Migration and Asylum

[harry]

Is America taking any of these people in?
Russia?
China?

 

[icebreaker]

There is an isolated country surrounded by rough seas to our west, that speaks a variant of English. It doesn't have anything like our population density issues, and so many unoccupied houses that they don't know what to do with them. They also have a fine tradition of economic migrancy to boot, so should be a more receptive and hospitable host.

Nah, it's too cold and it's too wet, and the broadband is only 2 Mbps. They wouldn't like it here. At all, at all.
Also, there is too much drinkin' going on which would offend their religious sensitivities.

 

[harry]

In most years I went to Ireland, all the hotel staff were Polish

 

[Drone]

You are suggesting that the EU monolith turn these countries into resettlement camps ???
It's about more than economics; it doesn't matter if some migrants are skilled or educated, these countries don't want them because of the culture, outlook, and (yes) religion of these migrants. These countries have made this quite clear; right or wrong, that is the will of these countries and as sovereign entities with their own identity, that stance has to be respected.

"resettlement camps" is an emotive term of ill connotation. I'm trying to explore alternative solutions to a situation that at present seems insoluble: the mutually beneficial resettlement of xxx thousand - x million?? migrants from without Europe to within

If countries such as Romania and Bulgaria wish to be part of the monolithic EU then shouldn't they realise that with that comes collective responsibility: a responsibility that becomes paramount when a crisis of this magnitude is unravelling

Let's choose to forget Romania and concentrate on Bulgaria. About 8% of Bulgarians are Muslim, the large majority of Turkish extraction, of the Sunni sect and apparently moderate in their beliefs; the latter two of which I think generally applies to Syrian muslims. An under-populated country with a long history of Islamic integration (other than subjugation during Communist rule) and with easy access from the middle-east: a country that, with financial aid from its EU brethren would in my inexpert opinion benefit from re-population

One could also bang on about the long history of 'balkan islam' in neighbouring countries, though percentage-wise these populations are small

Whatever, it's my belief that Eastern Europe is, with help, better equipped culturally and more needy economically to handle a large influx of middle-eastern muslims; hence the immigrants will be better assimilated and, in the longer term, find more opportunities to prosper

My liberal libertarian heart is with Bob Geldof but his most prescient remark amongst the archetypal Geldofian rhetoric was "We are in a moment currently now that will be discussed and impacted on in 300 years time"

Indeed: time for the head to coldly and clinically explore ideas 'outside the box'

 

[Maruco]

An interesting question posed with regards to the solution to ISIS being military or political? And a really tough one to answer given the collective brains of the west have no idea how to answer it, particularly given there is no opportunity to change history, which this debate seems to attempt to do at every turn.

What is the answer to terrorists? Chop off the head? New heads and new variants usually emerge. Talk them down. Ho hum. Whichever way you look at this the situation is seriously bleak.

My view is the answer lies with the collective response of Governments in the Middle East. Only a (mostly), combined (political and military), Middle Eastern response can solve this. Not completely or immediately, but in the shortest possible time. The answer to this doesn't lie in the West as we arrogantly wish to believe. How do we seriously expect to solve the issues of the Middle East. Contain them in Europe maybe, but solve them........... Our focus should be squarely on the security of Europe. It may be right to 'support' an integrated military response in the ME but only in the right circumstances and not at the expense of our own borders.

With regard the West's policy on migration and asylum. Again there is no simple answer, but there should be a 'combined' Western answer. The disparate policies we see now exacerbate the problem and increase the risk of terrorist cells being planted. Western Governments have to work together. None of us can be stupid enough to believe that the terrorists of this world haven't been exploiting this for some considerable time. The need for Western Government's to combat this risk as migrants flood across borders is every bit as important as the humanitarian situation. We cannot do one effectively without the other, irrespective of the risk of being less humane. If we do then it's a certainty that we will have a very different type of humanitarian crisis to deal when the whole thing finally implodes.

 

[Warbler]

Some of the Syrian refugees coming into Europe have already spent up to three years in holding camps in Lebanon or Turkey. But these places were only intended to be temporary halts and people have decided to move on from them because they want to settle down and get their children educated.

