Support NeoGAF

[dapperbandit]

About time. Supporting the rebels has always struck me as a wishy washy compromise between toppling Assad and doing nothing. By assisting the rebels but not decisively we've contributed to a protracted and bloody stalemate in a war that has gone on for far too long. Now the regime have the upper hand.

 

[Frustrated_me]

Obama should have done this long ago.

The CIA wants to continue to support the rebels, the DoD however does not -- for obvious reasons.

 

[Polari]

Good, pragmatic foreign policy.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Why do people keep saying we don't know these rebels? Did Trump's dumbass shit spilled over into neogaf as well?

You are proving him right tho, they arent a unified force, they are killing each other right now

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebels-idUSKBN1391MA

 

[Soapbox Killer]

except Assad did that

heck Assad is responsible for more then 90% of civilian deaths


people keep and saying that Syrians need to be dammed and ignored because they should've just never resisted


or you wish for a end in the fighting, yet ignore the whole reason it is happening


or try to blame them for rebelling against a maniac that shot at them when they demanded rights


the whole factor that Assad needs foreign paid militia, plus Iran, Hezbollah and Russia to run this war for him, showcases that his legitimacy ending a long time ago

I don't care who started what at this point. This can be handle better by the US government. World Police or not, I really don't care. If we have the power to improve that horrific situation then we have a moral obligation to do everything within reason. The Obama Administration has completely failed in this regard. I am not an expert on foreign policy and I don't pretend to be but if the next President can improve the debacle, even by accident then I am all for it.

 

[Sijil]

Well at least he's doing something right. After Afghanistan and Libya, it should be obvious this sort of interference will always result in a blowback. In any case Trump would likely want to avoid a confrontation with Russia which Obama was heading towards, in Syria. Syrian rebels killing Russian personnel with US weapons won't make Trump look good in front of Putin.

And a stable war free Syria would give Trump an excuse to send all the war refugees back.

Why do people keep saying we don't know these rebels? Did Trump's dumbass shit spilled over into neogaf as well?

Because the SNC has no actual presence on the ground, all of the so called vetted moderates FSA were annihilated by Jabhat Al Nusra, now called Jabhat Fateh Al Sham (AQ affiliate in Syria), Jund al Aqsa (ISIS) or assimilated by Ahrar al Sham (Muslim Brotherhood). The CIA training program proved an utter failure, 500 million$ to train moderates only to have the entire group killed, desert or defect.

 

[AlimNassor]

It's a mess. But abandoning people and groups we pledged to support feels like it's going to create an even bigger mess, Assad will go after the Rebels and we can expect the slaughter of thousands (like his Dad did) and we'll be responsible for not providing protection. Refugee crisis will get worse and the burden for all to help will increase. It's going to backfire. I'm sure Obama has a road map at least, gosh this is making me feel sick.

And when those guys turn into the next ISIS then what? Look at Libya and tell me you see progress. Look at what the rebels did. Remove the dictator in exchange for someone far worse. America always makes shit worse for the common folk.

The Syrian Rebels are not the Rebel Alliance from Star Wars. The average common folk aren't the ones taking up arms, they're fleeing.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

You are proving him right tho, they arent a unified force, they are killing each other right now

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebels-idUSKBN1391MA

Nah man the SNC is doing so much good!!!!!!

 

[hobblygobbly]

Well it had basically ended last year, Obama administration basically for the most part stopped arming them because it has failed. The rebels of 2012 no longer exist.

There are rebels fighting rebels, there are rebels now part of al-Nusra (al-Qaeda), ISIS, and a whole lot of other factions. There is no unified opposition and hasn't been for almost 3 years.

Arming opposition is one of the worst foreign policies ESPECIALLY in the Middle-east of all places. People criticised the arming of opposition heavily since day 1 and a lot of countries in the west refusing to do it but U.S and UK went ahead with it as usual.

The humanitarian envoy to Syria had strong words about the international community failing to create an environment for everyone to talk, they were more interested in arming and allowed the situation in Syria to happen for the past 5 years and now it's even more difficult than ever to get everyone to talk because of how fractured it has become.

 

[Mung]

Good. This support has always been farcical and watching them and the media trying to sell the support of fundamentalists to the public has been painful.

