Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »

illrepute: Dec 30, 2009; by XyloJW

Volkerball posted:

3. It should be noted that Egypt's sorry excuse for political process was ripe for exploitation, and Morsi and the MB were doing everything they could to take advantage of that. It was very clear the intent was to cement the MB as the ruling party and push out opposition parties, and in 4 years, 3 more on top of the year from his election to the coup, it probably would have been unrecognizable as an elected representative body accountable to voters. That was why I initially supported the coup, because their institution of democracy was so broken, that there's no telling what would've become of it in the long term. They basically enacted a rough draft, and they needed to make a bunch of revisions just so that their government would be able to survive its first 4 years at the hands of a man with a clearcut, oppressive agenda that no one was going to stop him from pursuing. Checks and balances, all that good stuff that no one thought to (or purposely didn't) add initially. So really, I think the difference is negligible, because if people had decided to stay home instead of protesting after Morsi's first year, they would've changed their tune at some point before his term was up when things continued to get worse for the majority of the population who weren't interested in an Islamic state. Not to mention the military was always looming in the background with the power to subvert or overthrow the MB at any time, and they obviously didn't have any interest in their democracy becoming sustainable. The crash course was inevitable. The question is more about what is your flavor? Islamic theocracy, or fascist, oppressive junta? At least Morsi's government wasn't out murdering people en masse.

Also, and this isn't minor, the junta's treatment of the Muslim brotherhood has made places like the Sinai incredibly dangerous hotbeds for extremism. Pushing them back underground was a pretty boneheaded move, all told. I'm sure turning your conservative Islamist party- one with significant support- into an outlaw organization when you share a border with Saudi Arabia is a great idea that nobody will ever regret.

e: A sea border counts!! There's also a bridge over Tiran being proposed!

illrepute fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Jun 27, 2014

# ? Jun 27, 2014 03:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 16:43

Count Roland: Oct 6, 2013

In the Sinai, the Egyptian military is fighting Bedouin tribes, who are quite different from the Muslim Brotherhood. The bedouin don't much like anyone controlling their land, and they started agitating in force I think as soon as Mubarak fell. Lots of attacks early on carried out by bedouin groups was blamed baselessly on the brotherhood, which is mostly an urban organization.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 03:57

Miruvor: Jan 19, 2007; Pillbug

Libya is apparently moving parliament to Benghazi, which seems to speak to the basically regionalism now affecting Libya as well, General Hafter in the west with Tripoli and a more Islamist-congress basing itself in the east. The more things repeat themselves, apparently.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 03:57

whatever7: Jul 26, 2001; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

illrepute posted:

Also, and this isn't minor, the junta's treatment of the Muslim brotherhood has made places like the Sinai incredibly dangerous hotbeds for extremism. Pushing them back underground was a pretty boneheaded move, all told. I'm sure turning your conservative Islamist party- one with significant support- into an outlaw organization when you share a border with Saudi Arabia is a great idea that nobody will ever regret.

e: A sea border counts!! There's also a bridge being built over Tiran.

I am sure Israel and the US are happy the narrative of anti-terrorist campaign has turn into a full fledged Sunni-Shia brawl.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 03:58

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

whatever7 posted:

This poo poo is like real life Game of Thrones. Nice people can't last long.

Life is the real life Game of Thrones, which is why Game of Thrones is the real life Game of Thrones in real life.

For real.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 03:59

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Well, looks like this is the ~response~ to ISIS advances. Obama administration is pushing for the biggest support increase for the opposition yet. Earlier in the revolution, they were dangling $250mm as an award for rebels meeting certain benchmarks. Now they are trying to approve $500 million to be spent on a training program. Previously, training and lethal aid was reserved specifically for groups that were in areas that didn't have a regime presence, where rebels were fighting ISIS and ISIS alone. Now, it seems forces fighting against Assad will be included. It's not official yet though. A lot of hurdles to go through.

quote:

WASHINGTON�The White House on Thursday proposed a major program to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels, in a significant expansion of the U.S. role in a civil war that officials fear is bleeding into Iraq and across the region.

The Obama administration requested $500 million�a larger amount than expected�to aid the Syrian opposition, reflecting growing U.S. alarm at the expanding strength of Islamist forces in Syria, who in recent weeks have asserted control of large parts of neighboring Iraq and now pose threats to U.S. allies in the region.

