Who's to Blame for Syria Mess? Putin!

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/32384-whos-to-blame-for-syria-mess-putin

sen. Lindsey Graham may have been wrong about pretty much everything related to the Middle East, but at least he has the honesty to tell Americans that the current trajectory of the wars in Syria and Iraq will require a U.S. re-invasion of the region and an open-ended military occupation of Syria, draining American wealth, killing countless Syrians and Iraqis, and dooming thousands, if not tens of thousands, of U.S. troops.

Graham’s grim prognostication of endless war may be a factor in his poll numbers below one percent, a sign that even tough-talking Republicans aren’t eager to relive the disastrous Iraq War. Regarding the mess in Syria, there are, of course, other options, such as cooperation with Russia and Iran to resist the gains of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda and a negotiated power-sharing arrangement in Damascus. But those practical ideas are still being ruled out.

Official Washington’s “group think” still holds that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “must go,” that U.S. diplomats should simply deliver a “regime change” ultimatum not engage in serious compromise, and that the U.S. government must obstruct assistance from Russia and Iran even if doing so risks collapsing Assad’s secular regime and opening the door to an Al Qaeda/Islamic State victory.

Of course, if that victory happens, there will be lots of finger-pointing splitting the blame between President Barack Obama for not being “tough” enough and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin who has become something of a blame-magnet for every geopolitical problem. On Friday, during a talk at Fort Meade in Maryland, Obama got out front on assigning fault to Putin.

Obama blamed Putin for not joining in imposing the U.S.-desired “regime change” on Syria. But Obama’s “Assad must go!” prescription carries its own risks as should be obvious from the U.S. experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Ukraine. Ousting some designated “bad guy” doesn’t necessarily lead to some “good guy” taking over.

[DetlefK]

1. Well, Putin is protecting Assad, a guy bombs his own capital with barrel-bombs.

Assad is a dictator. Don't mince words. If you cannot get rid of a politician with non-violent means, he is a dictator.

Bashar al-Assad inherited the throne from his father (like democracies tend to do...). Combine political oppression, insufficient economic growth, massive population-growth and water-shortages (thanks, global warming) and you get a powder-keg. Stir slightly with the "Arabic Spring" movement asking for more political freedoms and you get a civil war.

And what is a dictator to do if his own people don't want him anymore? Bomb civilian areas.

It is out of the question that this situation would normally require some outside-mediator, most likely a fesh start based on the will of the syrian people. Instead the Arabic League resorted to a "hands-off"-approach of doing nothing and waiting until the problem goes away.

And Putin? Syria supplies Russia with a seaport in the Mediterranean Sea where Russia can anchor military ships. That's why Russia protects a dictator who bombs his own people.




Will Assad step down? He has ruled it out.

Will he be toppled? Unlikely, as Russia is employing the Ukraine-strategy of smuggling in military aid under the guise of humanitarian aid.

What happens if Assad stays in power and the rebels get defeated?
Does ANYBODY have ANY doubts that he will exact bloody, torturous revenge on anybody who opposed him?
Does ANYBODY have ANY doubts that Syria will return to dictatorship?
Does ANYBODY think that after this hellish civil war, Syria will suddenly have the economic strength and the groundwater it lacked before the war?
Does ANYBODY think that Assad's regime breeds anything but new recruits for ISIS' anti-secular-government mindset?

Assad staying in power would solve none of the problems. NONE.

[eridani]

2. Assad is better than ISIS, period

Re-read the part about what happens after you get rid of "the bad guy."

[DetlefK]

4. You forgot that there are also secular rebels in Syria.

There is no peace as long as Assad is in power.
The secular rebels won't accept his rule because Assad prevents democracy.
The Al-Qaeda-offshot Al-Nusra won't accept his rule because his rule is western-oriented.
ISIS will continue to use his atrocities as a recruiting-tool.

If the secular rebels could convince Russia to switch sides, this conflict could come to an end within a few years.
- They could topple Assad, complying with the public demand for democracy.
- Russia would help rebuilding Syria (cementing its influence), providing humanitarian relief and participating in the bombing-campaign against ISIS.
- With Assad gone, ISIS could now legally be bombed in their strongholds in Syria.
- With their strongholds under attack, ISIS would run into troubles with its supply-lines and its opponents in Iraq would have it easier in ground-attacks.

The war would be over in maybe 5 years.

But as it is right now, this war is self-sustaining and open-ended.

[eridani]

6. The secular rebels are now totally outnumbered and outgunned by findies.

I don't think that even Russia can help them much now.

[GreatGazoo]

3. Wrong. Putin would be fine with another leader for Syria as long as Russia keeps a port on the Med.

This has much more to do with regional and Sunni vs Shiite conflict than with using un-minced words and the same phrases that led us into Iraq (eg. 'dictator', 'attacked his own people', 'has WMD').

One side of this is Assad, Iran (Shiites) and Russia.
The other side is the US, Israel, Saudis (Sunnis), Qatar and Turkey.
Each of those 10 entities has their own agenda for Syria so it isn't simply a choice of Assad stays or goes.

[DetlefK]

5. "dictator", "attacked his own people"

Ask the Syrians if those quoting-marks are necessary.

Yes, Russia is only interested in the ports. If Russia could be offered a similar or better deal under a new syrian government, they would drop Assad.

[GreatGazoo]

7. Ask "The Elements of Style" if the quotes are proper.

I was quoting your post hence the quote marks.

Assad has 55% to 70% support within the country and the rebels do not. Lack of popular support is the kiss of death for a revolution, but again this isn't a revolution or civil war, it is a proxy war to topple Assad.

At over half a million, the Army is so large that most Syrian communities have strong family links, including with those fallen in the war. There are regular ceremonies for families of these ‘martyrs’, with thousands proudly displaying photos of their loved ones. Further, most of the several million Syrians, displaced by the conflict, have not left the country but rather have moved to other parts under Army protection. This is not really explicable if the Army were indeed engaged in ‘indiscriminate’ attacks on civilians. A repressive army invokes fear and loathing in a population, yet in Damascus one can see that people do not cower as they pass through the many army road blocks, set up to protect against ‘rebel’ car bombs.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-syrians-support-bashar-al-assad/5405208

[Fast Walker 52]

8. the real problem seems to be the lack of global leadership in wanting to negotiate

a way out of the Syria catastrophe. It's a horrible tragedy that needs to end. Fuck the weapons dealers for arming both sides.

[n2doc]

9. Syria without Putin's help = Libya n/t