|
icantfindaname posted:You can absolutely blame him, because there's a slight, small difference between a limited air campaign and a full-scale, 100,000 strong boots-on-the-ground invasion, and the dude's a god damned idiot if he thought that they would end up the same And when the SAA collapses and an exciting hodge podge of various Sunni rebel groups roll into Alawite areas what will happen?
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:Depends on how quickly it could've been done. The more massacres that were perpetrated by Alawite militias and by the regime, the more the tensions rose and the threat of reprisal killings grew. If your goal was the prevention of genocide, there's no question whatsoever that a quick and speedy resolution would've done the most to stop that. Turning our back on it was not the proper response to that because A. Your strategy empowered acts of genocide in the name of preventing genocide, such as the Bayda and Baniyas massacres that didn't happen until 2013, and B. Extremism on both sides is infinitely more entrenched now than it was in early 2012 when it was prime time to act, which has made genocidal massacres that much more of an inevitability. I know people tend to look at this position as the "realist" one, but it was never not dumb. Assuming it could have been ended quickly it would have been better, yes. I'm questioning why you make that assumption. We've been having a not-so limited air campaign against ISIL for 4 years and they are still around. Russia has been bombing the rebels for 3-4 months and the civil war is not over. Why do you think an air campaign could destroy the Syrian government when it has not destroyed ISIL's government or the rebels? Why do you think Alawite and other loyalist areas would surrender just because the Syrian state is destroyed when Sunni and other rebel areas don't surrender when they don't have a functional state or state army? This is not about toppling a leader or holding a hilltop. This is sectarian. When the Iraqi state was toppled and a strong military occupied the area the sectarian divides did not go away and the war didn't end. You're asking us to believe that in Syria it would be different. THIS TIME it will be different. Even with Iran and Russia shoveling weapons and money at anything opposing a Sunni-led state. I'm not buying it. Bottom line is nobody knows what Syria would look like without Assad but what is fairly guaranteed is that resistance to regime change would not go away with Assad nor would jihadist movements be deterred or less ambitious.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:No, that was a successful policy, compared with Syria anyways. ~5,000 dead vs ~500,000 dead It's still ongoing. They still need to unite and free the country of various rebel groups including ISIL. Ghaddafi dying didn't end it just like Assad dying wouldn't end the conflict in Syria. In Syria you also have Iran and Russia shoveling money into the fire to counteract the goals of US-backed rebels so if the SAA cease to exist all you'd get is Alawite militias fighting Sunni militias + Al Qaeda + ISIL.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 21:04
|
|