MENA, MENA, Tekel, Parsin (Middle East, North Africa & other Geopolitical Hotspots) 2018

Would be so much nicer if everyone who thought the very idea of leftists influencing foreign policy was impossible would draw the logical conclusion from that and shut the fuck up.

I'm so tired of this fucking straw man bullshit...

― Frederik B, Wednesday, April 11, 2018 12:06 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Would be so much nicer if everyone who thought the very idea of leftists influencing foreign policy was impossible would draw the logical conclusion from that and shut the fuck up.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, April 11, 2018 1:16 PM (twelve seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You don't think Obama had control over national policy, or you don't consider him part of the left?

ffs, Fred. When did Obama ever say the equivalent of "gassing kids? eh. could be worse." He didn't. So citing him does not make your case. And as for actions, exactly which of Obama's options would you have chosen?

I'm so tired of this fucking strawman bullshit

Then why build your own strawman about the responses coming from the left?

I don't think it's unfair to suggest that things could get much much worse with yet another western intervention.

― Van Horn Street, 11. april 2018 21:28 (fifty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Again, the left needs to have a better response to the gassing of children than 'eh, could be worse'.

― Frederik B, 11. april 2018 21:38 (forty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Are you suggesting that a western intervention could not make things worse?

Otherwise, I've asked you several times for your own ideas about what sorts of actions would be effective to stop or mitigate the situation?

As to what Obama should have done differently, it should be pretty clear by now that his handling of the first Syrian chemical has been pretty disastrous, in that it not only didn't stop further chemical attacks, it also didn't stop the US from bombing. While of course also leading to more Russian involvement. Instead, he should have retaliated militarily. That's not only a fair suggestion, it should be absolutely obvious that in all likelihood things would be better today if he had. The outraged response this utterly banal statement will result in is nothing but bullshit purity posturing.

he should have retaliated militarily

define this

Things that should be part of leftist foreign policy: First and foremost financial reform aimed at limiting the ability of dictators and kleptocrats to move assets out of their own country. With regard to Syria, among things that should be on the table is putting pressure on Turkey and Russia to limit their involvement, and support to the Kurds in their fight for autonomy.

define this

― Louis Jägermeister (jim in vancouver), 11. april 2018 22:31 (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Why? In all honesty, it doesn't even matter, the disastrous consequence came just from refusing to act and letting Russia handle it. This led to more bombs over Syria, not less.

Why?

Because it's an extremely vague term

like do you mean symbolic bombing runs that would have killed as many or more Syrian civilians than the chemical attacks? Or troops on the ground, enforced no fly zone, regime change/regional war probably involving Iran and Israel? Or surgical strike of chemical weapons facilities (no expert on this but I'm not sure how good an idea this would be, blowing up chemical weapons may have some bad effects for those living in the vicinity of those facilities).

like do you mean symbolic bombing runs that would have killed as many or more Syrian civilians than the chemical attacks?

The main point I'm getting at is that even this type of symbolic and murderous bullshit would in all likelihood have been better than letting Russia handle it.

At this point, all of fred's comments and responses have added up to nothing positive. He's upset. He is certain things could be better. It doesn't matter that he can't say how. he just wants what he wants and doesn't know what that is other than 'something better'. Very helpful insights, there, fred.

Plus giving "the Left", whoever they might be, their usual kicking.

Or surgical strike of chemical weapons facilities (no expert on this but I'm not sure how good an idea this would be, blowing up chemical weapons may have some bad effects for those living in the vicinity of those facilities).

just remembered israel doing this quite effectively and with no civilian casualties last year

At some point the left needs to halt it with awful statements like 'regime change/regional war probably involving Iran and Israel' as if those two things are inherently connected. And just in general using 'regime change' as an obviously bad thing. Regimes change, it's a fact of history. It's inherently neutral. Hafez al-Assad himself participated in overthrowing three regimes in seven years, and somehow managed to build a strong and stable central government. The neoconservative drive for regime change basically everywhere was insane, and not just in hindsight, at the time itself it was pretty clearly insane, but regime change is inevitable, and sooner or later, the Assad regime will tumble, no matter what anyone does.

I've asked you several times for your own ideas about what sorts of actions would be effective to stop or mitigate the situation?

― A is for (Aimless), 11. april 2018 22:26 (twenty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

As to what Obama should have done differently, it should be pretty clear by now that his handling of the first Syrian chemical has been pretty disastrous, in that it not only didn't stop further chemical attacks, it also didn't stop the US from bombing. While of course also leading to more Russian involvement. Instead, he should have retaliated militarily. That's not only a fair suggestion, it should be absolutely obvious that in all likelihood things would be better today if he had. The outraged response this utterly banal statement will result in is nothing but bullshit purity posturing.

― Frederik B, 11. april 2018 22:30 (twenty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Things that should be part of leftist foreign policy: First and foremost financial reform aimed at limiting the ability of dictators and kleptocrats to move assets out of their own country. With regard to Syria, among things that should be on the table is putting pressure on Turkey and Russia to limit their involvement, and support to the Kurds in their fight for autonomy.