I've only answered this point through Clive so far (which is a bit unfortunate) but I will come back to it, as I believe that all you're doing is affirming what I was suggesting, and that the situation in Syria could be deteriorating further with ISIL in the ascendency

Look at it logically. The early movers who took up shelter in refugee camps, or close proximity border locations, did so as you suggest, in the hope that this would just be a temporary position and that they would be able to return once the position in Syria was resolved. We know these camps didn't exist prior to 2011. Whereas their non existance before this date doesn't constitute a proxy endorsement for the Assad regime, it does rather suggest that the emergence of ISIL is the game changer.

For years the Syrians fleeing the civil war hung around here. Why? Because they hoped that ISIL would be rolled by the Syrian state, and that when this mission had been completed, they would then return? If they weren't doing it for this reason, they'd have simply moved straight through the border area and into the heart of Europe. But they didn't. In other words, they were prepared to live under an Assad (as they always have done)

So what has suddenly prompted them to start moving? You can only conclude that they've decided that the situation in Syria is no nearer being resolved, and if anything is getting bleaker. They've finally reconcilled themselves to the idea that they'll never return to their homeland and only now have started to try and pursue a different line

It's pure nonsense to try and suggest this migration is down to Assad and his human rights record. People who are falling for this western spin are clearly suspending their own critical faculties (assuming they have any) and lapping up dogma pedalled by their own disingenuous political leaders in pursuit of a cold war conditioning that they themselves are unable to throw off. It really doesn't help, and has been fatal to the wests ability to make correct strategic decisions.

By far and a way the biggest stimuli to the migration we're seeing from the middle east is war (North Africa is slightly different, albeit war is a factor there too). As I've said, I've tried to find figures for asylum claims made by Syrian nationals prior to 2011, and whereas they doubtless have been some, I can't find them. This surely tells it's own story? People don't flee tyranical regimes on anything like the scale that we're being led into believing. It's a myth. Compared to war, it's a drop in the ocean. Throughout the previous last decade the pressure came from countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. Again, you can easily correlate this with war

People who are identifying Assad as the problem are sleepwalking into the same mistakes made in Iraq and Libya (I exclude Afghanistan and always have done). The problem is ISIL, and more presciently, the prosaic expansion of the ISIL ideology.

If the Syrian state were to collapse next week and resistance to ISIL disintegrate what do you think will happen. How many of our half witted politicians could celebrate this with a clear conscience? Would Samantha Cameron be patting herself on the back for job well done? (she's an ambassador to save the children with a special interest in Syria). Who in their right mind could seriously be welcoming an expansion of the ISIL caliphate when it's very legitimacy in the eyes and hearts of those who've sworn loyalty to it, is predicated on the very need to seize territory each year in the name of jihad (this is a attackable weakness, the significance of which seems to have by-passed our politicians it seems again)

Please, I implore any thinking person to sketch out this scenario. What contingency does the west have in place to deal with the displacement of 10M refugees inside a fortnight? The only country who has the means and the geographic position to push through the fleeing masses and arrest an ISIL advance on Damascus and the south west of Syria is Turkey, and they'd be coming from the wrong direction!

So if war is at the root of this, then in a perverse way, war has to be the solution now too. It didn't have to be, and shouldn't have been, but because of our boneheaded political leadership through the last decade (George W Bush in particular) it is now. Anyone who thinks that creating a democracy will miraculously curtail the ambitions of ISIL, frankly belongs on a toadstool talking to Henry the frog king. ISIL will show absolutely zero discretion for the nature of a government. They'll seek to destory a democracy in just the same way as they will a dictatorship. It simply doesn't matter to them. That the west is trying to pick and mix from a political box of choclates only plays into their hands. Once you make this connection, you'll realise that Assad (in the short term at least) has more to contribute as being a part of any solution, then he does the problem.

 

[clivex]

What a ridiculous last para. No one is suggesting "creating a democracy" to destroy isis. That's hardly a military short term solution. That's just your contempt for the only successful political system.

You really dislike democracy don't you?

 

[marbler]

At some point, I reckon there'll be a do-or-die moment for the West, (assuming we havn't passed this stage already) rather like Hitler Invading Poland.

