Syrian Civil War (round 2)

[Almalexia]

Saddam was good business, and while direct invasion and equipping a new government's military creates business of its own it's also enormously high profile and bad for public image. Two dictatorships, Iran and Iraq, who are both hostile to your domestic seat of business slugging it out for a decade, that's practically a dream come true and with them dedicated to screwing the West as well as each other who's to care?

But I'll let that point go as you do, genuinely, have a point. The only problem with it is, like an explanation of war as a product of human nature, it doesn't explain the when or where of why a country goes to war. We'd be at our most aggressive stance 24/7 if our only need was to sate the military-industrial complex, conducting full scale invasions left and right, but despite the ongoing war on Terror we really haven't seen an outright large-scale, boots on the ground offensive since 2003, and active troop deployments are relative to preceding conventional wars, minimal. So arms, oil, etc., these economic motives have some merit, but why choose one country over another if these were the compelling reason? And why are the invasions and occupations not consistent if this is the case? There's something else at play here, otherwise the most obvious choice for invasion in 2003 or what have you would have been Venezuela, which is where the US actually gets most of its oil, and not Iraq.

 

[Vissy]

Saddam was good business, and while direct invasion and equipping a new government's military creates business of its own it's also enormously high profile and bad for public image.

Counterpoint: the USA took the PR hit for the war, and the military-industrial complex got away pretty much scot-free. It's a shame that those two aren't seen as more closely-connected in the public eye just yet. People talk about the Deep State a lot and then proceed to link it to college students or whatever, when the military-industrial complex is literally just sitting there as probably the closest equivalent to whatever people mean by "the Deep State".

But I'll let that point go as you do, genuinely, have a point. The only problem with it is, like an explanation of war as a product of human nature, it doesn't explain the when or where of why a country goes to war. We'd be at our most aggressive stance 24/7 if our only need was to sate the military-industrial complex, conducting full scale invasions left and right, but despite the ongoing war on Terror we really haven't seen an outright large-scale, boots on the ground offensive since 2003, and active troop deployments are relative to preceding conventional wars, minimal. So arms, oil, etc., these economic motives have some merit, but why choose one country over another if these were the compelling reason? And why are the invasions and occupations not consistent if this is the case? There's something else at play here, otherwise the most obvious choice for invasion in 2003 or what have you would have been Venezuela, which is where the US actually gets most of its oil, and not Iraq.

Well, I'd actually disagree there - full-scale war isn't what these companies want. They, just like anyone else, don't want to experience war. They prefer to outsource the horrors of war to somewhere far away from their homes and simultaneously profit from them. But I wouldn't say that the military-industrial complex is the only reason the States start foreign wars, fund foreign terrorists, practise imperialist politics via deposing leaders, enacting exploitative economic policies etc. all over the world, but it is a reason, and often a significant reason. Sometimes it's other corporations that want to cash in on the troubles of other countries. I'll point out the unifying line in my critique here - multinational corporations and the American government are very intertwined, and that obviously leads to some problems. It certainly doesn't mean that everything is caused by direct greed - I'd actually argue that it's more in the nature of capitalism as an economic system to encourage these corporations to maximize their profits at all costs.

 

[Beny]

People talk about the Deep State a lot and then proceed to link it to college students or whatever, when the military-industrial complex is literally just sitting there as probably the closest equivalent to whatever people mean by "the Deep State".

I don't think that's true. The military-industrial complex is a tenuous connection between the interests of corporations and elected officials via lobbyists. They don't care about foreign policy, only defense spending. To assume that corporations act in any sort of pre-meditated, 'evil' way is to misunderstand what a corporation is.

The deep state does exist, it's just far less dramatic than popular conspiracy theories portray it to be. The IMF, the World Bank and the UN for example.

 

[Vissy]

People talk about the Deep State a lot and then proceed to link it to college students or whatever, when the military-industrial complex is literally just sitting there as probably the closest equivalent to whatever people mean by "the Deep State".

