We should intervene in Syria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I didn't bother since most of my sources are from the government (since they get all of the intelligence on AQ), and you're likely to say it's fabricated in order to fit your conspiracy theory. If you want, there's reams of court documents that refer to operational intelligence about AQ that seem to indicate you're wrong.


There is a difference between an operational commander and a leader. I agree that OBL was not involved in operational command of AQ; on the other hand, he was far more than just a financier. He was the most influential man in the leadership, and he had a lot to say about both ideology and operations (e.g. deciding on strategy, running the operational commanders, etc.) since at least the late 1990s.


You're probably thinking about an interview OBL gave in October 2001 where he talks about how they adopted the name AQ. Actually (based on the translations I've seen) he didn't imply that his affiliation with the name AQ was new... all he said was that it was happenstance from a long time before from their establishment of military training bases in Afghanistan (hence 'al-Qaeda', or 'the base'). Furthermore, the aforementioned BIF documents corroborate his story. You're living in a fantasy world constructed by Adam Curtis, but that doesn't make it true.


I don't see why you think this is even remotely true. We have tracked down and eliminated nearly the entire original AQ organization. The organization OBL and Zawahiri founded is pretty much not a threat any more. Does that mean that Islamic extremism is solved? Obviously not; that requires a much longer and more comprehensive fix. But the specific threat posed by the original AQ is pretty much dealt with through a combination of heavy investment in intelligence and military strikes.

Most of these Islamic fundamentalist groups have coherent structures - Hezbollah, Hamas, various AQ branches, al-Shabab, Jamaah Islamiah, Abu Sayyaf, Lakshar-e-Taiba, etc. all have pretty coherent organization and can be fought on this basis through a combination of police work, intelligence, and military action. The specifics of each group are different, of course - some adopt more cell-like structures, while others are organized more along military lines. But they all have leaders, funding sources, chains of command, etc. These can be disrupted.


Honestly, I don't get where you're coming from, and I also think this digression has pretty much nothing to do with our policy on Syria.

---

All that to show that al-Qaeda is not some coherent group of individuals we can conquer? That's amazing. I thought the documentary did a better job of dispelling the myths though.

Do you have an opinion on the difference between winning and conquest?

Who said anything about conquest? How do you even 'conquer' individuals? Isn't that, you know, normally reserved for land?

You were talking about AQ being a 'coherent group we can track down and eliminate'. Seemed pretty coherent to me, and seems pretty damned close to eliminated as well.

You're doing some fancy footwork and goalpost moving, but the fact of the matter is that you're wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Who said anything about conquest? How do you even 'conquer' individuals? Isn't that, you know, normally reserved for land?

You were talking about AQ being a 'coherent group we can track down and eliminate'. Seemed pretty coherent to me, and seems pretty damned close to eliminated as well.

You're doing some fancy footwork and goalpost moving, but the fact of the matter is that you're wrong.

---

I don't believe it is in our best interest to intervene in Syria. Am I wrong?

You and GGT need to come back in a year with a report about the price of strawberries in Peru and relate it back to the situation in Syria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You and GGT need to come back in a year with a report about the price of strawberries in Peru and relate it back to the situation in Syria.

---

You are the person who thought al-Qaeda needed to be brought into the equation. Don't blame me for your lack of knowledge. We should not intervene in Syria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

I don't believe it is in our best interest to intervene in Syria. Am I wrong?

---

My opinion on the situation is already recorded several pages back. That has no bearing on whether your statements about AQ are even remotely correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

My opinion on the situation is already recorded several pages back. That has no bearing on whether your statements about AQ are even remotely correct.

---

They are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

...carry out the orders of the headquarters.

---

There are no headquarters. :weird:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

There are no headquarters. :weird:

---

Not since the Deltas were sent in to do something about it, at least.

But please, do keep up the chatter about military and CT matters... with American Dad! not airing new episodes at the moment, I certainly need to something to tickle my funny bone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Not since the Deltas were sent in to do something about it, at least.

But please, do keep up the chatter about military and CT matters... with American Dad! not airing new episodes at the moment, I certainly need to something to tickle my funny bone.

---

Did you have a point to make or did you just fart again? Did you watch the documentary I linked to? Is al-Qaeda something you fear more than the government that might just send you back to hell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Did you have a point to make or did you just fart again?

---

Right back at you. Or what other explanation can there be for your response to a month-old post with more of your hilariously absurd insights into AQ, which, let's not forget, had its headquarters and leader destroyed by a Delta team recently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Did you watch the documentary I linked to? Is al-Qaeda something you fear more than the government that might just send you back to hell?

---

No, and no. Kind of a funny question, considering who you're talking to. (That last question anyway...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Did you have a point to make or did you just fart again? Did you watch the documentary I linked to? Is al-Qaeda something you fear more than the government that might just send you back to hell?

---

No didn't watch the "documentary", can't be arsed watching conspiracy BS.
Furthermore, while I don't exactly "fear" al'Qaeda (especially since much of it has been killed successfully since 9/11 and 7/7), think the odds of getting killed by al'Qaeda (somewhat less than getting killed by lightning I'd guess) are higher than getting killed by the government.

