US changes it's stance on Assad

So far, government analysts have the position that removing ISIS from Syria isn't a possibility while Assad is in power.

 

It's not nearly that simple. There are different versions of Sharia applied regionally within Syria.

Your characterization of the law may be true in some parts of Syria, but it is not how all Syria is ruled. Remember, for example, that the law that is applied to Muslims is not the same as the law that is applied to non-Muslims.

This may mean that certain minority groups, such as Christians in a Christian community are treated differently under the law.

However, the real issue in Syria is how the majority is treated. The wide majority of Syria is Sunni. There is little reason to believe there would be a civil war if Sunnis were not disenfranchised and assaulted by the military of the Assad minority.

Today, Assad is aligned with the Shia of Iran, not the Sunnis of his own country.

It seems clear that there is a strong sectarian element in this civil war. Claims of indifference to religious sect hit me as WAY beyond being unproven.


So, suggesting that Syria is secular can not be suggested to be a guiding principle in Syria.

 

At least since 1945 American foreign policy has rather consistently failed to serve or protect the nation's long term security and economic interests. I do not have enough knowledge regarding each example of failure to analyze or understand the motives of the leaders involved. The failures I have studied closely have usually involved profound errors in judgement amplified by the kind of dangerous ignorance that is encouraged by very bad intelligence. The US blundered badly in China and Vietnam after WW II.

Of course, a ruling political class, including its MSM can always benefit from any foreign or domestic crisis, and certainly from war regardless of the outcome and cost to the nation as a whole.

Did you see the Tucker Carlson interview of Lindsey Graham on 4/8/17? The military industrial complex is clearly determined to maintain a permanent state of war, and now openly contemplates attacks on Russia, Syria, N. Korea and thus China. Trump is being pushed hard toward new major wars. He should push back - hard.

“Appearing on Fox News last night, host Tucker Carlson introduced Graham by saying he “fervently” hopes the Syria action “is merely the beginning of many more military interventions around the world.”

For starters, Graham wants 7,000 more troops in Syria, “like we have in Iraq.” In fact, Graham predicts it. “I think you’re going to see a ramp up of American troops, not as frontline fighters but trainers, advisers, special forces to take ISIL down quicker,” he said.”

http://www.newshounds.us/sen_lindse...me_change_in_syria_040817#wvdEkcgjes6xqXfk.99

 

I don't know that is the opinion of "government analysts." That does seem to be the opinion of various politicians and cable news talking heads.

 

That has been a basis of US policy toward Syria for a long time now.

 

USA and his whores from NATO destroyed the last hope for peace. Now everything will be decided by force. The International law, investigations, evidences?! F_ck all of these! Bomb them!

 

I'm not so sure about that. 5 million Syrians have fled the country including 15,000 Syrian doctors. Aleppo is in ruins. Their medical school is destroyed along with most hospitals. The Assad family are brutal criminals and always have been.

If you remove Assad I think you would remove the reason for ISIS and any support for ISIS.

Syrians love their bars and cafes and belly dancing. Think largely urban society.

 

I don't know many Russians.. Are they sympathetic when they see the slaughter of women, children and non-combatants?

 

...take ISIL down quicker" he said, "... and to arm and train their replacements..." he unsaid.

 

Does anyone believe that the Americans would actually Gas the Syrians, Frame Assad for it, just to go on the offence against an Islamic state?

 

Who is "you"? I suggest perhaps you mean "one", but the outcome depends a lot on "who" is the "one", not least in their ability to rapidly re-establish the bureaucracy and welfare state and deploy infra spending.
In other words, we need to remove Assad whilst maintaining the functional continuity of the central government. In most cases that means a deal whereby the family keep their wealth and a nominal toe-hold on power.

 

Have you heard of Meher al Assad? He's vicious, probably insane and he controls the military and the police. Bashar's uncles control every aspect of the government. This is the Assad mafia.

 

NO.........

 

Assad and Putin have speculated differently on where the chemicals came from, possibly because they really don't know because the chemicals were supplied to some rebels or mercenaries by the CIA.

The CIA has a long well-documented history of planting false flags and creating disinformation when overthrowing governments.

The very idea that the Syrian government would use chemical weapons which the Associated Press repeats over and over, seems to be, as Putin said, a crock of ****.

 

Perhaps you should read some Syrian history and on the Assad family history in particular.

Further, Assad has used Chlorine gas as well as Sarin.. and they have caught smugglers bringing the ingredients for making Sarin in to Syria.

Putin is being ridiculous.

 

Indeed, and to entice them away from those roles whilst maintaining the functionality of the government will be the key to successful resolution in Syria. At best, armed takeover could be a "stick" to the money "carrot" for the clan.
At worst, we have an armed takeover and have to re-establish an entire government, which won't end well.

 

I don't think we have a lot of choice. There are 4 Alawite tribes and even they are turning against Assad. I don't think the West can take anymore Syrian refugees. Bashar won't step down.. His family would kill him. Genocide is meaningless to the Assads because Syria was over populated. The Syrian lira was 47 to the dollar, now its 530 to the dollar. Assad is living in a bubble in Damascus. I think we should appeal to the Russians and assure them they can keep Tartus.

 

Maybe, but it should always be "Plan B". In any event, if they lost support of Russia there's a good chance the Assads would be scattering to the winds. A trade of wealth for smooth transition might be raised then...

So Plan A and Plan B might involve much the same trajectory of events, being to bring Russia into alliance with the US against Assad.

Hard talk against Putin might be politically convenient for domestic affairs, but probably isn't useful for resolving Syria

 

The Assads have probably moved their considerable wealth out of the country already and I would venture a guess that Iran and Russia are paying the bills.

 

A good amount for a comfortable life, certainly, but hard assets are harder to shift, particularly after hostilities have commenced.

SO we have moves to corner the off-shore assets through money laundering regulations (and acts of sanction) concurrent with the potential to seize control of the domestic hard assets through violent change of government.

 

Has it?

 

False flags...so you're saying the CIA did it?

 

The US has been thwarting the peace process every step of the way. The whole point of arming the Islamist Jihadists in Syria - which led to the rise of the modern incarnation of ISIS - the worst humanitarian crisis of this decade - and the refugee crisis was to destabilize Syria for purposes of economic and strategic hegemony.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...l-gains-result-from-us-support-of-extremists/

 

I agree that if they have the freedom to choose what they want, Syrians will most likely go toward a government that includes a variety of cultures.

But, I tend to agree with the analysis of the last years that wiping out the existing government without an organized transition would allow ISIS to expand to become a proto-government in Syria like ISIS attempts in Iraq.

As much as Syrians want to get rid of ISIS, they would find it hard to do without there being an adequately funded and organized national approach acceptable to Sunnis.

So, I'm more in the Obama sphere on this one - that we need an organized transition in the Syrian government to a government that accepts Sunni participation.

I'm sure there are good arguments against this, too.

 

Plenty of room for a safe haven for them in the Golan Heights.