Well, I agree with pretty much everything you said, as far as realistically. However, since the question was what would the most ethical policy be, I also agree with swstephe that ethical questions no longer apply here, realistically. But since ethics deals primarily with fantasies, the answer I gave is based entirely on what a fantastical situation would look like. All of the other major parties involved in Syria and Eastern Turkey and Iraq are all undesirable: Assad and his allies are weak and/or intolerable dictator, ISIS and Al-Qaeda are Islamo-Fascists, the Western nations faction are a bunch of pigs and (if, fantastically, they desired so much) would want to be there and in control for all the wrong reasons. The only group that is not only the least undesirable, but actually desirable for any ethical human would be the Rojava alliance. So, the correct answer, ethically, is to let support the Rojava and give them complete control over all of Syria and the autonomous areas of Iraq. Realistically, this will never happen.

What will probably happen is some sort of alliance between the Assad faction, whether directly or indirectly, and the West and Russia, which will win out in the end.

Thank you for your comments, Πετροκότσυφας!

I'm not aware of any powerful Kurdish organization which speaks about an independent Kurdistan. That's Erdogan talk. — Πετροκότσυφας

This is a bit confusing for me. I understand that Kurdish organizations aren't talking about now of independence, because of obvious political reasons, but I assume that an independent Kurdish homeland has to be their objective. Or am I mistaken?

Besides, you seem to have some knowledge about the situation. How would you, from your point of view, characterize the various Kurdish or non-Kurdish players here? I have to say I'm not aware what the difference between YPG and YPG/J is (although yes, I could google it up, but like to hear your comments).

That's not my understanding at all. — Πετροκότσυφας

Interesting. But it makes sense. An independent Kurdistan would likely get similar treatment as Israel did when it proclaimed independence. Hence the democratic confederalism. So basically can the Kurds cut a deal with the Assad regime and be basically like the Kurds in Iraq?

I think likely Assad will go after Rojava if and when he has the ability to do that.

I think that territorial gains shouldn't be downplayed. Aleppo, ar-Raqqa and Al-Hasakah governorates, which is where the QSD operate right now, is not an insignificant part of Syria. Most importantly, they need not be the only parts where the QSD operate. This is why it is mandatory for people to understand that it's not a Kurdish project. Islamists tried in the past to discredit the liberation of various areas by the YPG on ethnic grounds. Most of it was just propaganda, as far as I can tell. — Πετροκότσυφας

I think there is an obvious counterinsurgency tactic in downplaying any moderate factions and actually assisting, perhaps at least not going after them, the most fanatical islamist factions. And Assad himself is the biggest player with the sectarian/ethnic card. Basically the Assad regime has tried to put the ethnic minorities in the situation that without them they will be slaughtered. Hence the non-sectarian opposition that doesn't go with ethnic lines is the number one target for him. The biggest threat comes from factions that could be accepted by the international community.

The Algerian civil war is a perfect example of this. The islamists that won the election but then faced the army coup found themselves fighting both the army and the extremists. And these extremists faded away once the peace was signed with the army. Now of course Syria and Iraq are different, but the way we talk about them is similar. Assad in some views is coming to be "the least bad option"... and that is his objective.

Assad was the epitome of reasonableness in this interview with Dutch news recently:



The fact that he's claiming to pursue a unity government with elections within 1,5 years seems to me to indicate he doesn't expect to hold out in the given circumstances and is looking to cut his losses. The absolutism of IS disqualifies them as a possible partner in that process but a unified front against IS would be good for Syrians as most probably the fastest way to security. Indirectly that will benefit the West as it would contain IS at a Western front.

A unified government representing Syrians broadly would also be an authority it would make sense for us to support through military action without military presence. I'd advise against support through military material as the proliferation of weapons anywhere just raises the probability of them being used. Once IS is kicked out of Syria, we should support the planned re-elections and help Syrians stabilise their country in a manner as they see fit.

Once IS is kicked out of Syria, we should support the planned re-elections and help Syrians stabilise their country in a manner as they see fit. — Benkei

How aptly you said it: "Planned re-elections".

