is very very easy to manipulate them

is very true.

At least we know that it was Bush/Cheney that caused this crisis and President Obama could have perhaps stopped it if Cruz/Paul hadn't been listened to back in 2013. Of course, there are no guarantees, but history could have been far different if we had taken a different path back then.

Trying to pick out "good" terrorists and arm them to fight "bad" ones, has always backfired. You know that the non-Islamists in FSA would have been dominant because why?

I think you point out some foolish behavior on the part of those who oppose anything the President does, pure reflex

And your advocacy of "bombing the heck out of" Syria ignores the many Syrian civilians you would have killed kill in doing so.

President Obama was not contemplating 'bombing the hell out of' Assad, nor of the bombing overthrowing Assad:

Note, from the same article, that 10 days before that, the British parliament had already voted to not take part in an attack on Syria. The right wing Tory-led government coalition were defeated on their proposal to be part of an attack about the chemical weapons by the centre-left Labour opposition, with whom enough Conservative and Lib Dem MPs from the coalition parties voted to defeat the government. That was well before Putin's article appeared (which was a couple of days after that Washington Post story). A significant reason for that vote was that there was no UN resolution for the bombing. To have bombed regardless of the UN would have been to do just what Bush did to Iraq in 2003.

You assume that the Obama administration would have dropped far more bombs than they said they would have. If you do think they were planning such a subterfuge (and you ought to say why you think they were lying), consider what has happened in 2 similar situations - Libya and Yemen. In Libya, NATO bombs were enough to swing the outcome of the civil war, but it took months, and was very messy at the time, and has become even worse now. In Yemen, Saudi Arabia and allies are bombing, but that is not deciding the war in favour of their allies. If you think "a couple of week air campaign to remove a madman from power followed by US support of indigenous elements already on the ground with no U.S. boots on the ground" was what would have happened, you haven't been paying attention to the news for the past few decades. When has overthrowing a government in a country of many millions ever been so easy?

ISIL captured Fallujah in January 2014, not June, as we were aware on DU. While the headlines said 'Al Qaeda', the text of the AP report makes clear it was ISIL - the reporters weren't aware that ISIL had split from Al Qaeda:


It was Mosul that ISIL captured in June 2014.

So, no, a large bombing campaign of Assad in Syria from September 2013 would not have prevented ISIL taking Fallujah in January. Even if you had dropped so many bombs on government-held areas of Syria that Assad fell (and you'd accepted international blame for the civilians you'd killed), the Free Syrian Army was not strong enough to have taken control of all of Syria. The Al Qaeda-affliated Jabhat al-Nusra had control of Raqqa by May 2013, and by June 2013 those people were calling themselves ISIS. They've held that territory ever since, and it was from there they expanded to Fallujah.

As eridani says, you overestimate the capability by mid 2013 of the FSA. Here's where they were at by then:



"there would be no middle eastern instability today if 43 hadn't wrecked the entire geopolitical balance of the middle east by needlessly invading Iraq." - there, I broadly agree with you. We don't know exactly what would have happened in over 12 years, but it would certainly be very different, and unlikely to be worse.

"None of us want war " - well, frankly, reading your OP, I think you did.

I remember his near stuttering anger to the Kerry comment - that limited what response they were asking for.

It is essential to the RW's view that Obama did not respond to the crossing of the CW red line ... instead going with the deal to remove chemical weapons. However, that quote - and others show that the Obama response was directed directly to changing the Syrian likelihood of using chemical weapons. This also makes Kerry's response that Syria could give up its chemical weapons -- a matter of fact, obvious response to the question of what Syria could do to avoid an attack. It also makes the successful implementation of the deal - eliminating thousands of tons of chemical weapons - a BETTER response than trying to "degrade" his ability with an attack.

but Rand Paul and Ted Cruz wouldn't let him?

I am skeptical that is ehat happened.

and also the Repubs didn't want to be seen agreeing with Obama.

To listen to Ted Cruz and rand Paul. Two first term senators? Why would the president give any credence to them. He didn't. Our president makes his own decisions with the assistance of his advisors.

the chemical weapons.

