What happened to Trump and Putin's alliance, which the the media "trumped" up as a victory plan for Syria?
2
The lesson of Libya and Afghanistan (and perhaps even Iraq) was not that foreign intervention in countries ruled by dictators is disastrous. The lesson was that foreign intervention in countries ruled by dictators without post-conflict rehabilitation is disastrous. Remember, if we had not intervened in Libya, Muammar Qaddafi would almost certainly have slaughtered thousands of people. And we were making progress in Afghanistan, routing out the Taliban and improving quality of life for people around the country, until we abandoned nation-building (o, what dirty word!) for fire and fury in Iraq. If we had abandoned Germany and Japan after WWII, conflict would likely have re-erupted there too. But because we spent decades, and the 21st century equivalent of billions of dollars to help those countries integrate themselves into the democratic developed world, they are some of the wealthiest, most successful countries on the planet.
The difference between Germany/Japan and Syria/Afghanistan/Iraq is that it is much easier to be indifferent about the latter than the former. The Germans were white, with a large, influential diaspora located in the United States. The Japanese had proved themselves more "Western" than their Asian peers. Moreover, we needed German and Japanese markets for our manufactured goods, territory for our military bases, and pawns in our fight against that Great Demonic Empire, Communism.
We could have stopped the bloodshed of the Syrian Civil War. We didn't.
4
"If you shoot at the King, be sure to kill the King"
The rebels against Assad's government should have studied that dictum before starting their rebellion. It is an obvious move from any government to attempt to put down a regional rebellion against itself, and while doing so there will be civilian casualties and destruction. Look at the results of the American Civil War. Whether one believe that Mr. Assad is saintly or devilish, he is the head of a government just like Mr. Lincoln was, and he will attempt to preserve that government by force, just like Mr. Lincoln did.
5
This will probably mean another wave of refugees. I hope that the innocent can be hosted in neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia and other rich Gulf states, who speak the same language and who share the same religion and culture as the Syrians.
Hope that Merkel, who has been (barely) reelected and looks like close to a coalition deal with Schultz, who favors family unification for the refugees, will not get any more brilliant ideas and extend another mass invitation to any and all.
3
I think we should do our part not by engaging in more armed conflict, but by taking in more refugees, as many as we can. With the intensity of the conflict, there is no way of "winning" here. The most we can do is provide humanitarian aid and accept as many refugees as possible. Of course, this is unlikely to happen with the current administration and our bellicose leader who abhors outsiders.
1
Attacking Syria's Kurds? Turkey's goose is cooked!
Where are the UN resolutions of condemnation and other (self-) riteous countries' sanctions against Syria and against Russia for supplying Assad with weapons to butcher his own people? Oh, that's right, they're too busy drafting resolutions against Israel to worry about the rest of the world.
3
To be fair, they are also drafting the resolution against Syria, but it could not pass by same mechanism as the resolution against Israel. So, what is your complaint?
2
It was clear from the very beginning, with the world's eyes on Aleppo, that Assad and Putin merely meant a to relocate that population to Idlib to be massacred a second time, away from the worlds previous judgement (and no action). It looks like they are getting away with it once again.
At what point do these crimes against their own civilians, hospitals,schools, aid convoys, - chemical weapons used - constitute war crimes?! Why is the world so very tone deaf to this annihilation of a people?!
2
Did you think it would stay the same.
This war would have been over when one side beats the other side. or when there are no more bullets to shoot.
That isn't happening as Russia and Iran have supported the Syrians and we and others have supported the other side guaranteeing that no one will use up all their bullets.
These two sides will never stop fighting on their own as long as one man is standing on either side.
Assad knows he and his follower will get slaughtered if they lose and the other side know Assad would do the same to them.
These two sides therefore have no choice.
Either stop fighting and know you will get slaughtered or you continue fighting with hope you are not the one who becomes a casualty of war.
This is very sad.
Two groups of people who follow the same religion should love each not want to kill each other.
This is what it really comes down to.
Instead of supporting one sides over the other hoping our side wins we should impose a settlement where no one wins and everybody wins.
We can not do this on our own.
Russia and the United States have to agree they want peace more than they
want their side to win.
Only then will there be peace.
Instead.
.
.
This worsening of this proxy war is almost entirely due to the policies of our own nation in cooperation with the Sunni Gulf Monarchies and, especially, Israeli. US policy refuses to let this war end until Syria is destroyed and balkanized into several weak parts. This has been "the policy" from the beginning--without which there would have been no proxy war in Syria.
The US military presence in Syria is completely contrary to international law--not that it seems to matter. Our military presence also supports several armed groups that are terrorist in orientation and will continue to cause problems. None of this is ever discussed in the US press.
This is supposedly all about--"confronting Iran" on behalf of "the security interests of Israel" so neither the US, Israel or the Saudis have any concern about the impact on the people of Syria and the region.
If the funding and arms support for this proxy war stopped--the war would stop.
US plans for a "border force" and a separate Kurdish state has also provoked a Turkish invasion of Syria--adding to all the violence.
These events are completely disheartening. But the media in the US simply will not criticize Israel, the Saudi's or US military strategy.
This is consistent with the poor coverage we have gotten from our media, including this publication since the start of this proxy war.
7
So, what are Americans doing in Syria? Don't they have respect for the international borders?
3
“the Syrian government and its Russian ally “
The ally of destruction both abroad and here!
Attn. Republicans. Have you no shame?
Thought not...
3
simple...US soldiers promoting Israeli and Saudi interests
7
I would like to see what the US or any Western nation criticizing Syria would do if it was in a civil war against extremists encouraged, armed and funded by foreign nations. This is a civil war, and the Syrian government is fighting to regain control of the country. Get a life. The US excuses extreme "collateral damage" when it invades other nations or engages in its "regime changes" invasions and wars against "extremists" in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, among other places. If the West cared about the loss of life, it would encourage the remaining heavily armed insurgents to quite this useless fight and it would call out the US for its disregard for civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction. Until then, Syria must do what any government in its position would do, fight like hell to regain territory under control of its enemies. The double standard that the US lives by and the Western media never calls out is an outrage and the cause of more needless suffering than the Syrian government fighting to regain control of its country. The country was largely stable and prosperous, despite years of US efforts to isolate and undermine its government - and like Libya and Iraq, it has suffered greatly from the aggressive overt and covert "regime change" actions of the US and its allies. Things would be much worse but for intervention by Russia.
7
There are two standards. You probably don't understand what our military is really capable of. If the US didn't care about civilian casualties half the middle east would be a parking lot.
1
But on the other hand, if the US stayed home, the ME would be not perfect but stable.
1
Yup - that is why North Korea wants nuclear weapons, and why we need Russia and China to counterbalance the US.
Theres another possible casualty. The autonomous Kurdish region in northern Syria has been an extremely interesting experiment in democracy. While militias defend the borders from Daesh, Turkey, and Assad, within those borders people have been organized by councils and other democratic structures with mandated participation from women. This has essentially been it's own country. With Turkey escalating, this place and all that has been fought for and learned is at risk. All this talk about democracy in the middle east really is all talk if this area is decimated without much word from the west. After all, the NYT won't even call it by it's name. Rojava.
4
Rojava? Who knew. I’ll look it up.
I'm not sure why this is surprising. All the players are war criminals... including the USA.
1
I thought Trump won this war, seems that most of the media seem to think he has handled ISIS handily, when speaking of his attributes / negatives.
