The Islamic State, Assad, and the Contradictions Faced by the US in Syria
 

Investigative journalist Patrick Cockburn says the U.S. will need to work with Syria and Iran to defeat ISIS, thereby reversing its policy towards Assad -

President Barack Obama has authorized the military to conduct surveillance flights over Syria. With U.S. airstrikes already happening in Iraq against extremist group The Islamic State, these surveillance flights are being seen as a possible prelude to attacks on the Islamic State in Syria. But where the twist comes in is that the Islamic State in Syria is fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad. That has been the very same objective of the U.S. for the past two years. So now that ISIS seems to be the most imminent threat, will the U.S. coordinate with Assad to bring ISIS down? And what role has the U.S. played in creating the rise of this fanatic group to begin with?

Read more...

Assad is the lesser of the two evils.

Assad is fighting for the survival of the Alawites and other minorities in Syria;he has no intention of placing his flag on top of the White House.

Furthermore he has given up his chemicals.

Assad destroyed the infrastructure of his country and at the same time has killed about 200,000 Syrians.
The vacuum he created in Northern Syria was a factor in the growth of ISIS and if you think about it ISIS does not seem to be actively trying to overthrow him in Damascus. They may be enemies but are neighbors of convenience as I see it.

I strongly doubt we will assist Assad.

Pete

Assad deliberately focused on fighting the "moderates" such that when they were neutralized, the Syrian population would be faced with the choice of him or ISIS.

Yeah, he has been doing that for some time. The minorities usually choose Assad and as ISIS exposes itself Assad is seen as "benign".

I believe that ISIS is for now more focused on income and that can only come form oil which Syria has none of (I don't see them in the list of oil producing nations on Wiki). And then there is the kidnap for ransom which is bound to end soon.

http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/01...31_500X500.jpg

Obama's new foreign policy.

He has some big shoes to fill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...8121401303.jpg

Why not ignore Assad for the short term? I'd bet the Arab coalition is willing to bomb ISIS positions in what was formally Baathist Syria without consulting him. The next step in this strategy would be liberating the Kurdish areas from ISIS, with the ultimate goal being Kurdistan unification. This would weaken ISIS and reinforce other anti ISIS efforts.

Sounds either too logical or requires mass migrations to create monolithic regions. As constituted, there seems to be no tolerance or desire to co-exist.

Teehee! :D

Indeed we should return Kurdistan to the Kurds assuming Syria,Turkey, Iraq and Iran are willing to surrender the parts they stole.

ROTFLMAO!

If both parties do a certain thing regardless of what they say, the leaders of both parties agree on what we should actually be doing, again, regardless of the bather they feed their constituencies.

Pete

Very idealistic but reality is that elections roll around every two years, fund raising the first year and campaigning the second. Where is the time to compromise and govern. Each party is fighting for control of one or both houses every election and it is political war.

I suspect the training of this free Syrian force is essentially to aim at ISIS and
to ignore Assad. Assad is not nuclear and has given up his chemicals.

The US should learn by now to look very carefully at regime change in the area.

I'm sorry, I'm not clear. My post is not idealistic. It shows how they (both parties for the record) constantly lie to us. If they both actually do something, even if they say it's wrong, they do indeed agree in private.

Pete

Don, the moderate rebels are: Ta Da! Muslim Brotherhood. Bet Egypt LOVES that.

I think Assad is finished anyway.

Pete

My post was meant to imply that members of both parties are afraid that they will not get reelected if they quit the lying and tell the truth. As to actually working together, the GOP candidates further risk getting primaried.

So it's all about and only about winning elections. Anything beyond is idealistic IMO.

Oh I see what'cha mean. Funny world were it makes sense an awful thing can be idealistic :o

Wouldn't it be amazing if one of our leaders where to actually try to educate the public they're supposedly leading? Now there's some starry-eyed idealism ;)

Pete

Like John McCain and Sarah Palin? :rolleyes: A bag of hammers and a pile of rocks as edumacters....

I have heard that many times.

However, many minorities, seculars and people who are just fearful of the religious extremists see Assad and his Alawites as a bulwark.

I know some Syrian/Christians and their stance is better the devil you know, (Assad) than ISIL. Even so, Assad needs to retire to Saudi Arabia. I've heard that Idi Amin's palace is available in Jiddah. :rolleyes: