Who would believe that we'd miss the stable dictatorial rule of Sadam Hussain?

Just about every well-informed liberal before we invaded. That got talked about a lot, that Hussein was the only thing holding an impossible state together.

Malor wrote:
Who would believe that we'd miss the stable dictatorial rule of Sadam Hussain?

Just about every well-informed liberal before we invaded. That got talked about a lot, that Hussein was the only thing holding an impossible state together.

Also the President's dad, amusingly... because, you know, he'd considered it and realized it would be a sh*tshow within 2 months.

Though, also worth noting, a pretty sizeable chunk of liberals still voted for the damn war because they were caught in the trap of "if you vote against this, you're a traitor who supports the terrorists".

Demosthenes wrote:
Malor wrote:
Who would believe that we'd miss the stable dictatorial rule of Sadam Hussain?

Just about every well-informed liberal before we invaded. That got talked about a lot, that Hussein was the only thing holding an impossible state together.

Also the President's dad, amusingly... because, you know, he'd considered it and realized it would be a sh*tshow within 2 months.

Though, also worth noting, a pretty sizeable chunk of liberals still voted for the damn war because they were caught in the trap of "if you vote against this, you're a traitor who supports the terrorists".

Don't forget Dick Cheney too.

In an interesting development, Israel is now taking in Aleppo refugees.

It looks like Trump has, perhaps unwittingly, accepted that the new political equilibrium in the Middle East is one in which Iran has become a regional hegemony. It now effectively influences Iraq through SCIRI and its deep influence in the Iraqi parliament and reinforces its influence through a surviving and now emboldened Assad regime in Syria. Along with a rebuilt Hezbollah and the overt backing of the Russians, the softening of Turkish opposition, and the complete confusion of the Americans, they are now able to gaze upon their control from the Eastern Med to the Hindu Kush. They have won the Iraq War.

Israel and Saudi Arabia now need to face some very tough new realities.

edit: eh, on second thought, doesn't contribute much.

The only thing really wrong with Iran, from an outside perspective, is that they dared to be born on top of our oil. We've done our best to f*ck them up, and we've succeeded in a lot of ways, but even so, they've been quite non-aggressive as Middle Eastern states go.

Given the way the Middle East looks after the last fifteen years of US stewardship, I'm really uncertain that Iran as local hegemon would be that much worse. They're not a nice place, but they seem less insane than either ISIS or Saudi Arabia, and a lot less prone to destroying economies and killing hundreds of thousands of people than we are.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

edit: eh, on second thought, doesn't contribute much.

Scene: cheeze_pavilion hits 'post' on his comment.

*blinding flash of light*

"cheeze, it's me, you five minutes from now, you gotta edit that post, it doesn't end well for anyone!"

"Thank you future cheeze, you've saved the day again!"

"No problem, see you in ten minutes."

Certis wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

edit: eh, on second thought, doesn't contribute much.

Scene: cheeze_pavilion hits 'post' on his comment.

*blinding flash of light*

"cheeze, it's me, you five minutes from now, you gotta edit that post, it doesn't end well for anyone!"

"Thank you future cheeze, you've saved the day again!"

"No problem, see you in ten minutes."

...wait, where does the extra 5 minutes come from? Is that some kind of temporal feedback thanks to the earlier time travel?

Demosthenes wrote:
Certis wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

edit: eh, on second thought, doesn't contribute much.

Scene: cheeze_pavilion hits 'post' on his comment.

*blinding flash of light*

"cheeze, it's me, you five minutes from now, you gotta edit that post, it doesn't end well for anyone!"

"Thank you future cheeze, you've saved the day again!"

"No problem, see you in ten minutes."

...wait, where does the extra 5 minutes come from? Is that some kind of temporal feedback thanks to the earlier time travel?

Never change, Demosthenes.

OzymandiasAV wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Certis wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

edit: eh, on second thought, doesn't contribute much.

Scene: cheeze_pavilion hits 'post' on his comment.

*blinding flash of light*

"cheeze, it's me, you five minutes from now, you gotta edit that post, it doesn't end well for anyone!"

"Thank you future cheeze, you've saved the day again!"

"No problem, see you in ten minutes."

...wait, where does the extra 5 minutes come from? Is that some kind of temporal feedback thanks to the earlier time travel?

Never change, Demosthenes.

Apparently Cheeze's super power is to jump in time in 5 minute increments.

It's great for betting on sporting events

Ego Man wrote:
OzymandiasAV wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Certis wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

edit: eh, on second thought, doesn't contribute much.

Scene: cheeze_pavilion hits 'post' on his comment.

*blinding flash of light*

"cheeze, it's me, you five minutes from now, you gotta edit that post, it doesn't end well for anyone!"

"Thank you future cheeze, you've saved the day again!"

"No problem, see you in ten minutes."

...wait, where does the extra 5 minutes come from? Is that some kind of temporal feedback thanks to the earlier time travel?

Never change, Demosthenes.

Apparently Cheeze's super power is to jump in time in 5 minute increments.

It's great for betting on sporting events

Also: skipping TV ads.