2
Syria is tribal. Assad will not leave because it would harm his Alawite tribe. Any suggestion that Assad must go because of the atrocities he has ordered is not real. What is real is to allow Syria to break apart from Alawite rule and form regions with Sunni and Kurdish leaders. Its a practical atrocity reducing tactic the outside powers should pursue and support.
1
There is nothing unusual here. The USA and its puppet masters, Saudi Arabia and Israel, are determined to prolong the death and destruction in Syria. There shall be no peace until (a) Syria is divided and conquered (b) The World community finds some way of restraining the greatest Military Power on Earth – the American Empire.
Before any of that happens Mass Media like the New York Times must begin to carry honest reporting on what is really happening in Syria.
That would include:
• Reporting on the 600,000 or so Syrians who have returned to Aleppo since the Syrian Government and its Russian and Iranian allies defeated the Western Terrorist fighters who occupied the Eastern part of that city
• Reporting on the successful Syrian Government initiatives to encourage terrorists to lay down their arms and return to civil life
• Refusing to regurgitate uncritically American and ‘White Helmet’ propaganda about Hospitals being targeted; sarin gas attacks and the tired litany about defenceless and helpless people being .
10
more nonsense from the anti trump crowd i.e. Assad and Turkey are trying to test the usa and kurds resolve who now control the ISIS oil fields
1. NATO cannot afford to loose Turkey. In NATO Turkish army is the second largest after that of USA and Turkish army (and Turkey) contributed to the NATO countries more than any other NATO country other than USA.
2. Because Obama Administration was unable to decide on a course of policy in the area, US and Turkey separately or together supported the wrong side in Syria
3. Secretary Kerry was busy with Iran. This let te Defense Dept.(DoD) to implement its own "foreign policy". The same policy full of holes continues today and is the main culprit of messy situation. Generals make war not foreign policy.
4. Turks tried to deal with Kurds peacefully at first. But PYD is kin of PKK the terrorist organization recognized by all but DoD decided to ally itself with PYD Kurds despite warnings from Turkey.
5. Turkey will not allow another organization under the thumb of PKK exist at its border.
6. Turks know very well that neither the Arabs nor the Kurds want its involvement beyond its borders. However, Northern Iraqi Kurds need Turkey's assistance and good will. Northern Iraq is landlocked and its only outlet to the sea and world is through Turkey.
7. Turks have 3.5 million Syrian refugees within their borders and made clear that they want them to go back to Syria.
8. It is high time to rescue US foreign policy initiatives from the Defense Dept. and set a course of support for Kurds and Arabs together with Turkey.
9. US is the stranger in the region Turkey is not.
"It would be well for your government to consider that having your ships and ours, your aircraft and ours, in such proximity... is inherently DANGEROUS. Wars have begun that way, Mr. Ambassador." - Jeffrey Pelt [speaking to the Soviet Ambassador], Hunt for Red October
2
Everyone seems to have an opinion on who the "good guy" is in this war, but, there is no "good guy." There are hundreds of thousands of victims, but no righteous combatants. You can blame the Crusaders, the Ottoman Turks, the Kurds. You can blame Shia vs. Sunni. You can blame the insane way the Middle East was divided, by England and France, after World War I. What you will never do is find enough rational individuals who are willing to leave the past behind and come to a workable agreement.
What we need is a #MeToo movement, lead by the mothers of murdered children, who say Enough is Enough, my child was worth more than a centuries old grudge. Maybe like the Women of Sparta, they can show the World's Macho Men that it is time to give peace a chance.
3
As always the NYT, and other mainstream Western media, try to hide the fact Idlib province and East-Ghouta are occupied by al Qaeda and its allies. It therefore should be applauded the fact the Syrian secular government is taking back control from these extreme sectarian terror groups.
But instead the NYT talks about insurgents and rebels when it should as it does with ISIS call them by their real name: terrorists.
The NYT also mentions Chatham House as a British research center but in fact this is a British government owned institution and as London fights Assad it should have been mentioned as this control by Downing Street makes Chatham House not objective but biased.
Thirdly The US has no right of being in Syria and acts in a criminal way and therefore is an agressor under international law. The Trump administration should therefore be prosecuted.
8
Mr. Trump must tell General Mattis to fight harder until victory is achieved for the security of America.
I can't remember where I heard this comment about the constant turmoil in the middle east, but it bears thinking about: "It's because it is hot, and there isn't enough water."
Brought to by Regime Change, Inc. The U.S. occupation of eastern Syria and funding of jihadist groups through the country are clear war crimes and must be halted immediately.
4
This is what happens when nations are run by leaders who divide people into groups, and then spew hate and intolerance, so as to maintain their own position.
3
What's so hard to believe? These people have been waring with each other since the beginning of time. We just started to pay attention to their inane savagery.
2
Actually, they lived quite peacefully until America started meddling in the region putting Sunnis against Shiites in order to spread its influence in the region
3
Horrible!
But let's hold everyone to the same standard.
If it's horrible for Assad's forces to bomb hospitals, so too must it be for Israel to do the same to Palestinian and Lebanese medical facilities.
If horrible Assad embargos lead to malnutrition and highly deficient medical care, so too must Israeli blockade of Gaza be considered the human catastrophe it is.
If Assad's use of indiscriminate weapons is horrible, so too must Israel's pervasive use of cluster bombs in Lebanon (with millions of bomblets left behind) and deliberate targeting of civilian residences ("oh, BTW, when you get a tap tap on the roof of an apartment building, everyone leave 'cause we're about to bomb it" - well, now that's fair indeed) and civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and Gaza to maximize civilian pain.
We, the American media and government, need to stop applying entirely different standards based on who has the best US lobbying effort. Horror is horror is horror. It does not matter who inflicts it.
4
Yup, horror is horror is horror. Like terrorist acts committed against Israeli civilians since many years before the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, like the slaughter of innocent civilians - including Israeli Arabs, foreign tourists, children, elderly people - by Hamas suicide bombers during the Second Intifada, like Lebanese Hezbollah's bombing of Israeli civilians during the Second Lebanon War (When these bombs killed 2 Israeli Arabs child brothers on their way to visit their uncle in the Galilee region of Israel, Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah called to tell their father he was sorry that th boys were killed but that their family should be consoled knowing that the boys were now martyrs in the Garden of Eden. Horror is also Hamas putting rockets in schools and hospitals and hiding behind Palestinian civilians to shoot at Israeli civiians.
4
I've commented on the issue of why we are at war many times, but neither readers nor the editors of the Times seem concerned. The alleged authorization for this war is the War Powers Act on 2003 that authorized President Bush to wage war to capture the perpetrators and enablers of the 9/11 attack.
Al-Queda is long gone. There were never any WMD's. There was no Iraqi bio lab, no nuclear program and the Saddam government was as opposed to Al-Queda as we were. Osama Bin Laden was assassinated, so we effectively have no basis for the continuation of these wars.
Now we have moved 2,000 troops across the boarder of Iraq into Syria. By all legal standards this is an act of war. Based on our constitution it is a de facto declaration of war, without the required vote of congress.
Yet pundits and reporters glibly report on 'events in the Middle East as if our constitution didn't exist. Maybe I've raised these issue in the wrong way. Maybe we should plant a story saying that the Russian's hacked congressional computers and wiped clean the very declaration of war just as congress was trying to carry out its constitutional duties.
Human carnage, budget busting expenditures and international law don't seem to mean anything. So maybe if we can add this to the Russia Gate merry go round it just might get some attention.
4
When one has immeasurable amount of wealth what do can that person do for fun? Start a war. That's what. War is a Devils Chess game. Played by extraordinarily powerful men and women. For their own amusement.
2
I fault three people for the entire upheaval in the Middle East creating instability in the world for decades to come in the following order
Dick Cheney
George Bush
Don Rumsfeld
and one more as a group, we the people for not stopping them
2
They certainly have part of the blame but this is too simplistic. The Arab Uprisings of 2011 spread from Tunisia to Egypt to Bahrain to Syria etc. and they were an outpouring of popular rage against dictatorships which failed their people as well as the involvement of Islamists who wanted to seize power. After the Syrian War started and Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, Obama must take some of the blame since he made matters worse by drawing a red line and then not enforcing it.
2
Obama was brave not to enforce a ridiculous so called red line, instead there were many weapons of mass destruction destroyed. Obama was cautious and understood that the Middle East is in a state of flux and will take years to settle down.
It looks like the US was the aggressor in its recent bombing near Deir Ezzor. This happened in a small government held pocket east of the Euphrates. A few days before the US suddenly opened the Tabqa dam so that the water rose suddenly several meters and the Russian-made bridge that connected this pocket with the westbank of the river was destroyed. The Pentagon statements too seem to attack the legality of the existence of this pocket.
1
Of the existing governments in the world that we would accept as being successful, democratic and respecting human rights, how many were imposed on the country by outside force? I can't think of any. Undoubtedly the Syrian government was/is far from ideal but maybe it would have been better to let the people who live there deal with the complexity of their situation as they saw fit. If that involved violence, then they live with the consequences and I suspect the vast majority of Syrians would not have chosen that route. External interference has done nothing except to make the situation far worse for the people there than it would have otherwise been. In any case, much of this interference was motivated by agendas that have nothing to do with the well-being of the Syrian people. The people in countries involved in this have to speak up and not just repeat empty slogans about brutal dictators, etc., etc. but rather demand approaches that support the development of these countries in meaningful ways. In the end that will work far better than the current approach.
4
Then why complain about any country? Apply this logic to those living in North Korea.
"Of the existing governments in the world that we would accept as being successful, democratic and respecting human rights, how many were imposed on the country by outside force? I can't think of any."
Germany. Japan. South Korea.
We defeated Nazi Germany. We helped transform nations gripped by genocidal fascism and/or brutal imperialism into some of the wealthiest, most successful nations on earth. We not only weathered the bloodiest, most destructive war in human history, we subsequently entered another extremely bloody and destructive war which, though fought for some morally dubious reasons, ultimately helped save over 50 million people from life under a ruthless despot. But Iraqis, Afghans, and Syrians are brown, not white; we don't need them to consume our manufactured goods, neither do we need them as pawns in a game of geopolitical chess. For those reasons, they continue to die.
Russia and Iran are very invested in keeping Assad in power, so it is essentially impossible for the U.S. to change the status quo given its limited appetite for military presence in Syria. However, what little presence we (the U.S.) are maintaining in Syria is only prolonging the suffering, in my opinion. Certainly Assad is not the most desirable leader, but it is unlikely that an opposition leader would be more humane in a country with such deep divisions, so there is no reason for us to pursue this goal. I believe the U.S. should end all military involvement in Syria in support of the rebels, but we should continue or increase our humanitarian aid during this time of crisis for the ordinary Syrians caught up in this horrible conflict.
The U.S. does not really have much to gain or lose in Syria, so our presence there is only harming us by causing a deterioration of relations with an ally (Turkey) and putting American lives at risk for no good reason. Our presence there could also lead to a much, much larger conflict if things get out of hand. I would really hate to see World War 3 begin because of a lack of good judgment on the part of the U.S.
1
The US war operandi apparently knows no boundaries still meddling heavily in a country (Syria) that it is not welcomed by the country's (still) legal government, and all of it's neighbours (Turkey (a key NATO ally), Iraq, and Iran).
Iraq wants the US soldiers to leave.
The endless charade of fighting behind proxies is slowly coming to an end in Syria, a country that has been shattered among countless tragedies in the 21st century, and the US will likely face a strong trio of Turkey-Iran-Syria with major Russian support just because of what exactly!?
The American people has been sick and tired of its country to needle into other countries affairs spending hundreds of billions (if not trillions) when we have a broken system of health care, education and infrastructure for its citizens.
When will the elected officials and Pentagon start listening to its populace?
2
The post-WW2 world has been falling apart since the fall of the USSR. The stasis caused by the cold war is over, and the reorganization of the world as we know it has begun.
All the countries in the Middle East have been held together by force and inertia. The US is unwilling to impose a solution, and since none of the various factions are strong enough to win the conflict will continue.
International bodies are wonderful, but in the international realm power comes from the barrel of a gun. Has China abided by the UN ruling on the South China Sea? Has Syria obeyed the requests in the various UN letters? Has Myanmar stopped its purges?
This is the world in which we live now.
2
"It’s Hard to Believe, but Syria’s War Is Getting Even Worse"
NO - It is not hard to believe
First: ANY GOVERNMENT, NO MATTER HOW BAD, IS BETTER THAN NO GOVERNMENT
President Obama weakened Assad , declaring Assad must go but lost his nerve to display American power after Assad crossed the dead line set by President Obama himself. That was the signal that the US was a paper tiger and that Syria a power vacuum.
A complex program of the US to supply weapons to opposition groups to remove Assad by clandestine means, was poorly managed and di not succeed. Assad wounded, lived on, but larger and larger areas developed that had NO government
A PROXY WAR FOLLOWED
Second: With the US unwilling to dispatch an Assad that had crossed the US selected red line with no penalty, a power vacuum developed. The Syrian war developed into a PROXY war, were the US, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Israel played a game the excluded any consideration on how civilians would suffer. PROXY WARS ARE THE MOST MURDEROUS KIND OF WAR AS NONE OF THE PLAYERS HAS HER OWN CITIZENS AT STAKE>
Third
REFUGES DID NOT STREAM INTO THE US
: Although the US set the proxy war in motion, the refugees streamed into Germany, not the US, where they were kept out by unreasonable security and vetting procedures. Germany, the size of Montana, took in hundreds of thousands, the US, the land of give me your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, 10 000.
NO REFUGEES, NO LOBBY IN THE US TO DO SOMETHING.
1
There is nothing more deadly and enduring than an ethnic sectarian civil war. There is no military solution to any such war. The war in Syria has not lasted as long as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
1
People in this part of the world are still fighting revenge wars from a millennia ago. Nothing good will come from American intervention. The reasonable solution is to find an alternative to oil and the entire ME can be left to duke it out with each other, just like Africa.
Reasonable people might eventually prevail.
1
Someone got to spend all the billions more money we got for the defense department in the new budget that just past our congressional legislation.
The Syrian Civil War will not burn out because too many foreign countries have vested interests in pouring fuel on the fire. There is no room for peace when there are so many agendas that are fundamentally contradictory, and so many foreign powers remain ready to provide the means for the war to continue. This is why the peace talks never amount to anything.
1
What the article calls rebels are in fact Islamic terrorists who want to establish another Islamic state in Syria.
