Dylith, Iraq, Kurdistan, and so forth

[sana8410]

So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...


Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.


My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.


I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.

[1715553701]

1715553701

[1715553701]

1715553701

[1715553701]

1715553701

[1715553701]

1715553701

[zolace]

I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line.

Why should they put any stock in "a line" when Obama draws them and ignores them?

[noviapriani]

So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...


Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.


My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.


I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.

Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it?

[tee-rex]

So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...


Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.


My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.


I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.

Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it?

Did he actually ignore the red line he had drawn? As far as I remember, Syria agreed to get rid of their chemical weapons, and it was not proven that the Syrian pro-government troops had actually used them (yes, I remember that this didn't stop Bush in Iraq).

[Rigon]

Because maybe people with real stakes in a real situation don't give a fuck about the conservative anti-Obama movement.

[noviapriani]

So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...


Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.


My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.


I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.

Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it?

Did he actually ignore the red line he had drawn? As far as I remember, Syria agreed to get rid of their chemical weapons, and it was not proven that the Syrian pro-government troops has actually used them (yes, I remember that this didn't stop Bush in Iraq).

This is nothing to do with being anti-Obama and everything to do with him having drawn lines in the past and then ignored them.

Thread starter's point was that if the US Came in and drew a line, it could end the issues there. My reply was that Obama has drawn lines and ignored them, and even worse has blamed Congress for his ineptitude.

So since he's proven a line means nothing, why should they take anything he says seriously?

[tee-rex]

Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it?

Did he actually ignore the red line he had drawn? As far as I remember, Syria agreed to get rid of their chemical weapons, and it was not proven that the Syrian pro-government troops has actually used them (yes, I remember that this didn't stop Bush in Iraq).

This is nothing to do with being anti-Obama and everything to do with him having drawn lines in the past and then ignored them.

Thread starter's point was that if the US Came in and drew a line, it could end the issues there. My reply was that Obama has drawn lines and ignored them, and even worse has blamed Congress for his ineptitude.

So since he's proven a line means nothing, why should they take anything he says seriously?

As they say (actually said by Bismarck), politics is the art of the possible (Die Politik ist die Lehre vom Möglichen).

[Rigon]

So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...


Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.


My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.


I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.

Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it?

Did he actually ignore the red line he had drawn? As far as I remember, Syria agreed to get rid of their chemical weapons, and it was not proven that the Syrian pro-government troops has actually used them (yes, I remember that this didn't stop Bush in Iraq).

This is nothing to do with being anti-Obama and everything to do with him having drawn lines in the past and then ignored them.

Thread starter's point was that if the US Came in and drew a line, it could end the issues there. My reply was that Obama has drawn lines and ignored them, and even worse has blamed Congress for his ineptitude.

So since he's proven a line means nothing, why should they take anything he says seriously?

Yet again, I don't think the world shares your misanthropic need for Obama to be the absolute failure you've been repeating he is since 2008.

The reality is that any president would be working against the notion that working with the US in any real way would make them puppets in the eyes of their own faction, and right now this seems to be all about each faction grabbing as much as they can while the power vacuum expands. Think Russian state owned industry after the end of the Cold War: every fucking piece of infrastructure is now ripe for picking, and the more of it you own, the better your chances of continuing your cult of you into the future. And your supporters expect you to do this, because they have hitched themselves to your wagon--in this sense, imagine Ancient Rome of the fourth century and the never ending cycle of troops nominating their leader to be the new emperor. When this happened, you tried to be emperor or your supporters replaced you with someone else.

In my opinion, there is a curve to overcome, and that curve is opportunity versus self preservation over time. SP requires you take advantage of O right now, but for SP to occur in the long term, you have to limit O through agreements. Right now, I don't think any of the key players can actually get their patrons to support the idea of concessions and compromise NOW for stability and security in the future. Not when the middle eastern version of the end of the Cold War is taking place, and there is so much up for grabs.

[sana8410]

So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...


Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.


My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.


I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.

Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it?

You can believe that since Obama made, in my opinion also, a serious mistake by the Syrian red line, but the truth is that if he chooses, he can make everyone understand he is totally serious without having to raise a finger. The error was embarrassing, but unimportant if he chooses to flex. US will can be imposed pretty easily if the desire is there.

That issue is fairly unimportant to the discussion I hoped to have.

[Charlie Prime]

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.

There is no One hand controlling everything.  The whole world is basically a chessboard for different banking factions trying to gain control of human resources.

Humans are cattle.  The Farmer who controls the most cattle wins.  Right now Chinese bankers are making a run at the City of London.

Follow the Money.  Israel is a tool/weapon.  The US/NATO is a tool/weapon.  "The Caliphate" meme is a Goldstein boogyman tool to fire up the western cattle.

Follow the Money.  You won't, because doing so is extremely boring and complex, but that is how one cuts through the clown show of character actors like Obama/ISIS/Israel/U.S./Saudi/Pakistan et al.  The clown show is purposely wild and colorful to hold your attention.

They WANT you to get lost in the character details and plot twists of the clown show.  Ignore it.  Turn off the "news" and read old books about history in the evening to learn what's really going on.

[tee-rex]

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.

There is no One hand controlling everything.  The whole world is basically a chessboard for different banking factions trying to gain control of human resources.

Humans are cattle.  The Farmer who controls the most cattle wins.  Right now Chinese bankers are making a run at the City of London.

Follow the Money.  Israel is a tool/weapon.  The US/NATO is a tool/weapon.  "The Caliphate" meme is a Goldstein boogyman tool to fire up the western cattle.

Follow the Money.  You won't, because doing so is extremely boring and complex, but that is how one cuts through the clown show of character actors like Obama/ISIS/Israel/U.S./Saudi/Pakistan et al.  The clown show is purposely wild and colorful to hold your attention.

They WANT you to get lost in the character details and plot twists of the clown show.  Ignore it.  Turn off the "news" and read old books about history in the evening to learn what's really going on.

How could we actually trace the money flows? Do we have any means to perform such a trick?

[tee-rex]

You can believe that since Obama made, in my opinion also, a serious mistake by the Syrian red line, but the truth is that if he chooses, he can make everyone understand he is totally serious without having to raise a finger. The error was embarrassing, but unimportant if he chooses to flex. US will can be imposed pretty easily if the desire is there.

That issue is fairly unimportant to the discussion I hoped to have.

Yeah, I understand your pains and possible frustration!

[noviapriani]

So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...


Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.


My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.


I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.

Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it?

Did he actually ignore the red line he had drawn? As far as I remember, Syria agreed to get rid of their chemical weapons, and it was not proven that the Syrian pro-government troops has actually used them (yes, I remember that this didn't stop Bush in Iraq).

This is nothing to do with being anti-Obama and everything to do with him having drawn lines in the past and then ignored them.

Thread starter's point was that if the US Came in and drew a line, it could end the issues there. My reply was that Obama has drawn lines and ignored them, and even worse has blamed Congress for his ineptitude.

So since he's proven a line means nothing, why should they take anything he says seriously?

Yet again, I don't think the world shares your misanthropic need for Obama to be the absolute failure you've been repeating he is since 2008.

The reality is that any president would be working against the notion that working with the US in any real way would make them puppets in the eyes of their own faction, and right now this seems to be all about each faction grabbing as much as they can while the power vacuum expands. Think Russian state owned industry after the end of the Cold War: every fucking piece of infrastructure is now ripe for picking, and the more of it you own, the better your chances of continuing your cult of you into the future. And your supporters expect you to do this, because they have hitched themselves to your wagon--in this sense, imagine Ancient Rome of the fourth century and the never ending cycle of troops nominating their leader to be the new emperor. When this happened, you tried to be emperor or your supporters replaced you with someone else.

