(October 11, 2016 at 9:42 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(October 11, 2016 at 6:06 pm)wallym Wrote: Opposing Russia?

If that's desirable, don't you think it's better pursued by letting them expend their blood, arms, and money pursuing an aim which we consider desirable to an extent anyway?

I don't know.  I think they may be wary of ceding 'authority' in the region to them.  The drawback of US isolationism, is that Russia and China don't put a lot of effort into keeping their areas stable.  North Korea, for example, is under china's umbrella, and they don't seem to care much about the Kim Jung and his doings.

(October 12, 2016 at 12:28 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(October 11, 2016 at 10:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What aim are they pursuing, that we desire?

Preserving their basing agreements by propping up a client state would be my guess. But in so doing, they're killing a lot of extremists, and yes, non-combatants. We desire the former (that's where our interests overlap, imo), and wish to avoid doing the latter ourselves.

This delivers both our desiderata.

They're not killing extremists, for the simple reason they're not attacking ISIS. Currently it's not in Assad's interest to go after ISIS because the he needs to control are held by the remnants of the original pro democracy movement.

(October 12, 2016 at 12:37 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: They're not killing extremists, for the simple reason they're not attacking ISIS. Currently it's not in Assad's interest to go after ISIS because the he needs to control are held by the remnants of the original pro democracy movement.

ISIS are not the only extremists in the room there. And I'm skeptical the pro-democracy movement has anything like the numbers that the extremists do.

So am I, so why bomb the shit out of aleppo while ignoring -actual- extremist strongholds, lol? Is it just a coincidence that russia is bombing the people assad had gassed? It seems, imo(obvs) that "eliminating extremists" was and is pretext for russia propping up an ally in order to maintain their favorable arrangements. The price they're paying for that is a continuation of assads little grudgematch against his own people, to th detriment of any attempt to clear out extremists, if they ever get around to it.

Once anti-assad remnants have been crushed, isis can be dealt with in short order, just pop some more chlorine gas. There's no reason, though, to end this chaos in syria until one has set themselves into a favorable position for the aftermath. They need the cover it provides.

(October 12, 2016 at 11:40 am)wallym Wrote: The drawback of US isolationism, is that Russia and China don't put a lot of effort into keeping their areas stable.  North Korea, for example, is under china's umbrella, and they don't seem to care much about the Kim Jung and his doings.

Well, the fact is we don't really have the power to effect many of the changes we'd like to see; or effecting those changes would cost more in lives, money and prestige than we're willing to expend. I think the latter is the case regarding Syria.

(October 12, 2016 at 1:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It seems, imo(obvs) that "eliminating extremists" was and is pretext for russia propping up an ally in order to maintain their favorable arrangements.

Of course that's the case. I'm not arguing that killing extremists is the actual reason for Russia's involvement; indeed, as I said earlier, it's so they can maintain a naval and aerial presence in the region.

I'm just saying that so long as they're the ones with bloody hands, and so long as they're killing some extremists along the way (and they are), I think our best interests are served by staying out of the fray.

The world would rightly condemn us for such complicity, and theyre definitly -not- killing extremists in aleppo. More an issue of creating them. Let's make sure we're clear here, we're talking about trading in a town on the hope that what theyre doing will do something other than what it;s doing at some point, and washing our hands with full knowledge...out in the open?

IMO, we may not be able to put syria back together, but that doesn;t mean we have to let other actors run roughshod over it.

(October 12, 2016 at 1:58 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, the fact is we don't really have the power to effect many of the changes we'd like to see; or effecting those changes would cost more in lives, money and prestige than we're willing to expend. I think the latter is the case regarding Syria.

You can't effect change in a country or region that isn't susceptible to your kind of change, your ideas and your culture. Trying to do that is almost sure to backfire. If the particular people aren't on board with that. And they aren't. The people at large are trying to survive at the moment while different factions with different goals are having it out for the last five years.

I know, none of you are doing that, but I had this discussion for the last 15 years. Some people - not you or anyone on this board - have presented Germany and Japan as successful examples. Which is as far removed from the current situation as it can be. Both Germany and Japan already were highly industrialised countries of the first world. And they already had experiences with democracy. The countries of the Middle East don't have any of that. They aren't even countries in the sense of the word, since their territories are arbitrary and have not grown in any natural way.

What's more, there are people living together that have next to nothing in common. Different religious believes, different cultures, and, what's often overlooked, deeply tribal structures with more or less powerful clans calling the shots. It is that way with Iraq, it is that way with Lybia and it is that way with Syria.

I think that reffing a fight like that (rather than fighting it out) is a more appropriate use of power.  The time to step in is when a penalty flag needs to be thrown in a fight that the parties involved simply insist upon having.  When the chemical weapons come out - when an attempt to exterminate civilians becomes apparent.  When one party pulls in a ringer. Or, when all of the above apply.

Yes, they're killing civilians at Aleppo. But you and I don't have any deeper insights into the nature of the militias being holed up there. The inexcusable part is that they - as opposed to their promises - don't allow the civilians to leave the area and don't let any kind of humanitarian supplies or support in.