Supplying the Syrian rebels with arms won't work

Discussion in 'World Events' started by cosmictraveler, Sep 12, 2014.

  1. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    So the President wants to give weapons to the "moderate" Syrian rebels to help attack ISIS. Well that won't work because the ISIS terrorists will just take those weapons away from the moderate rebels as soon as they get them. ISIS is much more ruthless and cunning than the moderate Syrian rebels are and they will just kill the rebels whenever they get the weapons. This isn't going to work very well.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    If that is so, why are the moderate Syrians (The Free Syrian Army) still armed? Obama wants to train the Free Syrian Army as well. And he is offering coordination and air support. So your characterization of Obama's proposal as a simple dumping of weapons, is materially incorrect.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I am curious... are we or are we not going to be utilizing drone-strikes against these ISIS camps? And if not... why not?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    We are and I believe we have. Drones are a key intelligence asset.
     
  8. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    The weapons that the "moderate" Syrian terrorists have do not equate to what the ISIS terrorists have in their possession and that is why ISIS isn't bothering them to much plus ISIS is also trying to topple Assad so they want help if they can get it. ISIS will take anything they want from the moderates and if the moderates are given tanks, missiles or any large weapon system ISIS will steal it as quick as it gets there.

    So here we are separating one terrorist group from another but they both are terrorists so what will happen when and if they topple Assad, which terrorist group gets control? Then , of course, there will be another terrorist group pop up from nowhere to topple the new people in power, its a never ending problem or doesn't anyone see it?
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    The problem of Arab self governance is another issue. The issue of withier we should leave these folks to their own devices is another matter. I suppose it is ok, until someone shows up in the US or Europe with a dirty bomb or some such device of mass destruction. But the fact is, Obama is proposing more than just dumping weapons on Syria as you asserted. He is proposing a coordinated action including training, arming, and coordinating military offensives with The Free Syrian Army which is composed mostly of former Syrian military officers. And unfortunately, everybody is a terrorist these days, it is certainly one of the most over used and misused words in the vocabulary. Everyone someone doesn't like is a terrorist these days.

    I think Obama's plan it fine, it will certainly quell ISIS. But it won't magically make Iraq, Syria and surrounding areas capable of good governance. That takes time, money, forgiveness, leadership and patience.
     
  10. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264

    Oh lets see. The Iraqi military was equipped with billions of dollars of state of the art systems and the first fight they got into they dropped everything and ran away or were shot. So now you are telling me America is going to do the same thing again only in Syria/ What a bunch of fools why can't they learn from the recent past. As I said the ISIS group will go into the "moderate" terrorists and blow them to kingdom come when they get any substantial weapons.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Ah...actually I am telling you the US is not doing the same thing. Last time the US did everything. That's not what Obama is doing. It has something to do with teaching a man how to fish rather than giving him fish.

    And this everybody is a terrorist thing is wearing thin. Iraq was doomed the moment Bush Junior selected Iraq's leadership and subquently refused to change it when it became very apparent to everyone but Junior that Maliki wasn't going to cut it. Incidentally Junior made the same mistake in Afghanistan.
     
  12. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264

    Yes look at Afghanistan, 10 years and the problem is still there only underground and when America leaves the same thing will happen as is happening now in Iraq. The Iraqi military should be the ones to defend themselves especially with all of the weapons they were given. But look at them, they don't care about fighting for their own country or themselves but want America to come and do their bidding once again. There's not that many ISIS members to fight so why isn't Iraq taking the fight to them?

    To many problems with the Iraqi government because it didn't allow any other ethnic groups into its legislature which created this mess to begin with. Funny America didn't say anything when that was going on isn't it?
     
  13. p-brane Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    289
    They don't feel like Iraq is their country so they don't want to die to defend it. Now why is that?

    Correct.
     
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Obama's plan - or whoever actually came up with it - appears to be one of the more acceptable options for the region. It won't 'quell' ISIS, but it may have a stabilizing effect, giving them something else to think about. Countering them in the northwest may cause them to try to consolidate.
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Yes if left to its own devices a US withdrawal would quickly send the country into chaos and fragmentation. Warlords would quickly replace the central government and civil war would breakout until some power equilibrium was found. Iraq and Afghanistan do suffer from the same malady, inept leadership courtesy of Georgie Bush II. But that isn’t going to happen because the US will retain a troop presence in the country for the immediate future.

    But beyond that, the countries are very different and the challenges they face are very different. Iraq is more developed and more strategically important. And ISIS is a threat to the world. It is not just a matter of mad radical Muslims running wild in some remote desert. ISIS is a real threat, just like Bin Laden was a real threat. Action is needed.