If Churchill had stood back and did nothing we may all be speaking German now.

We don't seriously have to wait for ISIS to start terror attacks in the U.K before we decide our beloved diplomacy isn't working.

Edit- From reading Warblers post above I think he would agree with this, (in relation to ISIS that is).

I've directed this post at other people, which there are loads in the public, who are against any sort of military intervention against anyone. Full Stop.

 

[clivex]

Marble. There is too much exaggeration of isis capability. They will emphatically not invade Europe. Think it through

also I am entirely against the idea floated here that intervention outside of Europe is beyond the pale. )Also corbyns views of course but that is more to do with his latent support for Islamists)

if if you are able to do something to prevent humanitarian disaster, then it sits pretty badly with human values not to do so. Wont always get it right of course but the intention, as in Mali, is something to be proud of

would we rather be the moral vacuum taht is China where the only consideration is the bottom line? Where they didn't lift a finger to help neighbouring allie Pakistan during those floods whereby the usa threw every resource they could?

 

[marbler]

I'm not suggesting they will, Clivex.

But the scale of the problem might be somewhere of a comparative level, albeit with the Middle East looking like a late 1930's Europe, with the mind-numbingly thick "West" the only possible perverse saviour of civilian life. The Russians might do their bit I suppose.

 

[Warbler]

What a ridiculous last para. No one is suggesting "creating a democracy" to destroy isis. That's hardly a military short term solution. That's just your contempt for the only successful political system.

Wrong

The creation of a democracy has been the very foundation of western policy towards Syria. This is the direct result of them injudiciously looking in the wrong direction and obssessing on Assad. Recognising that you won't accept this, does somewhat dampen my enthusiasm for going over it, but perhaps others will

In June 2012 the first peace talks were arranged (called Geneva 1) they were called by Kofhi Annan (UN peace envoy by now) and attended by Hillary Clinton, Sergi Lavrov, China, and William (hapless) Hague turned up to make coffee and serve biscuits.

The final communiqué stated that any political settlement must deliver a transition that:

• Offers a perspective for the future that can be shared by all in Syria.
• Establishes clear steps according to a firm time-table towards the realization of that perspective.
• Can be implemented in a climate of safety for all, stability and calm.
• Is reached rapidly without further bloodshed and violence and is credible.

The key steps in the transition should include:

• Establishment of a transitional governing body with full executive powers that could include members of the government and opposition, and should be formed on the basis of mutual consent.
• Participation of all groups and segments of society in Syria in a meaningful national dialogue process.
• Review of the constitutional order and the legal system.
• Free and fair multi-party elections for the new institutions and offices that have been established.
• Full representation of women in all aspects of the transition.

William Hague went onto explain that this had the backing of the permanent members of the security council (and interesting definition of "no one" on your part). Clinton expanded on this however by ruling out Assad from being personally involved in any future governmental structure, (an interesting interpretation of the communique's wording!) which was immediately contradicted by Lavrov. ISIL just got on with building their murderous caliphate whilst we were looking in the wrong direction in the belief that a liberal democracy was all that was needed.

To suggest that democracy wasn't on the agenda as a solution therefore is just plain wrong. I honestly don't know how you could draw such a conclusion? It was the central plank of the entire response. Equally (before you try it) to suggest that the west were blindsided by the emergence of ISIL, and the increasingly radical injection into the opposition to Assad, is equally incorrect too. They chose to ignore it, and concentrated instead on governmental reform and regime change

Anyway, Geneva 1 begat Geneva 2. This you might recall was an attempt to bring the Assad regime together with the 'Opposition'. If you want an insight into how out of touch western politicians were, you can probably gain a snippet from the then vogue phrase they used of "moderate opposition" (this in itself is an acknowledgement to the existance of a militant opposition and there was no greater user of this phrase than David Cameron).