The first civil war is over and what happens now in Syria is a proxy war that these terrorists wage for two sides that are not really that prominent in this article:
The USA, which is illegally occupying part of Syria, is trying to implement a war zone against Assad and is supporting the terrorists with weapons such as SAMs which were used to shoot down a SU-25 last week. This incursion is completely illegal and ucnalled for unless you call US domestic politics a reason for killing scores of civilians, attacking a sovereign nation and occupying a country that is thousands of miles away fro the US. The US intervention is a reason for a war crimes tribunal in The Hague and for court proceedings against the US government for war crimes. To the US this a war against Assad and a proxy war against Russia.
The other party is Saudi Arabia which is and has always been a hatred party and is supporting these terrorists against Assad and its supporters in Iran.
As long as the US, its ally Turkey and Saudi Arabia is not kicked out of Syria there will be no peace.
The US and Saudi Arabia have done the same in Afghanistan and the results can be seen on any halfway decent TV news station.
And another Afghanistan in Syria is what the US and Saudi Arabia want.
No Assad is no angel but he is the legitimate ruler of Syria while the others are an illegal occupation force.
2
If all goes well, whatever this word can mean, as a static container of life-sustaining...a dynamic, qualitative state,process and outcome of physical, psychological, spiritual, social, economic, etc. health, and the US armed forces are (re) armed to new levels, and qualities, by deficit-dealings, how come Syria's slaughterers aren't successfully silenced? Not semantically!
Yes, and do you know why. The United States. I am appalled by the silence of these journalists on the incredibly destructive role the United States is playing in Syria. They have not been invited by the Syrian government and thus are violating Syria's sovereignty and thus are illegal. Second, the United States contributes arms and weaponry to the very groups that we after 9/11 would have branded terrorists. Finally, the United States is violating its own principles under the UN Charter.
1
In a lot of these comments there is an implicit assumption that a dictator, like Assad, is the key to restoring order. Maybe such faith in dictatorships why the US is having its own flirtation with authoritarianism. However, the view overlooks Assad's key role in the disorder.
Dictators are like lids on pressure cookers. Unlike democracies, there is no outlet for dissent or difference. Making it illegal to express your grievances doesn't make grievances go away. It just suppresses the grievances, creating the illusion of order to those on the outside looking in. But over time, the grievances build up, ultimately exploding in protest or armed revolution. The CIA is not so marvelously competent as to engineer simultaneous revolutions in multiple Arab countries, all set to go off in 2011. The Arab Spring was a chain reaction of lids being blown off pressure cookers. People with grievances saw what was happening in a neighboring country, and decided it was time.
The kind of order Assad can impose now will be the kind enforced with murder and terror. That kind of order will not be stable, because it will only suppress existing grievances and create new grievances in the process. Another explosion will happen sooner or later.
The war in Syria was instigated by the US/CIA which has, since 2006, been supplying the jihadist opposition with money, weapons and assurances of support. This is a continuation of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" (see Andrew Bacevich book of the same name) in which the US has repeatedly used Islamic fundamentalists to attack Arab nationalist regimes. The war in Syria was violent from its inception in the uprising in Daara in March 2011. This is another in the very long series of US regime change operations that have overthrown governments from Afghanistan to Chile.
2
There is so much missing from this report, it is hard to know where to begin. Israel has been striking Syria, under the banner of defense of course, it struck the neighborhood of Jamaraya outside the capital this week. Rockets, if we can even call them that since they are IEDs with no aim, are flying into Damascus almost daily from the suburbs, killing everyday Syrians inside the capital. The regime is striking Ghouta because the rockets apparently are coming from there. The fighting needs to end, but it's not so long as the regime and rebel forces are locked in a cycle of violence in which each targets civilians.
The defeat of ISIS in Syria hasn't ended the "panoply of conflicts" because outside players like Iran, Russia Turkey and the US are now the intrinsic part of the fighting. Assad is desperate to regain control of the whole country, and his backers are eager to scale down their involvement due to rising costs.
Turkey's controversial offensive in northern Syria to evict Kurdish forces from their strongholds shouldn't infuriate Iran, Russia and the Assad regime, because Ankara wants a "unified, stable Syria seeing anything else would be a security threat" - according Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek. Assad would just reclaim the territory following the Kurds' defeat.
But it's the US policy in Syria that is seen as problematic. A US military spokeman spoke about the support of a Kurdish border force to maintain security in northern Syria. This led to Ankara's immediate cause to launch its attack.
Besides, the US presence in Syria could become a mission creep, as it aims to contain Iran, which has emerged as one of the few beneficiaries of the war in Syria. It also wants to constrain Assad's control over key parts of the country, while seeking to limit Russia's ability to call the diplomatic shots. To achieve all that, the US needs reliable allies like the Kurds, whom Turkey, a NATO ally is fighting.
2
Welcome to civil war in the 21st century.
The Syrians who started it deserve to live without fear of a murderous regime but as it turns out the rest of the world doesn't really think so. It's too worried about its own problems. Let that be a lesson to all you democracy lovers out there. If you want change you're going it alone.
3
It is funny we don't hear anything about the western powers who started to destabilize Syria in the beginning..Who are supporting the rebel groups now? We know PKK related terrorists in Syria YPG/PYD are supported by the U.S. At least there is some honesty in this Some understanding may come between the two allies, Turkey and U.S... Regime change did not work in Syria like it worked in Libya which is now a slave market , or Iraq decimated and in chaos. Or proxy war in Yemen creating a huge disaster..We never hear what western countries are feeding these? We know European countries support the PKK terror group wholeheartedly -Turkey knows this and takes precautions.
But what about others? Such lily whiteness are blinding my eyes...
24
At least in Iraq, we can not clearly talk about decimation and chaos any more. Oil production, for example, has been growing year on year since 2006 and is now at record levels: Iraq is actually now subject to OPEC quotas again. The army is is clearly powerful enough to assert itself against the Kurds.
https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?country=iq&product=oil&graph=...
In fact, would the world and the EU apply the same rules thy apply to other countries, the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey would have to face sanctions of the likes we see now on North Korea.
The Syrian war is a classic example of four murderous autocratic rulers asserting their hegemony on the region. Putin of Russia, with its expansionist plans, Khamenei asserting Iran's influence on as many countries in the ME as he possibly can (Iraq, Lebanon and Syria), dictator Erdogan, re-defining its boundaries by trying to exterminate the Kurds, and the mass murderer Assad, trying to hold on to his 'throne' in the tattered land of Syria
Four cruel leaders, all claiming a piece of a demolished country, at the expense of its longsuffering citizens...and one expects an end to his maelstrom?
26
The only country responsible is the country that invaded Syria for no valid reason which was the US of A. Why did they blow up Syria after doing the same in Iraq? Russia and Iran were asked by Syria to help fight rebels did you forget that?. Syria was/is zero threat to the US and supposedly the US is required to get war declaration before blowing up countries. ISIS was created when the US blew up Iraq dismantling Saddam's Army in to the streets and they became (ISIS). Now US is setting up permanent bases is Syria.
3
It is unfortunate that this analysis that is presented really is so off base that it seems as if it is nothing more than a regurgitation of the US narrative. Iran was invited by Syria to help defend its sovereignty much like Russia was. The United States and Turkey were not. Sitting here in the United States, one can forget how it feels to be bullied. Iran is tired if being bullied. And who can blame them?
The Kurds are a political wild card much like the Tuareg is in the Sahel of Africa.
Kurds are in Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. As to Assad, is he mass murdered. It could be that he faced the full wrath of the Jihadists who have been threatening Syria for years. Do not forget, it was the Muslim Brotherhood that started the Syrian uprising.
