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 »

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

fade5 posted:

So... they're not going to return? I mean the rebels have lost a hell of a lot of leverage with Russia's intervention, and it's hard to see how they'll get it back.

People were saying the same thing about Assad a year ago, and about the rebels the year before that. The situation could look drastically different 6 months from now. As far as their current position, they didn't have the leverage to prevent Assad from being allowed to run in future elections, to break the starvation sieges, or stop the barrel bombings, and everyone knew it. So they came right in and said these are things we want in order to bring about an end to this conflict, and then they left. The same applies to the regime and Russia. They weren't going to get an acceptance that Assad must stay in power, and they knew it. The talks were always just a stage for whatever the actors in this conflict wanted to say, since the reality is that the military situation right now is not conducive for a political solution. And so, the fighting will continue.

# ? Feb 3, 2016 23:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 14:25

ass struggle: Dec 25, 2012; by Athanatos

Volkerball posted:

People were saying the same thing about Assad a year ago, and about the rebels the year before that. The situation could look drastically different 6 months from now. As far as their current position, they didn't have the leverage to prevent Assad from being allowed to run in future elections, to break the starvation sieges, or stop the barrel bombings, and everyone knew it. So they came right in and said these are things we want in order to bring about an end to this conflict, and then they left. The same applies to the regime and Russia. They weren't going to get an acceptance that Assad must stay in power, and they knew it. The talks were always just a stage for whatever the actors in this conflict wanted to say, since the reality is that the military situation right now is not conducive for a political solution. And so, the fighting will continue.

A year ago the SAA was a husk, now it is literally the Iranian Revolutionary guard plus a revitalized Hezbollah and, oh yes, actual Russian units.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 00:16

uninterrupted: Jun 20, 2011

Torrannor posted:

look at South America, where many of these democracies experienced military dictatorships taking over their countries for a while, mostly because their democratically elected governments were subverted and overthrown by the US. I don't think it's wrong to wonder if similar adverse conditions exist for Arab states.

ftfy

# ? Feb 4, 2016 00:33

Sucrose: Dec 9, 2009

Torrannor posted:

I don't think that people are wondering if democracy is a good thing for Arabs, people are simply wondering if the conditions are right. Our first attempt at democracy in Germany ended in a catastrophe, because after the fall of the authoritarian institutions, the moderate center couldn't hold the state together against a hostile extreme left and extreme right. With the result that the Nazis took over and ended that experiment with democracy. Or look at South America, where many of these democracies experienced military dictatorships taking over their countries for a while, mostly because they used the dumb US system of democracy. I don't think it's wrong to wonder if similar adverse conditions exist for Arab states.

Democracies need roots. How often do states successfully go from strong-man dictatorship to democracy without a transition period in between? Authoritarian government -> Violent revolution -> Democracy is even less likely than Authoritarian government -> Democracy.

People point to Germany and Japan as proof that countries formerly run by militarists can turn into prosperous liberal democracies, but that ignores the fact that both of those countries had been limited monarchies prior to the rise of the militarists. I don't know, maybe things will turn out well for Tunisia, but the odds are stacked against them. I can guarantee Libya's going to stay authoritarian. And anyone who thought that whatever government ends up ruling Syria when the dust settles might be democractic was really fooling themselves.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 00:38

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Sucrose posted:

Democracies need roots. How often do states successfully go from strong-man dictatorship to democracy without a transition period in between? Authoritarian government -> Violent revolution -> Democracy is even less likely than Authoritarian government -> Democracy.

People point to Germany and Japan as proof that countries formerly run by militarists can turn into prosperous liberal democracies, but that ignores the fact that both of those countries had been limited monarchies prior to the rise of the militarists. I don't know, maybe things will turn out well for Tunisia, but the odds are stacked against them. I can guarantee Libya's going to stay authoritarian. And anyone who thought that whatever government ends up ruling Syria when the dust settles might be democractic was really fooling themselves.

In the case of West Germany and Japan, it also helped that both were industrialized states that the US was willing to help rebuild with the tacit acknowledgement that some new democratic or at least semi-democratic boundaries (Japan is still more or less crypto-one party state) would have to be put in place. In addition, neither Germany or Japan really had the ability or desire to actively resist occupation, which made agreeing to what the US was offering them much more palatable. In addition, there wasn't significant ethnic or religious cleavages in either country that would disrupt the process, the protestant/catholic split in Germany had been put to bed and Japan is simply very homogeneous. Also, the Cold War was another factor on top of it all, and playing along with the US was simply more palatable for the elites of both countries than facing the Soviets alone.

