Syria falling into chaos isolates Iran and Russia from the middle east. AQI and JAN are just a few of many players on the rebel side. If you were worried about Al Qaeda, you're already shit out of luck because they already have a home in Iraq and Yemen.
To be honest, this isn't really about the specific groups involved, but rather the ethic and regional divisions. The Alawite minority has really fucked with the Sunni population of Syria since the French left. Unchecked, there will likely be a genocite of the Alawite population should the regime fall. On the other hand, the native Sunni population will similarly be murdered should the regime take control and consolidate power. The Kurds, well the Kurds are fucked like they always are.
There is no good choice here. Leaving the situation alone risks increasing Assad's use of chemical weapons since he's already tested the waters of an international response. However, having Iran and Hezzbollah dump money and resources into the black hole is a pretty good position for the NATO/western powers. It also pretty much removes any precedent to respond to future chemical attacks from an international standpoint.
Letting Assad fall runs a high risk of an aforementioned Alawite (and Christian minority) genocide at the hands of the Sunni rebels.
I personally worry about Al Qaeda b/c of AQAP pushing the English language "open source jihad" movement, but yeah I definitely see where it actually is to the US govt's advantage to have even AQI or JAN in power over Assad or any other Iranian ally.
Kerry laid the smack down on the UK noting that France is the US's "oldest ally"
Well they certainly stuck their oar in when the colonies where rising up. Still salty over India if you ask me.
A positive of all this seems to be that there is a bit more care being paid and the UN seems to have pulled its thumb out a bit more.
On a side note if the French go in the the UK will follow, I kid you not we won't let the French lord it over us.
You didn't go with them into Mali. Why would you Syria? I realize they're different situations, but in terms of "we won't let the French lord it over us" they seem fairly similar.
Mali was, as you said a different matter. Mali seemed to us, at least, to be more of a policing matter. One that didn't need a full scale invasion as Iraq and Afghan did. It also didn't draw much of an international force, and put bluntly we didn't have to suck up to anyone.
Yea, I would like to note that the Examiner is not a legit news site.
Not a legit source.
I wasn't sure if it was legit or not plus the more I read the story the less realistic it sounds.
I can buy a story about a rogue commander or other mix up on the battlefield with chemical shells being used without regime approval. I can't believe a story about foreign governments sending in chemical weapons while not telling the people they give them to anything about them. I can even buy a false flag operation of some other party using them to pull the US into the conflict.
At this point it looks like the Pres is using 'Congressional approval" as a way to get out of his red line promise. It's a great tactic because it removes the ability of Republicans to attack him on the Syria issue. If we go in or not it will be on Congress's say so.
Comments
Somalia is to _________ as Iraq is to Syria
Yes. As an American, I have obviously never heard of Somalia.
US govt must have a much larger plan in the works, because I can't imagine how that fits into their Middle East model.
To be honest, this isn't really about the specific groups involved, but rather the ethic and regional divisions. The Alawite minority has really fucked with the Sunni population of Syria since the French left. Unchecked, there will likely be a genocite of the Alawite population should the regime fall. On the other hand, the native Sunni population will similarly be murdered should the regime take control and consolidate power. The Kurds, well the Kurds are fucked like they always are.
There is no good choice here. Leaving the situation alone risks increasing Assad's use of chemical weapons since he's already tested the waters of an international response. However, having Iran and Hezzbollah dump money and resources into the black hole is a pretty good position for the NATO/western powers. It also pretty much removes any precedent to respond to future chemical attacks from an international standpoint.
Letting Assad fall runs a high risk of an aforementioned Alawite (and Christian minority) genocide at the hands of the Sunni rebels.
Unless they really do have a field operative program akin to something dreamed up by Ian Fleming.
A positive of all this seems to be that there is a bit more care being paid and the UN seems to have pulled its thumb out a bit more.
On a side note if the French go in the the UK will follow, I kid you not we won't let the French lord it over us.
Could it be true?
Not a legit source.
I can buy a story about a rogue commander or other mix up on the battlefield with chemical shells being used without regime approval. I can't believe a story about foreign governments sending in chemical weapons while not telling the people they give them to anything about them. I can even buy a false flag operation of some other party using them to pull the US into the conflict.
At this point it looks like the Pres is using 'Congressional approval" as a way to get out of his red line promise. It's a great tactic because it removes the ability of Republicans to attack him on the Syria issue. If we go in or not it will be on Congress's say so.
Hope you bought all the RAM you want for a while. I just got in under the wire with my upgrade to 16GB.