 

[Dalibor68]

Finally. We might actually come closer to a solution now. But still, wait and see what actually happens.

 

[KonradLaw]

Good. West shouldn't intervene if it's not willing to go all out. Either put boots on the ground or get the hell out. At this point western help is only ensuring this conflict will never end.

 

[Phased]

Supporting rebels has backfired on us as a nation pretty much every time. Even as a pretty liberal person I didn't think it was the right idea for us to interfere over there. Proxy wars never work out well for us in the long run.

The U.S. is either going to be blamed for being world police or be blamed for doing nothing with no middle ground. This civil war is none of our business.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I think most of us are aware of how bad Assad is.

In a world where Trump won, this is a terrible assumption to make.

We're closing in on "both sides are bad" levels of discourse.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

In a world where Trump won, this is a terrible assumption to make.

We're closing in on "both sides are bad" levels of discourse.

Side A is clearly terrible. Side B is a mess and we aren't really sure what their motives are, and they could end up being just as terrible or worse than the side A.

I'm not sure what's wrong with the argument that "both sides are bad" in this situation. It's not a totally fallacious argument when both sides/options are literally "bad."

 

[fade_]

It's such a weird dichotomy. He hates Iran but loves Russia. This helps both and hurts our ally Israel which has another maniac calling the shots.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

It's such a weird dichotomy. He hates Iran but loves Russia. This helps both and hurts our ally Israel which has another maniac calling the shots.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are hurt by this too

 

[HarryKS]

Aren't rebels technically civilians...

 

[E-Cat]

Good.

 

[Future PhaZe]

Yea you let Russia carry the blame for all that and give the bulk of support to Assad, stop arming rebels and just keep bombing ISIS. It's really the best we can do strategically.

 

[2real4tv]

Never understood why we got involved especially after pulling out of Iraq.

 

[nelsonroyale]

I see this as a more sensible policy per se, in a situation where there are only bad choices...Its Trump though, so I have little confidence he will do the right thing by the majority of the Syrian people.

They wouldn't be worse, though, that's the thing. ISIS would have extra judicial killing squads. ISIS would have detainment centers encompasing entire families for the sins or crimes against the state that one member may have perpetrated. ISIS will institute draconian laws that are universally awful and result in many deaths.

But Assad was already doing all these things. There's a reason this devolved into civil war in the first place, he ordered the police to exterminate protesters en masse through deadly force. He and his father have exterminated entire cities in order to consolidate power.

Post war Syria with him in control will just be mass deaths that nobody will read or care about because he and his Russian backers will ensure it. They will cull any and all dissidence from the country through force.

I don't see how it's better.

What you are presenting is conjecture...nothing you said contradicts what he said...With Isis all we have to go on is their ideology, and it is more extreme than Assads ideology. As much as Assad is a tyrant, he isn't an ideological extremist in the way that Isis is, and plus he is involved in a civil war with what would be, if foreign powers didn't intervene, a much more powerful force than his adversaries. I don't think there are empircal grounds to say he would be better or worse than Isis...However, what we have to go on is that Isis are Islamo-fascists...Assad isn't...He is a despot who for all the great faults of his regime, has also been pushed into a corner.

 

[Calamari41]

Good. West shouldn't intervene if it's not willing to go all out. Either put boots on the ground or get the hell out. At this point western help is only ensuring this conflict will never end.

This is basically how I see it, as well. The only way that this is going to end with Assad's head on a pike or whatever the dream may be is if you put American boots on the ground. Hillary Clinton even said as much in her leaked emails. And I refuse to support putting American lives at risk for this kind of thing, especially after the last 16 years of foreign adventures have gone so swimmingly. If the "World Community" wants to do something, let them send German troops into that meat grinder.

 

[Sblargh]

Yea you let Russia carry the blame for all that and give the bulk of support to Assad, stop arming rebels and just keep bombing ISIS. It's really the best we can do strategically.

I wonder what a 9/11 event in Russia would do to Putin in case terrorists decide that this new enemy is the great Satan.

 

[Icyflamez96]

You guys celebrating this are crazy.

Care to elaborate since it seems like you're in the minority here?

The impression I'm getting is it seems like a bad idea to continue to support the rebels when there is so much contention amongst them. The rebels aren't unified, so arming them means also arming extremist groups and other groups who's motives we may not agree with?

