Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Syrian Civil War News and Discussions

Syria Iraq Turkey Russia Saudi Arabia ISIS Kurds Assad Civil War Iran

  • Please log in to reply
634 replies to this topic

#21
Jake Epping

Jake Epping

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
If the West decided to man-up and support the rebels sooner then maybe they wouldn't rely so heavily on resorting to extremism.

 

Indeed! Look how fantastic this worked in Afghanistan in the 80s. 

 

A US Senator in Syria can't even figure out who the "good guys" are to have a simple photo taken with them. 



#22
Guyverman1990

Guyverman1990

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

If the West decided to man-up and support the rebels sooner then maybe they wouldn't rely so heavily on resorting to extremism.

  Indeed! Look how fantastic this worked in Afghanistan in the 80s.    A US Senator in Syria can't even figure out who the "good guys" are to have a simple photo taken with them. 
This isn't Afganistan. The difference between Syria and Afganistan is that the rebels in the latter were Islamisists from the beginning.

#23
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada

This man has pretty much got this pat down: http://www.bu.edu/to...y-out-of-syria/



#24
Guyverman1990

Guyverman1990

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Seriously, The West didn't consider it that big of a fucking deal to support the rebels against Qaddafi, so why not Assad? I know there is an Islamisist infestation problem in the Syrian War but if the west decided to stay back with the situation in Libya, the exact same could've happened with the anti-Qaddafi movement.



#25
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada

Ok, there are several reasons why Libya and Syria can't be compared. For one Gaddhafi gutted his military in the last years before his fall, Assad did not, and has used this military to build up key alliances with Iran and even to a degree Russia. This has modernized his military over time and looks likely to be the key win for his victory. Gaddhafi had no such allies to fall back on and thus his military was not able to adapt like Assad's is. This shows the U.S. that an Iran-Syria vs U.S. and Israel conflict would be even nastier than everyone says it would be. Secondly, Russia is hellbent on stopping any sort of intervention in Syria unlike in Libya.

 

The fact of the matter is the Syria is now the most important proxy war since the fall the Soviet Union. However unlike a classic two side proxy war there are many different groups using different factions within Syria to advance their agendas or objectives, and none will be giving up any time soon. There are essentially two major factions, and several minor ones playing in this bloody game.

 

Main Sides:

 

== Sunni (Rebel) Bloc ==

 

Essentially these are the rebels, which for the most part are supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iraqi Sunni Insurgents (Al-Qaeda in Iraq), and Chechen Insurgents. Main goal is supposedly to oust Assad and establish a free state, but this is crap because the Saudis, the Qataris and the Turks could really care less about establishing a free society, and the insurgent groups are hell bent on establishing an Islamic Theocracy. U.S. only half-heartedly supports these groups more because they want to weaken Iran.

 

== Shia (Unholy Trinity) Bloc ==

 

Essentially the Syrian Government, Syrian minorities, Iran, Hezbollah, and Iraqi Shia insurgents. Three most major players being Assad, Hezbollah and Iran for an unholy trinity. Main objective is to assure the survival of the Assad regime so that Iran can continue to project it's power through Syria. Minorities support the government because they fear a potential Wahhabiist takeover of the country and persecution of the minority groups such as Alawites, Christians, etc...

 

Minor Players:

 

(For Now At Least)

 

== Kurds ==

 

This group within Syria does not like either faction, only interested in securing it's own homeland. Turkey had a partial interest in crushing Kurdish extremists in Syria as well to stop it's own extremists, however this is far less so now after the PKK disbanded.

 

== Israel ==

 

Typically a major player in the mid-East, Israel has little to do with the Syrian conflict. Israel really doesn't care who wins this fight, and really just wants both sides to weaken each other as much as they can. Only main objective in this conflict is stopping the dispersion of weapons that could potentially be used against itself. Does not see a good side in this conflict, both sides are it's enemies and the victors of the conflict will eventually turn their sights back on Israel. Strategically may be hoping the conflict goes on as long as possible.

