OK. Say our military actions in Syria lead to the Assad regime being deposed

[cali]

(no, I'm not claiming that's President Obama's intent. I haven't the vaguest idea if it is or isn't) What happens in the aftermath? What happens in that particular vacuum? Surely no one thinks that "good guys" take the reins, the civil war abruptly comes to a halt, and that country is unified? Who takes over? Look, the FSA is a pretty loathsome group. And Al-Nusra, ISIS, etc? Yikes. As I see it, the prospects (and I base my opinion on recent history) are a future at least as bad as the present.

[The Magistrate]

1. Always Sound, Ma'am, To Expect The Future To Be Bad As The Present

If Assad is put out of power by sudden collapse of his position, the result will likely be simply a continued civil war among the factions opposed to him, with a coalition of Alawites and Christians in an alliance of convenience fighting to save their lives.

There is no particular reason to suppose attacks against I.S.I.L. in its strong-holds in Syria would wound the Assad regime at all, a least providing he is not so foolish as to have his gunners try and engage manned U.S. aircraft.

One supposes a political settlement, with Assad abdicating, possibly to asylum in Russia with much of his family's loot, and an orderly transfer to some representatives of bodies which fought against him, joined with representatives of the minority religious communities, could be crafted to look pretty good on paper, but I have no confidence any such thing could actually be put into practice there, as things stand after all that has gone before.

[cali]

4. I think there is a reason to suspect bombing against ISIS

could lead to the crumbling of Assad's regime: The U.S. plans to weaken ISIS and strengthen the FSA and other opposition groups.

[The Magistrate]

21. I Do Not Think That Last Can Be Effectively Done, Ma'am

And to the degree that it is done, the factions we support ( or create ) will turn their efforts first against I.S.I.L., not Assad. They will have to, if they are to function and survive in areas of Syria his forces do not control.

[cali]

22. perhaps. perhaps not. situations such as this are certainly hard to accurately assess.

I tend, particularly after the past 14 years, to take "unforeseen" consequences quite seriously. And according to virtually all sources, our intelligence in Syria is very poor.

[The Magistrate]

23. There, We Would Certainly Agree, Ma'am

[killbotfactory]

2. Russia gets denied a naval facility

so, you know, it's all worth it if all the non-Islamists in Syria are slaughtered.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Jordan and Lebanon will be pantloaded...

Turkey will go a little nuts, Iraq may become part of the Greater Syrian Insanity (or vice versa) Israel will go to the mats...

and whoever the President may be, we won't have the foggiest idea how to handle it.

[JI7]

5. if it happens i don't see how it will be because of our military actions there

[joshcryer]

6. There's a reason we didn't arm the rebels.

The analysts saw the power vacuum that was happening.

The FSA was never anything more than Syrian refugees in Turkey. Their commander wasn't even in Syria. He was running some sort of phantom resistance from Turkey.

And no, the US didn't arm anyone, we did assist the Saudi's or Quatari's but other than that, we didn't get involved directly. My suspicion is that the analysts just recommended against it and Obama made the right decision. If Assad was deposed it'd be several times worse.

That said, Hillary Clinton is completely wrong about arming those rebels. She should know better.

edit: it appears I misread your post, I thought you were talking about a hypothetical past, and I think that it is unlikely, for the reasons in this post, that Assad would be overthrown by our actions against ISIS. We've learned a lesson about bringing democracy to countries with Islamists, I think.

[cali]

7. As I understand it, you are incorrect

we are arming rebels from the FSA:

<snip>

The U.S. is already training hundreds of vetted rebels in Jordan, and equipping them with weapons. Most of those rebels are fighting under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) -- the first major opposition group to form and fight President Bashar al-Assad's forces in Syria in 2011.

<snip>

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-funds-trains-arms-moderate-opposition-syria-who-are-rebels-1685180

<snip>

Since December, when Islamist fighters overran the arms warehouses of the moderate rebel group, the covert U.S. program has been working directly with individual commanders, leaving the leadership here high and dry. Twelve to 14 commanders receive military and nonlethal aid this way in northern Syria and about 60 smaller groups are recipients in southern Syria, al Bashir said. They report to the CIA.
- See more at: http://amestrib.com/news/nation/us-leaves-free-syrian-army-leaders-out-military-planning#sthash.jDv7zmXG.9UkSHDh1.dpuf

And what evidence do you have that we've learned a lesson? ALL the evidence is to the contrary.

[joshcryer]

8. "vetted rebels in Jordan"

My comment was about rebels in Syria.

"nonlethal aid" is of course what the US provides to all conflict zones.

The "moderate rebels" would be used to go after ISIS, not Assad. ISIS employes total war tactics. They are brutal and relentless. If ISIS cannot depose Assad what makes you think armed rebels would 1) depose Assad and 2) with that ability to depose Assad, be overrun by ISIS?

[cali]

9. read the second article. we are arming members of the FSA IN SYRIA

and learn more about the FSA. For instance, the FSA sold Sotloff to ISIS. Oh, and they've committed HEINOUS war crimes themselves.

Denial is silly- there are lots of sources confirming the info I have relayed to you.