    Iraq now has new leadership. It needs to reconstitute its military leadership. The Kurds are already have a viable military and didn’t break and run when confronted with an enemy. The Free Syrian Army is not without its problems. But they are the only one in town; they are the best of a bad lot. So the US and her allies will need to work with what they have. Syria isn’t going to be easy. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.

    Well, they let other groups into their parliament. But Malaki was a fractious and inept leader. My God, that man was being tutored by George Junior every week in leadership (i.e. How to Lead a Country 101). Most importantly, Malaki replaced competent military leadership with incompetent cronies. That is why the Iraqi Army broke and ran. That is why Malaki is no longer in power. And that is why Obama’s plan can succeed.


    The Iraqi military and government will need to prove itself in the coming days and months.
     
  16. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    I'm inclined to agree. The attempt to use the Syrian rebels as surrogate ground troops against ISIS is unlikely to be effective.

    The New York Times printed a highly skeptical article on the subject in its Friday Sept 12 edition.

    Here's a link to it:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/w...n-rebels-with-loyalties-all-over-the-map.html

    It begins, "President Obama's determination to train Syrian rebels to serve as ground troops against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria leaves the United States dependent on a diverse group riven by infighting, with no shared leadership, and with hard-line Islamists as its most effective fighters."

    A couple of more quotes that illustrate the article's view:

    "Analysts who track the rebel movement say that the concept of the Free Syrian Army as a unified force with an effective command structure is a myth."

    ...and from a pundit at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

    "You are not going to find this neat, clean, secular rebel group that respects human rights and that is waiting and ready because they don't exist."
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    What you and Cosmic failed to recognize is this is more than dumping weapons in Syria. It's training, air support, intelligence, and coordination.
     
  18. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    We're already using Predators (and presumably Reapers) in Iraq. Many of the 150 or so 'strike-missions' that the US has flown so far have been drone-strikes. Remember that there's only one US aircraft carrier in the vicinity, many hundreds of miles to the south, and the rate of manned sorties that it can maintain over distant northern Iraq is limited.

    That's an important feature of the air campaign so far; its small-scale. People have this idea that huge air-raids are occurring, when it's usually a single small drone putting a small anti-tank missile on a humvee or something.

    Another thing to consider: Predator drones are relatively short range. So if they are operating in significant numbers in northern Iraq, then there are definitely American crews in northern Iraq launching, recovering, fueling, arming and servicing them. 'Boots on the ground', in other words. My guess is that the drones are probably operating out or Erbil and elsewhere in Kurdistan.

    When it comes to Syria, I haven't heard of any strike missions happening there yet. But the drones are already in action. There was a sighting reported from the ISIS stronghold of Raqqah a couple of days ago of what looked like a Predator flying over the town, doubtless sucking up photo and other recce. Again, there's the range consideration. If a Predator was flying over Raqqah, where did it launch from? Just from looking at the map, my guess is Turkey.

    A friend of mine with military aviation connections told me that the Syria mission is kind of perfect for the the USAF's much larger long-range high-endurance RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned reconnaissance aircraft: a large geographical area to cover, far from US controlled airstrips, not defended by advanced air defenses. He is willing to bet that these big drones are already above ISIS-occupied territories in both Iraq and Syria.
     
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Actually, that's regurgitation of an argument that Yazata is not taking up. Neither is the article he cites.

    I feel - or felt - that it was a reasonable choice out of a set of bad choices, but that doesn't translate in effect into a good idea. It's possible that the trainers may have learned something from the previous example with the Iraqi army, or that SFA troops have more backbone, of course. Air support and coordination is fine, of course - so long as it stays in place, and so long as the troops will be coordinated. No one can herd cats.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2014
  20. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    On Sunday, the New York Times editorial board came out in opposition to plans to arm Syrian rebels and then use them as surrogate forces to fight ISIS.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/a-risky-bet-on-syrian-rebels.html

    Among their reasons: The rebels are hugely disorganized, US intelligence often doesn't know precisely who they are and what their constantly shifting allegiances might be, and most of them are Islamists extremely unsavory in terms of human rights. To say nothing of the fact that the Syrian rebels are typically much more interested in their own goal of fighting Assad than in America's goal of fighting ISIS. The NYT also points out that our multi-year and multi-billion dollar effort to build up the Iraqi army couldn't produce a capable fighting force.

    Sadly, I'm inclined to agree with them.