Most wrote:
Ego Man wrote:
OzymandiasAV wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Certis wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

edit: eh, on second thought, doesn't contribute much.

Scene: cheeze_pavilion hits 'post' on his comment.

*blinding flash of light*

"cheeze, it's me, you five minutes from now, you gotta edit that post, it doesn't end well for anyone!"

"Thank you future cheeze, you've saved the day again!"

"No problem, see you in ten minutes."

...wait, where does the extra 5 minutes come from? Is that some kind of temporal feedback thanks to the earlier time travel?

Never change, Demosthenes.

Apparently Cheeze's super power is to jump in time in 5 minute increments.

It's great for betting on sporting events

Also: skipping TV ads.

Wait, now I can even derail a thread by *deleting* my post?

Depends on what you mean by "derail"...

Atras wrote:

I'm really not sure what to make of this anymore. We can shrug our collective shoulders and say "that sucks", we can try to bomb/drone strike Assad's forces, or we can send in troops in a massive war effort. We've basically decided (in America, at least) as a country that we don't want to take in any of the refugees. I don't see how most of the UN could afford a real war. I'm pretty much at the "I hope they don't have to suffer for too long" point of the whole middle east conflict. Maybe Trump will end the fighting there by nuking them?

Or Americans can take an honest look at the recent history of American "interventions" around the world, and logically decide that while things are terrible in Syria, any action we take militarily will continue to make things worse. Americans need to accept that there are things they have no control over, cannot stop, and that the United States does not have the right to bomb or shoot anyone it pleases. American refusal to accept this obvious truth is the source of a vast amount of chaos in the world, including a significant portion of what is going on in Syria.

Aetius wrote:
Atras wrote:

I'm really not sure what to make of this anymore. We can shrug our collective shoulders and say "that sucks", we can try to bomb/drone strike Assad's forces, or we can send in troops in a massive war effort. We've basically decided (in America, at least) as a country that we don't want to take in any of the refugees. I don't see how most of the UN could afford a real war. I'm pretty much at the "I hope they don't have to suffer for too long" point of the whole middle east conflict. Maybe Trump will end the fighting there by nuking them?

Or Americans can take an honest look at the recent history of American "interventions" around the world, and logically decide that while things are terrible in Syria, any action we take militarily will continue to make things worse. Americans need to accept that there are things they have no control over, cannot stop, and that the United States does not have the right to bomb or shoot anyone it pleases. American refusal to accept this obvious truth is the source of a vast amount of chaos in the world, including a significant portion of what is going on in Syria.

But before we leave let's build a wall around it. Walls are great.

Aetius wrote:
Atras wrote:

We can shrug our collective shoulders and say "that sucks. We've basically decided (in America, at least) as a country that we don't want to take in any of the refugees.

Or Americans can take an honest look at the recent history of American "interventions" around the world, and logically decide that while things are terrible in Syria, any action we take militarily will continue to make things worse.

I'm with you. I still think it sucks, and I still think that we have the space, capacity for growth and stability for prosperity (yes, even with Trump winning) to be able to take in refugees, but apparently if we can't control the colored folk well enough to ensure our safety, f*ck them. (Land of the free and home of the brave... sigh).

For several years I was pretty heavily invested in the Syrian war. I would check news on it everyday and knew all the factions and everything, I remember the first articles I read on ISIS when they first popped up. I was into it because it was history playing out in front of me, and I love history. I was sympathetic to the rebels of course and all the people whose lives where being torn apart.

But after taking that in for a few years I think it made me very critical and skeptical of everything. Skeptical of what any government does. And just skeptical of people in general for what they can do to each other and how so many care so little.

I think now the best move is to take in refugees and maybe keep doing what we can to help the Kurds in the north but other than that I think anything the US does is just to prolong the war for destabilization reasons, to try to hurt Russia and its allies. Russia and Assad outplayed the US, assuming the US's goal was to end the war and take down Assad. It's over they already won.

But of course we just sent not to long ago 400 troops to help take Raqqa form ISIS.

Given that, from articles I've read, it sounds like Assad is playing both sides of this conflict anyway, I don't know that there was ever a winning scenario for us other than removing him from power. With him leading the army and one of the major terrorist groups in the region and pitting them against each other, but also directing them towards civilian populations as desired... he's literally been able to go full Saddam on his people without even the need to risk himself.

It actually makes the gas attack by Assad's forces on a civilian population confusing. Why not leave an attack like that to Daesh?

Because this particular civilian area has been a rebel stronghold, and Daesh is no longer capable of this kind of thing in that area of Syria. It's a way to send a message to the rebels that they will be rooted out, stem and branch, if they don't give up. And its a big "FU" to to the West, to say that they have Russia on their side now.

And they recognize how incredibly weak the US administration is.

m booth wrote:

I think now the best move is to take in refugees and maybe keep doing what we can to help the Kurds in the north but other than that I think anything the US does is just to prolong the war for destabilization reasons, to try to hurt Russia and its allies. Russia and Assad outplayed the US, assuming the US's goal was to end the war and take down Assad. It's over they already won.

Can't help the kurds too much, we need those Grey Wolves on our side.