3
Russia's landmass is bigger than the US. Russia's population is 1/3 of the US and dwindling. Russia is unable to guard it's border with China. All the cherry-wood furniture exported from China are made out of wood stolen out of Russian forests. I don't understand why or how Putin can expand.
Maybe this is what Trump wants to celebrate with a military parade?
31
Really now. Not Trump's fault, not even Obama's fault, though he refused to get involved even after red lines were crossed.
The U.N. won't condemn it, as the security council is stacked to protect Assad, etc. Besides, what would that accomplish anyway? Even if the U.S. demands a no-fly zone, will it get enforced if it means our planes may get shot down by a choice of Russian or Syrian jets?
Oh, but do feel better by blaming the Israelis for being responsible. After all, if Palestine was fully functional, there would never have been a problem in Syria. On second thought...
3
Syria's civil war has years to go.
9
This is so sad. We can not sit back and continue to watch the Syrian people be viciously murdered. But are we willing to sacrifice our military as we are still doing in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan and an unstable and wobbly Iraq?
When Russia first entered the war, Putin asserted it was to fight ISIS. Who was naive enough to believe such a lie? It was all about the codependent relationship between two brutal dictators.
So now, do we go to war against Assad and by default Russia? That would seem to be one way to help the helpless. But we just can't keep on getting involved in these basically tribal battles. However, we can not watch the annihilation of an entire culture either. I don't know the answer, but I do know Trump is the wrong person to be trusting. I have this ominous sense that he will make things worse for our citizens here in the US as well as those victims so far away.
24
He already has - made things worse, that is.
9
Russia entered the war in 2015 to prevent the defeat of the government by al-Qaeda spinoff Jabhat al-Nusra, which observers felt was weeks away.
Russia didn't want to see Syria become part of the jihadists' caliphate, and we in the West shouldn't have either, but we were willing to let it happen. The slaughter of Shia, Alawites, Druze and others, and the massive refugee crisis that would have followed immediately didn't concern us. Just as inflicting untold misery on Iraqis and Libyans didn't concern us. To many people in the world, it's very clear which major power was acting responsibly in 2015.
1
Did Obama do any better than Trump is doing.
He couldn't because he was outmaneuvered by Putin.
We should have stopped Putin and by not stopping him we made him stronger.
Trump is not the issue so don't blame him make this about your hatred for him
Putin is the problem.
This isn't hard to believe at all. The 'free' world is largely run by incompetent leaders, and the few that aren't lead placing unlikely or incapable of affecting chance in a place like Syria. And of course there are a few 'leaders' whose values are so foreign to our own that their influence on Syria can only be negative by nature.
This is a world desperate for competent leadership. Syria, climate change, the economy, poverty, starvation, mass extinction, over population....these things are all interconnected in that they are all extremely difficult problems that require true vision and leadership to solve. We have nobody with those capabilities, and thus, ALL of these problems are continuing to get worse.
8
The capitalists won't countenance non-incompetent leaders in the "free" world, because that might threaten their bottom lines. Competent leaders would not be willing to be bossed around by business interests, and they might actually put long-term national interest ahead of short run profit.
This leaves us with a bunch of clowns to face down the dictators.
Just great.
The "free world" is free to BE complacent. To BE willfully blind to horrendous sites and sights! Willfully deaf to the screams of unnecessary pains as well as those already muted in exhaustion! Willfully ignorant of so much that is, which shouldn't BE. Of what needs to BE, daily, which isn't! All of US, each of US, in our own ways help and contribute to this reality. None of this ongoing violating, of so many, all over, will end by itself.
Like in the time of Noah we have to start over. This will happen through climate change. The earth will spit us out. And thru nuclear war. The population having been reduced to a small remnant will begin again. This cycle will continue to replay over tens of thousands of years until the sun burns out. And God says" Oy veh what have I done?
1
Maybe America should stop arming the rebels who are prolonging this war, hmm?
42
Not sure that the United States can do much of anything. After all, we have not won a real war since 1945.
Obama's "Red Line" was a myth. Trump isn't doing any better than the previous administration.
To make matters worse, none of the NYT's readership is aware of Russian stated warnings to our country. Nor are the fans of NYT even aware of just how quickly this situation will escalate if Russia is to be believed.
With this in mind, I guess that NYT's phrase: "The truth is more important now than ever." Is just words with no meaning... because based on the comments I've read, the public just doesn't have a clue!
https://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escal...
13
1945? One out of two. Don’t forget that Russia won the war in Europe.
13
There appears to a concerted effort by multiple countries to commit nothing less than a genocide in Syria.
19
True and it will continue because most people dont care. America is noteven taking a significant number of Syrian refugees.
Why doesn't some country take out Assad the way the U.S. did with Huessain? This war is disgusting and it is a travesty that the U.S is allowing it to continue.
3
Taking out Hussein did nothing to improve Iraq or the Middle East. It made the entire region significantly less stable. It directly led to this issue in Syria, in fact. And now Iraq is essentially a puppet state of Iran. "Taking them out" is not always the best solution, and it must always be well considered by extremely intelligent, knowledgeable and experienced individuals.
31
very well said.
"It’s Hard to Believe, but Syria’s War Is Getting Even Worse"
Dear NY Times,
It may be hard for YOU folks at the NY Times to believe.
But when Bush overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003 and replaced Saddam with a blundering nincompoop, Bush created a far, far bigger problem than any U.S. president had ever created before him.
And Obama exacerbated the problem in 2011 by overthrowing Qaddafi and replaced him with...no one. Now Libya is also a failed state.
But not to worry. By making America great again while thumbing our hoses at our allies, all WILL be made right.
Soon.
Right after the big military parade.
60
For the record, the Libyan Civil War was already underway when the US decided to back the rebels. Most of the air power intervention was actually carried out by the UK and France. If the US had not intervened in Libya, Libya would probably look more like Syria (where the US did not intervene until about 2 years in.)
The simple fact is that the Syrian civil war would have been over years ago if foreigners had not taken advantage of the initial rebellion to implement their own previously existing agendas for toppling the Assad government.
Syria's Sunni neighbors, mainly Turkey and Saudi Arabia, armed and financed rebels, and acted as transit routes for jihadists to flock to Syria in order to create the Sunni "caliphate."
The U.S.A., still obsessed with its long-term agenda of removing "Arab dictators," ignored all the lessons of Iraq and Libya, and embarked on creating yet another failed state out of a Muslim society. It trained and armed rebels--even after it became obvious that they were being swallowed by hard-core jihadist groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, along with their weapons.
All these foreign usurpers of the so-called rebellion have kept the conflict going for their own ends. The USA even admitted that perpetuating the conflict was a deliberate strategy to eventually force Assad to negotiate his own departure. And yet it has the gall to revile the government for fighting back.
No one cares that the overthrow of the government by the jihadists would add all the resources of a state to the jihadists' caliphate, cause an overwhelming exodus of refugees, and result in massive slaughter not only of every Alawite and Shia who remained, but also many Syrian Sunnis who have ever worked for the government. No good will come of further US military involvement.
43
The U.S. is fickle in regards with which dictators need to go and which can stay. Egypt's President Sisi came to power in a coup, massacred thousands of protestors in one day day, arrests his political opposition, and he's rewarded with billions in military aid.
10
What drives people crazy isn't that the USA is just like every other big power the world has ever known; it's that it pretends it isn't.
