Obama's Syria Strategy is Actually the Best Available

Hear me out.

So the #1 US objective is to get rid of the Islamic State because it's a threat to the West and has already killed hundreds in numerous terror attacks. We have to get rid of them.

BUT, no one wants to risk the lives of US troops in frontline combat, even against something they could bowl over in a week, especially given that guerillea forces would continue attacks after the IS's "defeat". There's also the issue of the local population being incredibly ethnicist and likely to side with the IS against any non-Sunni force that enters its lands; efforts to establish a Sunni government after US troops invade would be fruitless because they would be seen as US puppets and be overthrown anyway. So an American invasion of the Islamic State is a no-go.

That means using proxy forces. The Kurds seem like a good choice, they're our friends.

Well, kind of. They are, but the problem is that the YPG is, in fact, the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Turkey, despite what the administration claims in public; say what you will about Turkey's refusal to grant Kurdish autonomy, but you can't go around supporting terrorists that bomb NATO member countries if you want this alliance to last (and you damn well should). Try to force the Turks' hand politically? Sure, absolutely, the Kurds deserve their own state after all they've been through and all they've done for the US. But let them run rampant, create a giant safe haven for them to stage attacks from? That's a risky proposition there. Course with the Turkish military presence at the border it's rather hard to get across (unless you're an IS oil truck, cuz the Turks want that oil), but the problem remains. This is why it is prudent the US is not making the mistake they made in Afghanistan: they are not giving the Kurds weapons but instead giving them something much more useful - professional, highly trained American commanders. Unlike artillery and TOWs, those cannot be turned on the Turks.

Indeed, the Kurds can't even really defeat the IS because they can't effectively operate outside of Kurdish-majority areas, as the local population becomes outright hostile when they occupy Arab towns. A Kurdish army marching into al-Raqqa would cause the whole city to grab their weapons and join the IS to fight off the dirty heretical Kurds. This is why Mosul in Iraq has been so close to the Peshmerga front for so long: Kurdistan ends just north of Mosul. The Kurds guard their own, they assist Arab forces, but they do not on their own occupy Arab locales.

The issue in Syria is that the geographical area the US is trying to recruit Arab fighters from to take back IS territory is sparsely populated, the IS controlling almost all of the large Arab population centers in eastern Syria. Currently, the US has only managed to scrounge up 5000 Arab troops, which isn't enough to cover the vast expanse of desert you must cross when you operate in Syria. It's not enough to take back al-Raqqa; without a considerable initial force or a good pool of reinforcements, such a force wouldn't be able to stage a protracted urban battle in al-Raqqa. Thus, until the IS is sufficiently weakened and enough Arabs have been recruited to make the force substantial enough to storm the city, these Arab fighters have instead been used to whittle away at the IS frontier, liberating the Tishrin Dam and currently assisting the YPG in liberating the remainder of al-Hasakah province, which syncs well with operations just across the border from there in Iraq to isolate Mosul from its Syrian supply route which appear to be rather successful thus far.

al-Raqqa will likely be one of the last places the US goes after; the area north of the city contains a large concentration of IS troops who have recently become strong enough to counterattack; even reaching the city limits would be difficult at this point. It is likely instead that the SDF will liberate al-Hasakah and Deir ez-Zor first, drawing IS forces out of their concentrations elsewhere, defeating them piecemeal, and also serving to sever the remaining supply routes to Iraq and also, hopefully, break the siege of Deir ez-Zor. By the time that's done the IS forces around Raqqa will likely be weakened enough that the city can be taken. The remaining IS troops west of Raqqa and the Euphrates can be left to the regime.

Speaking of the regime, while the messaging may not make sense and may be full of lies (the rebels are mostly Islamists and Jihadists, not moderates, that's a total and complete lie), the actual strategy in place is pretty good. They know Assad and the Russians fight the IS, and it's good they do that. They know that the al-Qaeda-led Army of Conquest is the most powerful rebel group and they won't be sad if the Russians kill them all. But on the other hand, handing Putin and the murderous despot Assad a victory because their enemy also happens to be our enemy seems wrong morally. What to do? We can't give them anti-air missiles, al-Qaeda could use them against US aircraft. But you know what you CAN'T use against US aircraft? TOW mssiles. The only force in Syria with tanks (other than captured ones) is the Syrian army and their Russian advisors. That means that even if al-Qaeda gets its hands on US TOW missiles, the lack of any US armour in Syria to shoot at means that they'll end up firing them at the regime anyway. No threat to the US military, more blown up Russian tanks, more dead regime troops, more dead Russians - what's not to love?

