Support NeoGAF

[mario_O]

"We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. After all, they're the ones overextended in Syria, not us. Make them fight a two-front war -- the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other. If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah and enable them to devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels in Idlib, not sharing power with them".


"I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS for free -- and then pivot to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything for free? When was the last real estate deal Trump did where he volunteered to clean up toxic waste dump --for free-- before he negotiated with the owner on the price of the golf course next door?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/opinion/why-is-trump-fighting-isis-in-syria.html?_r=1


Bomb if old.

 

[pa22word]

Realpolitik leads you down some dangerous roads morally. Blowback is also a pretty big concern disengaging from a standing terrorist state. So okay, you leave them sitting in Syria for another year or two while the other side grinds them down slowly. In the interim, how many people die from terrorist attacks because you didn't help snuff them out? What's worse, having that on your soul or having another few decades of assad sitting in power doing nasty dictator things to his people? Depends on your perspective, I guess. There's also not a whole lot of evidence to suggest that even if we do let them grind on them for a while that assad would be in a position to fall anyways, so all you're really doing is adding more civilian deaths on top of the mountain of death that is Syria right now just to kick sand in the eye of your geostrategic enemies.

Just another one of those things that nails down how complicated the syrian civil war is. All paths are laden with landmines.

 

[King Tubby]

This is why I find the policy of pursuing some kind of regime change or the like in Syria so odious. We have a clear enemy there who have acted on and intend to act further on a declared hostility for the United States and the West, and it's ISIS. Destroying them needs to be the first priority, not playing different sides of some complex game that Trump could no more wrap his head around than a Rubik's cube.

"Destroying ISIS for free"? No, destroy ISIS because they actually threaten us and have caused us harm, whether through direct action or radicalization efforts. This tendency of trying to use radical elements as proxy warriors has bitten us in the ass again and again.

 

[tim.mbp]

Doesn't territorial ISIS feed virtual ISIS recruiting and fervor?

 

[weekev]

This is why I find the policy of pursuing some kind of regime change or the like in Syria so odious. We have a clear enemy there who have acted on and intend to act further on a declared hostility for the United States and the West, and it's ISIS. Destroying them needs to be the first priority, not playing different sides of some complex game that Trump could no more wrap his head around than a Rubik's cube.

"Destroying ISIS for free"? No, destroy ISIS because they actually threaten us and have caused us harm, whether through direct action or radicalization efforts. This tendency of trying to use radical elements as proxy warriors has bitten us in the ass again and again.

The only problem with this argument is when the alternative to ISIS is worse than ISIS which some would argue Assad is. It's evil vs evil vs evil, no one wins this thing.

 

[King Tubby]

The only problem with this argument is when the alternative to ISIS is worse than ISIS which some would argue Assad is. It's evil vs evil vs evil, no one wins this thing.

Which is exactly why the focus shouldn't be to get rid of the evil, but get rid of the entity that actually poses a threat to you. That's not Assad, that's ISIS.

 

[pa22word]

Also France could technically drag us right back into it if they wanted to with an Article 5 NATO declaration. We did set the precedent with terrorist attacks via 9/11.

 

[Bustanen]

Yeah let's leave religious crazies to their terror plots and concentrate undermining a little dictator who poses no threat to the west.

Fuck that, daesh has to be destroyed now. Kill every terrorist motherfucker, no survivors.

 

[Mimosa97]

Also France could technically drag us right back into it if they wanted to with an Article 5 NATO declaration. We did set the precedent with terrorist attacks via 9/11.

And why would we do that ?

 

[pa22word]

And why would we do that ?

Oh no I'm not saying the French would or anything, just an interesting point to ponder.

 

[Wenger'sBakedBaguettes]

"...devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels in Idlib, not sharing power with them".

In case people don't realize this yet Idlib is substantially controlled by AQ's Syrian branch Jabhat Al-Nusra. It has imposed a regime in the province that is Taliban-like, ethnically cleansed religious minorities and ethnic minorities, publicly executed women accused of adultery and pretty much turned the province into a brutal theocracy that would make Saudi Arabia and Qatar proud. Even regime change enthusiaists have called Idlib as the very heart of Al-Nusrah.

"the last moderate rebels"

 

[numble]

This is a Thomas Friedman Op-Ed, it is not accurate to say this is a NYT news people piece or the opinion of the editors.

 

[Kyzer]

Yeah that sounds like a great idea that will totally work out as planned. ISIS will totally ignore us and be Irans problem we we stop trying to defeat them

 

[FiggyCal]

I was under the impression that there were no "moderate" rebels in Syeia.

 

[Kickz]

Thomas Friedman is a dim moron.