If anything the more you look at the examples of Germany and Japan the less you find very useful in comparison to the present-day middle east.

As for the war in Syria changing its course, it is possible but it would have to take a serious intervention of some form at this point. It really isn't a story of rebels versus the government, but rather a intricate proxy war that is already over-crowded as it is. The Gulf states or the West would have to up the ante up enough to stall the increasing gains Assad & co are making, but that is going to be more difficult because the momentum has clearly shifted so clearly.

The rebels are in a difficult position, because they are already getting high grade arms from their patrons but it isn't making up for Russian air power and reinforcements. This is a real problem because contesting Syrian air space would require open warfare with a first tier nuclear armed state. I guess they could flood the area with even more TOWs and MANPADs but they were more or less doing that already.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 02:22

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

So you may all remember that odd/hosed up video that showed drone footage of the fighting and destruction Jobar, Damascus, Syria set to the soundtrack of "High Roller" by the Crystal Method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR0q57z0v1c
(Or you might not, in which case here's the video; it feels like a video game/high budget movie, but it's horrifyingly real instead.)

It appears the same group has made another video about the destruction of Homs, but this time with a soundtrack that's more appropriately sad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy0X30T7Yho
Seriously Jesus loving Christ, Syria has been blasted to rubble. :stare:

In less depressing news, CNN has a surprisingly excellent article about that airstrip in Rimelan, and more fascinating inside info about how airstrikes are called in:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/middleeast/syria-isis-us-airstrip/index.html

quote:

The rutted road stretches into the distance across the plains of Hasakah. Herdsmen watch over their few dozen sheep. A scattering of oil pumps nod lazily as they extract a few dollars of crude from deep below. Above, the contrails left by coalition warplanes drift across the blue sky in hazy circles.

We bump through the mud-brick villages. Wide-eyed children stop playing marbles in the dirt to gaze at us. Old men wearing keffiyehs, the traditional red and white headscarf, peer suspiciously. This corner of northern Syria -- close to the border with Iraq -- is a mix of Arab tribes and Kurds, Muslims and Christians. It has long been neglected, despite its oil and farming, by the Syrian regime hundreds of miles away in Damascus. But in the war against ISIS, Hasakah is suddenly a place of interest, and especially for the Pentagon.

Our destination is an airstrip used for crop-spraying. From satellite images we've worked out where it is. It would be easy to miss: just a strip of concrete that almost sinks into the dark soil. But for all its modesty, this is the United States' latest outpost in its deepening campaign against ISIS.

An elderly farmer living nearby, rake-thin with a weathered brown face, offers tea to the minibus of strange visitors, breaking off from his duties tending sheep on behalf of a sheikh of the Shammar tribe, a powerful Arab group that has good relations with the Kurds. He says he has heard helicopters and other aircraft. But he's not seen anything land here. He seems bemused by the interest.

This location has been chosen because it's just 100 miles (160 kilometers) from ISIS frontline positions and some of its lucrative oil fields, but well within territory held by Kurdish fighters known as the YPG. The runway is being nearly doubled in length from about 2,300 feet to 4,330 feet (700 to 1,320 meters) -- long enough, say, to receive C130 transport planes. A small apron is also being paved.

Satellite imagery obtained by IHS Jane's shows an airstrip in northeast Syria, which is reportedly being used by U.S. forces, has been expanded in recent months.

There is no control tower, no lights, certainly no U.S. uniforms to be seen -- just a berm of fresh earth thrown up to mark the perimeter and a tractor chugging along as it flattens the surface of the newly extended runway. A barrier is manned by two local men who lounge in the sunshine smoking. But there is more security than at first appears. Minutes after we begin filming, two men of the YPG's Asaish security force arrive in a pickup truck and escort us away.

