5 ms·

It's easy to predict a war long after it has started. It's like predicting WW II in 1942. The Syrian war, which we have a heavy hand in - before and after it b

by finid 10y ago

It's easy to predict a war long after it has started. It's like predicting WW II in 1942. The Syrian war, which we have a heavy hand in - before and after it began, started in 2011. That article was written in 2013. And did you check the bio of the author. It's easy to predict a war after it has started and when you have inside knowledge and a hand in how the war should proceed and end.

ralmidani 10y ago
The notion that the Syrian Revolution began with foreign (especially US) meddling is absurd. In 2011, the US was in the process of normalizing relations with the assad regime. Obama had appointed a new ambassador the year before. Clinton thought assad was a 'reformer.' The war broke out for a very simple reason: assad's forces kept shooting peaceful protesters. Despite assad's violence, the Revolution remained largely peaceful for several months. It became a full-blown war almost a year after it began, when it became clear assad was not interested in reform, much less stopping the killings.
- pjc50 10y ago
  .. and a substantial part of the Syrian population were refugees from Iraq. http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/19388 http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/19388 This contributed to destabilising the place and offered a supply of Sunni recruits to ISIS. That's why the furthest extent of ISIS territory was an arc across Syria, Iraq and up to "Kurdistan".
- finid 10y ago
  That's the official (US) narrative, and it's the real absurdity here. You should find out how those "peaceful protests" started, and the activities of the US ambassador to Syria just before the protests broke out. It's from the same playbook that was used successfully in Libya and Ukraine, and almost succeeded a few years ago in Cuba. It's an interesting exercise if you have the time. Venezuela is in the same neighborhood too.
  - hx87 10y ago
    That's the conspiracy theory narrative, and it's the real real absurdity here. US ambassadors don't have the power to raise hell on the streets of any given country, especially in one where a significant portion of the population have long-standing and legitimate aggrievances against the current government.
    - tdkl 10y ago
      That's why CIA exists.
    - finid 10y ago
      Ambassadors are not supposed to meddle in the affairs of the country they're serving in, but when was the last time that stopped us from doing what we want? Even our elected officials are not supposed to do that, but who's gonna to stop them?
    - ufmace 10y ago
      It's not a conspiracy theory so much as a oddly popular Chompsky-ite view of foreign policy that can be summarized only a little tounge-in-cheek as: America is somehow responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened anywhere in the world. Nothing bad can happen anywhere without it somehow being a result of something that America did. Which serves to infantilize the entire population of every other country in the world. See the GP's belief that apparently a few words by the US Ambassador is more powerful than thousands of years of history and culture, very difficult conflicts between religious sects, clans, and tribes, etc.
      - saganus 10y ago
        I was under the impression that it's not so much about America being responsible for every bad thing in the world, but that historically America has been taking advantage of those thousands of years of history, culture and of course conflict, to their own benefit. So if due to some political agenda there is profit or benefits to be reaped from nudging certain conflicts this or that way, there's a high probability that people in power would try to obtain said benefit. I think it's in that sense that "America puts its nose into every conflict around the world". Not saying that I agree or disagree with that view, but I do think it's a bit naive to say that America is the root of all evil, as much as it's naive to think that the most powerful nation in the world (for different definitions of most powerful) would have no interest in other countries' conflicts or in influencing them to their benefit. In other words, if for whatever reason an escalation in the conflicts in Syria or other parts of the Middle East (or the world for that matter) could benefit the US, would it be so far-fetched to think that they would have a vested interest in creating the conditions for that escalation to actually happen?