In my opinion, there is a curve to overcome, and that curve is opportunity versus self preservation over time. SP requires you take advantage of O right now, but for SP to occur in the long term, you have to limit O through agreements. Right now, I don't think any of the key players can actually get their patrons to support the idea of concessions and compromise NOW for stability and security in the future. Not when the middle eastern version of the end of the Cold War is taking place, and there is so much up for grabs.

keep repeating it, won't make it true

Obama: "hey Assad, here's a red line on chemical weapon use!!"
Assad: "fuck that, I just gassed 1400 people"
Everyone: "hey Obama, what about that line?"
Obama: "uhh, I didn't say that"
Everyone: "yes you did "  http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-issues-syria-red-line-warning-on-chemical-weapons/2012/08/20/ba5d26ec-eaf7-11e1-b811-09036bcb182b_story.html

[sana8410]

So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...


Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.


My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.


I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.

Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it?

Did he actually ignore the red line he had drawn? As far as I remember, Syria agreed to get rid of their chemical weapons, and it was not proven that the Syrian pro-government troops has actually used them (yes, I remember that this didn't stop Bush in Iraq).

This is nothing to do with being anti-Obama and everything to do with him having drawn lines in the past and then ignored them.

Thread starter's point was that if the US Came in and drew a line, it could end the issues there. My reply was that Obama has drawn lines and ignored them, and even worse has blamed Congress for his ineptitude.

So since he's proven a line means nothing, why should they take anything he says seriously?

Yet again, I don't think the world shares your misanthropic need for Obama to be the absolute failure you've been repeating he is since 2008.

The reality is that any president would be working against the notion that working with the US in any real way would make them puppets in the eyes of their own faction, and right now this seems to be all about each faction grabbing as much as they can while the power vacuum expands. Think Russian state owned industry after the end of the Cold War: every fucking piece of infrastructure is now ripe for picking, and the more of it you own, the better your chances of continuing your cult of you into the future. And your supporters expect you to do this, because they have hitched themselves to your wagon--in this sense, imagine Ancient Rome of the fourth century and the never ending cycle of troops nominating their leader to be the new emperor. When this happened, you tried to be emperor or your supporters replaced you with someone else.

In my opinion, there is a curve to overcome, and that curve is opportunity versus self preservation over time. SP requires you take advantage of O right now, but for SP to occur in the long term, you have to limit O through agreements. Right now, I don't think any of the key players can actually get their patrons to support the idea of concessions and compromise NOW for stability and security in the future. Not when the middle eastern version of the end of the Cold War is taking place, and there is so much up for grabs.

The situation doesn't appear all that difficult to be honest. Well, to be fair, I'm not over there having to put up with the fighting, so it seems even easier.

What I was asking is what am I not seeing. I can see the connection between ISIS and Saudi Arabia, between Saudi Arabia and the US, al-Nusra and Qatar, Qatar and the US, Malicki and Iran and the US, and so can anyone else. Turkey supporting the breakaway of Kurdistan is confusing and I have no idea where that came from, and I'm not clearly seeing where Israel's hand is, although I can see where they could get an advantage.

More than anything else, I was wondering if Dylith or anyone else had a reasoned perspective on why the mess hasn't been ended with either US insistence, or Shia kicking the shit out of maybe 6-10 thousand Sunnis. Bear in mind that Russia let the Malicki regime and everyone else in the area as well as the US know that the invasion was going to happen 2 weeks in advance at least. To me, something isn't being seen in the light of day. A discussion on Obama's administration could only have a point if there was some insight on his long range goal, and I seriously doubt that will happen here.

[Charlie Prime]

How could we actually trace the money flows? Do we have any means to perform such a trick?

It can be done, but is extremely boring, complex, and time consuming.  When interested in a particular play, I scratch around a bit with...

http://finance.yahoo.com

http://www.guidestar.org

http://www.imf.org/external/publications/index.htm

http://www.bis.org/forum/research.htm

A far more efficient solution is to read the summaries written by researchers who specialize in one area of that research, and occasionally donate five dollars to them in support of their work.

[Rigon]

Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action

[sana8410]

Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action

Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line.

[noviapriani]

Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action

Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line.

Despite what Turkey says publicly, they love the idea of a Kurdish homeland in northern Iraq. That really takes the steam out of the Kurdish separatist movement that had been active for years in Turkey.

[tee-rex]

Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action

Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line.

Despite what Turkey says publicly, they love the idea of a Kurdish homeland in northern Iraq. That really takes the steam out of the Kurdish separatist movement that had been active for years in Turkey.

This could be objected that in the long term this would only make the situation even worse, since the Kurds probably won't stop with or stay in Northern Iraq.

[zolace]

Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action

Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line.

Turkey’s take:

Turkey’s policy has shifted gradually over time. Originally they were aligned against the northern Kurdish militias in northern Iraq due to their connections to the PKK (the Kurdish Worker’s Party) based in eastern Turkey. They even sent troops across the border into northern Iraq to attack PKK bases during our invasion and occupation of the country. Since then, the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq (what is now ISIS or just IS) in both Iraq and Syria has increased security concerns in Turkey.

The ISIS is a concern yes, but Turkey’s major target of concern is northern Kurdish groups in Syria, principally the PYD (Democratic Union Party), which is a stronger supporter of the PKK. They became a vitally increased threat when Assad gave them control of border crossings with Turkey in retaliation for Turkey’s support for rebels.

In order to address the threat of the PYD Turkey funded al Nusra, which became an unsustainable tactic for them because 1.) Al Nusra was losing ground to the ISIS, and 2.) The United States put a lot of pressure on Turkey to pull their funding of the Al Qaeda affiliate which Turkey has now labeled, after much prodding, a terrorist organization. Their other plan of action though was to support northern Iraqi Kurds in the hopes of diminishing the influence and power of the PYD with the larger Kurdish National Council.

That didn’t turn out so well for Turkey though. The Kurdish Regional Government of Iraq didn’t have the means to influence the PYD in the way that Turkey had been hoping for; thus Turkey is currently engaged in under the table talks with the PYD due to the increasing threat that the ISIS poses. In the meantime the relationship fostered with the Northern Iraqi Kurds has blossomed into a mutually beneficial economic and political one.

1.) It gives Turkey some influence within a state dominated now by the ISIS and Shia, and 2.) It represents a safer region for Turkey (and Israel now) to import oil from Iraq through a newly build oil pipeline. The sustainability of it all though is dependent on Turkey’s continued negotiations with the PKK of course, though the economic reliance on Turkey likely makes the KRG less eager to support the PKK as heavily as they have in the past.

Israel is a little more opaque and I think they are mostly concerned about their borders, which would make the invasion of Jordan by the ISIS a red line for them and which makes them especially attentive to their border with Syria.

[Rigon]

Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action

Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line.

No idea regarding Turkey, but I have to imagine Israel isn't liking the Iranian involvement or our acceptance of it. They may just be waiting to see what happens.

[zolace]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

[noviapriani]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

[sana8410]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

I think the US is being smart with a tactic of limited engagement. Having some support staff on the ground can help the ISF where it is the weakest: intelligence and logistics. Since the Sunnis hate the Maliki government the ISF has been fighting blind in the northwest and has had to resort to mass bombing campaigns which has only pissed the Sunni civilians off even more. Anymore involvement from the US and it would strongly play into the rather sophisticated PR machine of the ISIS and likely delay the internal decay of their alliance network.

[Rigon]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

[Charlie Prime]

[noviapriani]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did.

Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'."

What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon?

[zolace]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did.

Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'."

What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon?

None of that supports your argument that a red line in Iraq wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Try again.