12
I stopped counting at 14 countries who are involved in some capacity in the war in Syria.
1
It has been a mess and bad since the beginning, But Russia didn't want to lose her bases, Turkey wants to exterminate the Kurds, and the US is unwilling to step in and turn the tide. Of course the real losers are the Syrian people who have seen all the horrors of war for years now,
Again, wonder what Trump is thinking,,,he only wants to talk about his parade,
10
These countries in the Middle-East are artificial countries created by France and Great Britain in the early years of the 20th century to suit their colonial interests. Their borders are completely arbitrary. Almost every problem in this part of the world can be traced back to French and British imperialism.
There should be a great power conference with authority delegated by the United Nations Security Council to redraw the borders of the countries in this region. Syria and Iraq should both be partitioned into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish states, and their populations should be accordingly transferred into these new states, if necessary.
The alternative is a never ending quagmire. For a moment, it looked like Assad had definitively won the war, but then the Turks decided to significantly escalate their involvement in the fighting. Now they are using the Kurds as a pretext for launching a ground invasion of Syria.
6
And the Romans should march into France and liberate Corsica
We do not want to fight Turkey, another NATO country. We cannot continue to support the Kurds because no one wants them, including the Iraqis, Turks, Syrians, and the Iranians. The closest thing they have to a ‘homeland’ is Northern Iraq. We do not want to fight the Russians who are still hanging around Syria.
We also cannot abandon our presence in Syria or Iraq because we are the United States. Our presence does create some stability as the elephant in the room.
1
Certainly Mr. Trump can use our military power to put an end to this butchery and impose an no-fly zone for Al-Assad's planes. We should tell Poutine that we will no longer tolerate more bombings of Syrian cities, including those held by rebels forces. It can be done through negotiation but first its time to halt Al-Assad's forces.
1
How'd all that work out in Libya?
1
The Bushes 1 and 2 are responsible for this. There should never have been American boots on the ground in the Middle East. Didn't even Saint Ronnie pull back after the Marine barracks were bombed (and invade Grenada seeming the next day to change the subject)?
7
Of course its not ending. Turkey is doing what Turkey has always done besides culling minority groups in their sphere of influence, and with the consent of most of its people. It is finishing its original agenda to destabilize Syria. They supported Al Qaeda and other related terrorists at the start of the Syrian wars and now that the coalition of forces that include the Kurds and the U.S. is finally finishing off Daesh/Isis, Turkey is destabilizing Syria again, with a needless war against the Kurds. On top of it all Erdogan is doing a Trump and talking out of the other side of his mouth about how he wants Syrian refugees to go back home to Syria! Home to what? A Turkish war?
NATO needs to convene and cut Turkey loose. But Trump won't do anything even remotely close to that because he wants to become Erdogan.
6
I find the excuse that we are in Syria because of ISIS a little troubling. We have been in Afghanistan for over 17 years and ISIS is now in Afghanistan. Regime change in Syria has long been our agenda from before 2006, that is at least when it became public that we were funding the opposition to Assad. ISIS was not in Syria back then.
13
Couldn’t we encourage our ally Turkey to negotiate with our ally, the Kurds? Their negotiations could be independent of any future international peace talks on the entire region.
2
Its getting worse because the US is involved. The US needs to withdraw from Syria, stop supporting its proxies and let the country recover. The US is trying to get involved as it wants to removed Basser Al Ashad - sorry he is the legal government and your first effort at removing him only destroyed the country.
The US needs to leave Syria alone - we have no real interest in Syria. The county was a peaceful until we got involved. Anywhere the US goes in the middle East - chaos and civil war quickly follow.
The US needs to stop trying to run the world and stay at home and fix things there.
20
It would be nice if the Times and other American media would question the our continued presence in Syria after ISIS is all but defeated. It appears our purpose now is to partition Syria and even deny Iran and Hezbollah access. In other words we're doing Israel's bidding. First there's a long border between Iraq and Syria so we're not keeping Iran influence out. Second we don't have the manpower to seriously challenge Russian and Turkish forces there. Let's call this what it is, another illegal invasion of US forces, sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Theere's enough death and heartache there. We don't need to add to the mix!
22
The rebels are losing this war. They have no place left to run now. This is end stage defeat.
Since the rebels are ISIS and al Qaeda, and their captive civilians, my sympathy for those civilians is tempered by the need to defeat their captors.
Highlighting the price to these hostages is a neocon game of regime change and war with Iran. The NYT has repeatedly fallen into this error, as in Iraq. Finally, will it stop? Not yet it seems.
23
"Since the rebels are ISIS and al Qaeda, and their captive civilians, my sympathy for those civilians is tempered by the need to defeat their captors."
Your attitude toward war crimes seem to be rather laissez faire when they are being committed by Putin and his puppet dictator.
citybumpkin -- Your support for al Qaeda and ISIS seems conditional -- they are fine as long as they do it to someone else. It is rather like good dictators and bad dictators, but with suicide bombers and beheading thrown in.
There is one thing the U.S. can do to improve the situation in Syria: Withdraw all U.S. armed forces and cease all overt and covert operations in Syria. There are two groups of people in America, and neither is qualified to bring about a positive outcome in Syria. Of course, there are the belligerent, bloodthirsty, militaristic neoconservative chickenhawk types like George W. Bush--a man who ordered U.S. armed forces to invade Iraq 15 years ago next month without even really knowing the differences between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims.
But the people who claim to be opposed to the neocons are not much better. I'm talking about starry-eyed, idealistic believers in American exceptionalism and "humanitarian" intervention like Roger Cohen, Samantha Power, and Nicholas Kristof. The trouble is that whether American soldiers go into a country to just brazenly "take the oil" as Donald Trump advocated in the past about Iraq or "do good" for humanity they end up just generally doing harm and making the situation worse.
It's not entirely the fault of the soldiers themselves. The root of the problem is an underlying foreign policy strategy on the part of the United States that tends to be either predatory and extractive or messianic and missionary. And these strategies grow out of the minds of America's "best and brightest" at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, UPenn, etc. The disasters in Vietnam and Iraq were products of strategies that somehow combined both.
Avoid this in Syria, please.
80
I should note that there are certainly more than just 2 groups of people in America regarding foreign policy preferences. But the 2 groups I mentioned (warmongering chickenhawks and "humanitarian" interventionists) tend to dominate, unfortunately. That's another problem with U.S. involvement in Syria or anywhere else.
6
I agree with what seems to be your point with one caveat.
What you say about the USA has to apply to Putin as well because if it don't then you are just making Russia that much stronger and that will not end well for the world.
The USA is not the root of the problem nor can it be the solution
Your attitude is very bad,
According to you we are always the problem as if everything would be great if we did not get involved.
The people fighting have to want peace.
I believe the people want peace but it is their leaders who want to fight.
When the USA support the rebels and Russia supports the Syrian regime what we are really doing is supporting those leaders not the civilians on both sides.
This support makes it impossible for the people to over throw their leaders.
Instead of supporting one side over the other we should support the victims on both side so they can stop listening to these leader and maybe stop fighting and just stay home and read the Times just like I do.
I don't know where they NY Times was, but the Syrian revolution never was simple.
3
The Syrian revolution ended a long time ago. For many years now it has been a foreign regime change project, aimed at destruction of Syria and a stepping stone to attack on Iran.
