Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: "Assad must go" Interventionists Proved Wrong About ISIS

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default "Assad must go" Interventionists Proved Wrong About ISIS

    he Islamic State is a shadow of its former self. In 2014, the extremist group seemed to make substantial inroads in achieving its stated goal of a caliphate. It boasted tens of thousands of fighters and territorial control over an area roughly the size of South Korea. By almost every metric, Islamic State has collapsed in its Syria stronghold, as well as in Iraq. As a former foreign fighter recently admitted, “It’s over: there is no more Daesh left,” using an Arabic acronym for Islamic State.

    The rollback of Islamic State must come as a shock to the chorus of journalists and analysts who spent years insisting that such progress would never happen without toppling the regime of Bashar Assad — which is, of course, still standing. A cavalcade of opinion makers long averred that Islamic State would thrive in Syria so long as Assad ruled because the Syrian Arab Army was part of the same disease.

    John Bolton, former United Nations ambassador under George W. Bush, insisted in the New York Times that “defeating the Islamic State” is “neither feasible nor desirable” if Assad remains in power. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham asserted that “defeating Islamic State also requires defeating Bashar Assad.” Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution prescribed a policy of “building a new Syrian opposition army capable of defeating both President Bashar al-Assad and the more militant Islamists.” Similarly, Max Boot, a contributing writer to this newspaper, argued that vanquishing Islamic State was futile unless the U.S. also moved to depose the “Alawite regime in Damascus.” Like other regime-change salesmen, he pitched a no-fly zone across the country to facilitate airstrikes against the Assad government, while boosting aid to the so-called moderate rebels.

    Prominent Syria analysts also claimed that Assad supported, even sponsored Islamic State. CNN’s Michael Weiss pushed the line that Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin would not fight Islamic State and that Syria and Russia were the group’s “unacknowledged air force.” His co-author, Hassan Hassan, contended that the Syrian regime must go because “Assad has never fought [Islamic State] before.”

    For a while, everywhere one looked, the media was peddling the same narrative. The Daily Beast described Islamic State fighters as “Assad’s henchmen.” The New York Times promoted the idea that “Assad’s forces” have been “aiding” Islamic State by “not only avoiding” the group “but actively seeking to bolster their position.” Time parroted the pro-regime-change line that “Bashar Assad won't fight” Islamic State.

    But these popular arguments were, to put it mildly, empirically challenged.

    The case for regime change in Damascus was reminiscent of the one cooked up for Baghdad in 2003: Interventionists played on American fears by pretending that the strongmen were in direct cahoots with Salafi jihadists (the ultra-conservative movement within Sunni Islam). The evidence of Assad sponsoring Islamic State, however, was about as strong as for Saddam Hussein sponsoring Al Qaeda.

    As the Syria expert Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi noted in February 2014, Islamic State “has a record of fighting the regime on multiple fronts, including the Sheikh Said area of Aleppo province, Kwiris military airbase (where an offensive is ongoing under the leadership of muhajireen battalion Suqur al-Izz, in coordination with the Green Battalion, [Islamic State] and Jabhat al-Nusra), Nubl and Zahara, Brigade 17 airbase in Raqqa province, Tabqa military airport, Qalamoun, Sayyida Zainab, Sakhna in Homs desert, the Qamishli area, and Latakia province. Besides these locations, one should also remember [Islamic State’s] leading role in the capture of Mannagh airbase.”
    I don't know how you were diverted / You were perverted too
    I don't know how you were inverted / No one alerted you

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Bigdog (12-11-2017)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    The notion that Assad “won’t fight” Islamic State was always wrong. The notion that “defeating Islamic State also requires defeating Bashar Assad” was, likewise, always wrong. By now it should be obvious that the Syrian Arab Army has played a role in degrading Islamic State in Syria — not alone, of course, but with Russian and Iranian partners, not to mention the impressive U.S.-led coalition. In marked contrast to pundit expectations, the group’s demise was inversely related to Assad’s power. Islamic State’s fortunes decreased as his influence in the country increased.