 

== The West (Mainly America, Britain, and France with some NATO backing)==

 

For the time being giving limited support to the rebels. Main objective of America, Britain, and France is to weaken Iran. However they do not want to give full support to the rebels, as there is deep suspicion of them. Probably will not get involved directly in this conflict as the Western public opinion is strongly against intervention in another ME country after Iraq, and many in the public would not accept going to help the Islamists on the rebel side which are related to the people who carried out terrorist attacks in the West during the last decade. Obama also has no intention of being remembered as a wartime president. The usual war lobby wants to intervene to promote arms sales, and make a buck. Israel wants the west to not give the rebels to advanced weapons systems because they could be used against it.

 

== Russia ==

 

Main objective is stop an Sunni takeover of Syria. Concerned that the spread of Sunni power will cause destabilization throughout the greater Muslim world, including within the Russian Muslim republics, it is thus watching the Chechen fighters there with great concern. Also wants to maintain it's only port on the Mediterranean which it may lose if the rebels take over. Sees this conflict as part of the increase in America and it's allies hegemony and thus is perceived as a threat to Russia. The last thing Russia wants is America to exert what it perceives as world order. Also wants to make some arms sales and thus supports Iran and Syria. Part of a bigger move by Russia to cozy ties with Iran so it can expand it's influence of the gas market to Europe. Has no intent to have direct military involvement in the conflict. Israel does not want weapons to be given to Hezbollah and Iran as they could be used against it in a future conflict.

 

== Everyone Else ==

 

Who is concerned about the casualties and suffering ongoing in Syria, but sees it as a quagmire with no good sides.

 

 

Essentially there are 6 ways this conflict will possibly unfold, only one of them has an any bit sort of good outcome.

 

1. Rebels are Crushed 

 

Victors: Assad, Iran, Hezbollah, Russia

 

Very likely. Rebels are crushed, Saudis, Qataris, Turks, and West are embarrassed media begins it's full on introspection on how we in the West are terrible for not stopping the genocide of Syrians. (Give us a break) Victory for Syrian government, stronger Syrian military, closer Iran-Russia ties, Hezbollah status maintains weakened. Bad news for Israel.

 

2. Rebels Win (without Intervention)

 

Victors: Islamist Forces, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey (?)

 

Highly unlikely. Rebels defeat Assad, major defeat for Iran, Hezbollah collapses, extremism erupts in southern Russia. Syria turns into an Islamic theocracy and threatens Israel. West forced to intervene eventually against an unsafe government. Only victors are the Arab states from the point of view that they weakened Iran and empowered their Sunni brethren and thus expanded their influence.

 

3. West Intervenes

 

Victors: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey

 

Unlikely. Too many outside factors point to this not happening. This essentially just devolves into a sectarian mess like Iraq, although Syria falls, and Hezbollah falls which is good news for Israel, however doesn't weaken Iran as Russia and Iran still develop closer ties as Russia is now deeply angry with the West. West further indebted by wars, and Western public become even less willing to intervene in other conflicts, which is bad new for Israel against Iran. Years of sectarian violence. Only benefit is weakening of Iran for Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.

 

4. Inconclusive

 

Victors: Israel

 

Unlikely. Conflict develops into lower intensity insurgency and conflict which lasts for decades. Assad retains power against more organized rebels. Unlikely as the rebels do not seem to be able to develop more central organization. Israel likes this as it keeps it's enemies occupied with each other.

 

5. Syria is Broken-up

 

Victors: No one, though everyone saves face.

 

Unlikely, though becoming more looked at. Latakia and area becomes an Alawite state and Assad steps down from governing Syria. Kurds get own land. Rest of Syria taken over by Islamists. Killing stops, and everyone saves face, although the situation is far from ideal.

 

6. Israel attacks Russian shipments

 

Victors: Unclear, possibly no one.

 

Very unlikely. Israel attacks Russian arms shipments. This quickly becomes a major mess which threatens to pit Russia against the West. Though very unlikely as I think most of the powers playing are far more calculating than this. Would become a much wider conflict if this were to happen.