Coming on the heels of a decision to send 300 military advisers to Iraq, the Syrian rebel training elevates the U.S. role in the Middle East.

The proposal amounts to a major U-turn by the administration, which had sought until now to limit its involvement in the war.

However, the expanded U.S. involvement will be on President Barack Obama's terms, by emphasizing the use of partner forces, and not the direct use of American combat forces.

Speaking at a town-hall meeting in Minneapolis on Thursday, Mr. Obama emphasized that he didn't want U.S. forces fighting in the Middle East, but said recent violence has focused attention on the region.

"We've got to pay attention to the threats that are emanating from the chaos in the Middle East," Mr. Obama said.

Officials stressed there are hurdles to overcome before the expanded Syrian rebel program goes into effect, including obtaining congressional approval; figuring out how to effectively vet large numbers of rebel fighters so the U.S. doesn't end up training extremists; and persuading countries in the region to host the effort.

Officials said the program may not actually begin until next year. They said the first batch of fighters could complete training roughly six to eight months after the proposed program is authorized and funded by Congress.

Still, the move amounts to an about face by an administration that had sought to strictly limit its role in the Syrian civil war.

That impulse has been countered by the growing crisis in Iraq�which was fueled by militant groups that have been fighting in Syria. The new program especially, and the existing CIA effort, would focus on training opposition forces to fight both the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and al Qaeda-inspired groups, officials said.

"They are waking up to the degree and time scale of the problem," Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said of the administration.

The new money for the Syrian rebels was contained in the administration's request to Congress for funding for the country's military operations abroad, in a supplement to the budget request known as "overseas contingency operations."

The administration requested $68.5 billion overall, including for the Afghanistan war, a new counterterrorism fund and money to shore up European allies. The money to train Syrian rebels would come out of the $5 billion counterterrorism fund that includes another $1.5 billion for Syria's neighbors�including Turkey, Jordan and Iraq�to help those countries secure borders and deal with Syrian refugees.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican and one of the strongest advocates in Congress for a deeper American involvement in Syria, said the support for rebels was overdue, but predicted it would receive bipartisan support.

"The idea of ignoring Syria and letting it deteriorate is not working out well for us," Mr. Graham said.

Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also voiced support, saying the support for Syrian rebels was similar to a recommendation this year by his committee.

The administration proposal didn't specify what weapons would be provided to the rebels.

The opposition has been seeking U.S. approval for antiaircraft weapons, and some lawmakers have begun to support the idea of supplying them.

But the administration continues to fear the weapons will end up in the hands of the more extremist Islamic fighters who could turn them against Israel or the West.

Despite long-standing reservations, senior U.S. officials began reassessing the administration's Syria policy as they have made decisions on how to address the Sunni rebellion in Iraq, which now threatens the government in Baghdad.

The proposed Pentagon program would supplement or replace a covert Central Intelligence Agency-led arming and training program, which President Obama authorized last year but which critics inside and outside the administration said was too small to make a difference on the battlefield. "The CIA doesn't do this en masse. That is what we do�train militaries," said a senior defense official.

While the U.S. has trained military units world-wide, it is less well versed in dealing with rebel forces�though not inexperienced by any means. In the 1980s, the U.S. supported the Afghan mujahedeen against the Soviet Union, as well as the Nicaraguan Contras against a leftist government.

Mr. Obama pledged in a speech in May at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point to increase U.S. assistance to the moderate Syrian opposition.

Initially, officials said they expected the administration to earmark about $200 million for the Syrian train-and-equip program.

But officials said the size of the proposed program was increased in recent days because of concerns about the growing strength in Iraq of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS.

A senior administration official said the program, and the broader effort to assist allies in the region "will help build the capacity of the moderate Syrian opposition and our partners in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq to manage the growing spillover effects of the Syrian conflict."

Defense officials said the primary problem for any expanded training program remains how to select and train moderate fighters.

Shifting alliances in Syria and Iraq among Sunni groups have complicated the picture in recent weeks, military officials said.

"You have to have them vetted," said the defense official. "That is the real problem."

Officials said a location for the expanded program hasn't been selected. A senior administration official said the U.S. was consulting with partner governments about where to locate the training program, once Congress approves it.

Defense officials would prefer that much of the training take place in Jordan, where the CIA program has been based.

But Jordanian officials have told their American counterparts in the past that they would be wary of hosting such a large-scale effort on Jordanian territory, citing concerns that Amman will be targeted by both the Assad regime and the Islamists.

"There are a lot of unanswered questions," said a senior Pentagon official.

It is also unclear how the new program will mesh with the nearly one-year-old CIA program. A small number of U.S. special-operations-forces trainers are currently working under the CIA program, but it is unclear how vetting, training and equipping will be coordinated in future.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-proposes-500-million-to-aid-syrian-rebels-1403813486?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:00

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Not sure why he's doing this now that Congress is on recess for almost 2 weeks.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:04

Eye of Widesauron: Mar 29, 2014

500 million for a training program is pretty silly; this loss has nothing to do with resources and everything to do with sectarian conflicts that we are not going to be able to do much about.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:05

matrocious: Feb 7, 2011

Because arming assholes in the ME has never directly led to a war or two.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:07

illrepute: Dec 30, 2009; by XyloJW

Count Roland posted:

In the Sinai, the Egyptian military is fighting Bedouin tribes, who are quite different from the Muslim Brotherhood. The bedouin don't much like anyone controlling their land, and they started agitating in force I think as soon as Mubarak fell. Lots of attacks early on carried out by bedouin groups was blamed baselessly on the brotherhood, which is mostly an urban organization.

While this is true, when I said "forcing them underground" it would probably have been more accurate to say "released a lot of unhappy anti-government islamists into Egypt." Without leadership (since they've all been jailed and handed death sentences) the rest of the MB are going to melt into whatever form the next wave of political Islam takes form in Egypt. Some of it is bedouins, yes, but it'll also be whoever the Saudis have working the crowd, and that's what we should be worried about. Even so, I bet if you tracked the number of violent incidents in the Sinai over a timeline, things would only start getting really hairy in the Sinai after the MB went down.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:07

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Willie Tomg posted:

Life is the real life Game of Thrones, which is why Game of Thrones is the real life Game of Thrones in real life.

For real.

Not looking forward to zombie Thatcher then.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:10

illrepute: Dec 30, 2009; by XyloJW

matrocious posted:

Because arming assholes in the ME has never directly led to a war or two.

I'm interested in seeing which rebel groups make the cut to be defined as moderates. It's a term that's been bandied out a lot, but specific names aren't really forthcoming. Since two of the heavy-hitters are JAN (literally Al Qaeda) and ISIS (the guys we're trying to fight), the concern from the administration standpoint (let alone the humanitarian one) is probably that whoever they end up backing won't be significant enough to alter the outcome.

illrepute fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Jun 27, 2014

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:16

MeinPanzer: Dec 20, 2004; anyone who reads Cinema Discusso for anything more than slackjawed trolling will see the shittiness in my posts

Widestancer posted:

500 million for a training program is pretty silly; this loss has nothing to do with resources and everything to do with sectarian conflicts that we are not going to be able to do much about.

The US has been secretly training and arming moderate rebel groups in Syria for some time now, and Obama recognizes that with ISIS occupied in Iraq, moderate rebel groups in Syria could potentially make major gains. ISIS can basically operate effectively in one country or the other, but not both, and if it overextends itself in Iraq while moderate rebels make advances at their expense in Syria, it could spell real trouble for the group. It's certainly a more effective move than assisting any particular group in Iraq directly, and reflects a surprisingly pragmatic recognition that Syria and Iraq is really just one big conflict now.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:17

Radio Prune: Feb 19, 2010

Also worth noting that a lot of the foreign Shia Islamist militias that have been propping the Assad regime up (what with the SAA being a decayed husk of what it once was) are now redeploying back into Iraq to take on the Sunnis there.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:30

Ms Adequate: Oct 30, 2011; Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling

hobbesmaster posted:

Not looking forward to zombie Thatcher then.