13
It is quite simple really. Get America out of Syria. It is the spoiler in this war. It has been arming rebels and as a consequence ISIS and Al Nusra plus other terrorists and using them as proxies to defeat Assad in the process killing hundreds of thousands and producing millions of refugees. America is in Syria illegally in breach of international law which it is flouting. Assad is the ruler of a sovereign country, a member of the UN. It is not up the the US to decide who will rule which country, it is up to it's citizens. Leave America. It will be mess for a while but it will be a bigger mess if you stay. You stay hi and mighty in your illegal military base while your proxies and the Syrian people are slaughtered. You are the enemy, the terrorist in the midst of all this. Leave!!!!!!
46
Assad has murdered hundreds of thousands, and this commenter thinks we should not even try to help stop it.
1
Our efforts exaccerbate the problem. We don't have a clue. Though try this out. If US Russia Iran put huge cooperative effort to help Assad at the start of the chaos, hundreds of thousands would not be dead and the refugee crisis minimized.
1
Agree entirely. We inflamed the Middle East by attacking Iraq which then led to multinational instability in the region, called Arab Spring which was really a full blown Sunni Shia civil war and we the US are responsible. We must withdraw totally from the Middle East offereing an abject apology and a promise never again to intervene in their affairs. We are a war criminal nation.
2
We make our stand with Kurds. Anything less is a disgrace. Assad, Putin and Erdogan are vicious bullies picking over the remains. They deserve each other.
16
The Kurds are being used again. They got as much as they'll ever get in their initial deal with Assad for autonomy in Syria. This is all using them to advance projects already defeated in every other way. I feel sorry for the Kurds being sucked into this.
4
Raven, we simply have no business being in Syria. And also preventing a peace deal.
7
The Kurds are are our allies in Syria and Iraq. Send them the weapons they need to defend themselves against Assad, the Russians and the Turks (who are no longer our allies).
1
This is a power struggle between Russia, Turkey and Iran in which the US is foolish to get involved. We have much to lose; nothing to gain.
32
Don't we owe something to our Kurdish allies who went to combat against ISIS have been seeking to have their own country for many decades? Only a superpower like the U.S. can weigh in on such an important issue.
4
Agree we should support Kurds, but it is not accurate to describe us as a superpower. Maybe in the past. But not now. We are the epitome of impotence.
If France had shared Donald's indifference, the American Revolution would never have succeeded and we'd all be singing "God Save the Queen." Vive les Kurdes!!
1
It's harder to believe the Times' reassuring reports from the 2013 - 14 era, when its reporters fulsomely praised the sage Syria diplomacy coordinated by Ben Rhodes, boy-genius-
speechwriter-turned-foreign-policy expert, that (we were then told) supposedly forced Assad to rid his regime of chemical weapons (in a pact, like the Iran nuclear deal, monitored by our pals, the Russians) and bringing peace to Syria. Great, job, Ben!
10
You forgot props to Obama and Hillary.
1
I don't think there is a Syria anymore..and Turkey is complicit..
2
Many driving US policy don't want there to be a Syria, but that is not the way events are going in this long effort to destroy the regime and the state structure of Syria.
4
War is a saddening phenomenon. President Trump must take a more leading position in preserving peace.
1
We are hardly preserving peace, seems more like preventing a peace deal.
1
There is no chance of Trump talking diplomacy. That is an abstract value to a President who keeps escalating our defense buildup and actually does not possess a State Dept.
3
Did Obama do any better with his diplomacy.
It's sad and tragic that Syrians are still dying in this awful war but President Obama and, subsequently, President Trump very wisely kept our mission narrow and specific: defeat the only entity over there that actually posed a threat to Americans and our national security.
That was ISIS.
That mission will end very soon and at that point we need to bring our men and women home
8
Seems like the people of the Middle East have an intensity that causes their wars to be more brutal and inhumane than most. Maybe their eye-for-an-eye religions are to blame, or maybe just their genetic intensity. In any case, this is a very sad horrible situation, just like Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya and Sudan.
I hope the torture does not spread to the civilians of Iran, but I fear it will.
1
Yes, the Russians and Germans we're such gentlemen during World War II. No wanton slaughter of civilians, starving POWs to death, destruction of thousands of towns and genocide against several groups
2
"Seems like the people of the Middle East have an intensity that causes their wars to be more brutal and inhumane"
Japan in China? Germany in Russia then Russia in Germany? Nukes on Japanese cities, and firebombs on Japan and Germany? The US in the Philippine Insurrection? The Indian Wars of the US? Sherman's March though Georgia? The Thirty Years War depopulating vast parts of Germany? France destroying Huguenots and Cathar "heresy"?
12
"genetic intensity."
First, there is no such thing as "genetic intensity." Second, all human beings are 99.9% identical in their DNA sequencing. Third, the wars in the Middle East are not more brutal and inhumane than most. Most wars are brutal and inhumane, including the ones fought by the US. The media and history books just tend to gloss over the ugly stuff when their own country is involved.
1
From the beginning of this terrible conflict, there has only been one sound, efficient, economical solution: the removal or ouster of Assad.
The international community could have forced Assad's departure. It never made up its mind to apply the necessary pressure, and was too willing to accept Putin's arguments. Now, we can all see what Putin was actually after all along: reducing America's stature in the world, ending the 'myth' of American supremacy (of Americans as 'the good guys'), ultimately making America more like Russia. Against all rational arguments, Putin swindled his way into imposing years and years of harrowing suffering on the people of Syria for the 'crime' of opposing Assad, while at the same time succeeding in inserting a Kremlin acolyte into the Oval Office (by hook & by crook).
The continuing slaughter of Syrians, the escalating unraveling of the Middle East -- as if a black hole originally set up in Baghdad were spreading to engulf more & more trapped households -- the environmental & social impact that will have global knock-on effects are all an extraordinarily high price to pay for the initial foolishness of having failed to insist on free, transparent, fair elections in a post-Assad Syria, with a new slate of candidates & a chance (however wobbly) of a fresh start with credible representation for all factions.
A handful of stubborn old men are sadistically murdering children.
7
"there has only been one sound, efficient, economical solution: the removal or ouster of Assad"
For many years that meant handing over Syria to ISIS and al Qaeda. That was not sound nor efficient. We ought to have understood that when Obama could find no moderates spending half a billion in the search for them.
8
That is simply not a true statement.
For a period of time of about 6-12 months, when unarmed Syrians marching against Assad & demanding free elections were 1st being fired upon by his forces, there was neither the so-called Caliphate, nor a significant (able to hold land) Qaeda presence in Syria.
While great Western powers & China vacillated; while Israelis argued about what was best for them -- a weakened Assad ("the devil they knew") vs. a potentially normalized secular, democratic Syria -- the arms merchants & Kadyrov's dishonest jihadist provocateurs had time to get their filthy business organized. This went on in plain sight. Read the BBC archive. Actual experts on the Levant were warning that allowing Assad to remain in power would provide a compelling recruitment motive for extremists, fracture the country & lead to a new cycle of blood-curdling revenge fights.
Assad's wife is from the UK; they have an extensive network of wealthy lobbying pals in all the key countries, including in places like Russia, Armenia & even Greece. They used these networks efficiently -- duping politicians -- while at the same time accepting Putin's help. Putin sent trained Chechen fighters to keep the jihadists (1) sadistic & (2) militarily viable. Result: Assad "looks better, safer." This was a vile scheme that brutally exterminated moderate, unarmed civilians.
