Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 407

On April 10 2018 01:54 LegalLord wrote:
It hasn't been updated in this thread, but new "upticks in fighting" in Syria are something like a monthly occurrence. The reason it doesn't really draw any more attention is because for all intents and purposes the larger battle has already been fought - this is merely political jockeying and cleanup. It's been pretty much over since Aleppo.

On April 10 2018 02:27 xDaunt wrote:
I'd really love for someone in the know to explain why the US needs to be in Syria, particularly now that ISIS is pretty much gone. Trump obviously wants to pull US troops out, but the Pentagon keeps dissuading him. What could they possibly be telling him? I get why US troops being there furthers Saudi and Israeli interests, but what's in it for the US?

And speaking of Israel, has anyone else noticed how big Netanyahu's balls have gotten recently? Here's a guy who knows that he could invade Syria (and potentially Lebanon) with the full support of the Saudis and other Sunni powers.

On April 10 2018 03:24 Dan HH wrote:

I wouldn't call myself in-the-know, but the simplest explanation would be that the Pentagon doesn't want the pre-war status quo to return, which was a Syria aligned with Russia. Russia has military bases in Syria since the '70s, when Assad's father Hafez was in power.

The involvement of ISIS is what sold American intervention to the public, but it's been clear from the start that one of the primary goals of the US in Syria is to end the rule of the Assads and that they're willing to support any opposition to achieve that.

On April 10 2018 03:31 xDaunt wrote:

Why should the US care if Russia has a base in Syria? What's the critical US interest that's at stake that warrants military intervention in Syria? I'm all for using military power when there's a real strategic return. I just don't understand what the return is here if we're merely looking for regime change in Syria. Kicking the Russians out isn't a good enough reason.

On April 10 2018 03:31 xDaunt wrote:

Why should the US care if Russia has a base in Syria? What's the critical US interest that's at stake that warrants military intervention in Syria? I'm all for using military power when there's a real strategic return. I just don't understand what the return is here if we're merely looking for regime change in Syria. Kicking the Russians out isn't a good enough reason.

On April 10 2018 03:49 Dan HH wrote:

It's not a good enough reason to start a war, but if the war is already there surely they're looking to shape the aftermath in their favor rather than leaving it to chance. Very similar to Ukraine in that regard, from the Euromaidan chaos Russia wanted to return their puppet to power, while the US wanted pro-western regime change. But in that case the US didn't have the excuse of terrorists or Yanukovych commiting atrocities in order to send troops, and the situation resolved as a clear loss for them. I can see why they're hesitating to accept another one.

On April 10 2018 03:31 xDaunt wrote:

Why should the US care if Russia has a base in Syria? What's the critical US interest that's at stake that warrants military intervention in Syria? I'm all for using military power when there's a real strategic return. I just don't understand what the return is here if we're merely looking for regime change in Syria. Kicking the Russians out isn't a good enough reason.

On April 10 2018 03:57 Plansix wrote:

And the New York Times recently had a report about the Balkans and how pro-Putin groups have been reported in the region recently. Withdrawing from Syria could prompt Russia to see what other regions it “influence”. And by influence, I mean destabilize and then invade.

On April 10 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:


So strange to see liberals arguing for interventionism and cons argue not to continue a 'war'/call for regime change.

Trump's done some weird things to US foreign policy positions among party members.

The US shouldn't be in Syria, and we have no humanitarian motivations, even if we claim we do.


The US has BEEN trying to destabilize Syria and ideally replace Assad with a US puppet dictator. I'm not sure by what measure that's better than Russia attempting the same thing (which is basically the worse case scenario you've described fearing).

On April 10 2018 04:30 Simberto wrote:
I haven't really seen anyone arguing for continued intervention, DanHH's statements sound more like an explanation than an endorsement.

The question "why are we still there" is ambiguous in that way that you can answer it with a justification or with an explanation, the latter not necessarily meaning that you think that the US should still be there, but that you think the US is still there because x, where x does not necessarily need to be something you think is good.