The more I think about it the more I realize that most criticisms of US policy in Syria come down to an absolute refusal of people to accept that the rebels being defeated isn't a bad thing - those rebels include 13000 al-Qaeda troops. If anything you should cheer the Russians for wiping them out. But that doesn't mean we can't make their likely inevitable victory a bit more difficult - that's what the TOWs are for. Everyone (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es about letting Assad get away with his crimes, letting Putin do what he wants, letting the "moderates" die (you sign a deal with the devil, you should live with the consequences I say) - when in reality that's exactly what America should want. Does it mean letting the oppressed people of Syria die along with them? Yes unfortunately it does. But Bashar al-Assad isn't going to suicide bomb a cafe in France - al-Qaeda WILL. Priorities guys.

 

My criticism of US Policy is what we dub as "ISIS". Namely, the belief that there's a divided line among the sectarian fighters in that area. This is the same belief we held in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the creation of the Muhajeeden. My criticism of the US policy is that we enabled ISIS'S creation and thereby invited the civil war in Syria;. Under Obama/Clinton's passionate yet foolish strategy of arousing and enabling rioting factions across the ME. It was and is a foolish advent.

We created several Iraq's, after being told that we would avoid the old strategies of the past. Hence, Proxy States can be seen as an eternal failure that's never given the West a victory. Neither in creating a State beholden to Western interests, nor in a reformation of the Middle East.

In my opinion, I oppose the idea of militarily taking down the Assad regime, in the same fashion that Libya was a great failure. No, Syria must be a political solution and if I were commander in chief, I accept nothing short of a political solution. I would tell France that her radical dreams of glory is putting the EU and world stability at peril, and that she should accept the great coalition we've built, which has guaranteed the EU peace ever since 1945.

I would ally directly with Putin and the Russians, I would put boots on the ground. To ensure the job is done ourselves and that weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. If you want a job done, you have to do it yourselves. I would seek to assure Putin that we don't want to be a player in the Middle East, and that Middle East reformation is for the purpose of an independent, prosperous and free Middle East.

The same resolution in Eurasia as well. To resolve Ukraine peacefully and reserve the rights of self determination.

 

1. Why would you ally with Putin?
2. How does putting US troops in the Middle East to fight Sunni militants again help at all? All they do is turn around, say "Look, the Kuffar are invading again! It is your holy duty to fight for Islam against them, God wills it!", and people flock to the ranks.

 

1. Because I want an alliance with either Russia or China. An alliance with one or the other, will isolate the other State. Ideally, it may even get the other State on board. Plus, Russia is interested in a domestic Syria that is peaceful and engages in the Middle East. Putin has seen Assad as a safety net in the region. I believe there's an element for cooperation between us on this crucial issue.

2. Because the reality of the matter is this: If the Western Nations do not intervene, radical islam will grow. Our retreat from Iraq did not empower freedom and democracy in Iraq, it empowered ISIS. This cruel reality means we have to counter propaganda. This is war, stop letting ourselves get dictated by the enemy's message! Instead, we must promote our message throughout the Middle East. That a coordinated movement for peace and civility will come. If you want a secular, free life then the US will be there, and we'll fight directly for it.

The Middle East is a baby, and you have to teach it to crawl before it can walk. This is a dedicated effort, whether we like it or not. We're going to have to devote at least two decades of effort towards Middle East reconstruction. The alternative, is losing the war. Retreat, is simply not an option we can afford at this time.

 

1. The Russians do not have our interests in common. Putin is a neo-Imperialist, but doing it in a dirty, sneaky, under-handed way as befits the head of the KGB. After the (*)(*)(*)(*) he pulled in Ukraine I don't see how you can justify an alliance with him, the man is a bully on a power trip and need to be taken down a peg. Mark my words, if NATO didn't exist, the Baltics would be under Russian occupation right now and he'd be starting (*)(*)(*)(*) in Poland.

The Chinese also only care about themselves, but at least that means they don't want the US to fail because they rely on exports to you.

2. ISIS exists because you went into Iraq. al-Qaeda would never have opened a branch in Iraq if you hadn't toppled the dictator that kept the Islamists in check. The actual populace of these places will not stand by while Christian soldiers tromp around the Middle East, they'll attack them. You're literally handing al-Qaeda targets and recruits.

The Middle East cannot be changed by outside imposition, such actions only cause people to become more tribal, more divisive and more radical. Radical Islam is a chronic problem that cannot go away because Islam is not going away. Like a chronic illness, we just have to treat the flare ups - but we can't get rid of it. Any attempt to do so is futile.

 

Well, as a self-professed Fascist-Technocrat, I will openly embrace who I am. In that I understand Putin's positions(but certainly do not advocate for his actions.) Hence I think I can be a fair-weather middle ground guy that could allow Russia to embrace a less plutocratic government. As an example: Ukraine. That's a tussle between Russia and the EU, wherein the EU made a power play and disrupted the deal between Russia and Ukraine. And the Ukrainians were already behind on the oil payments. If America were in Russia's position, we would do pretty much the same thing.

A lender(Russia) can't lend out things, and expect no payment in return. This was bound to happen as the Ukrainian economy collapsed. The EU's meddling turned a minor affair, into a major showdown between Eurasia and Europe. Way to revive the old ways. Chancellor Merkel recognized this at long last and hence they tried to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine. But the American neo-cons didn't want that.

I certainly don't agree with Russia's treatment of gays and minorities. But considering Putin's opposition to NATO, if he really wanted to expand the old Soviet Empire I think
he would've long ago done so. Crimea was ethnically Russian, and so I don't mind them claiming Crimea. What I do oppose is any expansion into Ukraine and that means a peaceful resolution has to be made.

The EU pulling itself out of Ukraine would be a nice start. Ukraine is stuck between two hegemonic powers trying to claim her, and we simply back our side. I'm for a real, free Ukraine. Our "opposition of Putin" at all costs is actually going to bring us into a real quagmire, and perhaps a real war.

Be careful what you ask for.

2. They rely on their exports to us, and our exporting out to them. It's really harmful I know. That's why I want to have a bilateral dialogue with the Chinese on a more fair, even trade. I'll give them a deal. We won't call them currency manipulators if they agree to a 55-45 Ratio favoring the United States.


3. ISIS exists because of Obama's withdrawal and arming of the Libyan Rebels, who quickly took their aspirations to Syria and as they fall back, news reports indicate that they want to make Libya their new stronghold. It was the opinion of every independent that we'd either have to go back into Libya or that Libya would fall to terrorism. Everyone but THIS administration saw that.

(And the US Army is a secular army, not a Christian army. Words like that, encourage the enemy's propaganda. Note I said "propaganda". Not a word that comes from ISIS is true. It didn't matter what the famous Al-Qaeda videos said. Bin Laden's purpose was to enrage his fellow Muslims and to create sectarian divisions in America. He, and his followers and successors have CLEARLY accomplished their goal.)

Their propaganda has beaten ours. That's where we're taking a beating in this war. But of interest, how do you intend to "treat the flare ups" if we can't get rid of the chronic illness?

 

1. Nothing Ukraine did give the Russians the right to invade them and kill people.
3. No, it doesn't. ISIS was formed from the al-Qaeda branch in Iraq which retreated to Syria after the US defeated them there. It was not imported from Libya. It doesn't matter that the US is a secular country, almost all the soldiers are Christian and they will be seen that way by the locals. Even if they were secular, that's still haram, so it's no better.

The reason their propaganda wins is because most Muslims fundamentally don't agree with the values we stand for and we can't spin it in a way that's true to those principle that also appeals to fundamentalist Islam, as most people in the Middle East practice.

The "treatment" is espionage, surveillance, drone strikes and commando raids wherever the (*)(*)(*)(*)ers pop their heads up. If we can't get rid of the idea (such a thing is impossible), then we can kill everyone who believes in it.

 

Took me a bit of time to find this, but the US Military is more religiously diverse than at any point in its recent history.

I agree, war's (*)(*)(*)(*)ty. But the Russians were being left out of a deal they originated. It was either pressure the Ukrainians or at least try to salvage some land I guess.(But do they even have Ukrainian territory?). I don't think any government, plutocratic or not would've taken the EU interference lying down. The neo-con pretense against Russia created this unstable situation, Putin just reacted.