"It's a closed military zone," says one of them. Suicide bombings -- invariably claimed by ISIS -- are not uncommon in Hasakah. This "drop-and-go" strip will help the U.S. supply the Kurds and the Arab tribes allied with them and assist the handful of U.S. Special Forces deployed to this part of Syria. Choosing its words carefully, the U.S. Defense Department says it has not "taken control" of any airfield in Syria. "That said, U.S. forces in Syria are consistently looking for ways to increase efficiency for logistics and personnel recovery support," said a spokesman for U.S. Central Command last month.
--
The United States has been wary of arming the YPG directly, preferring to say that its ammunition drops are for a broader coalition of Arab factions so as not to infuriate Turkey, which regards the YPG as a terrorist group. Turkey has declared it will not tolerate any further expansion of the group's presence along the border. It's a delicate balancing act for Washington, but the presence in Kobani last weekend of the U.S. Special Envoy to the anti-ISIS coalition, Brett McGurk, underlines the importance of the relationship -- in a region where effective allies have been difficult to come by.

In part, McGurk's visit to Kobani appears to have been aimed at appeasing the YPG, whose commanders are furious the group's representatives have been excluded from Syrian talks in Geneva -- at Turkey's insistence. One official even told us that unless the YPG was admitted to the process, it would suspend co-operation on the ground with the United States.

Calling in airstrikes ... on a tablet

For now, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) -- a makeshift alliance of Kurds and Arab groups -- continue to close in on some ISIS oilfields and squeeze their supply lines. They get help almost daily from coalition airstrikes, thanks to a "Joint Operations Center."

It is a modest setup in an abandoned apartment block on the southern outskirts of Hasakah City. The building is pockmarked by fierce battles fought here last August. Bullet casings still litter the hallways, curtains flutter from shattered windows.

Three young men sit in a small room with tablets and a radio that rests on two packs of cigarettes. An electric heater takes the edge off the winter chill. From here they communicate with frontline units, passing on their coordinates and any reports of enemy movements to a coalition command center. Then coalition bombers can be brought in.

Twenty-one-year-old Daham Hassaki deftly scrolls from one screen to another as he plots positions on a Google map and sends text messages to headquarters. "Right now this is the frontline of Hasakah," he says, opening a map that shows the vast spaces of this part of Syria. "Our fighters there have seen the movement of two of the enemy and so we sent this message and their coordinates to the command center." He says a group of Americans and other foreigners have trained the YPG in how to use the equipment, to ensure friendly forces are not mistakenly targeted and that intelligence on ISIS movements is passed up the chain.

ISIS, he says, has changed the way it operates -- deploying very small units of a half-dozen men that are more difficult to detect.

When an offensive is underway, the Operations Room team moves to the frontline. Daham and his colleagues move in after a strike to see what damage has been done. He shows us videos of their missions. They do not make for easy viewing.

Daham says he's not aware of any civilians killed by the strikes, but no one can be sure. In this area, ISIS fighters have coerced whole villages of Arabs to leave with them as they retreat. Local activists say that early in December, a convoy leaving a tiny settlement close to the Iraqi border was struck from the air. They claim that more than 30 civilians, including women and children, were killed. U.S. Central Command told CNN that "the allegation was deemed as not credible since there were no Coalition airstrikes in the vicinity" on that day.

In the next month or two, the Kurdish-led coalition is expected to launch an attack on the ISIS-held town of Ash Shaddadi, a critical road junction for the group that will not be lightly surrendered. Activists in the area say ISIS is essentially holding the civilian population hostage as a collective human shield, and has cut off communications with the outside world.

The area is targeted almost daily by airstrikes. In the countryside to the north of the town, we heard distant thuds as ISIS defensive positions and arms depots were targeted.

If the SDF take Ash-Shaddadi, ISIS will have a logistical headache in connecting Raqqa in Syria with Mosul in Iraq, its most important cities. It is likely the next test for the new U.S. strategy of identifying and supplying reliable local forces to battle ISIS. And an old airstrip amid the farmsteads of northern Syria may have a new lease of life.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 02:37

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Torrannor posted:

I don't think that people are wondering if democracy is a good thing for Arabs, people are simply wondering if the conditions are right. Our first attempt at democracy in Germany ended in a catastrophe, because after the fall of the authoritarian institutions, the moderate center couldn't hold the state together against a hostile extreme left and extreme right. With the result that the Nazis took over and ended that experiment with democracy. Or look at South America, where many of these democracies experienced military dictatorships taking over their countries for a while, mostly because they used the dumb US system of democracy. I don't think it's wrong to wonder if similar adverse conditions exist for Arab states.