What constitutes moderation in our eyes doesn't really matter though. The litmus test is surely how the people of Syria interpret "moderate". Introducing democracy into intrinsically conservative societies is not an act of moderation. It is an act of radicalism. People (especially the majority who aren't academics or medical class professionals) are particularly nervous about it. They will nearly always fall back on the security of the known, and if this isn't the military, it'll be a theologically driven regime. The pursuit of this so called "moderate muslim" is borderline folly, and most certainly as an intervention of the first resort

In January 2014 the conference known as Geneva 2 started. 40 countries attended. Critically though, the moderate opposition was disintegrating. No credible or coherent groups were emerging capable of fulfilling the commitment to democracy in the Geneva 1 communique. Don't be under any illusions, the west (Cameron in particular) were desperately scrambling around by now trying to identify a group to back to lead some kind of democratic revolution, but they were fracturing internally, or being swept aside by the two more capable fighting units in the field.

The Assad regime did attend, but since the 'action group' (the Geneva 1 participants) were trying to make his own personal exclusion in any future power sharing agreement non negotiable they'd pretty well shut the door. In any event, by now Assad was much more embroilled with fighting ISIL than trying to worry about patching up a loose church of opposition groups. I think you can also add to the background music that he'd witnessed the French and British double cross Gadaffi during the lead up to Geneva 2, for no better reason than trying to get Nicholas Sarkozy re-elected. He could be forgiven for thinking 'white man speak with forked tongue'

So to summarise "no one is suggesting creating a democracy" is only true if you exclude John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, David Cameron, William Hague, Sergi Lavrov, Kofi Annan, Lakhdar Brahimi, (the new UN peace envoy) and the 40 other participants of Geneva 2 which included the UN, the Arab League, The EU, and the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation

 

[clivex]

I'm not going to read all that but the idea that democratic states cannot hold off invasions or insurgency from fanatical regimes is total bollocks and just is attempt to buy into the strongman fantasy of the far left

if Assad had fallen and a new regime taken over it is far more likely than not that the military would defend their nation before any other consideration. The state has a strong enough identity and frankly it stands to reason

furthermore they could have been guaranteed of all the help they could possibly have wanted

in the medium to longer term democratic states are far more stable,safer and prosperous than totqlitarian states

No one would argue with that. Furthermore the assumption (from the left again and tinged with racism) applied to the Arab world that they cannot cope with democrcay is the same rubbish that was spouted about South America and Africa. Not all the states there have succeeded and the soclaiists paradise of Venezuela beloved of corbyn is without doubt the worlds worst run economy, but the institution is set and fiercely defended across both regions

 

[Warbler]

An interesting question posed with regards to the solution to ISIS being military or political? And a really tough one to answer given the collective brains of the west have no idea how to answer it, particularly given there is no opportunity to change history, which this debate seems to attempt to do at every turn.

What is the answer to terrorists? Chop off the head? New heads and new variants usually emerge. Talk them down. Ho hum. Whichever way you look at this the situation is seriously bleak.

My view is the answer lies with the collective response of Governments in the Middle East. Only a (mostly), combined (political and military), Middle Eastern response can solve this. Not completely or immediately, but in the shortest possible time. The answer to this doesn't lie in the West as we arrogantly wish to believe. How do we seriously expect to solve the issues of the Middle East. Contain them in Europe maybe, but solve them........... Our focus should be squarely on the security of Europe. It may be right to 'support' an integrated military response in the ME but only in the right circumstances and not at the expense of our own borders.

I'm fond of saying (I believe it applies to horseracing too incidentally) that you can only get the correct answer if you're asking the right question.

The question we seem to have been asking is how can we engineer a governmental and societal structure in our own image? Or to be a little bit more blunt, how can we impose democracy? In fact you can extend that further in the case of Syria, since we've applied conditions to it. How can we impose a democracy that excludes Assad (even if his supporters make up something like 55% of the country on the last election) - again, have we not learnt anything from Iraq?

I'm much more inclined to prioritise the fight against the cancer of ISIL and it's ideology, in which case the first questions we should be asking is "what will work?" and "what will be accepted by those directly affected?". I'm equally aware that it's going to lead to some sub optimal conclusions, but the priority has to be reversing ISIL. Remember every murderous regime and philosophy in history started small. The one thing ISIL has going for it is the ability to cross borders without needing to put an army into the field wearing identifying uniforms. These are the asymetrical days

In terms of answering the first question of "what will work?" we need to establish who is prepared to fight ISIL?