Well, let's remember that Bashar had lots of time as he came to power in 2000. In a decade nothing yet happened. Now he might have indeed wanted reforms, but simply the whole setup of power wasn't going to be so. The simple fact is that he would have had to give up the family enterprise called Syria. Sunni's and others than people loyal to Assad would have had to come into power. When your father dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood as he done, there was no real way to hand off power and think that everything will go very civilized. In a way, the Assad regime was ready for this civil war.

How aptly you said it: "Planned re-elections".

Well, let's remember that Bashar had lots of time as he came to power in 2000. In a decade nothing yet happened. Now he might have indeed wanted reforms, but simply the whole setup of power wasn't going to be so. The simple fact is that he would have had to give up the family enterprise called Syria. Sunni's and others than people loyal to Assad would have had to come into power. When your father dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood as he done, there was no real way to hand off power and think that everything will go very civilized. In a way, the Assad regime was ready for this civil war. — ssu

Maybe an exchange of family members would be the way forward then. Like how they used to do it in the middle ages. Take his children as "proteges" and if he doesn't deliver on his promises execute them. Oh wait... that isn't quite ethical by modern standards any more. Dammit! :P

I know what an ethical policy towards Syria wouldn't look like. It wouldn't assent to the sort of measures that likely result in significant "collateral damage", i.e. dead or injured civilian victims. And it wouldn't involve supporting the detestable Assad regime, even as the better of evils. Shame on anyone who does so: Agustino, it seems, based on his comments.

I know what an ethical policy towards Syria wouldn't look like. It wouldn't assent to the sort of measures that likely result in significant "collateral damage", i.e. dead or injured civilian victims. And it wouldn't involve supporting the detestable Assad regime, even as the better of evils. Shame on anyone who does so: Agustino, it seems, based on his comments. — Sapientia

Quite well said. The problem is that normally in a war you take a side or another and help it to victory. And Syria is now already a proxy war, which means it will go on longer than otherwise it would go. Once both sides aren't nice, you have a problem.

Or if you want to get the Nobel-peace prize, wait until the sides are so tired and uncapable of anymore continuing the fight, that they are ready for some kind of peace, then make them shake hands. That might take still some years, but perhaps can happen earlier, even if it's unlikely.

Even if this thread is 9 years old, I think it's now time to revive this and debate the thread started by @BC

The Assad regime is now collapsing. The Russians seem to be withdrawing and the Russian embassy stated that Russian citizen should think about leaving:

The Russian Embassy in Damascus has issued a reminder to Russian citizens about the “option to depart the country on commercial flights through functioning airports,” citing the “complex military-political situation in Syria.”

Hence the question that @BC stated in the OP will be very important, even if now in a different situation. Can a new Syria emerge or will it become even more failed state that it has been, something between Somalia and Libya, or worse? The backers of Assad, Russia and Iran, have had their problems elsewhere and Hezbollah isn't there to consider. Likely the next round of various states backing various groups will emerge to fight for power in Syria. But of course, things might also stabilize. The real fear is that many might be more happy to have Syria as a failed state.

But to the Assad regime and the Assad family, good riddance.

It is difficult for me to see what advantage Assad has over the opposition. Is it that his regime is a "known devil"? Is it that the Assad Regime has a more or less stable relationship with Israel? Is it that Assad regime was not appallingly cruel and repressive until the last few years? Was Assad "driven" into domestic terrorist policies by the extremist insurgent forces? It seems clear that Daesh would be just as bad, if not worse. If the Russians are for him, must we be against him? Don't know. — BC

If my memory is correct, we fucked around in Syria back during Obama's presidency and it went badly. We also went into Iraq, destroyed a nasty regime, started the ISIS insurgency, and sent hundreds of thousands of refugees into Europe. And let's not talk about Gaza. Of all the places we've screwed up, the Middle East is the worst except for southeast Asia. We recently had a thread - In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism - in which neoconservative bonehead hawks proposed sending US troops into China and India to set things straight. There's only so much we can do and when we do it, we generally make things worse. No, I don't consider you a neoconservative bonehead hawk - a bonehead perhaps, but not a neoconservative.

:lol:

It was unclear to me if they might somehow hold on to Homs or not, but given Iran is also openly evacuating its officers and that Assad's family has reportedly fled to Russia, if does seem like it might really be over.