I don't like this kind of argument, firstly because while it can explain why a state is not a Democracy, it can't predict when conditions will be right. By most metrics Germany had very strong institutions prior to WWI including an efficient bureaucracy and a tradition of civic participation, and yet the Wiemar Republic failed anyway. What institutions were lacking? Secondly, I dislike the argument because it is often used to justify supporting authoritarian regimes whose institutions are already incredibly weak, and which exist today in an incredibly unstable condition.

Sucrose posted:

Democracies need roots. How often do states successfully go from strong-man dictatorship to democracy without a transition period in between? Authoritarian government -> Violent revolution -> Democracy is even less likely than Authoritarian government -> Democracy.

People point to Germany and Japan as proof that countries formerly run by militarists can turn into prosperous liberal democracies, but that ignores the fact that both of those countries had been limited monarchies prior to the rise of the militarists. I don't know, maybe things will turn out well for Tunisia, but the odds are stacked against them. I can guarantee Libya's going to stay authoritarian. And anyone who thought that whatever government ends up ruling Syria when the dust settles might be democractic was really fooling themselves.

Strong-man dictatorships have absolutely transitioned into democracies due to revolutions comparable to what happened in Egypt, see for example Indonesia and South Korea. I don't disagree with your point about transition periods, but it's fairly meaningless. If there is democratization the period covering the change between governments is necessarily the transition period. Syria is very different from any place I can think of, but for that reason I wouldn't try and make any predictions on the outcome. Also I'm not sure how to describe what's left of Libya's government, but it definitely isn't authoritarian.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 05:52

Torpor: Oct 20, 2008; .. and now for my next trick, I'll pretend to be a political commentator...

HONK HONK

fade5 posted:

quote:
In part, McGurk's visit to Kobani appears to have been aimed at appeasing the YPG, whose commanders are furious the group's representatives have been excluded from Syrian talks in Geneva -- at Turkey's insistence. One official even told us that unless the YPG was admitted to the process, it would suspend co-operation on the ground with the United States.

With PYD opening a diplomatic mission in Moscow that doesn't bode well. They tried to go to Washington DC but that seem to be much of a permanent thing. The US just doesn't seem to be handling this very well.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 06:13

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Al-Saqr posted:

I like how people here keep wondering if democracy is a good thing for Arabs when the west (and east) have spent the last century and until today doing everything in their power to prevent it from happening, it's literally the only thing Arabs have never gotten a chance to do. so it stands to reason that it's an improvement over their current situation.

what does he even mean by 'world security' as opposed to the magnificent track record left behind by the dictatorships.

The British did everything to prevent democracy from emerging in America. Know what we did? We formed democratic institutions of our own.

Nobody's denying arabs a chance at democracy; it just unfortunately seems when the arab street goes to vote they vote for individuals who are cozzy with islamists.

uninterrupted posted:

ftfy

Read up on south american history. They were subverted and overthrown by their own population because they were unwilling to compromise on issues such as land reform; when American institutions and businesses were approached on these sorts of issues, they refused to back the side that called for hurting American business.

How does refusing to intervene in a civil war between a demagogue and national stakeholders mean that America was reaponsible for latin american failures?

My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Feb 4, 2016

# ? Feb 4, 2016 06:44

Fizzil: Aug 24, 2005; There are five fucks at the edge of a cliff...

My Imaginary GF posted:

The British did everything to prevent democracy from emerging in America. Know what we did? We formed democratic institutions of our own.

Nobody's denying arabs a chance at democracy; it just unfortunately seems when the arab street goes to vote they vote for individuals who are cozzy with islamists.

To be fair here, with active support from Spain and France, and an isolated Britain in a global war. The situation here and now, and throughout the 20th century for the middle east is entirely different.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 06:50

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Fizzil posted:

To be fair here, with active support from Spain and France, and an isolated Britain in a global war. The situation here and now, and throughout the 20th century for the middle east is entirely different.

Yes, because powers don't play off one another and Turkey wasn't funding the overthrow of Mubarak.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 06:51

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Squalid posted:

Strong-man dictatorships have absolutely transitioned into democracies due to revolutions comparable to what happened in Egypt, see for example Indonesia and South Korea. I don't disagree with your point about transition periods, but it's fairly meaningless. If there is democratization the period covering the change between governments is necessarily the transition period. Syria is very different from any place I can think of, but for that reason I wouldn't try and make any predictions on the outcome. Also I'm not sure how to describe what's left of Libya's government, but it definitely isn't authoritarian.