I don't think that's true. The military-industrial complex is a tenuous connection between the interests of corporations and elected officials via lobbyists. They don't care about foreign policy, only defense spending. To assume that corporations act in any sort of pre-meditated, 'evil' way is to misunderstand what a corporation is.

The deep state does exist, it's just far less dramatic than popular conspiracy theories portray it to be. The IMF, the World Bank and the UN for example.

Well as I said later, I don't think corporations act in a pre-meditated 'evil' way, I think that they act to maximize their profits. Yes, it's not very dramatic - only to the extent of big multinational corporations being very intertwined with the American government? To that extent, yes.

 

[Adorno]

... They don't care about foreign policy, only defense spending.

I think that's too naive, and the two things are very intertwined.
Private contractors had close ties to the entire Bush administration and a direct interest in a privatised war.
Remember **** Cheney's former firm Halliburton whose "contracts jumped more than nine times their 2001 levels by 2003, from $400 million to $3.9 billion."?
The industry also lobbied for war against terrorism, which is hugely profitable, and very much foreign policy.

"George W. Bush and John Kerry have been the top two recipients of contributions from Political Action Committees and individuals associated
with the arms industry in the 2004 election cycle, receiving $766,355 and $399,000 respectively, a roughly 2 to 1 margin in favor of President Bush."

"Although he campaigned as a military reformer in 2000, President Bush has overseen the biggest increases in defense spending since Ronald Reagan."
...
"President Bush’s military budget increase coupled with ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the War on Terror
have created an environment in which weapons makers can enjoy the best of both worlds. They can continue making
money off Cold War style weapons systems of the past and the unmanned aerial vehicles and smart bombs of the future."
https://worldpolicy.org/report-ties-that-bind-arms-industry-influence-in-the-bush-administration-and-beyond/

 

[MehdicanARS]

Democracy(U.S.A) is coming...

 

[crodio]

syrian army claims to fully control damascus noow.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-army/syrian-army-says-damascus-and-surroundings-fully-secure-idUSKCN1IM1CG

 

[Heafodban]

I've heard rumors that the Syrian government and the Kurdish SDF are coming to some kind of agreement for unification. I don't believe it myself, but if true then the war could be wrapping up.

 

[Dystopian]

I just can't see Assad bringing about a unified Syria without his iron fist controlling the Kurds. We'll see but violence is always inevitable.

 

[Temuzu]

What if the iron fist is the Kurds?

Now you're thinking with askaris.

 

[Toor]

I've heard rumors that the Syrian government and the Kurdish SDF are coming to some kind of agreement for unification. I don't believe it myself, but if true then the war could be wrapping up.

Edit: I found something more solid to share.

隐藏

They had a lot of meetings for simple agreements. Today I've read that the Kurds may let Damascus Government for to keep working in a barrage of Euphrates.(SDF Leader İlham Ahmed's words) But still there are big problems that may block the potential agreement between the Kurds and Assad. We don't know if this war is enough for US and Russia also it seems Turkey and FSA coalition is all independent anymore and really wants to clean all the Kurdish terrorists **** in Northern Syria and the Radical Islamist terrorists in Idlib.

I just can't see Assad bringing about a unified Syria without his iron fist controlling the Kurds. We'll see but violence is always inevitable.

USA always blocks Assad's controls to the Kurds. I guess he knows that he has no chance to make Syria unified again. Maybe the west of Euphrates with Deir-ez-Zor is enough for him. Because of incoming attacks from Turkey and FSA, SDF and Assad may make peace in borders alike what we see in the civil war map now.



13th Patrol of Turkish Armed Forces and USA Forces in Manbij. I hope unlike Afrin, YPG is just going to go away from Manbij without making it hard.(Actually Olive Branch Operation didn't seem hard )
https://mobile.twitter.com/TSKGnkur/status/1016665060498903040

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

This war is very close to being won by Assad now. Opposition doesn't hold pretty much any territory by itself, and they certainly won't be able to hold territories occupied by Turkey if Turkish forces were to return home. To grab any more territory Assad either has to get into direct conflict with Turkey(which I don't think will happen) or they will come into some agreement.