Within the middle east (I'll exclude Israel for now as there is clearly very different dynamics involved there) the 'grouping' that had the best track record at supressing the advance of islamofascism were the dictators (and yes I do mean killing them). This kind of leads into your call for a Middle East solution. It might not have been a perfect one, or even a very good one, but they did have one, until George W Bush with his badly concealed oil snatch and family feud, disguised under the flag of a war on terror intervened.

It's really straight forward in many respects. Start drawing up a list of countries in the region who've shown a willingness and ability to fight ISIL? It's a pretty short list. Syria and Jordan. Turkey have reluctantly, and belatedly, come to the party. I think this is worth pausing on. You need the combination of willing and able. Being willing in isolation, isn't enough. Someone who is willing but lacking in ability will simply be defeated. Long term, they do more damage. The Iraqi army proved to be neither willing or able. They only retook Tikrit this summer because irregular Shia militia were used to attack a city that was always very vulnerable for a number of geographic reasons

A few military planners have mooted it, but no politician has dared say it yet, but surely the time is coming when we need to say it (if only privately) that Assad represents the 'devil we do' and doesn't really possess any murderous expansionist aspirations that affect us. He's on the front line, and his troops are fighting ISIL. So far at least, the thrust of our approach has been to disarm him which assists ISIL. Should we not be doing what we do with Pakistan here and condeming him in public whilst assisting him through 'dark channels'. At the very least, could we not come to an accommodation with Russia to intervene in Syria, whilst America does so in Iraq?

 

[Warbler]

I'm not going to read all that but the idea that democratic states cannot hold off invasions or insurgency from fanatical regimes is total bollocks and just is attempt to buy into the strongman fantasy of the far left

Yawn........

As I said in the opening sentance, it wasn't aimed at you, as I'd anticipated your I'm not going to engage with the facts response (as you can see) which is why I deliberately expanded the content. The rest of your post is so delusional, and so unsupported by the evidence from a neighbouring state suffering the same problem that it doesn't merit a response. Only you could think that the new regime, non Saddam, Iraqi army has accquitted itself in such a way that you could conclude that they "would defend their nation before any other consideration". :lol:

Just for the record Clive, they ran away and handed their weapons over. You might also like to ignore the fact that a significant chunk of the Libyian army no longer accepts orders from the NTC government either, and the Nigerian army have also run away from a significantly less potent group in Boko Haram

 

[Warbler]

What is the answer to terrorists? .... Talk them down. Ho hum. Whichever way you look at this the situation is seriously bleak.

Actually this goes pretty much to heart of it, which is why the end game as inevitability to it.

A regime built around a political dogma is always more open to dialogue and compromise as despotic leaders tend to value their own survival ahead of any particular political conviction. This needn't apply to a theocracy, and especially one that is seemingly hell bent on living out the Dabiq prophecy

The conclusion is inescapable. There simply can't be any negotiated accommodation with ISIL. The scope for one simply doesn't exist. There isn't even an opening posiiton.

We need to remember that the whole life source of the caliphate requires it to wage jihad every year and expand it's territory. For such time as it does this, those who've sworn allegiance to it, are bound to it. Only when it stops expanding are they then free of this bond. It's on a one way street. It's why George Galloway in the commons debate on intervention against Assad continually kept referring to them as a death cult (the motion wasn't about ISIL despite how the BBC are no referencing it under the misleading cloak of "intervention"). Once inside the Islamic State, you pretty well can't get out of it.

So if it's going to keep pursuing this path of aggressive territorial expansion, and we conclude that there is absolutely zero room to accommodate a negotiated solution, there are no other end game scenarios available. This is doomsday stuff

The only questions remaining therefore are Who? When? and How?

I've already posted about this, but it almost self selects. If we take the view that we need the Arab countries of the Middle East to resolve this and destroy the caliphate then they need to exhibit both the will and capability to do so. How many have both? If a country hasn't got both they risk defeat and perversely, this will strengthen the myth of the caliphate

I seriously doubt that a functioning coalition of regional fighting credibility could be put together. There's too many deep rooted mutual suspicions for it to function. It would never get beyond the negotiating room. It needs a single country to either act autonomously, possibly two in partnership, or perhaps some smaller countries with hands on support from a global military power. Irregular militia have proven to be a match for the fantacism of ISIL, but trying to patch them into a coherent body is a minefield

I can only see Turkey and Iran as being credible on the battlefield, albeit Jordan, Iraq, and Syria could play a significant role if supported, but the evidence from Iraq, who have been the beneficiaries of the greatest level of assistance, is hardly overwhelming, albeit I think Syria is showing more stomach with less assistance

If an Arab coalition can't be assembled though (and there's certainly grounds to believe it can't) then the onus is going to fall on the west. It has to. Unless Russia comes forward as a partner

In terms of the refugee crisis then, provided we accept that war is the greatest displacer of people, then this can only be going to get worse the longer we allow the Islamic State to exist. The most effective way of stemming the mass migration of refugees then has to be to go to the source that's causing it, and that clearly means the Islamic State. The starting point has to be the countries and allied groups who've demonstrated a willingness to fight them if we are no longer prepared to do it ourselves (or wait for President Trump!)

In doing a bit of crystal ball gazing, I wonder how expansion into territory through terrorism would be considered? Would this meet the terms of waging jihad even if the territory isn't occupied? Would the terms of the caliphate have been met? This isn't clear to me. Could the caliphate continue to exist if it expands the jihad onto the streets of Europe and neighbouring Arab countries?

 

[marbler]

The Labour Party going overboard about two "British" wankerists working for Islamic State in Syria.

They can question the lack of information given to them in parliment, but they want to question the decision?

This is borderline nuts, but gives Dianne Abbot a chance to do the rounds I suppose.

 

[clivex]

Yawn........

As I said in the opening sentance, it wasn't aimed at you, as I'd anticipated your I'm not going to engage with the facts response (as you can see) which is why I deliberately expanded the content. The rest of your post is so delusional, and so unsupported by the evidence from a neighbouring state suffering the same problem that it doesn't merit a response. Only you could think that the new regime, non Saddam, Iraqi army has accquitted itself in such a way that you could conclude that they "would defend their nation before any other consideration". :lol:

Just for the record Clive, they ran away and handed their weapons over. You might also like to ignore the fact that a significant chunk of the Libyian army no longer accepts orders from the NTC government either, and the Nigerian army have also run away from a significantly less potent group in Boko Haram

i cant think fo anything more stupid than using the half formed iraqi army and nigeria as examples of democratic countries defending themselves. But they are democracies so clearly they are decadent useless states that need a pol pot or hussein to knock them into shape

There is a good piece in the paper today by a soft left commentator who rips apart the far left and its arrogance. The idea that they know whats best for everyone. The patronising manner. The laughable claim to the moral high ground. The contempt. Ultimately, despite their lies, the Corbyn world do believe in authoritarianism. Hes certainly not shy of admiring such regimes and so many of that wing certainly rush to defend the worst or the worst on the most tenuous of grounds

 

[clivex]

The Labour Party going overboard about two "British" wankerists working for Islamic State in Syria.

They can question the lack of information given to them in parliment, but they want to question the decision?

This is borderline nuts, but gives Dianne Abbot a chance to do the rounds I suppose.

is diane flabbot spouting off?

Could we being seeing the beginning of a majpr party that has never been so out of touch with the population?

I hardly think too many voters are unhappy that those two worms have been turned into fried mince?

 

[Warbler]

i cant think fo anything more stupid than using the half formed iraqi army and nigeria as examples of democratic countries defending themselves. But they are democracies so clearly they are decadent useless states that need a pol pot or hussein to knock them into shape

You're embarrassing yourself even further now

Can suggest you take a step back, take a few deep breaths, and quietly review what you've been posting, and then try and form a more cogent piece of reasoning. I'm just about prepared to help you though, even if I can barely see the point in doing so.

Let's just review what you posted verbatim

"If Assad had fallen and a new regime taken over it is far more likely than not that the military would defend their nation before any other consideration. The state has a strong enough identity and frankly it stands to reason. Furthermore they could have been guaranteed of all the help they could possibly have wanted".