    Some of the best political science research over the past couple of decades finds that militants are less likely to emerge in response to political grievances than from propitious conditions for them to organize. For Islamic State, the “opportunity model” of terrorism was always a better fit than the “grievance model.” After all, this is a group that set up shop in the desert, far away from the Syrian military; preyed on soft targets like the Yazidis who never oppressed the Sunni population; and planted affiliates in countries known not for their anti-Sunni government, but the lack of a functioning one.

    As in Iraq a decade earlier, regime change in Syria would have created the ultimate power vacuum for Islamic State to flourish.

    Moreover, the notion that pumping arms and fighters into Syria would mitigate the unrest is actually the opposite of what study after study has established. The conflict literature makes clear that external support for the opposition tends to exacerbate and extend civil wars, which usually peter out not through power-sharing agreements among fighting equals, but when one side — typically, the incumbent — achieves dominance.

    The Realist paradigm reminds us that the U.S. need not share the same ideology of a nasty international actor to countenance working with him against a mutual foe. With its sensitivity to overspending and blowback, Realism also emphasizes the dangers of militarily picking foreign governments around the world.

    Although the Islamic State’s caliphate is dead, Assad’s war on terrorists in Syria is very much alive. Let’s hope future analysis of this conflict avoids the kind of anti-empirical ideological advocacy that helped give rise to Al Qaeda in Iraq and then Islamic State in the first place.

    Max Abrahms is a professor of political science at Northeastern University and a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations. John Glaser is director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.

    Equally contrary to analyst predictions, the group imploded right after external support for the “moderate” rebels dried up. The weakening of the rebels was a major setback for Islamic State because Assad could finally focus his firepower on the group. Fewer weapon shipments into the theater, moreover, meant fewer arms fell into the hands of Salafi jihadists.

    How strange, then, that we haven’t heard many pundits acknowledge their mistakes; they’re not itching to atone for having almost forced another regime-change mission based on discredited analysis.

    The now-defunct conventional wisdom was not only stubbornly anti-empirical, but unmoored from the political science literature. With few exceptions, international relations scholars seemed content to stand back and watch think tank pundits do the day-to-day Syria analysis while ignoring the red flags dotting the research landscape.
    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...story,amp.html

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Bigdog (12-11-2017)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,245 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    'Experts"
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog View Post
    'Experts"
    neocon interventionists warpigs

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    sear (12-11-2017)

  8. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,245 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    neocon interventionists warpigs
    Obama's red line in the sand?
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog View Post
    Obama's red line in the sand?
    all the same noise..at one time Dems were the party of Dennis Kucinich-who warned of US support for "Syrian rebels" were terrorists- and were non-interventionists like Tulsi Gabbard .

    The Republicans are hopeless wardogs.

  10. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,245 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    all the same noise..at one time Dems were the party of Dennis Kucinich-who warned of US support for "Syrian rebels" were terrorists- and were non-interventionists like Tulsi Gabbard .

    The Republicans are hopeless wardogs.
    Given that Socialist Democrat presidents led us into every major war of the 20th century, and it was Nixon that ended the draft, I have to disagree with that labeling of the right.

    Obama had more wars than even GWB.
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

  11. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog View Post
    Given that Socialist Democrat presidents led us into every major war of the 20th century, and it was Nixon that ended the draft, I have to disagree with that labeling of the right.

    Obama had more wars than even GWB.
    oh please. Iraq was the granddaddy of mindless interventionism.
    It spawned ISIS for Great Buddha;'s sake.

    Give it up..warpigs have no party exclusive. Look at the list in the OP above.
    Add in Hillary and Madeline Albright and the rest of the trash, but the Republicans are the same

  12. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,245 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    oh please. Iraq was the granddaddy of mindless interventionism.
    It spawned ISIS for Great Buddha;'s sake.

    Give it up..warpigs have no party exclusive. Look at the list in the OP above.
    Add in Hillary and Madeline Albright and the rest of the trash, but the Republicans are the same
    John McCain and Lindsey Graham are the most hated republicans ... by republicans.

    I disagreed with the Iraq war, but it's a done deal ... and I'm happy as shit that Saddam and his sons are dead.

    Obama failed to negotiate a new SOFA agreement ... causing Iraq to implode and spawning Obama's JV team ... which Obama nurtured by ignoring them.
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

  13. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog View Post
    John McCain and Lindsey Graham are the most hated republicans ... by republicans.

    I disagreed with the Iraq war, but it's a done deal ... and I'm happy as shit that Saddam and his sons are dead.

    Obama failed to negotiate a new SOFA agreement ... causing Iraq to implode and spawning Obama's JV team ... which Obama nurtured by ignoring them.
    oh please..don't EVEN try to justify it..Powell and his DRAWINGS of WMDS being trucked to Syria..

    I'm no fan of Obama, and his dismissive "JV" comments allowed ISIS to advance unopposed -
    but negotiating a new SOFA was never really in the cards.

    Muqtada al-Sadr -very powerful back then- said the only way Americans could stay is if they became
    under Iraqi law ( like for so called war crimes)

    It was a Pandora's Box-once opened all the horrors were bound to unfold.
    Learn from it, unlike Obama and Hillary did not do regarding Libya

  14. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    After the events of the last 15 years you have to be a special kind of stupid to advocate for regime anywhere in the Middle East.

    Regardless of the reason. Secular despots are much better than theocratic totalitarians.

    Realpolitik 101.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  15. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,245 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Muqtada al-Sadr -very powerful back then- said the only way Americans could stay is if they became
    under Iraqi law ( like for so called war crimes)
    I'm well aware of the sticking point of the new SOFA terms. Obama failed. After all that blood and treasure ... Obama failed miserably.

    We were told, by the SSM, that Saddam was "invincible". And now he's dead at the end of hangman's noose ... by the hands of his own people.
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

  16. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    "Obama's red line in the sand?" Bd #5
    - astounding -

    Republicans thrive on something akin to that.

    During the Obama administration, while Senator McCain was urging Obama to get involved in yet another Middle East debacle, President Obama publicly warned Syria's Assad about crossing a "red line". I don't recall any "in the sand" addendum.

    Apparently Republicans love to infer what is not asserted.

    IF !!

    Obama had said:
    - it crosses a red line, and if you do that,

    - then I'll do this ...

    I don't recall Obama ever saying that.

    The sound-bites I reviewed of it simply included Obama using the term "red line".

    Oddly:
    Republicans including BD #5 seem to be blaming Obama for breaking his word, for not following through on a threat that was never expressed.

    What Obama said then, remains true now.
    Weapons escalation in war, even civil war, can cross a line, just as the U.S. did in WWII by nuking Japan
    T W I C E ! !
    "John McCain and Lindsey Graham are the most hated republicans ... by republicans." Bd #9
    If so it's a mark of distinction of which they can be proud.

    McCain for one is a loyal citizen that places citizenship ahead of partisanship. That alone sets McCain apart from many of his Republican senate colleagues.
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  17. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog View Post
    I'm well aware of the sticking point of the new SOFA terms. Obama failed. After all that blood and treasure ... Obama failed miserably.

    We were told, by the SSM, that Saddam was "invincible". And now he's dead at the end of hangman's noose ... by the hands of his own people.
    Obama failed because there’s this wonderful thing called ‘negotiation’. Obama wanted out of Iraq and the Iraqis gave him political cover to do it.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    Bigdog (12-11-2017)

  19. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,245 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    After the events of the last 15 years you have to be a special kind of stupid to advocate for regime anywhere in the Middle East.

    Regardless of the reason. Secular despots are much better than theocratic totalitarians.

    Realpolitik 101.
    It was certainly bad when Socialist Democrat, Jimmy Carter, failed to stop Iran's regime change.

    I think most of the despots were tossed out during the Arab Spring. An Arab Spring caused by the Al Gorian's monetization of food crops.
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-10-2017, 09:15 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-06-2017, 10:18 PM
  3. "Values Voters" = Faith-Based "Challenged", Or Evangelical-ISIS???
    By Mr. Shaman in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-13-2016, 06:45 PM
  4. "conservatives" Worst Nightmare: ISIS, By BU$HCO!!!
    By Mr. Shaman in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-28-2016, 09:29 AM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-14-2013, 06:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •