Support NeoGAF

[kobashi100]

This is a very good piece!

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...e_tomahawks_syrian_rebels_us_strikes?page=0,0

Waiting for the Tomahawks
How do Syria’s rebels feel about a U.S. bombing campaign against Assad?

BEIRUT, Lebanon — When President Barack Obama first dangled the possibility of launching a punitive military strike against the Syrian regime, he may have been caught off balance by the reaction of some of Bashar al-Assad's staunchest opponents. Rather than gleefully welcoming support from the world's biggest superpower, some Islamist rebels worry that the United States isn't really coming for Assad -- it's coming for them."

"The Americans decided to destroy airports, arms and munitions factories, and scientific research centers when they realized that the honorable revolutionaries of the Free Syrian Army and the jihadists of the Islamist factions are on the verge of seizing them."

"There was never a single day in my entire life where I ever felt like I could trust the Americans or the West in general," said Abu Obaida

"This complete lack of trust comes from the strike on Iraq ... American forces seized the oil, brainwashed people's minds, took over state institutions, and they went in based on a pretext."

"They left us to die for two years," he says. "So can I ask: What difference is there if there's blood or not? It is not a moral imperative for them. We all know that."

Even some of the rebel groups who were on the front lines of the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack, which the United States says killed over 1,400 people, are ambivalent about U.S. military intervention. Liwa al-Islam, a Salafist group that operates in the eastern Damascus suburbs, released a statement that warned darkly of the true American intentions behind intervening in Syria.

"What matters to us is the question of: Who will America target its strike against? And why choose this particular time?" the statement asked. "The Assad regime has used chemical weapons dozens of times and the U.S. did not move a finger. Have they experienced a sudden awakening of conscience or do they feel that the jihadists are on the cusp of achieving a final victory, which will allow them to seize control over the country?

"The U.S. wants a pliant leadership that it can control remotely," he explains. "But who is capable of ruling this mess of a country when there are more than 200 armed factions currently fighting on the ground? That's why the U.S. did everything it could to prolong the conflict."

"Here's what I think will happen: The U.S. strike will target the military airports, where the regime keeps its anti-aircraft missiles," he says. "Once that's taken care of, the Americans can send their drones, at will, to collect intelligence on the Islamist factions they want to get rid of. No one will notice as the war continues to rage on and the humanitarian crisis escalates. They think they are fooling us. No one has ever fooled us. But, unfortunately, what can we do about it?"

But when asked if he supports the U.S. strike, Maarouf answers quickly.

"Definitely," he says. "I don't trust their intentions but, against my better instincts, I welcome this strike because they might at least damage the regime's military airports and, let's face it, the enemy of your enemy is your friend."

Al-Din contends that all FSA battalions are coordinating with each other on how to exploit the aftermath of the strike, but they are not necessarily coordinating with Islamist factions. However, he is quick to add, "there is no tension between the FSA and Islamists either."

In several interviews with members of Islamist factions, fighters downplayed recent signs of fractures, emphasizing that FSA and Islamist fighters were united in their struggle against the Assad regime.

"The relationship is excellent and the proof is that all our military operations are carried out conjointly with the FSA," said Abu Abd al-Rahman, the spokesperson of the Syrian Islamist Front. He cited the recent capture of the Mannagh Airbase near Aleppo as an example, explaining how both Islamist and moderate brigades took part in the offensive.

"There is no fear of betrayal" between the units, he added pointedly.

"We are tired of being referred to by terms pinned down by the West such as 'radicals, militants, extremists and fanatics,'" he complains. "We have given our organizations clear names. Why can't they at least use them?"

 

[Sanky Panky]

Think you will find that many rebel groups/battalions do not want America to get involved. They are not stupid and know America will use strikes on there positions.

These strikes proposed by the USA are not to remove Assad.. They dont want him using chemical weapons yes, but they have no problem with him remaining in power. They have failed to find a viable alternative and know fall well what is coming once Assad does go.

The pathetic SNC and Arab League want America to get involved!

The rebels backed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar absolutely want the US to get involved. These two countries, who are fighting this proxy war for economic reasons, have been as bold as to offer the US to pay for the military strikes (as stated by Kerry).

The Senate committee hawks openly said they were not on board with the strike UNLESS it contained plans to topple Assad from power. Obama speaking from the G20 meeting made sure that he not only said "deter" but also "weaken" the regime, even if we do have military advisors saying that the wrong rebel group could come out ahead from expanding the attack to other military targets.