No one has any illusions about his support(or non existence thereof) of democracy, but he made decisions based on his calculus. If we approach Russia with sense and with understanding, I think we can calm the waters. Nuland however, will not allow us to do that if she can help it.

Your treatment is the same as my treatment. With one distinct difference: I do believe we can get rid of the idea. We should, we must. There was a time when the Arabic world knew peace. We can bring those times back.

 

I think there is plenty to criticize when it comes to Obama's Syria policy.

We have to remember that our involvement started off as regime change. We're pretty much doing the Saudi's biding to remove Assad, and counter Iran's influence. We funded a bunch so called "moderates" rebels, that were questionable at best. So our involvement has added to the chaos, and human suffering.

It's like the Obama admin is completely incapable of learning from the dumb assery of the Bush admin, and what they did to Iraq, because Obama did the same damn thing in Libya.

I think it's been established, that when there's civil strife in the Middle East, nine out of ten times bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy Muslims are going to try an fill the void. It's happened in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and to certain extent Tunisia.

Why doesn't our government ever learn??!!

 

The Kurds are Sunni as are MOST of ISIS enemies.

 

Assad 's military was mostly Sunni.. When Syrian civilians rioted he ordered the soldiers to shoot them.. When they refused he had many soldiers shot... 10,000 Sunni soldiers defected to fight Assad..

This isn't about KSA at all. There's no loved lost because Assad had Rafic Hariri assassinated, but its Qatar that wants the gas pipeline across Syria to European markets.

 

Nonsense, who benifits the most from Assad getting the boot?
The Saudis, who are in a proxy war with Iran.

Assad is a bastard, there's no doubt. But we don't need to be involved in this nonsense, and Obama obviously didn't learn from eight years of Bush.

 

There is no benefit to Saudi Arabia.. Can you name any benefit?

 

I think the worst part of Obama's strategy is what it has always been - arming the rebels. (That goes for the Gulf States and Turkey too.)

That should stop. Syria's civil war is not our business; it is Syrian business.

Our enemy is Al Qaeda and ISIS. They should be our focus - nothing else. (Debatable, but if we hadn't fomented chaos in Syria in the first place ....) Blame game aside, we should change course. We should ...

Ally with Russia and the Syrian government to defeat AQ and ISIS, providing our air power and Special Ops capabilities where appropriate.

Have the so-called "moderate rebels" stand down. Do what we can to get the Turks and Gulf States to stand down their support of them. Clinging to this notion that they can overthrow Assad is unrealistic. In fact, given that there are now a half a million dead, cities in ruins, starvation, and all the homeless and refugees, that policy has been a disaster.

When AQ and ISIS are defeated, we should butt out of Syrian affairs. It's their country. It is no threat to us or its neighbors. At that point, our best effort should be to provide humanitarian assistance to the hungry, sick, and homeless of Syria. After all, we had a hand in creating this holocaust.

My two cents ...

 

Umm, Assad losing power, and Iran loosing a proxy.

Oh ya,
U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/2...y-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?referer=&_r=0

 

Except Obama is doing precisely 0 things to get rid of al-Assad because the Syrian Army, coincidentally, is the only force other than the Kurds which is effective at fighting them, and the SDF is not powerful enough to eliminate the IS by itself. It needs the Syrian Army to exist. The only thing Obama is doing is causing the deaths of more Russian Coalition forces by giving rebel forces TOW missiles, which can only delay enemy ground offensives and cannot stop the real game changer: the Russian Air Force.

What he says for public face and what he actually does are different things. The only thing I think he might be making a mistake on is thinking the YPG don't have anything to do with the PKK, which history tells you they obviously do.

 

The Iraq is most Shia and thus most of the Army is too. Most Sunnis in Syria joined the rebels, not the government. The Russian Coalition forces in Syria are a hodgepodge of Shia soldiers, militia, Iranian Special Forces and Hizbollah, backed by Russian commanders, Spetznaz and the Russian Air Force. Not a lot of Sunnis there.

The Kurds get an exception from being "Sunni" because they're a different ehtnic group. They're not Arab or Persian, so to ISIS (and everyone else, actually), they don't count. They're the "other".