- Nokinside 10y ago
  >Despite assad's violence, the Revolution remained largely peaceful for several months. It became a full-blown war almost a year after it began Please clarify how this is possible. I don't see how this narrative can be correct. First two protesters were killed 18 March 2011 (Hussam Abdel Wali Ayyash and Akram Jawabreh.) Then already in March 23, 2011 two another men who were killed (Sa’er Yahya Merhej and Habeel Anis Dayoub) were part of the Syrian Arab Army and not civilians. It seems that initially peaceful protests turned into violent almost immediately because they were hijacked by organized militants. Armed gunmen were already moving into Syria long before the protests. http://www.innercitypress.com/LASomSyria.pdf http://www.innercitypress.com/LASomSyria.pdf According to the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, 2,569 Syrian government forces were killed by March 2012 while total number of people killed was 5,000.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- X86BSD 10y ago
  This is all false. The reason the US suddenly wanted to kill Assad is very simple. Qutar has natural gas. Europe relies almost solely on Russia for natgas. The west doesn't like that at all. So they want to build a pipeline from Qutar to the med through Syria. Assad says absolutely not. Assad is now enemy number one for denying the pipeline which would've freed Europe from Russia's natgas stranglehold. This is all about energy folks. It's that simple.
  - nickik 10y ago
    That is totally false. Oil is a major factor but some people throw sense out of the window and want to reduce everything to energy politics. No expert on foreign policy, or the middle east I have heard give talks in the last years, considers this to be true. The only people who believe this narrative are naive leftist who don't understand the real situation.
  - ars 10y ago
    > So they want to build a pipeline from Qutar to the med through Syria. They want to what??? You really need to look at a map before saying things like that. I just..... Do you realize Qatar is on the coast? Why would you need to build a pipeline to another coast? And why go through Syria of all places? There are so many other routes you can take, and you think they want Syria so badly they triggered a war?
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      He's correct. The proposed pipeline goes from Qatar, though Saudi Arabia, through Syria, into Turkey and then would provide Natural Gas to Europe. There's a second proposed pipeline people often don't talk about... it would go from Iran, through Iraq, through Syria to Europe. Guess which one Europe and the United States want.
      - ars 10y ago
        You can just route it a bit to the East and bypass Syria completely, going directly from Iraq to Turkey. If you are willing to go underwater you can go through Jordan, Israel and Cypress. I get that it's a bit shorter to go through Syria, but a war, just for that? There's a major station in Doğubeyazıt, you can link to that.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  > The notion that the Syrian Revolution began with foreign (especially US) meddling is absurd. That's because foreign meddling is absurd. The FSA was organized out of Turkey, with it's high level leadership and intelligence feeding in over the border. The primary branches of al Qaeda and militant groups were funded and supplied by foreign organizations. Special forces in the United States had been perturbing for revolutions and US propaganda operations performing a regional 'blitz'.
- finid 10y ago
  What you wrote about Obama is actually correct. True, Obama came in with a set of foreign policy objectives that were not inline with standing US foreign policy. So he lost that battle. He was very reluctant to involve the military, especially in the ME. So in Libya, for example, and even in Syria, he was accused of leading from behind. Even with respect to Russia, recall that he wanted to "reset" relations with that country, but that, too, was not in line with what the military guys, that is, the guys who actually run the country, wanted. So he lost that battle too.
  - akytt 10y ago
    The view of military running the us is probably rather simplistic. Also, remember Russia had been pulling increasingly agressive stunts since 2009 - it's a hard background for a reset
iuhgdwij 10y ago
When you say "we", who do you mean? Hacker News readers? Tech people? Europeans?
- pault 10y ago
  US readers of HN assume everyone else is also in the US.
  - iuhgdwij 10y ago
    Pretty much all over the internet...

by finid 10y ago

ralmidani 10y ago

The notion that the Syrian Revolution began with foreign (especially US) meddling is absurd. In 2011, the US was in the process of normalizing relations with the assad regime. Obama had appointed a new ambassador the year before. Clinton thought assad was a 'reformer.' The war broke out for a very simple reason: assad's forces kept shooting peaceful protesters. Despite assad's violence, the Revolution remained largely peaceful for several months. It became a full-blown war almost a year after it began, when it became clear assad was not interested in reform, much less stopping the killings.

pjc50 10y ago
.. and a substantial part of the Syrian population were refugees from Iraq. http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/19388 http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/19388 This contributed to destabilising the place and offered a supply of Sunni recruits to ISIS. That's why the furthest extent of ISIS territory was an arc across Syria, Iraq and up to "Kurdistan".
finid 10y ago
That's the official (US) narrative, and it's the real absurdity here. You should find out how those "peaceful protests" started, and the activities of the US ambassador to Syria just before the protests broke out. It's from the same playbook that was used successfully in Libya and Ukraine, and almost succeeded a few years ago in Cuba. It's an interesting exercise if you have the time. Venezuela is in the same neighborhood too.
- hx87 10y ago
  That's the conspiracy theory narrative, and it's the real real absurdity here. US ambassadors don't have the power to raise hell on the streets of any given country, especially in one where a significant portion of the population have long-standing and legitimate aggrievances against the current government.
  - tdkl 10y ago
    That's why CIA exists.
  - finid 10y ago
    Ambassadors are not supposed to meddle in the affairs of the country they're serving in, but when was the last time that stopped us from doing what we want? Even our elected officials are not supposed to do that, but who's gonna to stop them?
  - ufmace 10y ago
    It's not a conspiracy theory so much as a oddly popular Chompsky-ite view of foreign policy that can be summarized only a little tounge-in-cheek as: America is somehow responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened anywhere in the world. Nothing bad can happen anywhere without it somehow being a result of something that America did. Which serves to infantilize the entire population of every other country in the world. See the GP's belief that apparently a few words by the US Ambassador is more powerful than thousands of years of history and culture, very difficult conflicts between religious sects, clans, and tribes, etc.
    - saganus 10y ago
      I was under the impression that it's not so much about America being responsible for every bad thing in the world, but that historically America has been taking advantage of those thousands of years of history, culture and of course conflict, to their own benefit. So if due to some political agenda there is profit or benefits to be reaped from nudging certain conflicts this or that way, there's a high probability that people in power would try to obtain said benefit. I think it's in that sense that "America puts its nose into every conflict around the world". Not saying that I agree or disagree with that view, but I do think it's a bit naive to say that America is the root of all evil, as much as it's naive to think that the most powerful nation in the world (for different definitions of most powerful) would have no interest in other countries' conflicts or in influencing them to their benefit. In other words, if for whatever reason an escalation in the conflicts in Syria or other parts of the Middle East (or the world for that matter) could benefit the US, would it be so far-fetched to think that they would have a vested interest in creating the conditions for that escalation to actually happen?
Nokinside 10y ago
>Despite assad's violence, the Revolution remained largely peaceful for several months. It became a full-blown war almost a year after it began Please clarify how this is possible. I don't see how this narrative can be correct. First two protesters were killed 18 March 2011 (Hussam Abdel Wali Ayyash and Akram Jawabreh.) Then already in March 23, 2011 two another men who were killed (Sa’er Yahya Merhej and Habeel Anis Dayoub) were part of the Syrian Arab Army and not civilians. It seems that initially peaceful protests turned into violent almost immediately because they were hijacked by organized militants. Armed gunmen were already moving into Syria long before the protests. http://www.innercitypress.com/LASomSyria.pdf http://www.innercitypress.com/LASomSyria.pdf According to the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, 2,569 Syrian government forces were killed by March 2012 while total number of people killed was 5,000.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
X86BSD 10y ago
This is all false. The reason the US suddenly wanted to kill Assad is very simple. Qutar has natural gas. Europe relies almost solely on Russia for natgas. The west doesn't like that at all. So they want to build a pipeline from Qutar to the med through Syria. Assad says absolutely not. Assad is now enemy number one for denying the pipeline which would've freed Europe from Russia's natgas stranglehold. This is all about energy folks. It's that simple.
- nickik 10y ago
  That is totally false. Oil is a major factor but some people throw sense out of the window and want to reduce everything to energy politics. No expert on foreign policy, or the middle east I have heard give talks in the last years, considers this to be true. The only people who believe this narrative are naive leftist who don't understand the real situation.
- ars 10y ago
  > So they want to build a pipeline from Qutar to the med through Syria. They want to what??? You really need to look at a map before saying things like that. I just..... Do you realize Qatar is on the coast? Why would you need to build a pipeline to another coast? And why go through Syria of all places? There are so many other routes you can take, and you think they want Syria so badly they triggered a war?
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    He's correct. The proposed pipeline goes from Qatar, though Saudi Arabia, through Syria, into Turkey and then would provide Natural Gas to Europe. There's a second proposed pipeline people often don't talk about... it would go from Iran, through Iraq, through Syria to Europe. Guess which one Europe and the United States want.
    - ars 10y ago
      You can just route it a bit to the East and bypass Syria completely, going directly from Iraq to Turkey. If you are willing to go underwater you can go through Jordan, Israel and Cypress. I get that it's a bit shorter to go through Syria, but a war, just for that? There's a major station in Doğubeyazıt, you can link to that.
jwtadvice 10y ago
> The notion that the Syrian Revolution began with foreign (especially US) meddling is absurd. That's because foreign meddling is absurd. The FSA was organized out of Turkey, with it's high level leadership and intelligence feeding in over the border. The primary branches of al Qaeda and militant groups were funded and supplied by foreign organizations. Special forces in the United States had been perturbing for revolutions and US propaganda operations performing a regional 'blitz'.
finid 10y ago
What you wrote about Obama is actually correct. True, Obama came in with a set of foreign policy objectives that were not inline with standing US foreign policy. So he lost that battle. He was very reluctant to involve the military, especially in the ME. So in Libya, for example, and even in Syria, he was accused of leading from behind. Even with respect to Russia, recall that he wanted to "reset" relations with that country, but that, too, was not in line with what the military guys, that is, the guys who actually run the country, wanted. So he lost that battle too.
- akytt 10y ago
  The view of military running the us is probably rather simplistic. Also, remember Russia had been pulling increasingly agressive stunts since 2009 - it's a hard background for a reset

iuhgdwij 10y ago

When you say "we", who do you mean? Hacker News readers? Tech people? Europeans?

pault 10y ago
US readers of HN assume everyone else is also in the US.
- iuhgdwij 10y ago
  Pretty much all over the internet...