If she came back as a zombie/lich/vampire/take your pick she'd still be significantly nicer and less of a fucker.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:36

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

illrepute posted:

I'm interested in seeing which rebel groups make the cut to be defined as moderates. It's a term that's been bandied out a lot, but specific names aren't really forthcoming. Since two of the heavy-hitters are JAN (literally Al Qaeda) and ISIS (the guys we're trying to fight), the concern from the administration standpoint (let alone the humanitarian one) is probably that whoever they end up backing won't be significant enough to alter the outcome.

The FSA, Islamic Front, and SRF are probably the three largest groups in the country, none of which are JaN or ISIS affiliated. The media covers this war like it covers spree shootings.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:39

illrepute: Dec 30, 2009; by XyloJW

Volkerball posted:

The FSA, Islamic Front, and SRF are probably the three largest groups in the country, none of which are JaN or ISIS affiliated. The media covers this war like it covers spree shootings.

Right, in aggregate, but their leadership has always been fragmented to the point that treating them as coherent entities is dubious.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:46

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Also, the timeline for this taking effect is no earlier than next year, so I don't think it has anything to do with any short term tactical advantage. I think the point has just been hammered home that ISIS loving sucks, and something needs to be done about it. The US could either fight them itself, through an unpopular Maliki government in Iraq, who's forces are woefully inadequate, or a popular movement in Syria staffed with trained fighters who have been fighting ISIS on a daily basis for like a year. They anti-tank weapon program that was tested to see if supplied weapons fell into jihadist hands sounds like it's been pretty successful, and the opposition has been pushing harder and harder as a result not for a no-fly zone or intervention, but for weapons and funding, because they're trying to meet the US halfway on the US keeping a small footprint in the country. Obama said this was already in the works prior to ISIS' wild ride, but I doubt it. Hell, until I start seeing reports of its effects, I'll doubt it. US foreign policy this whole war has been keep them hooked, but don't reel them in. This could just be another stalling tactic to say "No guys, we're totally on board now, just give us like a year to implement all this."

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:46

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

illrepute posted:

Right, in aggregate, but their leadership has always been fragmented to the point that treating them as coherent entities is dubious.

They're starting to join together into larger, coherent forces. The Islamic Front, and SRF were both dozens upon dozens of brigades not too long ago. Now they all operate under their fronts chain of comman. As to your point you raised earlier, with the last training the US did with SRF fighters in the north, I don't think groups were vetted as a whole. As in JaN is out, ISIS is out, FSA is in, etc. Pretty sure they were broken down at a macro level into brigades to weed out the ones who were fighting ISIS specifically. Would probably see that again with a larger program.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:54

illrepute: Dec 30, 2009; by XyloJW

Volkerball posted:

They're starting to join together into larger, coherent forces. The Islamic Front, and SRF were both dozens upon dozens of brigades not too long ago. Now they all operate under their fronts chain of comman. As to your point you raised earlier, with the last training the US did with SRF fighters in the north, I don't think groups were vetted as a whole. As in JaN is out, ISIS is out, FSA is in, etc. Pretty sure they were broken down at a macro level into brigades to weed out the ones who were fighting ISIS specifically. Would probably see that again with a larger program.

Yeah. Specifically of the three you listed, SRF (iirc) is still fragmented (under a coalition of different rebel groups with a loose hierarchy) and the Islamic Front I'm uncertain will make the moderate cut by virtue of their jihadist ties/Saudi funding/previous infighting with the FSA. The FSA reorganization was probably the highlight of rebel victories in the war so far, considering how insane and fractious they were before.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 04:59

matrocious: Feb 7, 2011

I'm certain that whomever the infallible US government gives arms to probably won't commit genocide and hopefully only commits regular atrocities.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 06:48

GuyinCognito: Nov 26, 2008; by Ralp

Volkerball posted:

The question is more about what is your flavor? Islamic theocracy, or fascist, oppressive junta? At least Morsi's government wasn't out murdering people en masse.

You don't know what you are talking about. People generally support democracy. You support the opposite of democracy that murder activists to keep a military junta (sponsored by the USA, Europe, and Israel) to repress an entire people for the benefit of the worst people in the world.

People voted for Morsi because the MB was viewed as the most organized and least corrupt party running. The deep state, which you ignore because you're a loving retarded who is fueled with propaganda and hysteronics about Muslims, was what crippled the economy to give an excuse to the junta to overthrow the government.