The basic problem with Syria, Iraq and Egypt is that if democratic rule were established, it would implement policies unacceptable to the US, for example refusing to give unconditional support to Israel and/or supporting America's geopolitical enemies (Russia, Iran). You might not like the end result if you give Sunni Muslim Arabs control of their own countries, and that is a problem that is essentially unsolvable from the perspective of the US and its allies, because all of the other choices it has available are also bad. You can lead a people to your preferred ideology (Israel-friendly liberalism) but you can't make them drink

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Feb 4, 2016

# ? Feb 4, 2016 07:03

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

icantfindaname posted:

The basic problem with Syria, Iraq and Egypt is that if democratic rule were established, it would implement policies unacceptable to the US, for example refusing to give unconditional support to Israel and/or supporting America's geopolitical enemies (Russia, Iran). You might not like the end result if you give Sunni Muslim Arabs control of their own countries, and that is a problem that is essentially unsolveable. You can lead a people to your preferred ideology (Israel-friendly liberalism) but you can't make them drink

Actually,

E: also Syria's Alawite regime is not known for being on good terms with Israel, what with getting bombed by them randomly historically, and is known for being friendly with Iran and Russia

# ? Feb 4, 2016 07:09

Fanatic: Mar 9, 2006

a hundred boners posted:

i can't take anyone who actually thinks saying 'daesh' is some kind of verbal victory seriously

I prefer calling them daeshbags

# ? Feb 4, 2016 07:12

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Jagchosis posted:

Actually,

You're right, just Arab Muslims then.

quote:

E: also Syria's Alawite regime is not known for being on good terms with Israel, what with getting bombed by them randomly historically, and is known for being friendly with Iran and Russia

That's true. But it's also true that a democratic, non-Assad government would also probably not be on good terms with Israel

# ? Feb 4, 2016 07:13

Hefty Leftist: Jun 26, 2011; "You know how vodka or whiskey are distilled multiple times to taste good? It's the same with shit. After being digested for the third time shit starts to taste reeeeeeaaaally yummy."

fade5 posted:

I forget, does the Libyan population still like us for getting rid of Gaddafi? Or at least part of the Libyan population? Because if so it seems like it'd be not all that difficult to find local ground allies to support against ISIL, if ISIL really is going to shift themselves to Libya.

And big news, apparently the siege of Nubl and Zahraa has finally been broken:

Note that this does not mean the Idlib rebels are cut off from Turkey, there's still border access on the other side to the southwest of Afrin canton. It does split the rebels into two groups though.

One of the opposition groups has an opinions about the Kurds:
https://twitter.com/gebeilym/status/694847773980676096

Note that this is not the recently deceased Zahran Alloush, but rather the Syrian opposition negotiator Mohamed Alloush, representing Jaish al-Islam::

You know you'd think some of the rebel groups would be trying to tone down some of the anti-Kurdish stuff, given how hard they're starting to be squeezed by the SAA and ISIL. "Don't make enemies you don't have to" and all that.

the SAA are eventually going to attack the kurds/SDF, right? it's pretty clear that daesh isn't going to last at all in any long term form, and when they fall apart there's gonna be a shitload of fsa/ypg controlled territory left over. surely assad isn't going to bow and let them have it, and surely the SDF aren't going to just let assad murder and oppress everything left over if he wins

of course, assuming assad manages to win, but even then nusra/islamic front and the other fsa groups will probably implode on eachother or refuse to let the the kurds have the north

# ? Feb 4, 2016 07:24

my dad: Oct 17, 2012; this shall be humorous

Kurds? I don't think so. What would Assad gain by attacking the Kurdish forces?

# ? Feb 4, 2016 07:27

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

icantfindaname posted:

The basic problem with Syria, Iraq and Egypt is that if democratic rule were established, it would implement policies unacceptable to the US, for example refusing to give unconditional support to Israel and/or supporting America's geopolitical enemies (Russia, Iran). You might not like the end result if you give Sunni Muslim Arabs control of their own countries, and that is a problem that is essentially unsolveable. You can lead a people to your preferred ideology (Israel-friendly liberalism) but you can't make them drink

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I posted but the likelihood of a democratic Iraq implementing policy unacceptable to the US hasn't seemed like much of a stumbling block for American efforts at nation building in that country. And a democratic Syria could hardly be less acceptable to the US than the current government, so I guess you're really only talking about Egypt. Even in Egypt's case I don't think there's any evidence America supported the counter-revolution, it just didn't intervene to stop it. In any case a successful revolution is hardly dependent on US support, I mean just ask the Iranians.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 07:33

ass struggle: Dec 25, 2012; by Athanatos

A Russian Officer was likely killed in Selma Lattakia, although sources are a little slim multi parties are claiming responsibility. Some groups say it was a mortar others say a TOW. RIA Novosti reports the killed as an "adviser." That could be a civilian contractor or an officer.

http://ria.ru/syria/20160203/1369340541.html
http://www.interpretermag.com/syrian-regime-advances-in-aleppo-russian-military-officer-killed-in-action/
Here's one video that allegedly shows the TOW strike against the officers meeting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r90_p3zItH8

# ? Feb 4, 2016 07:33

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/649481/coalition-decimates-isil-ranks-leadership-oir-spokesman-says
http://www.kare11.com/news/nation-now/new-us-intelligence-estimates-2025k-isil-fighters/31741275

Military is saying hecks yeah we're totally killing the poo poo out of ISIS, estimates 20-25k have been killed by airstrikes which is much higher than previous estimates, and they're now estimating that ISIS forces are at about 20-25k troops left but their first estimate of 31k was way the gently caress wrong so w/e. Says that ISIS is now relying heavily on conscription which means lower quality of troops which lines up with other things we've seen. Implies that the next major offensive on the Iraq side of the conflict is probably Fallujah

# ? Feb 4, 2016 07:56

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Squalid posted:

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I posted but the likelihood of a democratic Iraq implementing policy unacceptable to the US hasn't seemed like much of a stumbling block for American efforts at nation building in that country. And a democratic Syria could hardly be less acceptable to the US than the current government, so I guess you're really only talking about Egypt. Even in Egypt's case I don't think there's any evidence America supported the counter-revolution, it just didn't intervene to stop it. In any case a successful revolution is hardly dependent on US support, I mean just ask the Iranians.

The reason the anti-Assad rebels haven't won is because the US has not come to their aid, because it is (rightfully) concerned that if the rebels get power they're going to turn on the US. So it's trivially true that democracy does not exist in Syria because the US would not like the results. Causation is murkier in Iraq and Egypt, but the US could absolutely have put whoever in charge there that it wanted to. You can't treat this situation without considering the influence of outside powers. What happens in Syria, or Iraq or Egypt, depends as much on the actions of the US, Iran and Russia as it does on the inhabitants of those countries, in both obvious and subtle ways

# ? Feb 4, 2016 08:01

Bip Roberts: Mar 29, 2005

icantfindaname posted:

The reason the anti-Assad rebels haven't won is because the US has not come to their aid, because it is (rightfully) concerned that if the rebels get power they're going to turn on the US. So it's trivially true that democracy does not exist in Syria because the US would not like the results. Causation is murkier in Iraq and Egypt, but the US could absolutely have put whoever in charge there that it wanted to. You can't treat this situation without considering the influence of outside powers. What happens in Syria, or Iraq or Egypt, depends as much on the actions of the US, Iran and Russia as it does on the inhabitants of those countries, in both obvious and subtle ways

I'm sorry the US didn't hit the democracy switch for those savages.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 08:09

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

My Imaginary GF posted:

Nobody's denying arabs a chance at democracy;

My Imaginary GF posted:

Nobody's denying arabs a chance at democracy;

My Imaginary GF posted:

Nobody's denying arabs a chance at democracy;

stare emoticon doesn't even begin to cut it.

Bip Roberts posted:

I'm sorry the US didn't hit the democracy switch for those savages.

Maliki was selected as the prime minister of Iraq solely because of his working relationship with Bush as a sort of proxy, so there's extremely valid criticism to be had there.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 08:34

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

icantfindaname posted:

The reason the anti-Assad rebels haven't won is because the US has not come to their aid, because it is (rightfully) concerned that if the rebels get power they're going to turn on the US. So it's trivially true that democracy does not exist in Syria because the US would not like the results. Causation is murkier in Iraq and Egypt, but the US could absolutely have put whoever in charge there that it wanted to. You can't treat this situation without considering the influence of outside powers. What happens in Syria, or Iraq or Egypt, depends as much on the actions of the US, Iran and Russia as it does on the inhabitants of those countries, in both obvious and subtle ways

I think you're confused about a few facts here. The US has aided the Syrian opposition from the very beginning, first with equipment like advanced radios and rations, then by facilitating the purchase of weapons by Gulf states, and today by directly arming and training rebels. You can argue it wasn't effective but clearly there is aid. The kind of opposition feared by the US doesn't even support democracy anyway, so what does that have to do with America's role in creating representative governments? In Iraq America spent billions and billions trying to create a democratic government, and kind of succeeded, and yeah big surprise it immediately started implementing pro-Iranian policies totally unacceptable to the US. Today America just kind of deals with it.

I don't agree that the US "could absolutely have put whoever in charge" that it wanted in Egypt, in fact I think that's absurd, and more importantly even if America could have, it didn't. America softly pushed for Mubarak to step down. America halfheartedly tried to restrain the generals from couping Morsi. America was happy to keep paying the don't-mess-with-Israel bribe regardless of who was in charge, and maybe it could have played a more positive role, but that doesn't mean it alone had power over these circumstances.

It almost sounds like you expect me to disagree that America has influence in these places, which is strange because I don't think I've said that anywhere. Let's please try not to act like America is omnipotent in the Middle East. Iraq at least has proved that wrong.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 08:42

special tactics: Oct 13, 2015

And what we see after "Iran sanctions relief"?

Russia May Launch Tank Production in Iran

http://mil.today/2016/Weapons3/

# ? Feb 4, 2016 08:56

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

https://twitter.com/ZeinakhodrAljaz/status/695143473742233600

:monocle:

# ? Feb 4, 2016 10:30

lollontee: Nov 4, 2014; Can't post for 10 years!

Volkerball posted:

https://twitter.com/ZeinakhodrAljaz/status/695143473742233600

lmao really Kerry?

# ? Feb 4, 2016 10:34

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Squalid posted:

I think you're confused about a few facts here. The US has aided the Syrian opposition from the very beginning, first with equipment like advanced radios and rations, then by facilitating the purchase of weapons by Gulf states, and today by directly arming and training rebels. You can argue it wasn't effective but clearly there is aid. The kind of opposition feared by the US doesn't even support democracy anyway, so what does that have to do with America's role in creating representative governments? In Iraq America spent billions and billions trying to create a democratic government, and kind of succeeded, and yeah big surprise it immediately started implementing pro-Iranian policies totally unacceptable to the US. Today America just kind of deals with it.

I don't agree that the US "could absolutely have put whoever in charge" that it wanted in Egypt, in fact I think that's absurd, and more importantly even if America could have, it didn't. America softly pushed for Mubarak to step down. America halfheartedly tried to restrain the generals from couping Morsi. America was happy to keep paying the don't-mess-with-Israel bribe regardless of who was in charge, and maybe it could have played a more positive role, but that doesn't mean it alone had power over these circumstances.

It almost sounds like you expect me to disagree that America has influence in these places, which is strange because I don't think I've said that anywhere. Let's please try not to act like America is omnipotent in the Middle East. Iraq at least has proved that wrong.

American aid to the Syrian rebels is nominal at best, as were our objections to Sisi's coup. A deliberate failure to act is as impactful as deliberate action, and the US chose to let the rebels fail and to let Morsi get coup'd, because it knew acting otherwise would have consequences it didn't want to deal with. I'm saying that the power and influence of the US are such that it is as responsible for what it chose not to do as what it did

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Feb 4, 2016

# ? Feb 4, 2016 11:46

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

There's a UNICEF conference in Paris today where they will be seeking $1.4bn to try and address the 2.8 million children in and around Syria that currently don't have access to education. The ad for the campaign is really good, and has some interesting interviews with Syrian children. Worth the watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grc47OYBJaE

You can donate to that here.

https://www.unicefusa.org/donate/help-syrian-children/16078

Volkerball fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Feb 4, 2016

# ? Feb 4, 2016 11:56

Dodoman: Feb 26, 2009; A moment of laxity
A lifetime of regret; Lipstick Apathy

special tactics posted:

And what we see after "Iran sanctions relief"?

