T. Belman. Tucker makes the case against regime change in Syria. I agree with him but the US has more options than he acknowledges. I think that the US should solidify its hold on eastern Syria by building up the Kurdish ability to stabilize the area.
France has already joined the fray in defense of Manji which is part of what America controls. The US must hold on to their position in Syria both to be loyal to the Kurds who defeated ISIS and because it will give the US a seat at the table in determining the future of Syria. The Syria discussions ends at 16:20.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Does Carlson mention Iran? I don’t recall hearing him mention Iran. Or the Kurds. Or Israel. He criticizes war based on viral youtube videos but he seems to practice strategic analysis based on the day’s headlines. Correction: make that singular, headline.
Has anyone noticed that because Trump has framed this issue as one of chemical weapons, he actually has Europe and the dems lining up with him to fight Iran’s coalition on Syrian soil?
Moreover, nation-building in Iraq wasn’t a failure after the surge, but only after Obama took over. And we never did that in Libya. And yes, I believe it was deliberate.
I agree with Ted’s analysis.
This strategy of occupying a Muslim nation and transforming it has been tried in Iraq. It has been proven a failure. It will also fail in Syria. There is not one Arab democratic country. Israel was not able to pacify its Arab inhabitants, neither could all the American treasure showered upon the Iraqi’s change their attitudes. Just as you cannot herd cats, some things are just impossible. A leopard will not change its spots.
You may argue all people are equal, this is certainly true. As a westernized secular believer in science you perhaps ignore there is religion and you forget there is culture. The Islamic religion is the elephant in the room which you cannot ignore. Factors as ideology, religion and culture do not change easily.
It took the Soviet empire more than 70 years to crumble, and in many ways it has yet not fully done so. Importantly, the Russians were Europeans to begin with and their leaders eventually somehow saw the light. But this is not the case in Syria.
It took the brutal likes of a Mustafa Kemal Atatürk to try and beat down the grip of Islamic religion on Turkey. It was done through draconic measures, harsh strictures and cruel punishments. It included idiosyncratic prohibitions in the use of alphabet, dress or custom all things impossible to implement in a human rights based environment, and it was enforced by an unrelenting though loyal military regime.
After decades of military rule, the moment the EU and the US pressured the Turkish generals to step aside and allow ‘democratic’ forces to unfold, Islam came back and raised its head, undoing the work of three generations.
My latest suggestion is similar to Ted’s “new Sykes-Picot” plan, but I think has more teeth to it. Bear is right that the European allies would have no stomach for this plan. and probably right that the Americans would also lack the stomach for it. However, that might change now that John Bolton is Trump’s national security advisor. Let’s hope.
If the USA and its allies are willing to fight t@ adamdalgliesh: If the USA and its allies are willing to fight that could happen but it would be a real war and I am not sure the USA or its allies would have the staying power or stomach for it.
Since Russia presumably won’t accept my earlier suggestion of a U.S. occupation of all Syria, a possible alternative would be a partition of the country between Russian-Assad and American-Israeli zones. Under this plan, Assad would rule Western Syria under Russian protection, a moderate, secular and democracy-oriented Sunni regime would be installed by the U.S. in Eastern Syria. Russia, Assad, the U.S. and Israel would join together to crush ISIS, al-Quaida, and all the other Sunni jihadist factions. The Kurds would be given autonomy in the Kurd-populated areas. But both Iran and Turkey would be expelled from the country. The Shiite settlers from Iraq, Afghanistan, the Caucasus, etc. would either be expelled or resettled in the Assad-Alwawite zone under Russian protection.
Tucker and Sarah disappoint.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12139/syria-partition
The Syrian regime is a firm ally of Iran, Russia, and Hizbollah, and even North Korea none of which are especially friendly to either Israel or the United States. Ted’s proposed “Jordanian option” would actually be far more relevant and useful in Syria. If the United States could be persuaded to occupy all of Syria and to impose a pro-Western, liberal regime on the country, while banning both Sunni and Shiite extremists, and deporting the Afghani, Iranian, Iraqi and other foreigners drawn to the country by the conflict to fight for one side or the other, both Israeli and American interest would be well served. And persuading the U.S. to adopt this “Syrian option,” would be at least slightly easier than persuading it to adopt Ted’s Jordanian option, because of the West’s and Zionism’s 100-year romance with the Hashemite family. And the “natives” in Syria would probably be on the whole more supportive of a U.S. occupation and puppet regime in Syria than would the Jordanians, because Syrians have had far more direct experience with what Islamist militants can do to them than have the Jordians.
The regime is now under the control of Iran and Russia. It is no longer sovereign in all of Syria.
Example Assad wanted to send soldiers to stop Turkey from invading Northern Syria and displacing the Kurds. The Russians told Assad to stand down. The Kurds would have co-existed with the Syrians in an autonomous zone. So Turkey used Islamists to help them displace the Kurds and commit atrocities on the civilians.
So whoever says they are against regime change is actually saying we will let the Iranians and Russians to control things in Syria with the subservience of Assad. Assad can only do what he is allowed to do by his masters who allowed him to survive but this survival has a cost.
USA needs a coherent middle east policy. Hopefully Bolton will help Trump get there. I still do not think Trump is doing more than reacting to the latest incident or advice that makes sense to him that day. He does not know if he is leaving or staying or getting into a war.