From what I understand the current situation makes defending Damascus extremely difficult, so barring some major reversal Assad would have to flee to Alawite stronghold areas with more defensible geography and people actually motivated to resist. But it's hard to see how, given his failures, he would actually remain the leader of such an Alawite rump state.

No, I don't consider you a neoconservative bonehead hawk - a bonehead perhaps, but not a neoconservative. — T Clark

I'd really hate being thought of as a neoconservative! Ugh, disgusting.

started the ISIS insurgency — T Clark

As Billy Joel said, "We didn't start the fire".

My view at the time was that our invasion of Iraq was a bad idea because we (Washington policy makers, military planners, etc.) do not have sufficient expertise to take apart and then put back together a complex middle eastern nation. It wasn't thought through nearly far enough. What happens after "shock and awe"? Iraq wasn't in great shape to start with (economically) and making a battlefield of the place didn't improve things. Perhaps we (people in the Beltway) couldn't tell shit from shinola when it came to the local politics of Iraq.

We didn't create the ISIS insurgency. That is an opportunistic infection in the body politic. We created the wound in which the infection fulminated. The US didn't create its own fundamentalist Christian Nationalist wing nuts that have crazy plans, and I'm not sure that anybody knows precisely what to do with them. Maybe El Salvador's approach to gangs? Just round them all up and put them in well guarded prisons? But then what? They aren't going to turn into gentle lambs in there.

I've sort of forgotten what the lines in the sand were all about back in Obama's administration.

I do deeply and earnestly hope that we do not decide to take apart and rebuild Syria. It may be a mess; it may be the victim of insane politics; but... Our leaders, less now than before, do not have the facts, insight, long-range policy capacity, and more besides to intervene in Syria. It might very well be a shit hole, but that doesn't mean we know how to fix it.

We didn't create the ISIS insurgency. That is an opportunistic infection in the body politic. We created the wound in which the infection fulminated. — BC

This is what clever people call a distinction without a difference.

I do deeply and earnestly hope that we do not decide to take apart and rebuild Syria. It may be a mess; — BC

It is a mess, but it is not, for the time being, our mess. We have plenty of other messes around the world and we don’t need any more right now.

Sorry, I didn’t realize this was a nine year old thread. It’s possible you have become a neo-conservative since then, or that if you were one then you no longer are now.

A 9 year hiatus in this thread speaks volumes as regards the fickleness of any ethics being involved in the current situation. Ethics works for the individual's state of mind but not in cooperative application involving other individuals at a "macro level" eg. states/nations. Too many players, too many self interests, it could be argued.

a penny's worth smile

From what I understand the current situation makes defending Damascus extremely difficult, so barring some major reversal Assad would have to flee to Alawite stronghold areas with more defensible geography and people actually motivated to resist. But it's hard to see how, given his failures, he would actually remain the leader of such an Alawite rump state. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Two credible commentators have given the line that Assad fucked up really badly in the international field, both Turkey and Saudi-Arabia were willing to talk to Assad, but Assad didn't budge. So they let the rebels loose. Hezbollah reeling from the fighting with Israel, and Putin fixated on Ukraine, Assad's friends don't seem to be coming for support. The rebranded "Al Qaeda-light", the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), is at least communicating the right things. They pledge that they won't kill Assad regime fighters if they surrender, they are talking about even dismantling them when this is over and then accepting that Syria is a multiethnic state. The strategy is basically mimicking the Taleban offensive.

The cacophony of Syria has to be that while the Russian air force is attecking the HST, then US aircraft are also operating in the country and attacking Iranian backed militias. So both Russia and the US are fighting in Syria, just like the statement from four days ago from CENTCOM shows:

(Dec 3rd) This morning, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces successfully destroyed several weapon systems in the vicinity of Military Support Site Euphrates that included three truck mounted Multiple Rocket Launchers, a T-64 tank, an armored personnel carrier, and mortars that presented a clear and imminent threat to U.S. and Coalition forces. The self-defense strike occurred after the truck mounted Multiple Rocket Launcher, armored personnel carrier, and mortars were fired toward U.S. forces.

The U.S. mission in Syria remains unchanged as U.S. and Coalition forces continue to focus on the enduring defeat of ISIS.