While it is plausible that Assad might be gone today, beyond that it is difficult to speculate what would have taken his place even if ISIS was not the immediate beneficiary.

Not a planned opening, but an off-the-cuff remark that in hindsight was claimed to reflect brilliance and great insight.

What the OP bills as a failure the Obama administration branded a stroke of genius.

it as the logical way for Syria to avoid an attack is that the US insured it was very well implemented and it did eliminate 620 tons of chemical weapons and their precursors. Considering the various places in Syria where they were warehoused, it is not unreasonable to think that ISIS could have gained access to them had they been left. Air strikes would have upped the perceived cost of using them for Assad, but there is no way any large percent would have eliminated.

There should be no doubt that Obama made the country safer when he took advantage of the deal that Kerry and Lavrov carefully negotiated.

There are people from McCain/Graham - even to Petraeus/Clinton - who were for a "more robust" to use the words HRC used in the Mitchell interview - even years earlier. Hagel and Kerry both at different times of the dangers of entering their civil war - clearly a hard won lesson from their own biographies. In Syria, it was especially dangerous as so many groups of dissidents, especially those most capable of fighting, were found to have links to terrorist groups. Were you surprised that only about 60 FSA rebels passed the vetting for training - as admitted a month ago or so?

That is why - even as diplomacy looked and looks dauntingly impossible, it likely IS the only real hope to end the killing and stabilize the country. It will be interesting to see if the various powers that were involved with the Iran deal PLUS Iran will cobble together something that allows for a negotiated peace that can hold. It seems impossible - and if it happens, look for Obama/Kerry to be trashed if they play a role. Diplomacy equals compromise and not being seen as the "take all winner". We are already in the political season and you know that it will not be just Trump who will say he could have gotten a better deal -- and all the oil (Syria is not a huge oil producer, but Trump does not know Kuds from Kurds.)

It would be amazing if a government could be cobbled together that would allow the millions of refugees still in the area to leave the camps and return to their country --- with assistance from the west to rebuild their destroyed country. It would be great for the world, but sadly, it would not be something that improves Obama's favorability ratings - other than when looked at in the future.

Isis was just a rebranding and consolidation of existing extremist groups.

The atrocities of those groups had already been reported in the press and social media, that's why there was a public outcry against helping the rebels by bombing Assad government infrastructure.

You managed to spell our President's name correctly. For that one must give thanks.

Why would the FSA leave Syria if Assad was deposed? And who says the FSA would have formed a government? The FSA was not and is not the only rebel group. Al Nusra, the al quaida affiliate in parts of Syria had then and still does have a chance to take over. Besides, if the SAA was defeated the genocide against the Alawites would take some time. Daesh split off of the al Nusra front, ao the bombing may have given IS all of Syria plus the parts of Iraq.

You treat IS as some sort of alien invader. The backbone of IS are the Sunni tribes in Iraq and western Syria. The "Iraqi" sunni tribes were Saddam's powerbase. They were al quaida in Iraq's backbone. See a pattern? Saddam, al quaida in iraq, IS, all different names, all represent the same people. For an example.closer to home: the transition of white voters in the deep South from Democrats, to Dixiecrats, to Republicans. Same people, same policies, different name.

Iraq does not exist. Nation-states are a western idea. In that part of the world if one ethnic group takes over the levers of government then they subjugate the less powerful ethnic groups. Me and my brother against my cousin, my cousin and I against the world. Tribalism. Alien to westerners, fact of life there.

US upset the balance of power by invading. Saddam was no more bloodthirsty than IS, and no less. But he ruled.

Because he was already in power, and didn't need to commit all sorts of atrocities in the name of gaining power, or convincing everyone else of his bloodthirstiness. Yes, he still committed atrocities, but he also maintained a tighter control over those under him - the atrocities committed were committed because he wanted them. He didn't just give free reign to everyone under him to commit atrocities.

So yeah, Saddam sucked, but in terms of overall death and destruction, removing him opened up the floodgates for even more death and destruction.

No connection with the CIA.