An additional note is that "10 million people" never protested against Morsi. That has always been a lie by Egyptian state media. They just pulled that number out their rear end.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 08:49

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Sisi's reality is far closer to an "authoritarian fascist state" than Morsi's government was a "Islamic theocracy."

As for the hope for "moderates" in Syria, how exactly would that work out anyway especially now? How many civil wars would the moderates have to win to declare victory?

They have to defeat ISIS/L....by no means a easy feat, then JAN, then knock out Assad then probably the Islamic Front. Also of course, it would have to make sure that the Sunni radicals and the Secularists/Shiites wouldn't suddenly rebuild themselves or realign in order to focus on them.

Ultimately. it is just pissing about half a billion to send some young guys in a meat grinder without any solution, especially not from DC. Who is the population backing these guys? It certainly won't be the religious Sunnis or any of the Shiites, and probably won't be many of the middle class secularists as well. It won't be the Kurds either.

The fact ISIS/L is doing so well should be a clue than the situation isn't salvageable through building some rebel force we like and so they can try to swim with the rest of the alphabet soup.

Ardennes fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Jun 27, 2014

# ? Jun 27, 2014 08:59

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Maliki really seems to believe that within one week he will have his previously owned Russian fighters ready to go for combat operations. I'm sure this will go well if he doesn't even wait for mechanics and pilots to familiarize themselves with the aircraft or logistics to be prepared.

I hope there will be a film made of this in which Maliki will be played by Bruno Ganz, he already knows the role.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 10:18

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Human Rights Watch released a report on ISIS executions in Iraq today, including a really good piece of open source analysis where they managed to find the exact location the executions took place.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 10:28

ReV VAdAUL: Oct 3, 2004; I'm WILD about
WILDMAN

On the note of a three state solution in Iraq I wonder if we'll see a situation similar to Somalia where the approved, Western backed nation exists only on paper while more viable entities such as Somaliland and Puntland are denied recognition because they don't fit into the pre-ordained plan. At least that was the case a few years back when I kept abreast of Somalia.

hobbesmaster posted:

Not looking forward to zombie Thatcher then.

Zombie Glenys Kinnock / Anne Scargill surely?

# ? Jun 27, 2014 11:30

TheBalor: Jun 18, 2001

Volkerball posted:

3. It should be noted that Egypt's sorry excuse for political process was ripe for exploitation, and Morsi and the MB were doing everything they could to take advantage of that. It was very clear the intent was to cement the MB as the ruling party and push out opposition parties, and in 4 years, 3 more on top of the year from his election to the coup, it probably would have been unrecognizable as an elected representative body accountable to voters. That was why I initially supported the coup, because their institution of democracy was so broken, that there's no telling what would've become of it in the long term. They basically enacted a rough draft, and they needed to make a bunch of revisions just so that their government would be able to survive its first 4 years at the hands of a man with a clearcut, oppressive agenda that no one was going to stop him from pursuing. Checks and balances, all that good stuff that no one thought to (or purposely didn't) add initially. So really, I think the difference is negligible, because if people had decided to stay home instead of protesting after Morsi's first year, they would've changed their tune at some point before his term was up when things continued to get worse for the majority of the population who weren't interested in an Islamic state. Not to mention the military was always looming in the background with the power to subvert or overthrow the MB at any time, and they obviously didn't have any interest in their democracy becoming sustainable. The crash course was inevitable. The question is more about what is your flavor? Islamic theocracy, or fascist, oppressive junta? At least Morsi's government wasn't out murdering people en masse.

I'm really glad to see someone saying this. There's a tendency on this forum for people to paint things in sheer black and white. The coup leaders are power-hungry militarists, so Morsi is treated as the wronged messiah of Egyptian democracy, and if you ever thought the coup might be a good thing for an instant, then you're a monstrous fascist. Nevermind that Morsi managed to do everything he could to alienate anyone who might have stood with him against the military, so that when the time came, everyone thought that things couldn't possibly get worse than where Morsi was taking them.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 12:23

MeinPanzer: Dec 20, 2004; anyone who reads Cinema Discusso for anything more than slackjawed trolling will see the shittiness in my posts

For anyone interested in how the proposed $500 billion would be spent, watch this short Frontline piece about the current secret efforts to arm and train moderate rebels. It goes into the vetting process and also the circumstances of the training itself as well as a few other points.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/syria-arming-the-rebels/

# ? Jun 27, 2014 12:43

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

TheBalor posted:

I'm really glad to see someone saying this. There's a tendency on this forum for people to paint things in sheer black and white. The coup leaders are power-hungry militarists, so Morsi is treated as the wronged messiah of Egyptian democracy, and if you ever thought the coup might be a good thing for an instant, then you're a monstrous fascist. Nevermind that Morsi managed to do everything he could to alienate anyone who might have stood with him against the military, so that when the time came, everyone thought that things couldn't possibly get worse than where Morsi was taking them.

Of course, plenty of people also thought that even if Morsi was pretty despicable, that a military coup lead by Sisi would be far worse and led not only to an more authoritarian regime but more or less the death of Egyptian democracy such as it was.

If anything it was pretty clear, but they supporters of the coup made their choices and then "reconsidered" the issue later.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 13:30

FightingMongoose: Oct 19, 2006

ReV VAdAUL posted:

On the note of a three state solution in Iraq I wonder if we'll see a situation similar to Somalia where the approved, Western backed nation exists only on paper while more viable entities such as Somaliland and Puntland are denied recognition because they don't fit into the pre-ordained plan. At least that was the case a few years back when I kept abreast of Somalia.

Any reading to suggest on this? I know nothing about it and it sounds interesting.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 14:05

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Ardennes posted:

Of course, plenty of people also thought that even if Morsi was pretty despicable, that a military coup lead by Sisi would be far worse and led not only to an more authoritarian regime but more or less the death of Egyptian democracy such as it was.

If anything it was pretty clear, but they supporters of the coup made their choices and then "reconsidered" the issue later.

Really? Because I'm seeing literally the opposite happening. We just had a post where "oh yeah Morsi totally wasn't doing anything bad ergo people had nothing to fear for the next 3 years" was trotted out despite the fact that Morsi actually was doing poo poo that specifically consolidated power and excluded non-MB groups.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 14:07

GuyinCognito: Nov 26, 2008; by Ralp

computer parts posted:

Really? Because I'm seeing literally the opposite happening. We just had a post where "oh yeah Morsi totally wasn't doing anything bad ergo people had nothing to fear for the next 3 years" was trotted out despite the fact that Morsi actually was doing poo poo that specifically consolidated power and excluded non-MB groups.

Yes really and no you aren't "literally" seeing poo poo. The opposition did a walk out the day the MB formed a coalition then started whining about being excluded.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 15:06

Count Roland: Oct 6, 2013

FightingMongoose posted:

Any reading to suggest on this? I know nothing about it and it sounds interesting.

Wikipedia is honestly a good place to start. And from his post, yes, Somalia is still very much like that. There was a push maybe a year or so ago, I heard a lot in the media about all the "successes" in Mogadishu, like street lights! And elections!

The elections were a sham of course, with votes being openly bought and sold. Violence has returned to Mogadishu, and the "government" there doesn't control anything outside of the city itself.

The war in the south goes badly. Ever hear of bombings in Kenya? Good chance its al-Shabab or other Somali groups. They hit Kenya partly because Kenya has had lots of soldiers inside Somalia. Indeed, the Kenyan military regularly strikes inside Somalia itself, but these don't usually make the news.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 15:27

TheBalor: Jun 18, 2001

Ardennes posted:

Of course, plenty of people also thought that even if Morsi was pretty despicable, that a military coup lead by Sisi would be far worse and led not only to an more authoritarian regime but more or less the death of Egyptian democracy such as it was.

If anything it was pretty clear, but they supporters of the coup made their choices and then "reconsidered" the issue later.

No, it really wasn't "pretty clear", particularly if you were a casual observer. Gargantuan crowds were out protesting, and it wasn't just the military and their cronies out on the streets. Everyone hated Morsi, and the man was having a classic "fall of the regime" meltdown on air. It's an unnecessary attack to imply that people who supported the coup then later changed their minds knew exactly what was going to happen, because that simply wasn't the case.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 15:33

sullat: Jan 9, 2012

FightingMongoose posted:

Any reading to suggest on this? I know nothing about it and it sounds interesting.

Somaliland is pretty stable, Puntland less so, (but far better than the south). I don't know if there's a document out there that says "we're ignoring them because our old colonial borders must be respected", but that seems to explain the facts on the ground.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 15:50

Count Roland: Oct 6, 2013

There's a few reasons. When the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) took over Mogadishu back in 07ish it freaked a lot of people out. The US immediately convinced Ethiopia to invade and get rid of them. Al-Shabab is a more extreme version of the ICU and they're kept at bay by AU forces (largely Ethiopian) and US money/weapons.

And lets not forget piracy! Around the same time as above piracy became a big thing in the region, and navies from all over the world moved in to protect shipping. They occasionally go inland too and blow some stuff up, but piracy isn't nearly as bad these days.

Count Roland fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Jun 27, 2014

# ? Jun 27, 2014 16:07

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Jeremy Scahill's book Dirty Wars spends a good portion talking about US involvement in Somalia during the Bush/Obama era and how that has contributed to it not being able to form a stable government.

The whole part about the US freaking out over the ICU because of Sharia law and almost nothing else is infuriating

# ? Jun 27, 2014 16:17

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

ReV VAdAUL posted:

On the note of a three state solution in Iraq I wonder if we'll see a situation similar to Somalia where the approved, Western backed nation exists only on paper while more viable entities such as Somaliland and Puntland are denied recognition because they don't fit into the pre-ordained plan. At least that was the case a few years back when I kept abreast of Somalia.

This is why when a lot of people go :supaburn:

about Libya I kinda shrug. If not for the oil being under Cyrenaica and more of the population being in Tripolitania there really isn't a reason they shouldn't be separate, or at very least hyper federated.

Obviously oil money and the attending issues makes that a big if, but a highly federated solution with fair oil distribution might prevent, e.g. Maliki pissing off Anbar type situations.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 17:32

illrepute: Dec 30, 2009; by XyloJW

computer parts posted:

Really? Because I'm seeing literally the opposite happening. We just had a post where "oh yeah Morsi totally wasn't doing anything bad ergo people had nothing to fear for the next 3 years" was trotted out despite the fact that Morsi actually was doing poo poo that specifically consolidated power and excluded non-MB groups.

And that's why Morsi was exactly as bad as the current government, which in its first year of governance has had: :kheldragar:

# ? Jun 27, 2014 17:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 16:43

54.4 crowns: Apr 7, 2011; To think before you speak is like wiping your arse before you shit.

Nenonen posted:

How many goons, having nothing better to do, travelled to fight in Syria during the last two days/how many of them are still alive?

I could not find an recruitment office for the international brigade that did not have a portrait of Stalin hanging around.

Seriously.

We should sanction sympathizers that want to volunteer but is sober enough to have misgivings about leaving his family and friends, who he would actually fight for and most importantly his own life.

Irony is that the ones that makes the effort, sacrifices and has enough chutzpah to take the trip probably rub shoulders with egomaniacs and narcissist that will stamp their boots, wave the flag and frolic in holy smoke.

There were loads of defection from the Assad regime in the beginning, when the "Z0mg Al-Quaida!" rhetoric was mostly bullshit.
Now the Islamist ghost is all to real, and that makes Assad to an lesser evil or to the strong man whos means will be justified.

It could have ended with Assad being forced down by his government or at least be open for it, HELL this all started with a corrupt mayor!
Now I'm afraid this wont end until a fall of Berlin, volksturm and all.

Its not just about manpower, but FSA boosting up its image as the viable 1 choice it once was. Because now everyone is thinking either Assad blood purges vs. Rebels in which FSA is sidelined by amateur theologians introducing fix ideas to impose on society, little to none aid from any of the region to rebuild, exodus of brain, capital anyone that can afford it taking with them expertise and investments.

No one is going to meet at the table if either scenario happens, Assad must go but he can't be sidelined if the fear, propeganda and likelihood of huge social upheaval is still there, same concerns does of course Russian and Iranian backers have.

If FSA gets the resources and credibility it needs, it might be enough for Assads backers to put him out for sale and start horsetrading for a regime change.

# ? Jun 27, 2014 18:04

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »