Israel Says It Has Proof That Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons

[Viking]

Of course we could. We would just have to be willing to stop the supply of arms if they don't behave. If anything we would prevent the process going the wrong way in favour of the salafists.

Every group in Syria is committing war crimes on a daily basis. Our guys would just stop?

Yes. Advanced light infantry weapons can constitute a good motivation for stopping. Support for the Iraqi Kurds has done wonders for moderating their behaviour. Not only have the Permerga's behaved in a manner near the standard set by the IDF and the Turkish Army but this support has also changed their political system from one based on powerful feudal clans to a semi-functioning democracy.

[Sheilbh]

There's a decent amount of space between "secular liberal" and "radical salafi"
Where one falls within that space matters.

Absolutely but the radicalisation that's happened isn't because we failed to intervene early enough.

It happens in all civil wars because of the nature of them and because of who's supplying the arms. I don't agree with the version of events that states there was a pure, noble group of revolutionaries that we could've supported at the start and had we done so things would've turned out differently.

[The Minsky Moment]

I've never been sold on the 'secular liberal rebels'. Even if there were any they'd all be shouting Salafi slogans because the people with money are the Saudis and Qataris.

There's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Of course if we don't support and leave the field entirely to the Salafi powers, the rebels will tilt in that direction.  That's not an argument for staying out.  That's an argument for intervening big if we actually care about helping shape opinion.

We should just go in and fire all the Ba'athists.  That'll work.

We're talking about funding and arming factions in an existing civil war, not invading and taking down a government with no real active resistance.

[derspiess]

Yes. Advanced light infantry weapons can constitute a good motivation for stopping. Support for the Iraqi Kurds has done wonders for moderating their behaviour. Not only have the Permerga's behaved in a manner near the standard set by the IDF and the Turkish Army but this support has also changed their political system from one based on powerful feudal clans to a semi-functioning democracy.

I think the Iraqi Kurds were already disposed to act that way, which was why it was the right thing to support them however we could.

[Siege]

Old news.

[Siege]

The OP.

[Neil]

This is a civil war, which are almost always worse than any other kind of war and that's awful.

Once again America stands superior to the rest of the world :smugface:

After all these years, are you really surprised by the silly things Tim says?

[Warspite]

There's a decent amount of space between "secular liberal" and "radical salafi"
Where one falls within that space matters.

Absolutely but the radicalisation that's happened isn't because we failed to intervene early enough.

It happens in all civil wars because of the nature of them and because of who's supplying the arms. I don't agree with the version of events that states there was a pure, noble group of revolutionaries that we could've supported at the start and had we done so things would've turned out differently.

If the aim of your intervention is to force a political settlement, you need to arm a large and coherent rebel faction that is politically credible (ideally the dominant faction, but you take what you get), which depends on the local context and not what is desired in foreign national capitals.

I just can't see who that group is in Syria.

[The Minsky Moment]

I just can't see who that group is in Syria.

I dont either but what are the alternatives?
Either Assad prevails and we get a more brutal, radicalized version of the hinge point of the Iran-Hizbollah axis.  No thanks.
Or the rebels prevail which -- without any Western paritipation - will almost certainly mean a Salafi-dominated coalition.
Or chaos will prevail and we will have a new Afghanistan in the Levant.

All the alternatives are so bad that even a low probability shot of something not completely awful looks attractive.

[Viking]

Yes. Advanced light infantry weapons can constitute a good motivation for stopping. Support for the Iraqi Kurds has done wonders for moderating their behaviour. Not only have the Permerga's behaved in a manner near the standard set by the IDF and the Turkish Army but this support has also changed their political system from one based on powerful feudal clans to a semi-functioning democracy.

I think the Iraqi Kurds were already disposed to act that way, which was why it was the right thing to support them however we could.

I think the Syrians Kurds, the Druze, Christians and Alawites (once they dump Assad and reconcile themselves to ultimate sunni rule like the kurds in iraq have to ultimate shiite rule) will be disposed to act this way as well. Make them understand that as long as they act within specific defined and clear parameters (both letter and spirit) the west will guarantee them the weapons they need to keep themselves safe.

[Malthus]

This is a civil war, which are almost always worse than any other kind of war and that's awful.

Once again America stands superior to the rest of the world :smugface:

After all these years, are you really surprised by the silly things Tim says?

Timmay was making a joke. You guys have been wooshed. 

[derspiess]

I just can't see who that group is in Syria.

I dont either but what are the alternatives?
Either Assad prevails and we get a more brutal, radicalized version of the hinge point of the Iran-Hizbollah axis.  No thanks.
Or the rebels prevail which -- without any Western paritipation - will almost certainly mean a Salafi-dominated coalition.
Or chaos will prevail and we will have a new Afghanistan in the Levant.

All the alternatives are so bad that even a low probability shot of something not completely awful looks attractive.

I think one of those scenarios occurs whether we give our own arms to the rebels or not.

[Warspite]

I just can't see who that group is in Syria.

I dont either but what are the alternatives?
Either Assad prevails and we get a more brutal, radicalized version of the hinge point of the Iran-Hizbollah axis.  No thanks.
Or the rebels prevail which -- without any Western paritipation - will almost certainly mean a Salafi-dominated coalition.
Or chaos will prevail and we will have a new Afghanistan in the Levant.

All the alternatives are so bad that even a low probability shot of something not completely awful looks attractive.

Indeed, it's a shit sandwich with less bread and more filling.

I'm in favour of careful arming of rebels, but including copious amounts of assistance for civil administration and basic utilities in liberated areas, with a view to creating a stalemate. Then you can start to force the factions to the negotiating table to hammer out some kind of compromise peace.

I think the real mistake was the insistence that Assad had to go before any transition deal: the sort of absolute demand we didn't even demand at Dayton. This may have been to encourage the Alawites to ditch their leader but it clearly did not work: they have closed ranks around him. And when you turn a civil war into one of absolute regime survival, it's harder to the point of impossibility to end without total victory. I think we should have been more pragmatic about Assad having some sort of role in transition before being eased out some other way. Yes he's a bastard, but how many lives should we sacrifice for the sake of nailing one bastard?

Now that's fine if you're willing and able to ensure a rebel victory, but the other mistake "we" made (Western governments) was severely underestimating the resilience of the regime.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

one of the questions of course is to what extent this is just a civil war, given that this thing also has a very big religous aspect. It can now be placed within the context of the millenium-old fight between sunni and shia.
In any case I don't think there's any advantage for the west to arm anyone now. unless we also kill every last fanatic present, without remorse

[Admiral Yi]

This is a civil war, which are almost always worse than any other kind of war and that's awful.

Once again America stands superior to the rest of the world :smugface:

After all these years, are you really surprised by the silly things Tim says?

Timmay was making a joke. You guys have been wooshed. 

I think it's a reasonable statement.  The American Civil War was very genteel by civil war standards.