 

[Azih]

Care to elaborate since it seems like you're in the minority here?

The impression I'm getting is it seems like a bad idea to continue to support the rebels when there is so much contention amongst them. The rebels aren't unified, so arming them means also arming extremist groups and other groups who's motives we may not agree with?

Further siding with rebels means the West is trying to fight two enemies at the same time, ISIS and Assad, both of which are far better trained, equipped, entrenched, cohesive, and actually have strong regional allies. There's no valid plan that I can see that would even work for that.

 

[SuperGamer]

Article explaining in detail why Trump's Syria strategy would backfire and increase terrorism:

Trump’s Syria Strategy Would Be a Disaster (cached)

 

[Emerson]

As far as I'm concerned the last time we funded and armed a middle-eastern rebel group in a proxy conflict with Russia, it didn't exactly work out too great for us a couple decades down the road.

 

[HerbertBirdsfoot]

Yeah our foreign policy is now brought to us by Putin. I'll never ever understand how we voted for that.

Here's to Angela Merkel, leader of the free world.

We sure dodged a bullet with those emails though.

 

[Nozomi]

Article explaining in detail why Trump's Syria strategy would backfire and increase terrorism:

Trump’s Syria Strategy Would Be a Disaster (cached)

The Article has so many major flaws its not even funny anymore. There are no moderate rebels left in Syria. The time to end conflict in a better way is gone for like 4 years. If you arm the rebels even more and overthrow Assad you will create another lybia were a raging civil war is going since 2014 or even worse a new ISIS like country.

As much as i hate it but i have to agree with Trump in this regard. Let Assad win for now and after this mess is over maybe a good oppertunity will show up with a better solution.

 

[Coriolanus]

Article explaining in detail why Trump's Syria strategy would backfire and increase terrorism:

Trump’s Syria Strategy Would Be a Disaster (cached)

It is really god damn weird how that article fails to mention sources for five of its six points, and on the one that it does bother to link, ignores that russian revisionism is already going at full steam anyway.

nice bit of info on the AT weapons, tho. That was good to know.

 

[Zeus Molecules]

Well, yeah? He's backed by Russia after all.

Yep Putin is getting his money's worth.... Fuck it sucks to see this and know it's gonna likely bite the US in the ass at some later point in my life.

 

[Dingens]

[...] Let Assad win for now and after this mess is over maybe a good oppertunity will show up with a better solution.

already got our chance 4 years ago...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside

too bad we were (and still are) too arrogant to take the offer... now the citizens of Syria and Europe have to foot the bill... But at least the US, Russia and the other big boys could engage in their penis waving contest, and right-wing parties seem to be strangely pleased too. yay

 

[MisterFalcon]

It is really god damn weird how that article fails to mention sources for five of its six points, and on the one that it does bother to link, ignores that russian revisionism is already going at full steam anyway.

nice bit of info on the AT weapons, tho. That was good to know.

He's being way too easy in using Youtube footage to base seemingly precise numbers on.

Thus far, according to publicly available information, at least 1,073 TOW missiles have been sent to Syria and used in combat, only 12 of which have changed hands and been used by nonvetted groups — amounting to an impressively low proliferation rate of 1.1 percent.

The vetted groups have to put footage of the missiles being used online to get new ones while the nonvetted ones have no such requirement. If there are only 12 instances on Youtube that does not mean only 12 were ever used by radicals.

As far as the other conclusions go, it's a safe bet to predict whatever the US president does it's going to make things worse. But maintaining or even expanding the support from Syrian rebels does have the risk of a military confrontation with Russia. And I'd consider that more dangerous then any of the other risks presented.

 

[spineduke]

Not surprising, good job on America for propping up one of the worst war criminals in recent history. Hundreds of thousands of his own people. I'm sure all those refugees will be heading back since he's so well loved. /s

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

And a stable war free Syria would give Trump an excuse to send all the war refugees back.

This would not have happened under anyone's administration.

The west really fucked up syria. Assad should have been ousted within a year instead we beat around the bush with those damned biological weaponry negotiations for way too long and then stood by while the more moderate rebels got replaced by more and more radicals.

Also people are completely ignoring the Kurds who are not only getting fucked by Erdogan but also risk to lose US support over it. Despite having been a major successful party in the conflict.