Senate Revolution in the Muslim World

I was watching a discussion panel the other day where one of the speakers outlined pretty much the same narrative, minus the link to Georgia. Might have been the same guy.

 

The book I was talking about is A Little War That Shook The World by Ronald Asmus, who was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under President Clinton. The book was written in 2010, so it was before the Libya war, but I simply took what he said about Russia, saw how it would apply to Libya and Syria, and put two and two together.

 

There seems to have been a Chemical Weapons attack, both the Assad Regime and the Rebels are blaming each other. This is the "red line" being crossed, if confirmed.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

But with this being on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War, plus all the confusion surrounding this, I hope we don't make a call too soon.




Overview of the Syrian Civil War, right now:
Green= controlled by Assad government
Brown= controlled by Rebels or Kurds
Blue= disputed/in-conflict
Circle Size= number of people in that area

 

I blame the rebels.

 

You would.

 

I blame the Empire.

 

Initial reports now say that it's unlikely that chemical weapons were used in Aleppo on Tuesday, but the investigation isn't finished yet:
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-source-chemical-weapons-unlikely-attack-193850602.html

 

There are some rumors that Assad has been shot, possibly killed, by one of his own bodyguards. Nothing on major news sites yet.

 

Yeah, it's probably just a rumor, if nothing's been picked up by the major news outlets yet.

However it is confirmed that Israel retaliated against Syria after an attack on the Golan Heights.

 

Vali Nasr argues for US intervention in an op-ed in the NY Times. Initially, I was against military intervention, as I thought it would make the situation worse, but that's a long time ago now. At this point, it's hard to argue that it could get much worse, with millions of Syrian refugees in surrounding countries and an estimated 70 000 killed so far in the conflict. Nasr also argues that the longer this is allowed to fester, the further it will destabilize the region as a whole, as Saudi Arabia and Iran continue their proxy competition. Nasr argues for humanitarian aid for refugees, arms to the rebels and the imposition of a no-fly-zone to repair America's standing among disillusioned Syrians, as well as bringing a decisive end to the civil war. What do you think?

 

Israel says Syria has used Chemical Weapons
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...l-weapons-victims-seen-foaming-from-the-mouth

Kerry urges NATO to now consider role in Syria, after Israel's accusation
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/04/2013423133258432886.html

 

And according to FOX News, Eygpt is claiming that the rebels have joined up with Al Qaeda in Iraq. But then again according to FOX News every Muslim is a terrorist these days.

 

What "the rebels" Al-Nusra announced their merger like 3 weeks ago. Sort of fitting, in that they started as an AQI offshoot anyway.

 

What if we simply let Syria be partitioned? It would get a little ugly with regards to Turkey, Iraq and the Kurds, but it's got to be better than letting the war continue as it is, and it might allow for the international community to secure the chemical weapons stockpiles around the country.

 

How do you partition this?

It would require an even more active war than simply helping get rid of Assad.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syrian_Civil_War.svg

 

"Let it" how? No one wants that. Everyone is fighting to win the entire country.

 

I think it, ultimately, will come down to if and when Aleppo changes allegiance significantly. It was that support early on that kept Assad in power, and a change there could well be the point at which Assad can't hold on any more.

 

So Sec Def Hagel says Syria has used chemical weapons, sarin specifically. This will end well...

 

They seem to be asking the UN to confirm it... but yeah, I don't see how we continue the same course now. It's time for long-overdue NATO action.

 

The Times' front page tomorrow is rather grim:

Spoiler

 

Either we nuke the entire middle east and turn it into a parking lot or we leave it the hell alone...

I vote for leaving it the hell alone... Those countries just make my skin crawl and we have no business being there at all.. Let them live in the 5th century for all I care. Use them for business and for oil until we can come up with different sources of energy. Until than stop meddling in those countries affairs. There is no return on investment for the common taxpaying voter..

 

Really humanitarian of you.

 

I'd rather we support their growing secular middle class as much as we can with favorable trade agreements. Eventually the prosperous middle classes of those nations will find consumerism and money is better than living in the 5th century religious radicalism brings and drive out the radicals when they take over.

 

its not the U.S. taxpayers job to support the middle east with our tax money... Humanitarian you say, go adopt a dog from the shelter. The middle east is a dump and our men and women don't deserve to lose their lives in a sand pit..

Unless you've been living in a cave for the last 20+ years you would see the middle east is a lose lose for any country who meddles there... Its cost us lives and trillions and all the innocent men, women and children weve killed there... Go take your Humanitarian propaganda and shove it.