Referring to defeating ISIS is whimsical here, because the idea of ISIS going around with MLRs, tanks and ACPs is crazy, as the group has basically gone underground and holds tiny patches of territory in Syria. But hey, seems as for long the US is just "defeating ISIS", it's OK to have such a situation in the country. But this is putting proxy-warfare to the tip of the point where you cannot say it's just "proxy warfare". Yet so it has been since Trump's first administration.

American A-10s attacking ground target over Syria from a few days ago:

Comparison of what the situation was roughly like for the past long while to since a week and a half ago. Reminds me of the collapse of the Iraqi military when ISIS sprang from Mosul to the Baghdad suburbs, or the ANA when the US pulled out.

Two axes of advance threaten to cut off Damascus from Russia's naval bases, and since they are heavily reliant on them for material this would essentially encircle the Assad regime. The lines of communication will be cut if they take Homs, but they might lose them anyway. Not to mention the population there isn't particularly loyal.

I wonder if this gives Putin any pause as he continues to push low morale conscripts into frontal assault with civilian passenger cars and golf cart style ATVs. Things often break all at once.

An official Russian announcement discussed "meeting with the legitimate opposition to discuss Syria's future," which probably says "it's over" even more than reports that Assad's family has fled to Russia.



Iranian-backed militias have been firing on US bases there and have at times injured US soldiers. According to Central Command these were show of force flights, which doesn't involve attacking anything. They could be lying, but those are very common. Basically, if someone heads your way you buzz them to make them rethink their actions.

According to Central Command these were show of force flights, which doesn't involve attacking anything. They could be lying, but those are very common. — Count Timothy von Icarus

At least on the video footage, you could hear the ominous and very distinctive sound of the GAU-8 gun going off. That's more than show of force.

I wonder if this gives Putin any pause as he continues to push low morale conscripts into frontal assault with civilian passenger cars and golf cart style ATVs. Things often break all at once. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, the Russian people think of those going to the front as contract soldiers, as a volunteer force that has chosen the pay for the risk.

Yet also financial problems to mobilize troops has been a problem for Assad also. He has had to demobilize part of the Syrian Army as there simply hasn't been the ability to pay them. Even if Assad is now promising a 50% pay increase, this might be far too late.

It's also noticeable that the insurgents themselves haven't fought each other (Kurds vs Sunni Arabs).

Well, the rebels in the south have plowed right into Damascus and are like a 40 minute jog from the center and neighborhoods are mobilizing their own councils/shows of support openly, while the SAA has abandoned their last airport, so it seems like even if Homs somehow held out, it really is finally over.

Videos of soldiers walking away from their posts in Damascus, statues of Assad's father being torn down not far from the centers of regime power, and the presidential palace is being looted.

...and now a mob appears to have publicly hung one of Assad's family members (unconfirmed). I assume he has left at this point.

Yes, the Syrian Army is collapsing and I presume Damascus will soon fall. What happens in the coastal area of Syria where you have the Alawite minority is the real question now.

Around 2,000 Syrian army soldiers crossed to Iraq on Saturday, Turki al-Mahlawi, the mayor of Al-Qaim border town, told Reuters on Saturday.

Earlier on Saturday, two Iraqi security sources told AFP said Iraq has allowed in hundreds of troops from the Syrian army, some of them wounded, amid a lightning offensive by armed opposition forces.

After half a million people have died in this civil war, I have no sympathy for the gangster family that has ruled Syria.

Now as the Assad regime has fallen, the question of this thread is extremely important. It also shows how the US stance, which is still tied to 9/11 and the Bush era Global War on Terrorism, means that the US is totally out of the political scene. The victorious rebels, largest HTS group is on the US terror list and it's leader has a 10 million dollar bounty from the US. This is the ludicrous situation that the US is in. The Syrian rebels have ousted the largest ally of Iran, the sole ally of Russia in the region. And now...they should be against this, even if HTS tries to unify the country and wants a proper handover from the remains of the Assad regime and isn't wanting to create an Islamic Caliphate. Because of something that happened 23 years ago by a small cabal of terrorists that have nothing to do with Syria?

What countries are more important are Turkey, Iran, Israel and Saudi-Arabia. And naturally Russia, which still has troops in Syria. It seems how they handle this situation is crucial. The US is just a looker on the side.