[joshcryer]

10. Nope, that's the "nonlethal aid" quote.

Please quote the sentence saying we are arming FSA rebels in Syria.

btw, try to be less insulting, you're the one who's scared of ISIS overthrowing the FSA after they overthrow Assad which is simply nonsense.

[cali]

11. more evidence- YOU provide no evidence for your claims

<snip>

In March, the United States authorized the delivery of more sophisticated TOW anti-tank guided missiles to moderate rebels, after long resisting such deliveries out of fears that advanced weaponry would fall into the hands of extremist factions in Syria. Long before then, however, U.S. allies including Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funneling weaponry to various rebel factions in the conflict.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/09/07/report-islamic-state-has-anti-tank-weapons-taken-from-syrian-rebels/

http://www.modbee.com/2014/09/05/3515127_tense-relations-between-us-and.html?rh=1

and we've been doing since before March of this year via the CIA:

CIA-funded weapons have begun flowing to Syrian rebels, a U.S. official told CNN. But opposition groups say they have yet to receive any.

The official confirmed details first reported by the Washington Post but would not speak publicly.

"That is something we are not going to dispute, but we are not going to publicly speak to it," the official said.

The weapons are not American-made, but are funded and organized by the CIA. They started to reach rebels about two weeks ago, the official said.

The artillery was described as light weapons, some anti-tank weapons and ammunition.

<snip>

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have supplied Syrian rebel groups with a small number of advanced American antitank missiles for the first time in a pilot program that could lead to larger flows of sophisticated weaponry, people briefed on the effort said.

The new willingness to arm these rebels comes after the failure of U.S.-backed peace talks in January and recent regime gains on the battlefield. It also follows a reorganization of Western-backed fighters aimed at creating a more effective military force and increasing protection for Christian and other religious minorities—something of particular importance to Washington.

<snip>

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626304579509401865454762

[joshcryer]

13. Again, I said not directly.

Indirectly, of course it's been happening.

You may think the difference is small, but it's not, because the CIA can operate to nudge here or there, but without actual direct assistance from the US military and MIC then it's CIA minimal. ISIS got their weapons, per your own links, from raiding Syrian arms bases.

[cali]

15. absurd. The U.S. is arming "moderate" opposition groups in the U.S. period.

[Boreal]

14. There are no "moderate rebels"

That's Washington and London BS.

Jordan is the location of a CIA run training base for these Takfiri freaks.

[CJCRANE]

19. Where do you think those "vetted rebels in Jordan" end up?

That's right, Syria.

[Boreal]

12. FSA/ISIS/ISIL/al Nusra/al Qaeda and myriad other terrorist

groups are all affiliated and thank you for posting about the US arming these fuckers. We have been all long, but it's been mainly covert. Arms were also moved from Croatia and Libya. The FSA is just the faction of these terrorists, along with the DC/Paris and London "provisional government" expat shit stirrers, that Washington has assembled. The FSA are OUR terrorists. If their al Nusra or ISIL counterparts wanted to join under the FSA banner, they too would be our terrorists.

This whole charade is about taking down Syria. The false flag chemical weapons/gas attacks failed to work, last year, and now we have this bullshit. Once again, in Obama's address, last night, he mentioned Assad had to go. Once again, the great Hegemon decides who goes and who stays (or tries to). If Assad falls, Syria will be the next Libya only worse.

This is the Neocon PNAC plan. Syria was long ago scheduled for destruction.

The movement of gas and oil is a big factor in all this, as is Israel. However, Russia has a legitimate stake in Syria and as they stepped in before they can be expected to have something about this.

[cali]

16. thanks. I find it so depressing that so many here are sucked into this

I don't know that this is all about taking down Assad- though I'd hardly be shocked- but I don't give a fig if our motives are pure as the driven snow. It's a terrible idea that will lead to more instability and bloodshed- not less.

[Boreal]

17. It IS about Assad and getting of Syria

That's why Obama made sure he mentioned it in the TV address. Even though he was talking about ISIL, he made sure to remind everyone that Assad had to go. This plan has been on the table since pre-Obama, going back to the neocons but the neolibs are on board, too.


Here's something on the "moderate rebels" (FSA) John McCain has trying to sell everyone:

Published on Aug 17, 2014

One of the key US men in Syria, the "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) Col. Abdel Jabbar al-Okaidi, who operated mostly in the Greater Aleppo area, was open about his daily communication and collaboration with extremist jihadists from the "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL) and al-Qaeda's official branch in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra. He refers to their fighters as brothers. In one footage after the rebel capture of Menagh military airbase, he even appeared standing next to an Egyptian jihadist from ISIL, Abu Jandal, while thanking him and his group for their contributions. The US is known to have funneled military aid to al-Okaidi and others in the FSA throughout the last couple of years.

Sources: Telegraph, Orient News, Souria al-Shaab

[cali]

18. As I said, I don't give a shit what it's about. It's a further unfolding of our disastrous

middle east foreign policy. motive becomes irrelevant.

[CJCRANE]

20. It'll be just like Iraq and Libya.

SNAFUBAR.