Now in your scenario of, "If Assad had fallen" would you not agree that you are talking about Syria? If not, then why link their President to the point you were making? The scenario you're discussing (Syria) clearly doesn't relate to an industrialised western democracy does it? So why would you invoke one when trying to establish how the event of Assad falling is most likely to pan out?. It's comparing apples and pears. The most sensible thing to do, is to look for the nearest like with like comaprator and see if there are any lessons we can learn from that, is it not?

In this case, the experience of what happened in Iraq is actually the most relevant example on the planet. It is by far the best predictor we have to informing us regarding what the likely reaction amongst the Syrian army would be. That anyone would choose to ignore this, yet along describe looking at it as "stupid", frankly beggars belief (luckily the Americans do, and in this case concluded the same as me). Let me try framing it like this for you; if the Syrian army would genuinely be an enhanced fighting force the day after Assad falls, and start to push back ISIL, why do you suppose the American's have never sought to follow their Saddam policy? Two birds, one stone etc but they haven't have they? They will be more acutely aware than anyone of the dangers of doing so, precisely because they're drawing on their experience from Iraq

Can you really not understand this? Honestly Clive, it isn't hard. The similarities between the two command and control structures, their geographic location, a shared enemy, where they draw their officer corps from, and how they're selected etc are staggering. They're alomst carbon copies of each other. Only a complete ignoramus would over look this

So let's reverse engineer your very tenuous conclusion that "the military would defend their nation before any other consideration". Would you not accept that faced with a identical situation, the Iraqi army didn't? There are most certainly very strong grounds therefore to counclude the Syrian army, and their degraded officer corps in particular, might behave similarly in the absence of the leader to whom they've shown life long loyalty.

Your whole argument is further undermined by a completely chronic understanding of the temporal horizons involved. You actually describe the post Saddam army of Iraq as "half formed". Can I remind you that they'd been very heavily trained and supplied by America for the best part of 10 years. Indeed, they're actually the most expensive ever army created and were the recepients (to use your words again) of "all the help they could possibly have wanted". High quality weapons were simply handed over to them (they of course then passed them onto ISIL!).

Now with 10 years worth of development money and training behind them, they spectacularly failed to form a coherent fighting unit. Had Assad fallen, it would have been more or less immediate. The Syrian army would have had about 10 days to respond. Blind panic would have set in. There is no ascendency in place. You only need to look at how the so called moderate opposition had fractured and were at each others throats. The UN lead envoy (Lakhdar Brahimi) actually blamed the opposition groups for the failure of Geneva 2 talks! What would have been left of the Syrian command and control would have been faced with a stark fight or flight decision. Some might have fought on, but they'd be a heavily degraded entity. More likely a lot would have elected the path of self-preservation and flee (as the Libyan commanders did) or melted back into civilian life, or joined different militia groups (as the Iraqi Republican Guard did)

ISIL would have quickly exploited this chaos, and would do so today if Syria stopped fighting. The only group left on the ground with a command and control system in place would be Hezbollah

 

[clivex]

You talk complete rubbish

All waffle and you work under the assumption that more words equals more substance. In fact its completely the opposite

You have ABSOLUTELY no idea how the syrian forces would have responded to a new administration. the reason is pretty clear. No one can be clear who the new adminsitration would be and more importantly, how would they connect.

Working under the assumption that states automatically fall into chaos when beloved dictators are deposed is absolute bollocks. South america time and again? Africa? iron curtain europe? Doesnt sit easy with the dream that dictators are the answer to all the worlds problems does it?

The dictator admiiring fawning far left who know exactly whats best for everyone


Lets get this clear. You have no idea whatsoever about syria . Your arrogance is unreal.

Why have you got no idea?

because i would suggest that even they dont know how events would unfold.

But the point remains. If a state is under threat from an invader the natural instinct of the military will be to defend first. No one would dispute that and if syria was cohesive, which there is every chance it would be, then the syrian forces would have had plenty of assistance to hold isis off. that is obvious

dont kid yourself you have some insider knowledge. You dont know and thats that

 

[Warbler]

I see you've graduated from a shovel to a JCB

 

[Grasshopper]

The problem with your theory, Clive, is that there was never a unified opposition in Syria. And there were never enough so-called moderates to overcome (and overpower) the many competing-interest groups, for a 'normalised' transition from Assad ever to have occurred - even with the help of the Army (which itself would very-likely have splintered along tribal/sectrarian lines).