Also, people talk about how American intervention is difficult and has setbacks and so on, but with the benefit of hindsight, it's hard to see how American intervention could do worse. 500k people died in this war.
Some nice piece on this:

Many of the analysts and policymakers who preferred that the United States stay out or minimize its role in Syria came to that position honestly. They looked at the 2003 invasion of Iraq and decried how it destabilized the region, empowered Iran, damaged relations with Washington’s allies, and fueled extremist violence, undermining the U.S. position in the region. It seems lost on the same group that U.S. inaction in Syria did the same: contributed to regional instability, empowered Iran, spoiled relations with regional friends, and boosted transnational terrorist groups.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/23/the-syrian-war-is-over-and-america-lost/

 

[Duh]

Also, people talk about how American intervention is difficult and has setbacks and so on, but with the benefit of hindsight, it's hard to see how American intervention could do worse. 500k people died in this war.

Yeah, it's pretty crazy. Recently stumbled across this - http://ucdp.uu.se/#/exploratory Puts it into perspective with other conflicts.

 

[Toor]

This war is very close to being won by Assad now.

Assad is holding onto the war by the nonstop support of Russia after Putin have saved him a few years ago. Turkey's help to the opposition is what Russia does for Assad. It's hard to say that he is one of the winners of the civil war even he has lost half of his country and he has no chance to take back the territories taken by the Kurds and the Opposition. Also it seems Opposition and the Kurds will get more population when the war will end.

Opposition doesn't hold pretty much any territory by itself, and they certainly won't be able to hold territories occupied by Turkey if Turkish forces were to return home.

I wonder why this makes you think of Opposition is in more bad situation than Assad's.  It's same for Damascus Government to be supported, what if Russian forces choose to return home? without Turkish soldiers and Russian jets, it was really going good for opposition against Assad in the first years of the war.

Opposition have lost territories in the south mostly and Turkey has permitted of Assad and Iran's Shia militants to take areas back because those opposite militants who fights for Israel's strategy of the Golan Heights were funded by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel. Their relation to Turkey and Northern Opposition wasn't good.

To grab any more territory Assad either has to get into direct conflict with Turkey(which I don't think will happen) or they will come into some agreement.

He can't grab any territory from Turkey. After the incoming fall of Idlib to any side, there will be not much more reasons to keep fighting for Assad. He can watch the potential big battles between the Kurds and Turkey while he's trying to capture Deir-Ez-Zor.

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

okay let me put it this way.

It's more than 80% likely that in 4 years Assad will be the head of Syrian State that controls more than 50% of the pre civil war Syria. Opposition on the other hand won't be holding much and there won't be anyone contesting his authority over these regions.

 

[rejenorst]

I think they already knew in 2012 that the major driving force of the opposition was the Salafists, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and the Muslim Brotherhood. Picking out who is moderate and who is extreme from all the chaos was ever a problem and likely wouldn't have resulted in a better outcome if the U.S had gotten involved just to place some other maniac in charge. See page 3 point B and A:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

It's possible that hundreds of thousands if not millions more refugees come to Turkey soon. Idlib is the last stronghold of opposition and it's where they are all camping now. Regime is preparing for a siege. Erdogan demanded ceasefire but Russia refused(this happened live because Erdogan didn't know that he was recorded, it was interesting). international organisations and the us express worries, and gravely deeply terribly concerned and so on.

government officials are saying they will not take any responsibility over new refugee wave. IDK whether that means they will stop them over the border or just load them to big trucks and then deliver them to smugglers in Aegean. We will see.

 

[Temuzu]

I feel like Turkey couldn't get away with allowing the same kind of smuggling operation as they did in the beginning, and I seriously doubt any of the frontline European nations are going to just open up again.

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

We will just mass them to Greece and Bulgaria

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

turn them all into janissaries