There may not be any headquarters anymore (or there may be) but there was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No didn't watch the "documentary", can't be arsed watching conspiracy BS.

---

If you didn't watch it then by what knowlegde do you condemn it as consipracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

There may not be any headquarters anymore (or there may be) but there was.

---

Name the headquarters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/wo...ls-say.html?hp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

If you didn't watch it then by what knowlegde do you condemn it as consipracy?

---

Well, if you don't let me stab you in the testicle, how do you say you won't like it? :rolleyes:

Get a grip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Name the headquarters.

---

وزیرستان حویلی;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Well, if you don't let me stab you in the testicle, how do you say you won't like it? :rolleyes:

Get a grip.



وزیرستان حویلی;

---

That was a hideout. :haha: You are funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

If you didn't watch it then by what knowlegde do you condemn it as consipracy?

---

Because of what you've described it as and who posted it.

Quote:

---

Name the headquarters.

---

Tora Bora

This whole 'we should intervene' thing is sort of confusing. The last Iranian I talked to told me that he loved his nation but hated his government so much that he hoped Israel would bomb them. When I pointed out that those bombs might also kill people like him he wasn't really convinced it might not be the thing that would solve their problems. He also was of the opinion that the US must love the Iranian regime like crazy because its existence enables it to sell billions upon billions of military gear to the Gulf Arabs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

This whole 'we should intervene' thing is sort of confusing. The last Iranian I talked to told me that he loved his nation but hated his government so much that he hoped Israel would bomb them. When I pointed out that those bombs might also kill people like him he wasn't really convinced it might not be the thing that would solve their problems. He also was of the opinion that the US must love the Iranian regime like crazy because its existence enables it to sell billions upon billions of military gear to the Gulf Arabs.

---

What does this have to do with Syria?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Because of...who posted it.

---

Says a lot about you. But getting beyond your inclination to predisposition...check it out and then point out the conspiracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

What does this have to do with Syria?

---

By virtue of the "we should intervene" part, and how it's confusing.

Hazir, the last Iranian I talked with was after "we had intervened" by supporting the Shah of Iran, and during the hostage crisis. She also loved her nation but hated the government, because in her eyes it wasn't what her people wanted. They (she) didn't necessarily want an Ayatollah or a Muslim regime, but what she hated most was western influence and the US acting like a big bully. It was a very confusing and volatile time then, and it still is. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

What does this have to do with Syria?

---

Oh, you aren't aware of the ties between Iran and the Syrian regime? Surprising :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Says a lot about you. But getting beyond your inclination to predisposition...check it out and then point out the conspiracy.

---

No, it says a lot of what I think about you, no more or less. Besides you cut out half the quote, so don't take things out of context.

Would I have to click every link that kathaksung posted in order to think it would be conspiracies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, it says a lot of what I think about you, no more or less. Besides you cut out half the quote, so don't take things out of context.

Would I have to click every link that kathaksung posted in order to think it would be conspiracies?

---

There is a lot you can learn by simply stepping outside your realm of comfort. But then you'd find that this documentary in no way endorses a conspiracy and that would make you wrong about me...something you'd be even more uncomfotable with. The documentary merely looks at the incarnation of al-Qaeda from two ideological perspectives. It draws no conclusion.

So?

Coming from the guy whose beliefs on AQ, CT, and military in general are laughable, what conclusion (if any) your little video draws might not top the list of objections. Based on your opinions and beliefs on the subject matter, the video is probably less accurate on the topic than random chance would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

So?

Coming from the guy whose beliefs on AQ, CT, and military in general are laughable, what conclusion (if any) your little video draws might not top the list of objections. Based on your opinions and beliefs on the subject matter, the video is probably less accurate on the topic than random chance would be.

---

I don't know who you are or why you believe you know anything about my beliefs, especially concerning the US military.

I think that in the light of the recent upsurge in fighting in Syria, this topic is worth revisiting. It seems clear that this is sliding more into civil war, with a much larger sectarian element than previously. The Syrian army is losing a steady stream of defectors (as is the government), and it appears that outside of elite units and militia, Assad is increasingly avoiding using the military to enforce order. Meanwhile, those units he does use have sharply stepped up the tempo and ferocity of their assaults on rebel-held positions. In turn, rebels appear to be better organized and better equipped than in the past (though definitely still rather rag-tag), and have brought actual fighting to Damascus of late, rather than just in smaller cities and outlying areas.

I think the big question is what we should do. Primary concerns to me include:

1. How to protect civilians? The scope and frequency of massacres seems to be increasing, and a truly horrendous number of people are already dead - it's starting to approach the death toll seen back in the Hama massacres in the early 80s. Turkey is already getting somewhat involved, but I think the establishment of defined 'safe havens' by the border, perhaps defended by Turkish or Arab League troops, would help things a bit. This is hardly an ideal solution, but I can't think of anything else that's remotely workable.