[Rigon]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did.

Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'."

What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon?

None of that supports your argument that a red line in Iraq wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Try again.

You rather missed the fact that his red line in Syria was taken seriously: hence the Russian political intervention. You also rather missed the fact that one of the longest sitting modern dictators ended up losing his life when he was on the wrong side of our red line in Libya. You also seem to have missed how seriously Al Qaeda takes our drone program. Let me know when you have something backing up your speculation.

[noviapriani]

Wasn't it congress that voted not to get involved in Syria? Obviously because this is not an imperial presidency. Don't wanna get sued for overstepping boundaries.

[noviapriani]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did.

Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'."

What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon?

None of that supports your argument that a red line in Iraq wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Try again.

You rather missed the fact that his red line in Syria was taken seriously: hence the Russian political intervention. You also rather missed the fact that one of the longest sitting modern dictators ended up losing his life when he was on the wrong side of our red line in Libya. You also seem to have missed how seriously Al Qaeda takes our drone program. Let me know when you have something backing up your speculation.

Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver? exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?ooh yeah, they're SO SCARED!!

http://time.com/77024/drone-strikes-al-qaeda-yemen/

[sana8410]

Wasn't it congress that voted not to get involved in Syria? Obviously because this is not an imperial presidency. Don't wanna get sued for overstepping boundaries.

Just as importantly the British parliament voted against it as well which cost us the multilateral support we were depending on for the operations in Syria.

[zolace]

Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver?

I don't think anything we did to the Assad administration in a practical sense would have made the ISIS quiver. But a couple of things: 1.) it WAS taken seriously by both the Assad administration and Russia 2.) action was voted down in both our congress and the British parliament. President Obama would have liked to intervene more heavily but the politics of that didn't line up for him.

exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?

The mass killing of civilians domestically. Gaddafi though also had a very active hand in the genocide in Darfur and a huge hand in regional instability far and above anything that Assad has ever engaged in. The United States has long wanted Gaddafi to be removed from power, Reagan even tried to kill him in a bombing run; president Obama saw an opening to remove him and do so with Libyan support, NATO support, and with the tentative support of even the Arab League: a feat that even HW Bush wasn't able to accomplish during the Gulf War with Iraq.

[sana8410]

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did.

Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'."

What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon?

None of that supports your argument that a red line in Iraq wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Try again.

You rather missed the fact that his red line in Syria was taken seriously: hence the Russian political intervention. You also rather missed the fact that one of the longest sitting modern dictators ended up losing his life when he was on the wrong side of our red line in Libya. You also seem to have missed how seriously Al Qaeda takes our drone program. Let me know when you have something backing up your speculation.

Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver? exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?ooh yeah, they're SO SCARED!!

http://time.com/77024/drone-strikes-al-qaeda-yemen/

Yemen was a rather poor example for you to choose. AQAP in Yemen right now is hurting pretty badly due to the Spring / summer offensive that we helped the Yemeni army launch against them. The largest current threat to stability in Yemen at the moment, and where the heaviest fighting is, isn't AQAP at all, but with the northern Houthi insurgency.

[sana8410]

Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver?

I don't think anything we did to the Assad administration in a practical sense would have made the ISIS quiver. But a couple of things: 1.) it WAS taken seriously by both the Assad administration and Russia 2.) action was voted down in both our congress and the British parliament. President Obama would have liked to intervene more heavily but the politics of that didn't line up for him.

exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?

The mass killing of civilians domestically. Gaddafi though also had a very active hand in the genocide in Darfur and a huge hand in regional instability far and above anything that Assad has ever engaged in. The United States has long wanted Gaddafi to be removed from power, Reagan even tried to kill him in a bombing run; president Obama saw an opening to remove him and do so with Libyan support, NATO support, and with the tentative support of even the Arab League: a feat that even HW Bush wasn't able to accomplish during the Gulf War with Iraq.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I had to say that this part epitomizes...sometimes shit just works out. And in this case, it would be difficult to see how it could have worked out better. The aftermath, maybe. But the series of events were pretty smooth.

[noviapriani]

Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver?

I don't think anything we did to the Assad administration in a practical sense would have made the ISIS quiver. But a couple of things: 1.) it WAS taken seriously by both the Assad administration and Russia 2.) action was voted down in both our congress and the British parliament. President Obama would have liked to intervene more heavily but the politics of that didn't line up for him.

exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?

The mass killing of civilians domestically. Gaddafi though also had a very active hand in the genocide in Darfur and a huge hand in regional instability far and above anything that Assad has ever engaged in. The United States has long wanted Gaddafi to be removed from power, Reagan even tried to kill him in a bombing run; president Obama saw an opening to remove him and do so with Libyan support, NATO support, and with the tentative support of even the Arab League: a feat that even HW Bush wasn't able to accomplish during the Gulf War with Iraq.

You're giving Obama credit for gaddafi's killing?
http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

[zolace]

Obama said WE would take action if Assad used chemicals, and you think Obama's "action" of letting the Russians talk it out would make Iraq quiver?

I don't think anything we did to the Assad administration in a practical sense would have made the ISIS quiver. But a couple of things: 1.) it WAS taken seriously by both the Assad administration and Russia 2.) action was voted down in both our congress and the British parliament. President Obama would have liked to intervene more heavily but the politics of that didn't line up for him.

exactly what was the red line Obama drew that ended Gadhafi's life?

The mass killing of civilians domestically. Gaddafi though also had a very active hand in the genocide in Darfur and a huge hand in regional instability far and above anything that Assad has ever engaged in. The United States has long wanted Gaddafi to be removed from power, Reagan even tried to kill him in a bombing run; president Obama saw an opening to remove him and do so with Libyan support, NATO support, and with the tentative support of even the Arab League: a feat that even HW Bush wasn't able to accomplish during the Gulf War with Iraq.

You're giving Obama credit for gaddafi's killing?
http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

More so with his removal from power in which we built the international coalition that played a very active role in doing so. If you feel that is incorrect feel free to provide a counter argument.

[sana8410]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

If anything, the US's biggest blunder (or conspiracy?), was supporting the Syrian rebels with weapons and training, and complicit with its allies (Gulf monarchies) to send international jihadists and money. In doing so, they wanted to topple the relatively stable Syrian government (because it's not pro-Israel enough), but instead they have created a monster that is ISIS, that's attempting to kill anyone not from their particular sect. The only question is, were these policies that supported terror, mass killing, jihadism, and instability in the region, were they intentional or not. It was either evil or really stupid. Either way, it is very destructive.

Be careful who you support and train. It seems the US has been (inadvertently?) supporting Al-Qaeda-type terror for quite some time now.

[zolace]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

If anything, the US's biggest blunder (or conspiracy?), was supporting the Syrian rebels with weapons and training, and complicit with its allies (Gulf monarchies) to send international jihadists and money. In doing so, they wanted to topple the relatively stable Syrian government (because it's not pro-Israel enough), but instead they have created a monster that is ISIS, that's attempting to kill anyone not from their particular sect. The only question is, were these policies that supported terror, mass killing, jihadism, and instability in the region, were they intentional or not. It was either evil or really stupid. Either way, it is very destructive.

Be careful who you support and train. It seems the US has been (inadvertently?) supporting Al-Qaeda-type terror for quite some time now.

Yeah, that is the sort of inconsistency I don't understand. Obama seems to normally want no involvement in these things. In that case, he supported unknowns trying to overthrow a stable government. Makes no sense to me. I'm not saying Assad is a great leader, but I'm not sure interfering makes sense...and in this case didn't turn out that well.