No one cares about the children. No one. It's a disgusting indictment of all humankind: watchings kids dying in Syria's hell.
1
After those first 6-12 months it became a foreign run jihad of a wide array of crazies who hurt those kids as much as anyone else.
What a mess! Not going to be much left for al-Assad to rule over. My heart breaks for the innocent families caught up in this manmade disaster.
13
Unless this conflict impedes an American from going to Wal-Mart or Golden Corral, their will to intervene will continue to be non-existent. The idea of Americans as good and decent people who react nobly to tragedy is a myth when applied beyond their own neighborhoods.
12
America cannot stop a civil war in Syria, nor the religous wars endemic to the Middle East. WE need to learn the limits of our power and influence. The alternative is to spend $$ Trillions on national trasure and the deaths of many tens of thousands of our children and grandchildren supporting any one side in these fratricidal religous wars.
Iraq is the best modern example - after spending over a $Trillion and the deaths and horrible bodily, mental and emotional damages to tens of thousands of our young in Iraq, what have we actually accomplished? We took a fully-functioning modern society and turned it into a broken country with a Shia-religous regime that supports Iran.
It is entirely up to the ME countries to control their own fates.
We simply have no military role - the longer it takes us to learn this lesson, the more it will cost us in treasure and lives.
2
"The idea of Americans as good and decent people who react nobly to tragedy is a myth.." -Humanity
This comment illustrates the craziness which overtakes some Americans when they read about conflicts in far-flung countries. Let me correct it: 'The idea that Americans are responsible for tragedies in other countries is a myth.' and let me add: 'The idea that American military presence has helped in these conflicts is also a myth!'
Read the article, Humanity.
This article is intended as an invitation for more US taxpayer-funded American government involvement in the Syrian civil war; as if our meddling will make anything better.
The report never once mentions the very real likelihood of the mass murder and extrusion awaiting the Shiite-Alawite and Christian population should the lawful government of Syria lose the war and the “Syrian rebels” (Islamic terrorists) prevail.
I lament all of the loss of life accruing from Muslim civil wars, much of it stemming from George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq with the resulting massive destabilization of the Middle East.
Meanwhile in Yemen, “our allies” the Saudis are waging a merciless war in Yemen which seldom receives anywhere near the coverage that the Syrian conflict is accorded in the legacy media.
The U.S. should send medical and food aid, assist with diplomacy, and otherwise keep our overworked military and hated CIA out of this endless cycle of Middle East fratricide.
Whether Democrats or Republicans control the government the dubious axiom that the United States has a “duty" to police planet earth, is untouchable. As a taxpayer forced to subsidize these insane foreign wars, I regard this false assumption to be at the heart of our national decline.
134
Is this the same Holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist, Micheal Hoffman?
The United States is superpower and as such has the power to stop the atrocities committed by dictators such as Al-Assad. Can we in the West tolerate that this man continues to use chemical weapons on his own countrymen? Are we going to sit on the sidelines while this man orders the bombing of hospitals and schools? I believe we should show Putine and Al-Assad that we mean business and will impose a no-fly zone now!
"The report never once mentions the very real likelihood of the mass murder and extrusion awaiting the Shiite-Alawite and Christian population should the lawful government of Syria lose the war and the “Syrian rebels” (Islamic terrorists) prevail."
(1) How exactly is Assad's government lawful? You know Bashir al-Assad is only in charge because he father launched a coup that overthrew the previous dictator, right?
(2) Why should this article focus on those particular murders? As opposed to the current crop of real, not merely possible, mass murders? Or the very real likelihood that Assad will punish his enemies - real and imagined - if he wins?
So what is trump's foreign policy on Syria other than blocking Syrian refugees from entering the US. For all of his criticism of Obama "the art of the deal" maker hasn't done squat.
31
Were you expecting Trump to do something? He just wants his parade to feel good about himself! That’s it! What’s Congress doing? Oh, let’s spend more money on these never-ending wars!
Once again, we are increasing our presence in a civil war that has gone on for decades and will continue for even longer. There is no clear definition of victory, and no benefit whatsoever to American safety or security. On the contrary, our involvement will only give birth to more terrorists who will eventually attack us. As has been true for the Iraq and Afghan wars, the only winners are the weapons suppliers and military contractors, who earn billions from America's most profitable export for a fortunate few, paid for by the rest of us---all war all the time. Our elected representatives tell us there is no money for education, infrastructure, health care----but continue to provide billions for war profiteers.
38
"We will leave when ISIS is defeated" -- so, ISIS is defeated and America, contrary to international law, is still there ... not only there, but building a dozen military bases and supporting the Kurds and the remnants of al-Qaeda against their NATO partner, Turkey.
Regime change has never ceased to be the aim.
39
How long before this stops being a war of proxies and both Iran and the Saudi regime face off against one another? What will Trump and his enablers make of the situation? What will the Republican "leadership" in both houses do if called upon to to vote for a punitive expedition but will be a war in everything but name?
5
According to this article, and as I recall, the US and other ouside parties encouraged the uprising in Syria. This was a serious error. Outsiders should always hang back and be on guard against their own blindness in encouraging war. Assad is a dictator, no doubt there is a well of resentment for him and his regime. This never meant that there was overwhelming support for the alternatives offered. He also has a base of support. As a socialist regime, there would likely be more tolerance for human rights , education, and diversity than under any religious based alternative. Compare women’s status under the socialist government in Afghanistan versus the mujahadeen and later taliban replacements.
Armed rebellion only becomes a viable option as a last option. Many efforts and national organization and development of a political movement is often sufficient to move a dictatorial government to a responsive position. This organization must precede a successful armed rebellion, whether in the US, China, or Iran. The possible consequences of a premature effort are seen in Syria.
5
The driving force now is Russian imperialism. Russia is simultaneously moving into Egypt and Libya, and developing a Big Brother relationship with Turkey. The Mediterranean is in play.
Meanwhile, Russia is developing its aggressive posture on NATO's northern flank. It's the same pincers strategy that the USSR pursued in the Cold War. But this time, NATO is weaker.
The door to this was left open by the Obama administration in their abandonment of Iraq and Syria in 2011. Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and President Obama should be called before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and held publicly accountable.
4
i dont blame them. I would do the same thing if I were in their, shoes
1
Am I the only person who thinks the underlying factor here is the birth rate? In general, the high birthrate countries are poor, violent and seemingly determined to reduce their populations by warfare or emigration. The civilized solution would be to allow women to choose their own family size, but the societies who need it the most are culturally forbidden from going down that path.
The Middle East, in particular, does not have enough water to support a growing population, so the Sunnis and the Shiites must try to eliminate each other.
The earth could support many billions of people indefinitely, as long as they don't all crowd into the same century.
38
Except that most poor countries these days are *not* high birthrate? Syria is not. Fertility rate in Syria is around 2.5.
This stuff about high birth rate was true a few decades ago, but is not true now.
1
@Howard: Poverty leads to a high birth rate. Female ineducation (aided by male ineducation) leads to a high birth rate. Lack of jobs leads to a high birthrate. Unfortunately some religions and some governments encourage a high birth rate and some discourage female education and employment.
High birthrates then can lead to violence, which promotes poverty and blocks education. Etc.
Callum Taylor, it's true in some countries, mainly in Africa where in some countries the chaos is (IMHO) even worse than in Syria but inadequately reported (since the U.S. is not actively supporting a side? since the people are black?).