The most ethical policy would be for all foreign powers to withdraw from Syria, to respect it's sovereignty, help it restore it's institutions and help in the reconstruction and not to support their own proxies as countries did in Libya. Libya is a case example WHAT NOT to do in this kind of situation. In Libya you have already seen nominal allies, NATO member states, supporting different sides. My real fear is that some outside actors will want the Syria to stay as a failed state, where they can have influence on a tiny area held by their proxies. The real question is, is the World capable of coming together with sound policies in this situation?

That Assad falls shows just how the US has totally failed in it's policy towards Syria. First Obama failed after drawing a red line in the sand which didn't mean anything as he hadn't consulted US allies first. Then trying to assist Syrian rebels was a total farce as the Americans, consistent of their GWOT objectives, seem to have feared far more those opposing Assad's regime than Assad himself. And then it has declared that it's only in Syria to fight the tiny remnants of ISIS.

Yet I think Americans don't even notice how adrift their policies in the Middle East are from if the only consistent and clear policy is defending Israel. If that's the only policy, then why and what are they thinking of doing in the larger area where everything isn't about Israel?

At such a happy time of an overthrow of a dictatorship, these question should be quickly answered and obvious pitfalls have to be avoided. Assad kept control of minorities like his on Alawite sect with the fear that they would face genocide if they wouldn't stand by him. It's the moment to show that it won't go that way. There exists a way to have proper justice: either in the legal system of Syria or then in institutions like the ICC.

I don't have the answer, but this might help:

Article 1 of the UN Charter:

- "The purposes of the United Nations are... to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..."

Self-determination is something that some nations seem to appreciate differently.

Self-determination is something that some nations seem to appreciate differently. — Alonsoaceves

If we really believed in what the UN stands for, and didn't treat it like rubbish.

If country or a region collapses in a way that it cannot take care of it's borders, doesn't have a functioning goverment and the internal strife leads to violence, otherwise quite friendly neighbors and Great powers seem to become these vultures circling around.

To say that this just because people in the Middle East are so, we should notice how actually universal this is.

Just to take an example I know, when my country, Finland, became independent after the collapse of the Russian Empire: a) Sweden occupied for a brief moment the Åland Islands (only to pushed away by Imperial Germany), b) There were both French and British troops in Finland (a few, but still), c) Finnish volunteer forces tried to stir up secession also in Eastern Karelia, d) Finnish volunteers fought in Estonia for Estonian independence.

When the Soviet Union collapsed and when the Baltic States gained their independence again, Finnish volunteer reservist when to train the new Estonian army while there still were Soviet troops in Estonia. Even a former head of the Finnish Military Academy (an institution that trains all Finnish officers) went to train the new Estonian military. When he asked the government would this be OK, he got a very Finnish answer: "Of course we cannot say anything in public, but it's great that you go!". Now this just shows that once a country is destabilized even in Europe, but then on the other hand, just think of war of Independence of the US. Notice that there was the French intervention into what basically was a British colonial war. And later you had a continuation of the conflict in 1812, which didn't go so great.

Now when 50 years of Assad family rule is over, the internal strife can continue continue as the country is already in pieces. Also in the case of Syria, the neighboring countries of Syria do have legitimate concerns for the country. Lebanon has a million refugees, Jordan has also and Turkey has about three million Syrian refugees. Then the country is engaged in a long insurgency with it's Kurdish population, which we have views about, which obviously has an effect on this equation as large parts of Syria are now controlled by the Kurds.

The most important question here is who is backing the rebel forces. That will tell us much about the future of the country.

There's a lot more going on behind the scenes. The obvious question to ask is how a regime that withstood years of heavy western pressure suddenly crumbles like a crouton, because that already fails the common sense test.

The most-likely culprit here seems to be Erdoğan, and there are rumors that Assad due to his strong dislike of Erdoğan was getting in the way of a deal between the Turks and the Russians over Syria.

Alexander Mercouris goes deep into the subject in his latest update.

What is certainly an aspect worth noting about this event is that an ideologically neutral Syria is now (at least on the surface) controlled by jihadi extremists - a development that will probably be very displeasing to Israel, though there are some upsides as well.