[umair127]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

If anything, the US's biggest blunder (or conspiracy?), was supporting the Syrian rebels with weapons and training, and complicit with its allies (Gulf monarchies) to send international jihadists and money. In doing so, they wanted to topple the relatively stable Syrian government (because it's not pro-Israel enough), but instead they have created a monster that is ISIS, that's attempting to kill anyone not from their particular sect. The only question is, were these policies that supported terror, mass killing, jihadism, and instability in the region, were they intentional or not. It was either evil or really stupid. Either way, it is very destructive.

Be careful who you support and train. It seems the US has been (inadvertently?) supporting Al-Qaeda-type terror for quite some time now.

Yeah, that is the sort of inconsistency I don't understand. Obama seems to normally want no involvement in these things. In that case, he supported unknowns trying to overthrow a stable government. Makes no sense to me. I'm not saying Assad is a great leader, but I'm not sure interfering makes sense...and in this case didn't turn out that well.

I don't think Assad's government was stable. The civil war itself would suggest otherwise. But Assad has also historically been an "enemy" of the US a bit like Gaddafi only much less annoying. Assad supported Hamas and Hezbollah which put the administration against Israel and thus us. They supported for a time AQI in Iraq when they were fighting US occupation, the regime itself was very meddlesome in regional politics (particularly in Lebanon), and it was highly undemocratic and abusive. It was more of a threat to us and our allies than Saddam had been in Iraq; especially with their chemical weapons program and contacts with the North Koreans in uranium enrichment.

[umair127]

It didn't turn out well largely because (speculation here since games of 'what if' are always off) we didn't act strongly enough / quickly enough and that gave room and time for the rebellion to be overrun by Islamists backed by outside interests. Assad also held off a lot longer and better than hoped. We have been able to pressure Turkey and some Gulf states to stop their funding of said groups, and have also gotten Syria to agree to give up its chemical weapons (a slow going process, but still). Not sure what more we could expect since the diplomatic efforts to intervene more heavily were frustrated earlier on with legislative votes. Or rather, i'm not sure what more we should be expected to do here?

[zolace]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

If anything, the US's biggest blunder (or conspiracy?), was supporting the Syrian rebels with weapons and training, and complicit with its allies (Gulf monarchies) to send international jihadists and money. In doing so, they wanted to topple the relatively stable Syrian government (because it's not pro-Israel enough), but instead they have created a monster that is ISIS, that's attempting to kill anyone not from their particular sect. The only question is, were these policies that supported terror, mass killing, jihadism, and instability in the region, were they intentional or not. It was either evil or really stupid. Either way, it is very destructive.

Be careful who you support and train. It seems the US has been (inadvertently?) supporting Al-Qaeda-type terror for quite some time now.

Yeah, that is the sort of inconsistency I don't understand. Obama seems to normally want no involvement in these things. In that case, he supported unknowns trying to overthrow a stable government. Makes no sense to me. I'm not saying Assad is a great leader, but I'm not sure interfering makes sense...and in this case didn't turn out that well.

I don't think Assad's government was stable. The civil war itself would suggest otherwise. But Assad has also historically been an "enemy" of the US a bit like Gaddafi only much less annoying. Assad supported Hamas and Hezbollah which put the administration against Israel and thus us. They supported for a time AQI in Iraq when they were fighting US occupation, the regime itself was very meddlesome in regional politics (particularly in Lebanon), and it was highly undemocratic and abusive. It was more of a threat to us and our allies than Saddam had been in Iraq; especially with their chemical weapons program and contacts with the North Koreans in uranium enrichment.

in other words its NEVER Obama's fault .

[umair127]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/na...fd5_story.html

If anything, the US's biggest blunder (or conspiracy?), was supporting the Syrian rebels with weapons and training, and complicit with its allies (Gulf monarchies) to send international jihadists and money. In doing so, they wanted to topple the relatively stable Syrian government (because it's not pro-Israel enough), but instead they have created a monster that is ISIS, that's attempting to kill anyone not from their particular sect. The only question is, were these policies that supported terror, mass killing, jihadism, and instability in the region, were they intentional or not. It was either evil or really stupid. Either way, it is very destructive.

Be careful who you support and train. It seems the US has been (inadvertently?) supporting Al-Qaeda-type terror for quite some time now.

Yeah, that is the sort of inconsistency I don't understand. Obama seems to normally want no involvement in these things. In that case, he supported unknowns trying to overthrow a stable government. Makes no sense to me. I'm not saying Assad is a great leader, but I'm not sure interfering makes sense...and in this case didn't turn out that well.

I don't think Assad's government was stable. The civil war itself would suggest otherwise. But Assad has also historically been an "enemy" of the US a bit like Gaddafi only much less annoying. Assad supported Hamas and Hezbollah which put the administration against Israel and thus us. They supported for a time AQI in Iraq when they were fighting US occupation, the regime itself was very meddlesome in regional politics (particularly in Lebanon), and it was highly undemocratic and abusive. It was more of a threat to us and our allies than Saddam had been in Iraq; especially with their chemical weapons program and contacts with the North Koreans in uranium enrichment.

in other words its NEVER Obama's fault .

Why would you blame President Obama or any outside force for that matter for the civil war in Syria? That would be like me blaming the Bush administration for the instability in western Sudan simply because it happened while he was in office. That's dumb.

[umair127]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

[Rigon]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

[umair127]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

[Rigon]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

[umair127]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

[Rigon]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel.

[umair127]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel.

It's generally been US policy to have cool relations with Syria. They were added to out extended Axis of Evil list long before President Obama came to office. Now, he didn't have to continue with said policy, but Syria has never shown much interest in working towards mutual goals with us (we don't share many) and indeed decided to do the opposite in Iraq through their support for insurgents.

[Rigon]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel.

It's generally been US policy to have cool relations with Syria. They were added to out extended Axis of Evil list long before President Obama came to office. Now, he didn't have to continue with said policy, but Syria has never shown much interest in working towards mutual goals with us (we don't share many) and indeed decided to do the opposite in Iraq through their support for insurgents.

Because there are (was?) a greater disparity between Palestinian terror operatives residing in Syria-Damascus than AQI elements. Consider that Syria has provided support to AQI and allegedly other anti-coalition militias since approximately 2005. One has to speculate on the sudden political attitude adjustment.

[zolace]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel.

It's generally been US policy to have cool relations with Syria. They were added to out extended Axis of Evil list long before President Obama came to office. Now, he didn't have to continue with said policy, but Syria has never shown much interest in working towards mutual goals with us (we don't share many) and indeed decided to do the opposite in Iraq through their support for insurgents.

Fallacious statement indicated by your reassertion above. Just for your information.

The point was that the US government shared a cohesive counter-terrorist and political relationship with Syria even during simultaneous engagements in Iraq with Syrian anti-government irregulars. Current numbers are not difficult to locate. DCIA Michael Hayden asserted in 2007 that "mid-range two hundred" terror suspects were being renditioned to Syria for post-blacksite interrogation. It is not unreasonable to presume that those figures are actually much higher. More importantly, we cannot presume that US-Syria detainee transfer programs stopped due to a new inbound administration. Guantanamo Bay, sir? Even with all the US legislation enacted against Syria (Syria Accountability Act for example) we were wittingly cooperating with Syria. Why did things change so suddenly?

[umair127]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel.

It's generally been US policy to have cool relations with Syria. They were added to out extended Axis of Evil list long before President Obama came to office. Now, he didn't have to continue with said policy, but Syria has never shown much interest in working towards mutual goals with us (we don't share many) and indeed decided to do the opposite in Iraq through their support for insurgents.

Because there are (was?) a greater disparity between Palestinian terror operatives residing in Syria-Damascus than AQI elements. Consider that Syria has provided support to AQI and allegedly other anti-coalition militias since approximately 2005. One has to speculate on the sudden political attitude adjustment.

What political attitude adjustment? Fighting against ISIS? that was AQI's call. We didn't initiate the civil war in Syria. there really isn't much for us to have to "vindicate".

[Rigon]

Unknown if you're vindicating the current situation because Syria was/is "probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East", but I hope not. Surely, Pakistan, Iran, and China are more deserving of an uprooting US-armed insurgency if we're citing state sponsored terrorism and gross human rights violations.

[zolace]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

It seems many individuals have also become quite nostalgic to proxy wars. Western and Saudi support for anti-Syrian government militias was originally intended to drag Iran/Hezbollah and Russia into a bloody protracted conflict. But in unforeseen circumstances, evidence now indicates Iran and its' foreign warfighting elements are effectively managing this nasty little campaign by intentionally supplying arms against the same rebels they are fighting.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of motives.

That's not unexpected.

Al-Assad's Syrian regime was the most common destination for detainees under our extraordinary rendition program. When Syrian borne jihadists were being wasted by Marine Corps infantry in Al Muwaffiqiyah, Syrian intelligence personnel were busy pulling out the fingernails of AQ and Taliban scumbags on our behalf.

Syria was one of the most common places for us to turn extraordinarily rendered prisoners over to in the Middle East, with the other being Jordan. Not sure what the point is supposed to be though? A lot of that took place under the previous administration in the early 2000s. Current numbers are much harder to come by.

Difficult to say if the Obama Administration's concurrent antagonistic position on Syria has been rendered legitimate because of state sponsored terrorism indictments or by increasingly strained relations facilitated by Israel.

It's generally been US policy to have cool relations with Syria. They were added to out extended Axis of Evil list long before President Obama came to office. Now, he didn't have to continue with said policy, but Syria has never shown much interest in working towards mutual goals with us (we don't share many) and indeed decided to do the opposite in Iraq through their support for insurgents.

Because there are (was?) a greater disparity between Palestinian terror operatives residing in Syria-Damascus than AQI elements. Consider that Syria has provided support to AQI and allegedly other anti-coalition militias since approximately 2005. One has to speculate on the sudden political attitude adjustment.

What political attitude adjustment? Fighting against ISIS? that was AQI's call. We didn't initiate the civil war in Syria. there really isn't much for us to have to "vindicate".

The political attitude adjustment: Obama Administration ascending from low kinetic operations to arming anti-Assad forces to proactively pushing for air assaults/airstrikes. So, again, Aside from the SAD/JSOC raid into Abu Kamal, the current and previous administrations have been extremely reserved on the application of violence scale toward Syria.

Spearheading Tbilisi, aggression in Ukraine-Crimea, and recent involvement subverting US interests in Iraq; yet you still doubt that the motives for supporting Syrian insurgents are not founded on questionable Russian statecraft? And I think it's safe to say that you and I both know what Syria's primary puppeteer -- Iran/Hezbollah -- are responsible for. We allegedly "didn't initiate the civil war in Syria", but we certainly are prolonging it for a punitive reason.

[noviapriani]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

Source on Assad supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq? It wouldn't make sense for him to do so.

Reality check: The Saudis\Wahhabis (US allies) have been the highest source of terror\suicide bombings in Iraq since the US invasion. Lets not try to spin too much here.

[umair127]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

Source on Assad supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq? It wouldn't make sense for him to do so.

Reality check: The Saudis\Wahhabis (US allies) have been the highest source of terror\suicide bombings in Iraq since the US invasion. Lets not try to spin too much here.

Syria has long been a major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Iran Is a pretty large supporter of external militant and terrorist organizations as well in both central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. The other large one was Libya under Gaddafi.

The role that many Gulf States like Qatar, the U.A.E. etc play tends to be different than Iran, and Syria. Saudi Arabia was a mix of the two strategies. A lot of money for terrorism is funneled through non-state actors in the Gulf. So the U.A.E. was a big staging point for funds for Al Qaeda Central, and a lot of Gulf Charities can redirect funds to terrorism organizations as well as individual financiers.

Syria's role has been reported for years by the Combating Terrorism Center, IHS Janes, The Institute for the Study of War, the Jamestown Foundation's Terrorism Monitor, SITE intelligence, and the Long War Journal. It isn't really a secret or unknown aspect of the Assad regime's past state sponsoring of terrorism. We've also conducted several raids against AQI stationed in Syria long before the current civil war.

Even now though Assad still funnels money to the ISIS in exchange for oil (as reported by the Terrorism Monitor of the Jamestown Foundation) even as they fight each other.

I'd be happy to find more detailed sources for you when I have more time later, but here is one small article from the Long War Journal detailing one incident: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...an_officia.php

[noviapriani]

It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past.

Source on Assad supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq? It wouldn't make sense for him to do so.

Reality check: The Saudis\Wahhabis (US allies) have been the highest source of terror\suicide bombings in Iraq since the US invasion. Lets not try to spin too much here.

Syria has long been a major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Iran Is a pretty large supporter of external militant and terrorist organizations as well in both central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. The other large one was Libya under Gaddafi.

The role that many Gulf States like Qatar, the U.A.E. etc play tends to be different than Iran, and Syria. Saudi Arabia was a mix of the two strategies. A lot of money for terrorism is funneled through non-state actors in the Gulf. So the U.A.E. was a big staging point for funds for Al Qaeda Central, and a lot of Gulf Charities can redirect funds to terrorism organizations as well as individual financiers.

Syria's role has been reported for years by the Combating Terrorism Center, IHS Janes, The Institute for the Study of War, the Jamestown Foundation's Terrorism Monitor, SITE intelligence, and the Long War Journal. It isn't really a secret or unknown aspect of the Assad regime's past state sponsoring of terrorism. We've also conducted several raids against AQI stationed in Syria long before the current civil war.

Even now though Assad still funnels money to the ISIS in exchange for oil (as reported by the Terrorism Monitor of the Jamestown Foundation) even as they fight each other.

I'd be happy to find more detailed sources for you when I have more time later, but here is one small article from the Long War Journal detailing one incident: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...an_officia.php

Israel's stake in the situation plays a bigger role in US decision making. A weak Syria gives Israel a stronger position in occupying the Golan Heights.

[umair127]

Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.

[noviapriani]

Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them.

When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective.

If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq.

[umair127]

Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them.

When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective.

If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq.

Lol "I didn't know that Assad supported AQI, so it must be propaganda despite the fact that the intelligence industry has a lot of data on it and have reported on it for years."

Look, you were wrong about Syria, no big deal. No need to try to justify not knowing, you don't specialize in this stuff so who cares?

[noviapriani]

Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them.

When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective.

If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq.

Lol "I didn't know that Assad supported AQI, so it must be propaganda despite the fact that the intelligence industry has a lot of data on it and have reported on it for years."

Look, you were wrong about Syria, no big deal. No need to try to justify not knowing, you don't specialize in this stuff so who cares?

There is no proof Assad supported AQ. AQ was hostile to Assad why would he ever support them. I'm still not convinced. No one is. Stop being a apologetic for every aspect of US foreign policy. Next thing you'll tell me is that we invaded Iraq because it had WMDs and I'm supposed to believe the obvious propaganda

[umair127]

Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them.

When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective.

If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq.

Lol "I didn't know that Assad supported AQI, so it must be propaganda despite the fact that the intelligence industry has a lot of data on it and have reported on it for years."

Look, you were wrong about Syria, no big deal. No need to try to justify not knowing, you don't specialize in this stuff so who cares?