 

I think No. 5 is the best scenario here.

 

----

 

This conflict is so complex it's hard to explain.


Edited by MarcZ, 06 June 2013 - 01:27 AM.


#26
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth
Seriously, The West didn't consider it that big of a fucking deal to support the rebels against Qaddafi, so why not Assad? I know there is an Islamisist infestation problem in the Syrian War but if the west decided to stay back with the situation in Libya, the exact same could've happened with the anti-Qaddafi movement.

 

Libya has a lot of oil, while Syria does not.



#27
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada

Libya was not really about oil, the West was quite surprised about the uprising. Their realpolitik strategies prior to the Arab Spring already were getting them lots of oil from Libya.



#28
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth
Libya was not really about oil, the West was quite surprised about the uprising. Their realpolitik strategies prior to the Arab Spring already were getting them lots of oil from Libya.

 

Didn't Gaddafi threaten to kick some Western oil companies out of Libya after the uprising began and Western leaders (Obama, et cetera) began calling on him to leave office?



#29
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada
Libya was not really about oil, the West was quite surprised about the uprising. Their realpolitik strategies prior to the Arab Spring already were getting them lots of oil from Libya.

 

Didn't Gaddafi threaten to kick some Western oil companies out of Libya after the uprising began and Western leaders (Obama, et cetera) began calling on him to leave office?

 

Note that that was after the war began. The West really had no incentive before this, and in fact the West had been actually growing more comfortable with Gaddhaffi thanks to his help against Al-Qaeda in North Africa following 9/11.



#30
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth
Libya was not really about oil, the West was quite surprised about the uprising. Their realpolitik strategies prior to the Arab Spring already were getting them lots of oil from Libya.

 

Didn't Gaddafi threaten to kick some Western oil companies out of Libya after the uprising began and Western leaders (Obama, et cetera) began calling on him to leave office?

 

Note that that was after the war began. The West really had no incentive before this, and in fact the West had been actually growing more comfortable with Gaddhaffi thanks to his help against Al-Qaeda in North Africa following 9/11.

I'm not disputing any of what you just wrote. The West was indeed pretty friendly with Gaddafi after he renounced terrorism and gave up his WMDs and nuclear program in 2003. I am simply pointing out that after the war began, the West began turning against Gaddafi when it initially appeared that the rebels would win (in February 2011 and perhaps very early March 2011), since it probably wanted to make the Libyan rebels to have a more favorable view of them (the West). Then, when Gaddafi began winning the war against the rebels in March 2011 and threatened to kick some Western oil companies out of Libya, the West realized that it previously miscaculated by calling for Gaddafi to leave office. Thus, with the Western access to Libyan oil threatened, the West/NATO decided to intervene in Libya to help the rebels right before Gaddafi would have captured Benghazi (a huge rebel stronghold). While I do think that there were also humanitarian considerations in intervening in Libya (keep in mind that NATO also previously intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo, where I don't think that the West had vital natural resource interests), I do think that oil was one of the factors in the Libyan intervention as well. Some of the national leaders of the NATO member countries (Obama, et cetera) were apparently very reluctant to intervene in Libya, so theoretically, for all we know, the oil factor might have been the thing which pushed some NATO countries "over the edge" in deciding whether or not to intervene in Libya.

 

Also, in addition to the oil, another difference between Libya and Syria is that Gaddafi dramatically weakened his army in order to reduce the risk of a coup against him, while Assad's army has never been (dramatically) weakened by the Assad regime.


Edited by Futurist, 07 June 2013 - 03:56 AM.


#31
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada

Another great article on this civil war: 

 

http://opinion.finan...global-economy/



#32
Guyverman1990

Guyverman1990

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Even if Assad does win, then perhaps he''ll face a coup from his own men afterwards. If we're lucky, that will happen.



#33
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

@Marc Z: I just finished reading your Syrian analysis. You make some very good points. Personally, I wouldn't mind a breakup of Syria into two or more countries occurring.


Edited by Futurist, 09 June 2013 - 06:42 AM.


#34
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada
Even if Assad does win, then perhaps he''ll face a coup from his own men afterwards. If we're lucky, that will happen.

 

I don't think so, that will leave a power vacuum which would benefit who exactly? Al-Qaeda, this is the main reason that Assad does maintain as much support as he does in the cities and minorities, the more liberal Syrians, and the Alawites and Christians are horrified of a takeover by fundamentalist Sunni's. From all indications the military is quite loyal to Assad considering it has close ties to Russia and Iran. So I don't see this happening at all. Most of the rebels are from the Sunni faction and from the more rural parts of Syria. 

 

I'd also like to mention that the EU. Especially France and Britain and perhaps even Germany have a more vested interest in this war than America does simply because there are many oil and gas pipelines crossing Syrian territory and they would like control of them, this is why we've been seeing them push the U.S. this week.



#35
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada

Here is why Obama won't intervene:

 

http://blogs.spectat...rian-civil-war/



#36
Guyverman1990

Guyverman1990

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Let's say that back in WWII, there was report of an Allied Solider eating the heart out of a Nazi. Would've that been worth gaining more sympathizing with or even supporting Hitler?

Also, so what if fucking Al-Qaeda is fighting Assad?  I'm not trying to say that I'm in favor of that unfortunate fact, but Assad himself has Al-Qaeda's Shia equivalent, Hezbollah on his side. How does that make him any better?


Edited by Guyverman1990, 23 June 2013 - 11:58 PM.


#37
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada
Let's say that back in WWII, there was report of an Allied Solider eating the heart out of a Nazi. Would've that been worth gaining more sympathizing with or even supporting Hitler?

Also, so what if fucking Al-Qaeda is fighting Assad?  I'm not trying to say that I'm in favor of that unfortunate fact, but Assad himself has Al-Qaeda's Shia equivalent, Hezbollah on his side. How does that make him any better?

 

This is not just about one lone incident, you seem to think this is a very good guys, bad guys war. In reality it's a bad guys, vs bad but more tolerable guys thanks to strategic interests. Nothing moral here, let em' kill each other.



#38
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth
Let's say that back in WWII, there was report of an Allied Solider eating the heart out of a Nazi. Would've that been worth gaining more sympathizing with or even supporting Hitler?

Also, so what if fucking Al-Qaeda is fighting Assad?  I'm not trying to say that I'm in favor of that unfortunate fact, but Assad himself has Al-Qaeda's Shia equivalent, Hezbollah on his side. How does that make him any better?

 

This is not just about one lone incident, you seem to think this is a very good guys, bad guys war. In reality it's a bad guys, vs bad but more tolerable guys thanks to strategic interests. Nothing moral here, let em' kill each other.

Who are the bad but more tolerable guys here? Assad or the rebels? I just want to make sure who you are talking about here.



#39
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada
Let's say that back in WWII, there was report of an Allied Solider eating the heart out of a Nazi. Would've that been worth gaining more sympathizing with or even supporting Hitler?

Also, so what if fucking Al-Qaeda is fighting Assad?  I'm not trying to say that I'm in favor of that unfortunate fact, but Assad himself has Al-Qaeda's Shia equivalent, Hezbollah on his side. How does that make him any better?

 

This is not just about one lone incident, you seem to think this is a very good guys, bad guys war. In reality it's a bad guys, vs bad but more tolerable guys thanks to strategic interests. Nothing moral here, let em' kill each other.

Who are the bad but more tolerable guys here? Assad or the rebels? I just want to make sure who you are talking about here.

 

I'm referring to the strategic interests of America which is why they prefer them. I personally think the rebels are more dangerous to the minorities in Syria, probably be a genocide if they take over.



#40
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada

Obama's realpolitik in Syria, why the administration wants this war to go on indefinitely. 

 

http://blogs.spectat...yrian-civil-war







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia, ISIS, Kurds, Assad, Civil War, Iran

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users