Alexander Mercouris goes deep into the subject in his latest update. — Tzeentch

Thanks for the Pro-Kremlin Putinist line. :wink: :up:
(No seriously, naturally the Russian line here is interesting.)

Yet I think that unlike mr Mercouris claims, I think that Russia has indeed been involved in Syrian politics and has supported extensively the Assad regime right to the collapse. :snicker:

(I think with claims like that everybody ought to understand to what camp mr Mercouris belongs to.)

The obvious question to ask is how a regime that withstood years of heavy western pressure suddenly crumbles like a crouton, because that already fails the common sense test. — Tzeentch

If an army doesn't have the will to fight, then it will collapse. Totalitarian dictatorships fall in the end rather quickly once people understand it's over. Who would stand up for family that has clinged on power ruthlessly and extremely violently, milked the country like a mob family, and then flees to Moscow with it's millions? Once the panic sets in, when the officers suddenly change into civilians clothes and flee, do you think the soldiers will continue the fight to the death? Nope.

Above all, the Syrian army wasn't good from the start as it inherently was weakened by the Assad dictatorship itself:

“The Syrian army has never been very good – it ruled by fear and terror, bolstered and backed up by Russians since 2015 who provided firepower and direction. Most of the officers were selected because they were close to Assad,” said Hamish de Bretton Gordon, a retired British army colonel and a chemical weapons adviser to NGOs working in Syria and Iraq.

“The commanders… are more focused on smuggling and extortion than on actually creating defensive positions and leading their troops,” said Greg Waters, of the Middle East Institute.

The army has largely avoided heavy combat since a ceasefire was struck with the rebels in 2020 at the start of the pandemic.

This was a huge humiliation for Russia. Putin really messed up with this one. Something like the collapse of Afghanistan was for the US. The parallels are obvious with the exception that Putin never gave a stab in the back to Syria as Trump did with the Doha agreement with the Taleban to the Afghan Republic. In the end, the Russian Air Force was the last one to fight for the Assad regime (that mr Mercouris got right).

The immediate jump to accusations of partisanship again? I really don't understand what has gotten into you.

The immediate jump to accusations of partisanship again? I really don't understand what has gotten into you. — Tzeentch

Well, he said that

And just look at the guys videos! Positive commentary on Russia, Russia and Russia. This guy is really a spokesman for Putin's Russia. Just look at his videos. Always positive on everything that Russia does, never even the faintest criticism of Putin.

Here are wonderful picks from this Putinist to prove this:

First he, of course, attacks Navalny on many videos, just like this one:

Navalny, the fraud, was "allegedly" poisoned and so on...

This one is great: Invasion Hoax Disintegrates as Scholz Meets Putin, Russia Winds Up Belarus/Crimea Drills

"A warscare based on Nothing!" comments Alexander the Putinist.

Alexanders take on then when Russia attacked: "The fault is the West!" Then blames Ukraine for antagonizing Russia. And comments that now Russia will overrun Ukraine!


And then his commentary on the war in Ukraine. Huge losses for Ukraine! Russia makes huge advances! Does this commentator discuss military failures or Russia when they happen? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Just looking at the bullshit commentary he gives, it's obvious that this is a Putin shill parroting the line that Kremlin wants him to speak of. So I'm not jumping to accusation, see for yourself.

I've actually followed Mercouris for quite a while, and the idea that he never criticizes Putin is simply untrue.

This is just the umpteenth attempt at disqualifying opinions that disagree with your own by accusing others of partisanship.

It has become a bit of a pattern with you.

This is just the umpteenth attempt at disqualifying opinions that disagree with your own by accusing others of partisanship. — Tzeentch

I'll just say it again:

Yet I think that unlike mr Mercouris claims, I think that Russia has indeed been involved in Syrian politics and has supported extensively the Assad regime right to the collapse. :snicker:

It's just whimsical to say that a guy that has now since the start of the war said how Ukraine is collapsing and how victorious the Russians are would be something other than a shill.

But please inform us when the guy has criticized Putin. Does he criticize Putin for attacking Ukraine? Or for assisting one of the most bloodiest tyrants in Syria? We are now seeing what the reality of the Assad regime was.


https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/12/8/video-detainees-released-from-notorious-syrian-prisons

This above is what Putin defended until it collapsed. And now Putin gives safety to this mass murderer.