Donald Trump manages to be more sensible on Syria than Hilary

[The Grand Nudger]

No. Killing radicals is in our interest. I was, in the post you quoted, speaking from the point-of-view of a Russian commander (I'd thought I made that clear). There is, of course, a balance, which must be judged, and that is what we're doing here. Are they making more radicals than they're killing? Will those radicals hate America more, or Russia more? Bloody hands draw the flies. Is it not best to let someone else do our dirty work?

Well, since they're stalled in a quagmire against -actual- isis forces,, and seem to be cheifly engaged in creating more radicals out of moderates, for whatever misguided reason..why would I expect a different result out of their involvement in syria than the one we just achieved out of iraq?  Trouble is, that all the radicals they make will be our problem (and the worlds problem)...you see we created isis, remember?  It's a useful dumpster for russian forces.  They get to make the same problem bigger and wash their hands.  What balance, what dirty work of ours are they doing?

You might not be concerned about those views, but the Syrians are.

Assad is, saying that syrians are concerned is a stretch.  Those people -are- syrians.  Again, the people in aleppo, not isis.

And that's exactly why the Russians are behaving as they are -- to change local views about the value of resistance vs the value of obeisance. Go along to get along, right? The Russians are pushing that at gunpoint, and while it might be wrong morally, from the standpoint of strategy it makes perfect sense. And let the Russians absorb the casualties, the expense, the opprobrium of the world, for this action. Meanwhile, we get some of what we want, at no cost except for enmity from Muslims who are already aligned against us.

....but we're -not- getting what we want, not even a little bit..out of russian involvement in syria, and ultimately the russians won't absorb any opprobrium other than that which they've already deemed acceptable unless we (as in the world) pile it on over aleppo.  I feel like it doesn't matter how many links I drop...we're discussing some fantasy scenario that isn't happening as though it should inform policy about what -is- happening......?

We cannot enforce our interests in that country, without a massive deployment. POTUS knows he doesn't have support for that. POTUS thinks (I suspect, and he's probably right) that such a deployment would drag us much closer to a war with Russia, which is clearly not a desirable outcome.

Stay above the fray, I say, and let events sort themselves out. Will people suffer and die? Most assuredly. But any intervention on our part seems unlikely to change that -- and I think it'll likely add to the cost. I'm struggling to think of an intervention we Americans have made in a civil war that decisively quelled it ... and I'm drawing a blank.

You got anything?

I already shared my opinion on that.  I don't think we could fix their problems either, but I do think we could prevent others from -continuing- to make them -worse- as they chase their own interests..which have nothing to do with ours, and do not advance ours. Do you think that anyone should be required to offer a plan to "fix syria", just to oppose the intentional bombing of civilians? If all a dirtbag has to do is threaten to get even shittier when we oppose warcrimes then whats the fucking point? That's an endorsement of appeasing belligerents. It hasn't, historically, been all that successful at either stopping warcrimes or preventing war.

At least, in this case, putin (and every single person under him) would have to be a madman to do anything that lead to war with the us, even if he could blame us for it all day long. That the spectre of a war with russia even arises is ridiculous. Russia wants this grab so long as it doesn't cost them the castle. They're not going to risk -everything- just to fuck around in syria..they'll keep this shit up as long as there's no real opposition and that's all.