2. Do we support the rebels, and if so, how? This is tricky, especially because there's no unified Syrian opposition. What makes it worse is the sectarian character of Syria and the emergence of what looks like a civil war along those sectarian lines. I think providing logistical support, which we have already done to an extent, is probably a good idea. Providing either serious weapons or air cover, though, will be another matter entirely. It will be difficult to do so without Russia's cooperation (which seems incredibly unlikely), and I'm skeptical the Arab League would endorse it either. So, probably no Libyan intervention, but maybe some clandestine small arms support. Something that might be better (but probably quite tricky) is the use of clandestine trainers/advisers (read: special ops) to help coordinate and train the opposition fighters. If things go pear-shaped, they'd also be in a position to help coordinate an air assault.

Honestly I still don't see any good solution for this issue. I don't see the Assad regime falling very quickly without a nudge from outside forces, but I also don't see the rebellion disappearing even in the face of pretty brutal and indiscriminate tactics. Absent some form of intervention, this could drag on for a very long time.

The best solution would be to convince Russia to pressure Assad into stepping down and allowing for a transition to democracy. There were faint hopes for this earlier, but I haven't seen any real movement on Russia's position for some time. Any ideas on how we can get them to play ball on this issue? Without Russian consent, things could get very tricky if NATO gets involved in a military fashion - Russia's naval base in the Mediterranean could be a significant deterrent to a NATO enforcement regime.

Thoughts? Ideas? I'm pretty pessimistic on this one; I don't see an obvious course of action.

The fighting in the capital looks like serious business. I don't believe the rebels could go from "pounded by the army, run away" to "threatening the capital" without some sort of covert outside help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

The fighting in the capital looks like serious business. I don't believe the rebels could go from "pounded by the army, run away" to "threatening the capital" without some sort of covert outside help.

---

They're testing out Assad's response to various maneuvers. The main rebel assault hasn't begun. The reason they're being as successful as they are is because they have substantial support from the population, and Assad can't pummel Damascus into the ground the way he has other cities. The help the rebels have been receiving has, for the most part, been money and small arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

1. How to protect civilians? The scope and frequency of massacres seems to be increasing, and a truly horrendous number of people are already dead - it's starting to approach the death toll seen back in the Hama massacres in the early 80s. Turkey is already getting somewhat involved, but I think the establishment of defined 'safe havens' by the border, perhaps defended by Turkish or Arab League troops, would help things a bit. This is hardly an ideal solution, but I can't think of anything else that's remotely workable.

---

Turkey isn't going to do anything without explicit UN or perhaps NATO permission. The UN isn't going to do it, and most NATO members don't want to get involved (and told Turkey as much). The refugee crisis would have to dramatically escalate before Turkey would move in troops to those safe havens.

Quote:

---

2. Do we support the rebels, and if so, how? This is tricky, especially because there's no unified Syrian opposition. What makes it worse is the sectarian character of Syria and the emergence of what looks like a civil war along those sectarian lines. I think providing logistical support, which we have already done to an extent, is probably a good idea. Providing either serious weapons or air cover, though, will be another matter entirely. It will be difficult to do so without Russia's cooperation (which seems incredibly unlikely), and I'm skeptical the Arab League would endorse it either. So, probably no Libyan intervention, but maybe some clandestine small arms support. Something that might be better (but probably quite tricky) is the use of clandestine trainers/advisers (read: special ops) to help coordinate and train the opposition fighters. If things go pear-shaped, they'd also be in a position to help coordinate an air assault.

---

That's already being done by the Saudis, Qataris, Turks, and Lebanese. For us to send in advisors, the rebels would have to have pretty firm control over a decent size of territory. And if the rebels manage that much, it's not clear the extra help will be needed.

Quote:

---

Honestly I still don't see any good solution for this issue. I don't see the Assad regime falling very quickly without a nudge from outside forces, but I also don't see the rebellion disappearing even in the face of pretty brutal and indiscriminate tactics. Absent some form of intervention, this could drag on for a very long time.

---

I could see Assad being overthrown within a year, though not the regime itself. Unfortunately for the regime, the main Alawite population is near the western border, not near Damascus. If the rebels increase their presence in the capital, it's not at all clear that Assad would be able to hold it. Assad might have tanks and helicopters, but his officials/soldiers/officers need to sleep somewhere and meet somewhere. The rebels are making sure they can't sleep or meet in peace. It won't do Assad much good to kill some young rebels with tanks, when his generals are being picked off in their homes.

Quote:

---

The best solution would be to convince Russia to pressure Assad into stepping down and allowing for a transition to democracy. There were faint hopes for this earlier, but I haven't seen any real movement on Russia's position for some time. Any ideas on how we can get them to play ball on this issue? Without Russian consent, things could get very tricky if NATO gets involved in a military fashion - Russia's naval base in the Mediterranean could be a significant deterrent to a NATO enforcement regime.

---

If Russia changes its position, it will be because the rebels look all but certain to win. And by that point, it won't really matter what Russia's position is.

Quote:

---

Thoughts? Ideas? I'm pretty pessimistic on this one; I don't see an obvious course of action.

---

It looks like the most realistic option is to sit and wait, allowing "friendly" nations to provide the rebels the support they're already providing them. It's not inconceivable that Assad's regime will have no choice but to relocate to friendlier grounds, which would mean abandoning Damascus. It could survive there for a long time, but it would be controlling a quarter of the country.