There is no proof Assad supported AQ. AQ was hostile to Assad why would he ever support them. I'm still not convinced. No one is. Stop being a apologetic for every aspect of US foreign policy. Next thing you'll tell me is that we invaded Iraq because it had WMDs and I'm supposed to believe the obvious propaganda

It wasn't just Syria, it was Iran as well. Both had vested interests in seeing Iraq destabilized against the US coalition. But Syria's support of AQI (which is different from AQ) stems from its historic support of Kurdish militant groups against turkey, not only the PKK, but more specifically in northern Iraq with the Ansar al-Islam movement which is where Zarqawi traced his Iraq roots and which was one of the predecessors to AQI under Zarqawi. This group was also used in competition with Iraq.

Syria also funded Fatah Al Islam in Lebanon which had Al Qaeda links as well. It was essentially an extension of the Syrian intelligence targeting Palestinians who had split with Fatah for use against Lebanon and Israel.

But the predecessors aside, right as Saudi Arabia was recoiling from militant support in 2003, Syria was ramping it up. Pro Saddam militias, insurgents, and AQI depended on Syria as their main resource avenue for materials, money networks, and foreign fighters. While said resources came from all over, it was in Syria that AQI, with the tacit and sometimes active approval and assistance of the Assad Administration established their operational support infrastructure. This is also one of the main reasons why, when they turned against their historic backers in 2011 and 2012, that the ISI was able to expand so rapidly in Syria and become the ISIS, it's because their infrastructure was already there and they could control the flow of foreign fighters into Syria. They also had pre-existing weapons caches inside Syria, had communication infrastructure and networks already pre-established, and had the political and operational contacts needed for the dissemination of foreign material and funding.

[zolace]

Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them.

When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective.

If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq.

Lol "I didn't know that Assad supported AQI, so it must be propaganda despite the fact that the intelligence industry has a lot of data on it and have reported on it for years."

Look, you were wrong about Syria, no big deal. No need to try to justify not knowing, you don't specialize in this stuff so who cares?

There is no proof Assad supported AQ. AQ was hostile to Assad why would he ever support them. I'm still not convinced. No one is. Stop being a apologetic for every aspect of US foreign policy. Next thing you'll tell me is that we invaded Iraq because it had WMDs and I'm supposed to believe the obvious propaganda

While I can't say I can link to proof positive that Assad supports AQ or ISIS, it's common knowledge to people who live there. The fact of the matter is that the politics of the area are impossibly complicated, based on old tribal issues, ongoing feuds that have no strategic importance, and convoluted thinking, sometimes religious, and sometimes not.

The most obvious would be in Iran, which has elements in the military that are scarily religious, but just as strong a contingent that has no interest in religion, only money. Even when you talk about Saudi Arabia, you think of the iron control by the House of Saud in the form of the old king and crown prince. The next generation, which will be getting more control in the next few years has vastly different perspectives, and they mostly hate each other and certainly distrust each other. And there are A LOT of them with different agendas and lots of money.

[umair127]

We have pretty strong evidence of this via first hand former combatant testimony, and due to the intensity of our scrutiny of these supply lines in the wake of the Sinjar Document revelations and subsequent investigation.

But AQI aside, there are plenty of other terrorist organizations that Syria has been more than happy to aid even more assertively at one point or another, a couple of which I already mentioned (Fatah al-Islam, the PKK, and Ansar al-Islam), among them are: Hezbollah, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad Organization, The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Al Saiqa, Amal, and the ANO.

Even during the course of the civil war the Assad Administration has continued to purchase oil from the ISIS which it has been able to do through these long standing internal networks.

Syria has literally funded terrorism against every single one of its neighbors.

[zolace]

We have pretty strong evidence of this via first hand former combatant testimony, and due to the intensity of our scrutiny of these supply lines in the wake of the Sinjar Document revelations and subsequent investigation.

But AQI aside, there are plenty of other terrorist organizations that Syria has been more than happy to aid even more assertively at one point or another, a couple of which I already mentioned (Fatah al-Islam, the PKK, and Ansar al-Islam), among them are: Hezbollah, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad Organization, The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Al Saiqa, Amal, and the ANO.

Even during the course of the civil war the Assad Administration has continued to purchase oil from the ISIS which it has been able to do through these long standing internal networks.

Syria has literally funded terrorism against every single one of its neighbors.

I'm sure YOU will disagree on this though: The only policies that can work for the US in the middle east as a whole is back the most ruthless SOBs they can find, regardless of ideology, or stay the hell away from the politics. Trade with whoever is a worthy trading partner, and let Russia and Turkey start to take de facto control of the area. Mixing in the general brouhaha seems to be a disaster in the making. The former is the tried and tested methods of the last 70 years. The latter being what seems to be happening now.

[zolace]

I guess I'm just not sure. It has worked well enough for the last 60 years, and is only coming apart because Obama seems to be changing long standing policy. I'm just not sure if he's accomplishing what he wants to accomplish.

As far as SA....I expect a shitstorm within a decade. Too much money, too many warring cousins that aren't as bright as they think they are.

[umair127]

We have pretty strong evidence of this via first hand former combatant testimony, and due to the intensity of our scrutiny of these supply lines in the wake of the Sinjar Document revelations and subsequent investigation.

But AQI aside, there are plenty of other terrorist organizations that Syria has been more than happy to aid even more assertively at one point or another, a couple of which I already mentioned (Fatah al-Islam, the PKK, and Ansar al-Islam), among them are: Hezbollah, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad Organization, The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Al Saiqa, Amal, and the ANO.

Even during the course of the civil war the Assad Administration has continued to purchase oil from the ISIS which it has been able to do through these long standing internal networks.

Syria has literally funded terrorism against every single one of its neighbors.

I'm sure YOU will disagree on this though: The only policies that can work for the US in the middle east as a whole is back the most ruthless SOBs they can find, regardless of ideology, or stay the hell away from the politics. Trade with whoever is a worthy trading partner, and let Russia and Turkey start to take de facto control of the area. Mixing in the general brouhaha seems to be a disaster in the making. The former is the tried and tested methods of the last 70 years. The latter being what seems to be happening now.

I don't disagree with anything that you've posted here, though I don't think that supporting "the most ruthless SOBs" is a sustainable practice or in our long run interest. Particularly in Saudi Arabia, which may very well be the next giant storm after this elder generation dies.

[Rigon]

I guess I'm just not sure. It has worked well enough for the last 60 years, and is only coming apart because Obama seems to be changing long standing policy. I'm just not sure if he's accomplishing what he wants to accomplish.

As far as SA....I expect a shitstorm within a decade. Too much money, too many warring cousins that aren't as bright as they think they are.

[noviapriani]

The general policy of injecting instability into countries, and either publicly or privately assisting tough dictators hold on to power. And inserting them into power in some cases. I'm not speaking of public policy, but rather the pragmatic side of it.

[umair127]

The general policy of injecting instability into countries, and either publicly or privately assisting tough dictators hold on to power. And inserting them into power in some cases. I'm not speaking of public policy, but rather the pragmatic side of it.

You didn't really give a country example. We've already been over Egypt and noted how his stance there has been pretty consistent with historical US policy, particularly when compared to Reagan's dealings with Sudan, and we talked about Libya, where the US has long opposed Gaddafi.

So where else are we talking about? If anything I've found the current administration to be MUCH more pragmatic than the previous one. We've handled the DPRK better, Burma better (both more pragmatically) and we've pulled out largely from Iraq and Afghanistan while simultaneously keeping a clearly non-ideological based drone program active.

[noviapriani]

In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.

[umair127]

In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.

Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway.

[noviapriani]

In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.

Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway.

Before I go any further, I don't recall you talking about Sudan and Reagan...what was your point there? Because as you know, Sudan was at most a pawn in issues relating to Ethiopia. And the Leadership in Ethiopia making close connections with the Soviet Union. If you're talking about Reagan possibly picking winners and losers in a peripheral fight in Ethiopia, then that isn't exactly the same as letting hand picked dictators fall.

[umair127]

In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.

Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway.

Before I go any further, I don't recall you talking about Sudan and Reagan...what was your point there? Because as you know, Sudan was at most a pawn in issues relating to Ethiopia. And the Leadership in Ethiopia making close connections with the Soviet Union. If you're talking about Reagan possibly picking winners and losers in a peripheral fight in Ethiopia, then that isn't exactly the same as letting hand picked dictators fall.

I mentioned Sudan under Reagan which I mentioned the last time we discussed Egypt, because it is located in the same geo-political region, and was part of our triple alliance between the US - Egypt -and Sudan.

I reference the Nimeiry Administration which was probably the most pro-US administration to ever exist in the Sudan, and one that fell to populist protests / demands for democracy while Reagan was in office (the military intervened to form a transitional government much like Egypt's military did).

Despite how heavily we relied on Sudan to check Gaddafi's growing influence in Chad and his moves in eastern Libya (Sudan is a historical and current weapons smuggling route to both the Middle East and North Africa) the US has to and did, under Reagan pay homage to a more democratic process even though it left us with a leader who was much more adverse to the Untied States, not to mention the subsequent toppling of that administration by Bashir in 1989 (a coup which took place under HW Bush).

President Obama pretty much followed the same standard course with Egypt, only we've maintained better working relations with the end result (Sisi's government) than we managed to with the end result in Sudan (though we still do share intelligence there).

I also think that saying that we "let him fall" rather suggests that we had more control over the issue than we actually did. It would be like saying that Reagan "Let Nimeiry fall" when I think it would be more appropriate to simply say that we rolled with what was largely happening on the ground and defaulted during unstable times to our general talking points which favor democratic reform.

We saw the same process under HW Bush in Africa starting in 1989 and especially in the early 1990s with the fall of many of Africa's notorious big men (even those that had been aligned with us during the Cold War). Kaunda fell in 1991, Siad Barre also in 1991, etc

Under Clinton Hastings Banda fell in 1994, Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997, etc.

Under Bush W: Pervez Musharraf fell in 2008.

[noviapriani]

In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.

Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway.

Before I go any further, I don't recall you talking about Sudan and Reagan...what was your point there? Because as you know, Sudan was at most a pawn in issues relating to Ethiopia. And the Leadership in Ethiopia making close connections with the Soviet Union. If you're talking about Reagan possibly picking winners and losers in a peripheral fight in Ethiopia, then that isn't exactly the same as letting hand picked dictators fall.

I mentioned Sudan under Reagan which I mentioned the last time we discussed Egypt, because it is located in the same geo-political region, and was part of our triple alliance between the US - Egypt -and Sudan.

I reference the Nimeiry Administration which was probably the most pro-US administration to ever exist in the Sudan, and one that fell to populist protests / demands for democracy while Reagan was in office (the military intervened to form a transitional government much like Egypt's military did).

Despite how heavily we relied on Sudan to check Gaddafi's growing influence in Chad and his moves in eastern Libya (Sudan is a historical and current weapons smuggling route to both the Middle East and North Africa) the US has to and did, under Reagan pay homage to a more democratic process even though it left us with a leader who was much more adverse to the Untied States, not to mention the subsequent toppling of that administration by Bashir in 1989 (a coup which took place under HW Bush).

President Obama pretty much followed the same standard course with Egypt, only we've maintained better working relations with the end result (Sisi's government) than we managed to with the end result in Sudan (though we still do share intelligence there).

I also think that saying that we "let him fall" rather suggests that we had more control over the issue than we actually did. It would be like saying that Reagan "Let Nimeiry fall" when I think it would be more appropriate to simply say that we rolled with what was largely happening on the ground and defaulted during unstable times to our general talking points which favor democratic reform.

We saw the same process under HW Bush in Africa starting in 1989 and especially in the early 1990s with the fall of many of Africa's notorious big men (even those that had been aligned with us during the Cold War). Kaunda fell in 1991, Siad Barre also in 1991, etc

Under Clinton Hastings Banda fell in 1994, Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997, etc.

Under Bush W: Pervez Musharraf fell in 2008.

Well, the Reagan/Sudan thing is not as one dimensional as you seem to be saying. This isn't particularly an area I'm overly familiar with, but saying the Nimeiry admin was "the most pro American" is a bit disingenuous. He came to power as a pro socialist/pro pan Arabist, neither of which was particularly pro American foreign policy. He did become somewhat of an American ally, but when he started with the Sharia law thing, he essentially caused a civil war that he couldn't be protected from.

[umair127]

In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.

Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway.

Before I go any further, I don't recall you talking about Sudan and Reagan...what was your point there? Because as you know, Sudan was at most a pawn in issues relating to Ethiopia. And the Leadership in Ethiopia making close connections with the Soviet Union. If you're talking about Reagan possibly picking winners and losers in a peripheral fight in Ethiopia, then that isn't exactly the same as letting hand picked dictators fall.

I mentioned Sudan under Reagan which I mentioned the last time we discussed Egypt, because it is located in the same geo-political region, and was part of our triple alliance between the US - Egypt -and Sudan.

I reference the Nimeiry Administration which was probably the most pro-US administration to ever exist in the Sudan, and one that fell to populist protests / demands for democracy while Reagan was in office (the military intervened to form a transitional government much like Egypt's military did).

Despite how heavily we relied on Sudan to check Gaddafi's growing influence in Chad and his moves in eastern Libya (Sudan is a historical and current weapons smuggling route to both the Middle East and North Africa) the US has to and did, under Reagan pay homage to a more democratic process even though it left us with a leader who was much more adverse to the Untied States, not to mention the subsequent toppling of that administration by Bashir in 1989 (a coup which took place under HW Bush).

President Obama pretty much followed the same standard course with Egypt, only we've maintained better working relations with the end result (Sisi's government) than we managed to with the end result in Sudan (though we still do share intelligence there).

I also think that saying that we "let him fall" rather suggests that we had more control over the issue than we actually did. It would be like saying that Reagan "Let Nimeiry fall" when I think it would be more appropriate to simply say that we rolled with what was largely happening on the ground and defaulted during unstable times to our general talking points which favor democratic reform.

We saw the same process under HW Bush in Africa starting in 1989 and especially in the early 1990s with the fall of many of Africa's notorious big men (even those that had been aligned with us during the Cold War). Kaunda fell in 1991, Siad Barre also in 1991, etc

Under Clinton Hastings Banda fell in 1994, Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997, etc.

Under Bush W: Pervez Musharraf fell in 2008.

Well, the Reagan/Sudan thing is not as one dimensional as you seem to be saying. This isn't particularly an area I'm overly familiar with, but saying the Nimeiry admin was "the most pro American" is a bit disingenuous. He came to power as a pro socialist/pro pan Arabist, neither of which was particularly pro American foreign policy. He did become somewhat of an American ally, but when he started with the Sharia law thing, he essentially caused a civil war that he couldn't be protected from.

Regime change is something that pretty much every presidency has to deal with to one extent or another. President Obama is facing a larger challenge on that front than his predecessor (George W. Bush) due to the Arab Spring, but he played it very pragmatically in Egypt, Libya, North Korea, Yemen, and largely in Pakistan as well (since the new regime came into power largely while he was first taking office), if a little timidly in Syria.