If i would have to find a positive in the US still doing stuff there, my best try would be "Maybe it means you start less new wars"

On April 10 2018 04:42 Plansix wrote:

Not saying that the initial rebellion was not the US’s fault, because our country acted like we would support them and then didn’t. But Russia assured the UN and US that they removed all chemical weapons from Assad so US/UN military intervention in the war would not be necessary. That appears to not have been the case. And the people who are getting gassed are telling anyone who will listen, US or the EU. If the US leaves, its not like the use of chemical weapons is going to stop. My fear is that they would become more common.

On April 10 2018 03:31 xDaunt wrote:

Why should the US care if Russia has a base in Syria? What's the critical US interest that's at stake that warrants military intervention in Syria? I'm all for using military power when there's a real strategic return. I just don't understand what the return is here if we're merely looking for regime change in Syria. Kicking the Russians out isn't a good enough reason.

On April 10 2018 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:


There's clearly some overlap here on the forum but the comment was directed more generally to the US political atmosphere.

We're building more bases in Syria as we speak, Israel is helping the Nusra Front and al-Qaida while gunning down Gaza protesters, and Jihadist leaders are thinking Israel for their attacks in Syria. The US sponsors SA with bombs to drop on innocent Yemenis and Democrats want war with Russia, and Republicans with Iran.

Don't underestimate our ability to simultaneously screw up places all around the globe.



There's a lot of skepticism around the validity and source of the chemical attacks, previous and current. Even places like CNN have been using language like "appears" "seems", "have not independently confirmed", so I share a similar skepticism whether the narrative you're alluding to is an accurate representation of events.

Beyond that, I don't think I subscribe to the idea that if it were precisely as you seem to suggest it would warrant our intervention or make it less bad than if we didn't.

On April 10 2018 04:52 Plansix wrote:

Are you saying that the chemical attacks didn’t take place? Or are you saying that a third party released the gas? What level of skepticism are we dealing with here?

On April 10 2018 04:49 IgnE wrote:


if you buy into the Mackinder theory of geopolitics, wherein global hegemony depends on axial control of the afroeurasian "world island," then you might see attempts by russia, located at the heart of the world island, to slice through American/Western encirclement as a serious geopolitical threat. Obama's foreign policy is much more aligned with that geopolitical school, and in many ways was underappreciated by more isolationist conservatives who want to preserve the pre-eminent place of the US in the imperial global empire, but are stuck in an outmoded Westphalian conception of national sovereignty and 20th century warfare

On April 10 2018 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:


That language was from a CNN report I watched yesterday in reference to everything including the materials used, the source, the target, the motivation and the fallout for the most recent attack.

Previous attacks were left unconfirmed in a similar fashion as best as I remember as well. There's a lot of presuming on behalf of western observers as far as I've seen. That's not to say I believe these attacks are false flags or whatever, just that I reserve judgement, and even if they are what is suggested, don't think it warrants our intervention under current circumstances.

All this pretends as if we wouldn't assassinate Assad and replace him with a pro-US puppet dictator if we could in a heartbeat.

On April 10 2018 05:09 xDaunt wrote:


Russia's one base in Syria barely registers as being important. Russia does not have the capacity to significantly project power there or anywhere else away from its borders. Plus, the Russian presence in Syria is already well-checked by other assets and allies in the region. Invading Syria is superfluous for that purpose. Besides, if the US really wanted to spend more time controlling the "Afroeurasian World Island," resources would be better spent countering China in the Far East and in Africa. Russia isn't the country that threatens the Western world order. China is.

On April 10 2018 04:52 Plansix wrote:

Are you saying that the chemical attacks didn’t take place? Or are you saying that a third party released the gas? What level of skepticism are we dealing with here?

On April 10 2018 05:13 Plansix wrote:

But the chemical attacks are happening. People are being gassed by some group. Should the US or EU do anything? Or should we just accept we have done enough damage and leave the war to end on someone else’s terms?