― Frederik B, 11. april 2018 22:34 (twenty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

At this point, all of fred's comments and responses have added up to nothing positive. He's upset. He is certain things could be better. It doesn't matter that he can't say how. he just wants what he wants and doesn't know what that is other than 'something better'. Very helpful insights, there, fred.

― A is for (Aimless), 11. april 2018 22:45 (nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Sigh

Ok, suggest to me how "the west" intervenes in a way in Syria which would precipitate the end of the baathist regime and in which Syria's allies Iran and Hezbollah would not intervene in some manner?

This is a rhetorical question obviously

I can add to it though: given that the opposition - other than the Kurds who only operate in a small area of the country - are ISIS and Al-Qaeda affiliates what would a post Assad Syria look like and would it be an improvement of pre-civil war baathist rule?

sadly pre-civil war baathist rule isn't on the table

Not to sound like a real solipsistic foreign policy "realist" here but i don't want any outcome that strengthens Al Qaeda or ISIS, because they actually directly encourage attacks against civilians in the countries i spend my time in

i don't disagree w/ you and i'm also skeptical of what a sunni ruling coalition would look like but it's a bit reductive to describe the entire rebellion as Al-Q or ISIS. especially earlier in the war we had other options if we wanted to promote them. the war didn't start because of religious protests, it started bc of secular protests demanding democratic reforms.

I know its a proxy war and everything but it boggles my mind how anyone is left standing in Syria to fight each other - on either side.

why is islamophobia so acceptable on ilx

i don't disagree w/ you and i'm also skeptical of what a sunni ruling coalition would look like but it's a bit reductive to describe the entire rebellion as Al-Q or ISIS. especially earlier in the war we had other options if we wanted to promote them. the war didn't start because of religious protests, it started bc of secular protests demanding democratic reforms.

― Mordy, Wednesday, April 11, 2018 2:05 PM (eleven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Oh yes I take your point, but it seems like it quickly evolved into something that was dominated by Sunni Islamists. You read reports of the FSA - which was the putative moderate rebel force in western imagination - having sharia law police in areas they control, and, such as in that Cockburn piece I posted upthread, calling (Sunni) Kurds "infidels" because they're not radical islamists

I think you might have read the wrong things, jiv. And that Cockburn piece described things that happened this January.

I think you might have read the wrong things, jiv.

Helpful !

And that Cockburn piece described things that happened this January.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, April 11, 2018 2:26 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yes, I am using it as a possible example of the FSA as it currently operates.

I don't know what you've read. But I have a cousin who worked with Syrian refugees, and what you're saying doesn't fit the stories I've heard. You're saying that article shows how the FSA currently operates, sure, but that doesn't mean it 'quickly evolved' into that, nor that it was inevitable that it would turn out that way. Except that with the West refusing to help anyone while support flowed in from Saudi Arabia and Iran, it should be no surprise that religious fanatics came to dominate both sides. I'm not certain that's a compelling argument against western involvement, though.

Me: I've asked you several times for your own ideas about what sorts of actions would be effective to stop or mitigate the situation?

Fred's first idea of what to do:As to what Obama should have done differently...he should have retaliated militarily.

So, your first step would be to alter the past?

Fred's second idea of what to do:Things that should be part of leftist foreign policy: First and foremost financial reform aimed at limiting the ability of dictators and kleptocrats to move assets out of their own country.

This would be nice. It has very little to do with the Syrian War under discussion, and it would never have prevented Assad from using chemical weapons, but it is a nice thought.

Fred's next suggestion: With regard to Syria, among things that should be on the table is putting pressure on Turkey and Russia to limit their involvement, and support to the Kurds in their fight for autonomy.

Ah! Putting pressure on Russia! Why has no one thought of that? And on Turkey, too! And, I might point out that "limiting their involvement" is a great goal. Seeing how any limit would qualify, I think we've already attained that end. Victory is ours.

Oh, and 'supporting Kurdish independence' gets a nod. In Iraq? In Iraq and Syria? In Iraq, Syria and Turkey? Or some other combination? And I guess you're fine with Turkey leaving NATO and cultivating closer ties to the Putin, too. Or perhaps we should intervene militarily to prevent that, too?

All in all, as fine a set of irrelevant solutions to the Syrian Civil War as I've seen anywhere. Because the chances are damn good that none of these would make a dent on that war aside from massive military intervention on the scale of Iraq, or even greater, since under 200,000 boots on the ground were insufficient to pacify the country.

Well, at least I guess I should be thankful for your bullshit response instead of just straight up lying about me having written anything.