Russia May Launch Tank Production in Iran

http://mil.today/2016/Weapons3/

According to the article, they're just going to be resuming an old contract.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 11:58

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Volkerball posted:

Maliki was selected as the prime minister of Iraq solely because of his working relationship with Bush as a sort of proxy, so there's extremely valid criticism to be had there.

A Shia majority country is going to elect a pro-Shia PM.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 12:16

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Panzeh posted:

A Shia majority country is going to elect a pro-Shia PM.

Obviously, but a PM isn't directly elected by the people. There was shitload of tomfoolery in the process that got Maliki selected, and the US was front and center in it.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 12:31

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

Jagchosis posted:

As long as it's not IS, the worst and most ungoogleable English acronym ever, whatever works. Islamic State, BBC's "the Islamic State Group", ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, w/e. Just not IS

e: raqqa theocracy aka RT would be a nice troll

IS is a terrible acronym.

ISIS is bad because Ancient Egyptian mythology doesn't deserve to be tarred with 21st century fuckheads.

Daesh is entirely unambiguous, something ISIS is absolutely not, so it the objectively best choice, independently of whether you consider it a "verbal victory" or not.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 13:56

MothraAttack: Apr 28, 2008

Seems the YPG is launch an offensive against the rebels in the newly formed Azaz pocket. Maybe they want to connect the cantons before the regime advances?

# ? Feb 4, 2016 14:34

Count Roland: Oct 6, 2013

special tactics posted:

And what we see after "Iran sanctions relief"?

Russia May Launch Tank Production in Iran

http://mil.today/2016/Weapons3/

This, and future arms sales, should come as no surprise.

I dare say European countries will sell arms to Iran as well- their arms industries need customers, too!

# ? Feb 4, 2016 15:58

Torrannor: Apr 27, 2013; ---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE

As long as they sell arms to Saudi Arabia, a state that is actually invading a neighboring country, I don't see why they would have scruples to sell arms to Iran.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 16:09

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

special tactics posted:

And what we see after "Iran sanctions relief"?

Russia May Launch Tank Production in Iran

http://mil.today/2016/Weapons3/

We knew that Russia and China would be chomping at the bit to sell arms to Iran as soon as sanctions were lifted. A country with major military needs and a lot of cash on hand that has no access to the US arms market is their dream customer.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 16:22

GaussianCopula: Jun 5, 2011; Jews fleeing the Holocaust are not in any way comparable to North Africans, who don't flee genocide but want to enjoy the social welfare systems of Northern Europe.

Cat Mattress posted:

IS is a terrible acronym.

ISIS is bad because Ancient Egyptian mythology doesn't deserve to be tarred with 21st century fuckheads.

Daesh is entirely unambiguous, something ISIS is absolutely not, so it the objectively best choice, independently of whether you consider it a "verbal victory" or not.

Let's not fool ourselves, the reason why certain Western politicians switched from "Islamic State"/ "ISIS" to "daesh" is that they don't want to highlight the connection between terrorism and Islam.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 16:37

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

GaussianCopula posted:

Let's not fool ourselves, the reason why certain Western politicians switched from "Islamic State"/ "ISIS" to "daesh" is that they don't want to highlight the connection between terrorism and Islam.

Proceed, governor.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 16:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 14:25

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Sucrose posted:

Democracies need roots. How often do states successfully go from strong-man dictatorship to democracy without a transition period in between? Authoritarian government -> Violent revolution -> Democracy is even less likely than Authoritarian government -> Democracy.

People point to Germany and Japan as proof that countries formerly run by militarists can turn into prosperous liberal democracies, but that ignores the fact that both of those countries had been limited monarchies prior to the rise of the militarists. I don't know, maybe things will turn out well for Tunisia, but the odds are stacked against them. I can guarantee Libya's going to stay authoritarian. And anyone who thought that whatever government ends up ruling Syria when the dust settles might be democractic was really fooling themselves.

There's also the legacies left by colonial governments. There seems to be a pretty linear relationship between types of colonial governance (ex: British, which traditionaly left autonomous institutions, versus French, which is was much more hands on, here's a paper on the subject: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/wgape/papers/17_Lee.pdf) and the degree they degraded local institutions, while creating a prosperous upper class subject to a rule of law and property rights, in accounting for democractic and non-corrupt post colonial governments.

# ? Feb 4, 2016 17:04

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

«‹›3125 »