Syrian Crisis Explained

I​ HOPE THIS CLEARS UP ANY CONFUSION YOU MAY HAVE​

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria…..

So President Putin (who is bad, cause he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking ISIS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian rebels (who are good )are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel and are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad), Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good /bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than ISIS, so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good.

America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of ISIS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see ISIS as good (Doh!.)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm...might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also now bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to ISIS (good/bad ) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

I hope that clears all this up for you.

Somehow, I feel better now that you've cleared this up, I was so confused!

Remind you of anything?

Greetings,
Mr. M. Outstanding synopsis. Good or bad, it's all pretty ugly.

To understand the present, you have to understand the past, and how the present was created. (parts from cbsnews).

In Iraq, a Sunni minority ruled over the Shiite majority for decades (this was probably bad and undemocratic)

After the U.S. invasion, Saddam Hussein -- a Sunni -- was overthrown (good or bad), and a Shiite government took over (majority rule, probably good).
That government proceeded to marginalize the Sunnis (very bad), and now some of those disenfranchised Sunnis have gone on to form the so-called Islamic State, or ISIS (this is bad).

Let's do a quick who's-who in the Middle East: Al Qaeda and ISIS are Sunni Muslim groups. Hezbollah is Shiite.

Osama bin Laden was a Sunni. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite. And the Iranian mullahs are Shiites as well, which helps explain why Iran has gotten involved in the conflict in Syria (to control Iraq).

Putin has a large Muslim population in Russia that he doesn’t was radicalized by Isis (that would be bad) and at the same time he doesn’t want to loose his navy base in Tartus Syria which he’s had for over 40 years (good or bad).

Now after all this mess, the US has a surplus of it’s own homegrown oil (good or bad) and has little use for the Middle East. The program now, is to pass the torch (mess) to Russia and Iran and quietly get out of there.

Ahhh, yes, now I understand. I think.


Thank you for the explanation.

Greetings,
Mr. W. Agree fully with your conclusion. Why the hell should the US give a Shiite who's on the Sunni side of the street?

The thing about this conflict is that the US has lost over 4K soldiers so far in Iraq and well over 2 Trillion dollars (with much more to come).
Regardless how it all turns out, there will be ZERO benefit to the US after the fact.

There seems to be more understanding of the Syrian situation here than exists in the entire slate of Republican Presidential contenders. Any of you guys want to run for President?


David

DJ-only if I get to play with one of those really big boats with really big guns. Need to put that puny little cannon of the Coot to shame!

Hmmm. Wait. Am. I good. Or am i bad? Mom says i an good. But. The ex, she says i am bad .......i am so confused..

That makes perfect sense from one perspective , the inherent problems with these types of explanations come from the Good, Bad label....depending on who writes the story, the labeling will vary...and when one label varies, any one , the entire train of thought derails..

This all sounds like the Land Of the Rising Sun, who's minds are trying to pronounce the letter "r"....oh wait, is it the letter "L"? It used to be "Flied Lice, you plick." Then Christmas Story it was Fah Rah Rah Rah ...Now I don't even know. Anybody know which way is up? I think I'm trapped in a wet paper bag with a baseball bat and I can't get out. Are we the good guys? I had it all straight in my mind and then I read this post. AAAHHH! Just as you planned it. You plick! LOL
(My grand daughter says you can say anything you want, no matter how bad, if you follow it with "LOL"!)

Good explanation, Don. It sure is difficult for anyone to get a solid understanding of the situation. The US, Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Iran, Turkey, Russia, the Kurds, Iraqi's - all say they are fighting terrorism, but not much progress is being made. Everyone's targets vary considerably to suit their own interests.

Here's my take on it, after spending much of the last 5 years in the area.

The Kurds have pushed back ISIS (ISIL, Daesh or whoever they are called these days) probably more than anyone else because they have the boots on the ground. They are attempting to reclaim the territory taken from ISIS for their dream of a United Kurdistan.
This tactic worked very well for them in claiming the major Kirkuk oilfields in Iraq.

Turkey is bombing the Kurds as they don't want a United Kurdistan on their doorstep (there is a huge Kurdish population in Turkey waiting to join in). Also -there is a large population of Turkmen in Syria who control much of the oil industry. The Turkish bombing is also supporting their land grab.

The US, France, UK, Canada & Australia are flying plenty of sorties looking for what they believe are ISIS targets, but the lines are very blurry. They are backing the "good" rebels (who is that?) This wins votes in democratic countries and makes everyone feel safe, but I don't believe it is having much effect, considering the firepower they have.
They were providing some effective air support for the Kurds, but this has upset the Iraqi central government, as well as Turkey.

Iran are trying to knock out all Sunni rebels including ISIS, in their long term goal of Shia-fication of the whole Iraq/Syria area.

Russia are backing Assad, and attacking any rebels that are gaining ground. This will earn them lots of brownie points which will be handy for expanding military bases in future.

In summary - By stating you are fighting terrorism gives leaders a licence to conduct whatever military action they want. Everyone can be a "good guy" and wear the white hat as long as you don't bomb any hospitals or baby food factories.

This is how we can get all the our old military equipment back from ISIS. Obama can institute an Iraqi cash for clunkers program.

Moonstruck said:

This is how we can get all the our old military equipment back from ISIS. Obama can institute an Iraqi cash for clunkers program.

Click to expand...

Well Played!!!:lol:

Harry Truman would have solved this problem long ago.

AusCan said:

Good explanation, Don. It sure is difficult for anyone to get a solid understanding of the situation. The US, Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Iran, Turkey, Russia, the Kurds, Iraqi's - all say they are fighting terrorism, but not much progress is being made. Everyone's targets vary considerably to suit their own interests.

Here's my take on it, after spending much of the last 5 years in the area.

The Kurds have pushed back ISIS (ISIL, Daesh or whoever they are called these days) probably more than anyone else because they have the boots on the ground. They are attempting to reclaim the territory taken from ISIS for their dream of a United Kurdistan.
This tactic worked very well for them in claiming the major Kirkuk oilfields in Iraq.

Turkey is bombing the Kurds as they don't want a United Kurdistan on their doorstep (there is a huge Kurdish population in Turkey waiting to join in). Also -there is a large population of Turkmen in Syria who control much of the oil industry. The Turkish bombing is also supporting their land grab.

The US, France, UK, Canada & Australia are flying plenty of sorties looking for what they believe are ISIS targets, but the lines are very blurry. They are backing the "good" rebels (who is that?) This wins votes in democratic countries and makes everyone feel safe, but I don't believe it is having much effect, considering the firepower they have.
They were providing some effective air support for the Kurds, but this has upset the Iraqi central government, as well as Turkey.

Iran are trying to knock out all Sunni rebels including ISIS, in their long term goal of Shia-fication of the whole Iraq/Syria area.

Russia are backing Assad, and attacking any rebels that are gaining ground. This will earn them lots of brownie points which will be handy for expanding military bases in future.

In summary - By stating you are fighting terrorism gives leaders a licence to conduct whatever military action they want. Everyone can be a "good guy" and wear the white hat as long as you don't bomb any hospitals or baby food factories.

Click to expand...

EXCELLENT info from someone who is close to the situation. Thanks much.

It is a very interesting and extremely confusing situation over there. I was working and living for a year and a half in Latakia and Aleppo. Left just when the Arab Spring started gaining momentum and the road blocks started showing up outside my apartment.

Plenty of atrocities being committed by various groups against their own people in an attempt to blame it on the other guys. For any of you conspiracy theorists out there, Syria is the place to let your imagination run wild!

In any case, back when I was there it was very peaceful but tense. I figure it was like living in Germany during the Nazi era. The best thing about the Assad clan is that they believed in a secular state. In my city we had three different groups of muslims, Christians and apparently a family of 7 jews, all living peacefully together side by side.

Beautiful country with amazing artifacts from the Roman era. So sad that it's laid to waste now.

WesK said:

Harry Truman would have solved this problem long ago.

Click to expand...

That solution wouldn't work. There is no single organized State. No single heavy concentration of their "people" to nuke into submission. The ideology of Daesh has spread around the world… even to San Bernardino.