Instead, there would have been an insurgency like that which manifest in Iraq - except this time, it would be the fundamentalist fu*ckwits against 'normal' Syrians, rather than the Yanks - with exactly the same kind of outcome in terms of civilian deaths and displacement.

To deny this, it to deny the self-bleedin'-evident. Do you think Al Nusra and ISIS would simply have downed-tools, and fallen into line behind a new Government all happy-clappy? No chance.

Your problem is that you think any "Dictator" (especially if they are Muslims who are overt supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah), should be overthrown - merely by dint of the fact that they are a dictator.....apparently irregardless of who (or what) might take their place.

It is exactly this kind of tunnel-vision that led you to support the Iraq War, and leads you to your current position regarding Assad. This leaves you utterly bereft of any coherent response when challenged as to the stupidity of this binary approach, so you revert to straw-man hypotheses, and/or rubbishing other posters who have a different and more analytical assessment. These types of exchange do you no favours whatsoever - you just end-up looking like a plum.

Who is next for the treatment? Sheihk Mohammed?

He is about as absolute a dictator as there is in the Middle-East, and the UAE doesn't exactly have clean-hands when it comes to Human Rights violations. They are a non-signatory to the UN Convention against Torture, to pick just one example.

Should we pile into Dubai, and return that place to the desert too?

 

[clivex]

Another that assumes the army "woukd have splintered" . Rubbish. The last thing the army would have wanted is chaos.

No no it's not the last thing. It's the second last thing . The last thing is to be invaded

if Assad had stepped down peacefully and handled a magnanimous travpnaition ala Botha in sal there is no reason why war would have broken out. And no one here knows enough about the Syrians to say otherwise. There are factions in virtually every Arab state but they are not constantly at war

Yes eh I am against brutal dictators and I am against authoritarian states full stop. But I don't suggest an overthrow in Singapore

the last point is plain stupid given that we haven't exactly "piled into" Syria have we?

 

[Warbler]

Instead, there would have been an insurgency like that which manifest in Iraq - except this time, it would be the fundamentalist fu*ckwits against 'normal' Syrians, rather than the Yanks - with exactly the same kind of outcome in terms of civilian deaths and displacement.

The only thing I'd add to that is that the fundamentalist fu*ckwits would win. It wouldn't even be close. They'd slaughter them

The American's know it too. This is actually one of the easier pieces of policy nuance to read given the plethora of relevant contemporary precedents available to us to examine, and how these have evolved, and been applied to the Syrian theatre

 

[Grasshopper]

Another that assumes the army "woukd have splintered" . Rubbish. The last thing the army would have wanted is chaos.

No no it's not the last thing. It's the second last thing . The last thing is to be invaded

if Assad had stepped down peacefully and handled a magnanimous travpnaition ala Botha in sal there is no reason why war would have broken out. And no one here knows enough about the Syrians to say otherwise. There are factions in virtually every Arab state but they are not constantly at war

Yes eh I am against brutal dictators and I am against authoritarian states full stop. But I don't suggest an overthrow in Singapore

the last point is plain stupid given that we haven't exactly "piled into" Syria have we?

The Army would splinter, because the top-brass as predominately Alawites, whereas the rank-and-file are made-up from multiple ethnic Groups - who would ultimately align themselves with either the Baathists, or elements of the opposition, depending on tribal/sectarian persuasion.

In this gingerbread-world you've constructed, exactly who was Assad supposed to hand power over to anyway? Do you have ANY clue how many different players there are in this Civil War? Even if Assad did stand aside, the Baathists would be seeking to maintain control, and the opposition (formal and informal) would still be trying to wrest control from them......and ISIS would still be shuffling into the gaps, in exactly the same way as they are now.

A peaceful transition? And you accuse others of making assumptions?

Correction - you are against some brutal dictators, and not others......which rather makes my final point for me.