We are doing the bidding for Saudi Arabia with this possible attack, there should be no doubt about that. There should also be no doubt, that the goal isn't simply to slap the wrist of Assad.

 

[Mudkips]

More reason for us to get involved. Its apparent that both sides have no idea, let alone empathy, in how to progress this war. As usual we have to step in and show the world how its done.

Funny, I see it as "more reason for us to not get involved".
We really should not set one toe into this quagmire.

This is pretty much what's being debated

Ha! We all know how it'll play out.
Precision strikes.
Then boots on the ground to secure sites and gather intelligence.
Then troops stuck there for a decade or more to stabilize the region and aid in the transition.

 

[remist]

I stand corrected. Thanks



This makes no sense those.

America to rebels: I want to make you stronger! but I don't want to help you win...
America to Assad: I want to make you weaker! but I don't want to help you lose...

Something's not right about that...

Keep in mind that these are anonymous sources and not the the Administration's public stance.

I would guess that he wants the rebels to win, but not at the moment when the Islamist brigades who are against secular democracy, many of whom are linked to Al Qaeda, have a significant influence. The potential interim government just doesn't have the credibility to control all the differing factions, so the power vacuum after Assad is deposed is guaranteed to be a giant clusterfuck. He wants a stable political transition so he can prevent Assad's chemical weapons stockpile from getting into the hands of terrorists and prevent reprisals against religious minorities ect.

 

[Deified Data]

"What matters to us is the question of: Who will America target its strike against? And why choose this particular time?" the statement asked. "The Assad regime has used chemical weapons dozens of times and the U.S. did not move a finger. Have they experienced a sudden awakening of conscience or do they feel that the jihadists are on the cusp of achieving a final victory, which will allow them to seize control over the country?"

This seems pretty on-point.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Ha! We all know how it'll play out.
Precision strikes.
Then boots on the ground to secure sites and gather intelligence.
Then troops stuck there for a decade or more to stabilize the region and aid in the transition.

Yeah except in all the cases where strikes didn't lead to those things. But please continue.

 

[ymoc]

Emwitus
false flags....
false flags everywhere
(Today, 04:06 PM)

There are a lot of people, even on GAF, who jumped to that conclusion as soon as the news of the attack broke. Just don't go off the deep end like Hym.

Why was he banned? Arguing the wrong opinion too vocally?

 

[Ether_Snake]

I stand corrected. Thanks



This makes no sense those.

America to rebels: I want to make you stronger! but I don't want to help you win...
America to Assad: I want to make you weaker! but I don't want to help you lose...

Something's not right about that...

Pretty simple to understand: keep the conflict going, but don't let any side win quickly, let it draw out to weaken both sides as much as possible. It's a balancing act, and the more time is spent the more it weakens both sides, supposedly.

The thing is meanwhile innocents will be the ones being killed.

 

[goomba]

its just bizarre to me that the US wants to help al queda take over syria.

Look at Libya now since they were bombed ... apparetly the new al queda headquarters.

 

[akira28]

Ether you're right, it's Fox News. They're against any military action in Syria.

No they aren't. They're just against our President, right or wrong.

I would bet something precious that if it were Romney or McCain sitting in the chair, they'd have their Yellow ribbon eagle flags already deployed.

but if something does look like it will create quicksand for any democratic narrative, and has some kind of credibility link, they'll push it. They'll gladly eat crow later.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

its just bizarre to me that the US wants to help al queda take over syria.

Look at Libya now since they were bombed ... apparetly the new al queda headquarters.

Is Libya really the new Al Qaeda headquarters are are you just talking exaggerated bullshit?

 

[iamshadowlark]

Everyone is loving talking about Russia only right now. No one has the balls to speak of the Chinese position.

Because china hasn't shown the balls to declare a position?

 

[Ether_Snake]

Because china hasn't shown the balls to declare a position?

Oh really? Let's see:

China's Xi tells Obama Syria crisis can't be resolved with military strike

China urges UN role on Syria after U.S. says it gives up trying to work with Security Council

Syria Attack Has China Outraged -- at U.S.

China backs Russia over Syria at G20 summit

And to demonstrate my point is actually backed by journalists:

U.S. giving China a free pass on Syria?

As American officials bitterly denounce Russia for blocking the United Nations from endorsing action over Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons, another global power that has taken a similar stand seems to be getting a free pass from the U.S: China.

The double standard was fueled by the meeting President Barack Obama held Friday morning with Chinese President Xi Jinping in St. Petersburg, Russia.

[...]

State Department spokespeople did not respond to queries about whether the U.S. also views China as holding “hostage” the U.N. Security Council.

In fact, when a Security Council resolution offered by the British was blocked last week, it was the third time a Syria-related measure had been defeated. In each instance, Russia and China acted in lock step to prevent its adoption.

 

[RustyNails]

Oh really? Let's see:

China's Xi tells Obama Syria crisis can't be resolved with military strike

China urges UN role on Syria after U.S. says it gives up trying to work with Security Council

Syria Attack Has China Outraged -- at U.S.

China backs Russia over Syria at G20 summit

And to demonstrate my point is actually backed by journalists:

U.S. giving China a free pass on Syria?

More like China is grandstanding. US and the rest of the world tried repeatedly to work out a peace plan in Syria with Kofi Annan for almost a year. In the meanwhile, Assad took his sweet time killing Syrians. China and Russia basically want US to do nothing and watch Assad crush everyone. Which is exactly they would do (and China did) in a situation where people rise up against them.

 

[Sibylus]

I don't doubt for a second they have every desire to do just that very thing. Hit them too.

 

[Kastrioti]

They think they are fooling us. No one has ever fooled us. But, unfortunately, what can we do about it?

Not a Goddamn thing.

Americaneagle.jpg

I saw a interview with Bashar Al Asad with CNN from 2005. I`m on my phone so I`m to lazy to find it but he strikes me as a smart man who wouldnt use chemical weapons even if he was about to lose (which he is not). Not even Hitler used them when he could have.

 

[iamshadowlark]

More like China is grandstanding. US and the rest of the world tried repeatedly to work out a peace plan in Syria with Kofi Annan for almost a year. In the meanwhile, Assad took his sweet time killing Syrians. China and Russia basically want US to do nothing and watch Assad crush everyone. Which is exactly they would do (and China did) in a situation where people rise up against them.

Exactly. Hiding under the guise of, "hey let's go thru the UN" when they have no intention of cooperating isn't declaring a position. They're playing the game.

 

[Brandson]

Getting involved in another country's internal wars is generally ill-advised unless there is "ethnic cleansing" type atrocities going on. I don't think Syria has reached that point yet.

The rebels also comprise many different factions, many of which appear to be the type of extremists the US typically ends up fighting against in other countries. From various reports, some of those rebel groups are also committing their own horrifying acts and some are either Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-supported. Do you really want to be helping them?

The US really needs to know what it's getting into before it starts supporting one of the groups in Syria over another. Essentially the US position appears to be "We don't know who you are or why you're fighting each other, but one of you launched a horrifying chemical attack on the other, so we're just going to bomb one of you. After we're done, feel free to carry on killing each other in more humane ways." That approach is an excellent way to get all Syrians to hate the US.

Anyone using chemical weapons should be condemned with sanctions and other punitive measures, but the US has way too little information about all the parties in Syria to get involved in a war there now. Bombing anyone now just to show you disapprove would be a huge mistake.

 

[ymoc]

More like China is grandstanding. US and the rest of the world tried repeatedly to work out a peace plan in Syria with Kofi Annan for almost a year. In the meanwhile, Assad took his sweet time killing Syrians. China and Russia basically want US to do nothing and watch Assad crush everyone. Which is exactly they would do (and China did) in a situation where people rise up against them.

Lol @ the rest of the world. Speak for yourself and your own country buddy.
And if you're American, please tell Obama to stop playing the resident hypocrite.
The only thing that the US has been doing for the past year was smuggling arms into Syria and training terrorist to fuel this proxy war.

 

[Kinyou]

Which is why the whole thing is bullshit. If Assads regime falls boots have to hit the ground to ensure stockpiles aren't suddenly passed around to every extremist group in the region.

There is no winning in this situation. Kerry openly commented on the fact the Arab World has volunteered to pay for the entire invasion if the US will send forces in and overthrow Assad.

The US Military is becoming a mercenary for hire force.

Out of curiosity, but why can't a country like Saudi Arabia or Turkey put boots on the ground? The US would probably be much more comfortable if they only had to fire rockets (and thus be more likely to actually strike) and those soldiers would probably be much more aware of the culture, language and environment which could make an occupation easier.