    In my opinion, the strongest non-ISIS military force in Syria, perhaps the only force on ISIS' west capable of fighting them face-to-face now (not years from now after wholesale reinvention by us) is Assad's military. As distasteful as that is to many European capitals and to Washington DC, it's how it is.

    So perhaps the US should reach an informal agreement with Assad that if he doesn't attack us when we are attacking ISIS, we won't attack his forces either. I think that Assad would agree, because ISIS is obviously a tremendous threat to his regime. He will probably still complain up a storm about violations of Syria's soverignty, but he'll quietly cooperate because it's in his interest.

    That doesn't mean that Assad needs to become a US ally. We aren't suddenly allied with the mullahs in Iran, despite our two countries having a common interest in rolling back ISIS in Iraq, and despite the presence of Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces in that country. We just quietly and informally agree not to battle each other for the time being.

    Let Russia be Syria's patron and source of military advice, support and equipment. Vladimir Putin wants to restore Russia to its former glory, so here's a nice little adventure for his country.

    Arming the non-ISIS Syrian rebels might be the worst thing we can do, since doing that would probably weaken Assad more than it would slow ISIS. We would effectively make ourselves into ISIS' allies in Syria, working to undermine their strongest opponent there.
     
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Very interesting. But if Putin tucks Assad back into his pocket - or rather if Assad is permitted to pick Putin's pocket - that places us back in the same position as when the revolution started. Or will, as soon as the UN looks away.

    The evaporation of the Iraqi army was quite the non-issue on the news, wasn't it? Maybe I wasn't watching closely enough, but as I watched ISIS rise, any mention of them was more like they were an incidental, unnamed victim. "ISIS invades this", "ISIS takes that". Iraqi army? What Iraqi army? It was like the media was trying to avoid talking about an embarrassing relative. None of them seemed to be familiar with the organisation. I could be wrong - the NYT mentions them there, at least.
     
  22. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Yeah, it's true. The West and Assad reaching an informal agreement not to undercut each other while ISIS threatens us both, would kind of imply pulling the plug on Western support for the Syrian insurrection.

    I think that's probably inevitable. It's mostly just a fantasy at this point.

    There's definitely a tendency in Western capitals to live in fantasy-land regarding the Middle East.

    We saw it with Bush and Blair, who seem to have blithely assumed that if Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was overthrown, the freedom-loving and largely secular Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators, free elections would be organized in months, and we'd all be out of Iraq in a year. Leaving behind a new free prosperous democratic Iraq that would be a beacon to the whole Middle East, causing tyrants to be swept away everywhere like the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in 1990.

    Didn't work out that way. As soon as the repressive lid that Saddam had clamped down on them was lifted, the Iraqis set about battling each other and marching their country back towards the middle ages.

    Now we see pretty much the same thing happening again with Obama in Syria. We saw it in Libya too, which has pretty much become a failed state since Qaddafi was overthrown. And we saw it in Egypt where Mubarak was overthrown, to be quickly replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, then by the return of the military regime a second time... (except the US was much quieter this time).

    There's this idealistic stereotype of the 'Arab Spring' in which progressive freedom-loving secular people rise up against tyrants to demand their human rights. If we help them in their struggles to overthrow the tyrants, then we will be rewarded with new, progressive, secular, pro-Western regimes that will become beacons transforming the whole region.

    Except in real life, what most people actually seem to want (apart from pay-back and evening scores) is something fundamentally medieval, something that's basically antithetical to Western values.

    If there's one lesson to be drawn from all this, it might be that the brutal and oppressive secular Arab nationalist dictators, often enjoying close ties to the military leadership, aren't necessarily the worst thing that can happen in these countries. Rather, it now starts to look like they were performing the valuable service of keeping a lid on historically atavistic tendencies that appear to erupt into foolishly-created power-vacuums.

    I guess that maybe I'm suggesting that it could finally be time to trade in what might arguably be naive idealism in favor of more cynical real-politik.
     
  23. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    As I've said before, I think the ultimate solution to the Syrian conflict, at least for the time being, is to dry up the sources of arms and finance on all sides and grind all their soldiers and militants to a halt. The US is more than capable of confronting nations like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar to force them to stop their support for radical Sunni militants, and international pressure must be brought to bear to stop the hordes of weaponry and funding coming to Assad and Hezbollah from Iran and Russia. Not much sense in picking sides and going for large-scale air attacks or weapons transfers, if large numbers of innocents on one side or the other are bound to be maimed with Obama and the US being unfairly blamed.
     

Share This Page