President Obama's big departure from our past engagement in Egypt was that he was willing to talk to the Muslim Brotherhood, which was pretty pragmatic considering that they were the obvious candidates for control of a post-Mubarak government.

[noviapriani]

You're seeming to want to conflate uncontrollable circumstance with allowing situations to develop. I wasn't particularly saying that the US would do everything in it's power to keep any dictator in control, because the individual dictators are of little consequence. One of the differences in Egypt was disinterest in supporting Mubarak even a little, and not trying to push another dictator in behind. Unless you're indicating that Obama structured the Muslim Brotherhood to fail so that another military dictator could waltz in a year or so later in a coup with American support.

If I believed that, I would gain a lot of respect for Obama's Machiavellian-ism, although maybe not his ethics.

[umair127]

Numeiry was the most pro-US leader that an independent Sudan has had. A lot of African states (even those who sided with us during the Cold War) espoused the ideology of African Socialism, that didn't prevent us from working with / supporting them, and Reagan did absolutely work closely with Nimeiry and Egypt to counter Gaddafi in Libya, the triple coalition was a cornerstone of our foreign policy in the area. Of course we didn't align perfectly with him (we didn't with Mubarak either) which is why, when the time came, both presidencies publicly supported "democratic" reforms / transitions, particularly when the militaries of both states stepped in to enforce it.

[noviapriani]

I should also point out I think it will be very chaotic if the infighting in the House of Saud starts while Obama is still in power. Perhaps it's bias, but I don't think he has a game plan to take advantage of events to edge towards an outcome most beneficial to the US. No one could guarantee one, of course.

[umair127]

You're seeming to want to conflate uncontrollable circumstance with allowing situations to develop.

I find this a bit unfair and one sided. The situation in Sudan was "uncontrollable" but even larger and more massive protests and military intervention in Egypt was supposed to be controllable? Nimiery wasn't ousted because of the civil war, the military took over because of northern political pressure and popular unrest (once again not the unrest in South Sudan or Darfur). You seem to be under the idea that we had any real control over whether or not regime change would occur in Egypt without ever stating why you think that. We verbally encouraged democratic reform which was the same thing that Reagan did in Sudan. What would you have had us do? Deploy troops and gun down the protestors? hyperbole to be sure, but I don't understand how you see the US as having possibly prevented regime change in Egypt. The very notion seems to rather ignore what was happening internally in Egypt. Likewise, if you notice I've never given President Obama credit for the regime change in Tunisia, or Yemen, and that's because we didn't do it. Just like we didn't do it in Egypt.

[umair127]

I wasn't particularly saying that the US would do everything in it's power to keep any dictator in control, because the individual dictators are of little consequence. One of the differences in Egypt was disinterest in supporting Mubarak even a little, and not trying to push another dictator in behind.

The Muslim Brotherhood was always going to take over should the government be opened up democratically. Everyone knew this and we knew that the fall of Mubarak meant the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. There was little that could be done in that case. Not sure what dictator you expected us to try to prop up in Mubarak's place nor how you expected President Obama to accomplish such a thing. Even when the army broke electoral law to try to prevent Morsi from winning, he still won. Even when the army tried to prevent popular Muslim Brotherhood candidates from running (in clear violation of the principles of democracy) the Brotherhood still came out on top. The Muslim Brotherhood didn't win through clean elections, they won despite dirty play from the military. Not sure what else you would have expected us to do that the Army itself didn't do?

[zolace]

Unless you're indicating that Obama structured the Muslim Brotherhood to fail so that another military dictator could waltz in a year or so later in a coup with American support.

Just like everyone knew that the Muslim Brotherhood would come to power, it was always likely that their first term would be a heavily unpopular one paving the way for the military to exert more influence. It was inevitable given the dual difficulties of a shattered tourism industry over the protests and unrest, and the simultaneous rising in basic commodity prices due to the global economic recovery (to say nothing of the difficulties of forming a new constitution). Can't say that I expected an outright coup, but I doubt the administration was too surprised by it.

[umair127]

I should also point out I think it will be very chaotic if the infighting in the House of Saud starts while Obama is still in power. Perhaps it's bias, but I don't think he has a game plan to take advantage of events to edge towards an outcome most beneficial to the US. No one could guarantee one, of course.

How much influence do you think ANY US president would have in an internal struggle among the Al Sauds and the internal religious institutions? Do you honestly think that we'll really have any significant say in the end there regardless of who is in office? Our public backing of any individual candidate in Saudi Arabia is more likely to hurt them domestically than help them. In order to come out on top, any Prince in likely going to need to court the religious institutions and being a friend of the US isn't likely to help with that.

[noviapriani]

I should also point out I think it will be very chaotic if the infighting in the House of Saud starts while Obama is still in power. Perhaps it's bias, but I don't think he has a game plan to take advantage of events to edge towards an outcome most beneficial to the US. No one could guarantee one, of course.

How much influence do you think ANY US president would have in an internal struggle among the Al Sauds and the internal religious institutions? Do you honestly think that we'll really have any significant say in the end there regardless of who is in office? Our public backing of any individual candidate in Saudi Arabia is more likely to hurt them domestically than help them. In order to come out on top, any Prince in likely going to need to court the religious institutions and being a friend of the US isn't likely to help with that.

This is an interesting response, and telling in a way.

You're asking me how much "say" the US will have. The answer if Obama is president is virtually none, because I doubt he has any plans. However, like or hate him, Bush would have had plans. And they would be based on the interests of the current leaders, simply because he did have a relationship there. Is that a guarantee of anything? Of course not. But he would have had an opportunity. Which is about all you can have, non militarily.

Now I'm confident we both know that a direct endorsement of any candidate would backfire. But that is the same in any country. If Israel directly endorsed any candidate, it would probably destroy their chances. If any other country did, it would have the same result. That's elementary and pointless to even mention, so I'm surprised you mentioned it. I find it telling in the sense that the likely reason you did is that you believe Obama to be unprepared for it also.

[umair127]

I commented on it thusly because I found the notion that we will have any sort of significant sway in Saudi Arabia's internal political struggle (regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office) a bit surprising.

What sort of plan do you see a president as having? Can you give me a general concept? Clandestine activity of some sort?

It also isn't necessarily the duty of the President to come up with a fine detail plan for something like that anyway. So I'm not sure what you mean by "he doesn't have a plan". I'm sure that the DoD has several 'plans' on file or in the works and has for years. That's actually one of the things that made Bush so horrible with foreign policy is that he often "shot from the hip." Working with and trusting your bureaucrats and specialists is pretty important for things like this.

[Dylith]

I didn't realize that my work was so inspiring that it was worthy of mimicry on such scale.

[ivonna]

I should also point out I think it will be very chaotic if the infighting in the House of Saud starts while Obama is still in power. Perhaps it's bias, but I don't think he has a game plan to take advantage of events to edge towards an outcome most beneficial to the US. No one could guarantee one, of course.

How much influence do you think ANY US president would have in an internal struggle among the Al Sauds and the internal religious institutions? Do you honestly think that we'll really have any significant say in the end there regardless of who is in office? Our public backing of any individual candidate in Saudi Arabia is more likely to hurt them domestically than help them. In order to come out on top, any Prince in likely going to need to court the religious institutions and being a friend of the US isn't likely to help with that.

I think the us would have say in any international conflict if the us were to not be afraid to carry its "big stick" instead of leading from behind.

[Dylith]

I think the us would have say in any international conflict if the us were to not be afraid to carry its "big stick" instead of leading from behind.

Sorry to disappoint, but none of the posters in this thread are human, they are computer bots.