I don't know what you've read. But I have a cousin who worked with Syrian refugees, and what you're saying doesn't fit the stories I've heard. You're saying that article shows how the FSA currently operates, sure, but that doesn't mean it 'quickly evolved' into that, nor that it was inevitable that it would turn out that way. Except that with the West refusing to help anyone while support flowed in from Saudi Arabia and Iran, it should be no surprise that religious fanatics came to dominate both sides. I'm not certain that's a compelling argument against western involvement, though.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, April 11, 2018 3:17 PM (forty-nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I've read widely, mainly academic journals, broadsheets and magazines. And eschewing the RT, Max Blumenthal, Rania Khalek side of things. The islamicization of the opposition is at least several years old by now as far as I can tell. But I'm glad you have heard some things.

x-post: It's mostly sophistry and facile objections, but yeah, at least not straight up lies. Except for the 'supporting Kurdish independence' in quotes, as if I wrote that. No, I said support the fight for autonomy, obviously I meant in Syria. What, you think we should throw them under the bus and let them be massacred because of different fights in other countries? And yeah, if Turkey leaves NATO, that's probably for the best in the long run. The musketeer oath doesn't really work with autocratic regimes with a tendency to invade neighboring countries and oppress ethnic minorities. The reason we're not doing that, throwing Turkey out of NATO, probably has a lot more to do with the fact that Turkey helps with keeping refugees out of Europe in nefarious ways, not really a noble nor leftist goal anyway.

And yeah, the Islamization is several years old, but the war began in 2011, jim. You're not really making a case for me trusting you over people who work with Syrians.

I'm not asking you to trust me, I'm asking you to maybe do some reading.

sadlol. I assure you, neither widely reading, watching documentaries about Syria for work, nor talking to family members who work with Syrians, has led to any at all credible suggestions that there was 'sharia law' in places like Aleppo.

You'll be telling us next you are Syrian.

Except if with 'sharia law' you mean stuff like islamic inspired divorce courts, which, yeah, sure, I guess that could have been happening.

BREAKING Greek fighter jet crashed in Greece on its way to airbase after dog fight with Turkish aircraft https://t.co/sk3WeN5u1J

— AIRLIVE (@airlivenet) April 12, 2018

Hellas Kipris! *dons armour, books flight to Larnaca*

sadlol. I assure you, neither widely reading, watching documentaries about Syria for work, nor talking to family members who work with Syrians, has led to any at all credible suggestions that there was 'sharia law' in places like Aleppo.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, April 11, 2018 4:36 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/islamic-law-comes-to-rebel-held-syria/2013/03/19/b310532e-90af-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8e05265c316d

Introduction of Islamic courts common in areas taken over jointly by FSA and Nusra, since 2012.

The fact that you use 'sharia law' to describe what that article says mostly just makes me think you're a bit islamophobic, honestly.

Simply put, 'sharia' is half of Islam ('sufi' being the other part) and just relates to rules on how to live your life. It's absolutely unsurprising that an oppressed Sunni majority would turn to religious principles to help govern once secular law breaks down. The uproar over it was really, really islamophobic.

As I said:

Except if with 'sharia law' you mean stuff like islamic inspired divorce courts, which, yeah, sure, I guess that could have been happening.

― Frederik B, 12. april 2018 01:39 (fourteen hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Juan Cole's take-- here's part of it

https://www.juancole.com/2018/04/reverse-syrian-gloating.html

The Trump administration and the May government in the UK seem poised to launch missile strikes on Syria in the near future. It probably won’t matter.

The Syrian regime figures it can take the punishment, which is likely to consist of another set of one-off missile strikes similar to those launched on the Shuayrat Base in spring of 2017 after a chemical weapons attack by the regime in Khan Sheykhoun. Syrian and Iranian troops are said to be quietly deserting major air force bases, temporarily relocating outside them, in anticipation of the strikes.

The Syrian regime has all but won the civil war. It has all the major cities–Damascus, Aleppo, Latakia, Homs, and even Hama. It controls what the French colonialists used to call “useful Syria,” the band of fertile land stretching from Damascus to the north in the west of the country. While it has lost the ten percent of the population that is Kurds in the northeast, the Syrian Kurds are not regime enemies and likely will be forced into an alliance with Damascus over time in the face of attacks by Turkey and by fundamentalist Arab militias backed by Turkey.

ISIL has been largely defeated as a territorial force, though it holds out in some small pockets in the east.

And it reveals Syrian, Russian and Iranian thinking. The war aim has been achieved and the lives of Syrian special operations forces (who are limited in number) were preserved. The little kids with white foam around their mouths, eyes staring lifelessly, were collateral damage.

it's not collateral damage when they are the intended target. the point of chemical weapons is to break the resistance. collateral damage is when you're targeting soldiers and hit civilians. the "little kids with white foam around their mouths, eyes staring lifelessly" is the intent.

i guess i'm not surprised juan cole is confused on this point. he never really seemed to understand the difference between incidental/regrettable civilian loss of life and intentional targeting of civilians (or if he did he never really seemed to think it constituted a real distinction).

The fact that you use 'sharia law' to describe what that article says mostly just makes me think you're a bit islamophobic, honestly.

― Frederik B, Thursday, April 12, 2018 7:39 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

sha·ri·a
SHəˈrēə/Submit
noun
Islamic canonical law based on the teachings of the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet (Hadith and Sunna), prescribing both religious and secular duties and sometimes retributive penalties for lawbreaking. It has generally been supplemented by legislation adapted to the conditions of the day, though the manner in which it should be applied in modern states is a subject of dispute between Islamic fundamentalists and modernists.

you fucking imbecile

i used the word sharia to refer to something which is referred to by the people who run it as Hayaa al-Sharia. what an islamophobe i am. fuck me