I use the term because it's handy. "Levant" I use slightly less than "Levantine," but in the right context they're useful terms. Short, concise, relevant, appropriate.

Most don't use the term because they don't know it or can't remember it.

There was unrest and occasional rebellion in E. Syria. It was Sunni, through and through, and Salafist for the most part. It helped the Sunni insurgents in W. Iraq during the 2003 Iraq war and its aftermath.

Clans straddle the border. There was common cause. There was common faith. Why not help?

And when the "Awakening" + "surge" drove militants out, many just went home. Some went to live with relatives. Some went to live with war buddies. But the nature and character of eastern Syria didn't change.

We pretend that the first part didn't happen. That the second paragraph doesn't apply. It's convenient and easy to make these assumptions because otherwise the argument is harder to sustain and possibly mostly fails.

We want to conclude that when the insurgents fled, somehow they were aliens in E. Syria and its those resident-alien fighters that form the core of IS in Syria. It's not. They're mostly Syrians. The best that we can say is that they got (additional) fighting experience in Iraq. However, many had already been in the army, so it's not like that's the entirety of their military training.

Problem "solved".

1982: Syria's President Hafez al-Assad crushes rebellion in Hama

In a three-week siege, Hama was razed and thousands died as Syrian security forces combed the rubble, killing surviving rebels.

The Syrian city of Hama was the scene of a massacre in 1982 when President Hafez al-Assad, father of the current president Bashar al-Assad, razed the city to crush a Sunni rebellion, slaughtering an estimated 20,000 of his own people.

Assad's troops pounded Hama with artillery fire for several days and, with the city in ruins, his bulldozers moved in and flattened neighbourhoods.

The 1982 massacre is regarded as the single bloodiest assault by an Arab ruler against his own people in modern times and remains a pivotal event in Syrian history.



http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2011/aug/01/hama-syria-massacre-1982-archive

and married to a woman who grew up there, was more moderate. He was trained as an eye doctor. (though that same thing could be said of Rand Paul and it has nothing to do with his politics.)

Until the Arab Spring, the current Assad was considered an enemy because he was allied with Iran and was found to abet Iran in their arming of Hezbollah -- and he was suspected in the murder of a former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Hariri. However, until his absolute over reaction to unarmed protestors, there was no reason to equate him with his murderous father. Now, he is very probably even worse than his father.

They specifically said their goal was JUST to raise the cost, though a day or two's bombing, to make Assad consider the cost of ever using chemical weapons again.

Then, in defending, the deal to remove the chemical weapons, one point Kerry made was that it more effeciently reduced the chances that there would be more chemical weapons used.

You might remember that McCain, who held YOUR position, was very angry and frustrated by the limitations that both Obama and Kerry spoke of when they insisted this was not the US entering their civil war or pushing regime change, it was a real response to say that chemical weapons crossed a red line.

It is also YOUR interpretation that the right uses to say that red lines do not matter to Obama totally ignoring the red line was CW and the deal eliminated them

well-defined.

and now Europe is dealing with the refugee crisis.

We need Assad to stay President as long as possible.

That's kind of like the argument made for the US to support the Shah or Iran back in the day.

Many places are just not ready for freedom. Iraq is one of them. Even Egyptians miss the good old days of Hosni Mubarak.

Are the people in those places that different from you and me? Or are they quite like us but live in the "wrong" neighborhood with too many "bad guys"?

The next time a dictator faces large-scale protests, what do we do? Tolerate a violent crackdown on protesters? They're not Americans. Why should we care?

If requested, do we provide assistance to the dictator in putting down the protests because his "place" is not ready for freedom and a "victory" for the protesters would actually make things worse?

And the arming of rebel jihadists by the CIA who eventually surrendered their weapons to Isis or defected fueled their rise, which we facilitated even as people on the ground were warning us that the rebels were Islamists. We had plenty of proof as these men we were arming executed children on video for blasphemy (yet the arms kept flowing).


Obama didn't even take Isis seriously. He called them Al Qaeda's JV team! He was so myopically obsessed with Putin that he lost all rationality regarding the Mid East.