6 ms·
>How many of them knew Hillary literally created the Syrian refugee crisis in a failed attempt at a coup? Not a single one I talked to. There is no evidence th
by EthanHeilman 10y ago
>How many of them knew Hillary literally created the Syrian refugee crisis in a failed attempt at a coup? Not a single one I talked to.
There is no evidence that Clinton backed or supported a coup in Syria. The US did support elements of a popular uprising in Syria during the Arab spring, and then provided and continues to provide military support to Anti-Assad factions after Assad viciously cracked down on the uprising. A coup d'etat is a very different beast.
The refugee crisis is a result of Assad and Anti-Assad factions acting to change the demographics of Syria via ethnic cleansing. It is unclear, but seems unlikely to me, that the refugee crisis would be lower if the Anti-Assad factions had gotten less support from the US. The refugee crisis would have just happened over a shorter period of time. To avoid increased US involvement Assad regulated his behavior somewhat (see Chemical Weapons controversy). It seems likely to me that the US by providing limited support to Anti-Assad factions acted to limit/control military support given by gulf nations to the more extreme Anti-Assad elements. Such support would likely have made the more radical elements of the civil war much more powerful and likely increased the flow of refugees.
US involvement in the Syrian Civil War did in certain circumstances limit the refugee crisis and has allowed refugees to return home. For example the US/YPG defense of Sinjar Mountain in N. Iraq allowed refugees to escape genocide, then with the recapture of Sinjar, allowed refugees to return home. Another example would be halting of the Islamic State's campaign in N. Syria, which if continued would have generated hundreds of thousands of refugees. Not only was the Islamic State's advance halted, but it has been rolled back significantly with large numbers of refugees returning home. This would not have been possible without US support to the factions (YPG/SDF) fighting the Islamic State.
We can debate the exact nature of US responsibility for the refugee crisis, but (1). any direct responsibility for foreign policy at this level is with the President not the Secretary of State, (2). there was no coup d'etat attempted or otherwise in Syria.
- Consultant32452 10y agoThe CIA trained, armed, and radicalized the Syrians to fan the flames of the "popular uprising" in Syria. Then, Iran and Russia came to the aid of their ally and the coup failed. Those Syrians migrated to Iraq and formed ISIS which is now active in over 30 countries. Of course, now that the coup has failed the Pentagon is backing Assad because... well I honestly don't know why. http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-i... >Srian militias armed by different parts of the U.S. war machine have begun to fight each other on the plains between the besieged city of Aleppo and the Turkish border, highlighting how little control U.S. intelligence officers and military planners have over the groups they have financed and trained in the bitter five-year-old civil war.
- danenania 10y agoIsis started in Iraq as Al Qaeda in Iraq, and is primarily led by former officers of Sadam Hussein's military. They certainly took advantage of the chaos in Syria, but it was the Iraq war that led to the formation of Isis. Syria just added fuel to the fire.
- Consultant32452 10y agohttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isi... A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.
- EthanHeilman 10y ago1. US/CIA did not support a coup, no coup was attempted or has taken place in Syria, this is not even a point of controversy. Instead the US provided support to factions after a civil war had started. Revolution does not imply coup. 2. As another poster noted, ISIS started in Iraq not Syria. 3. The Syrian factions which the US supported are opposed to ISIS and fought several early battles against them. Some US allies in the region sent aid to ISIS, but the US worked to limit and stop that aid. 4. The Pentagon is not backing Assad and still provides aid to anti-Assad groups.
- Consultant32452 10y ago1. The CIA has been funding Syrian opposition forces since 2006, well before the civil war began in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria#Paramilitary_raids.2C_2004.E2.80.9308 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria#Parami... Wikileaks has reported that the US government has been covertly funding the Syrian opposition since 2006.[40] 2. Yes, ISIS started in Iraq, by not primarily by Iraqis. As I said, the Syrians who had been trained, armed, and radicalized by the CIA fled to Iraq when the coup failed and started ISIS. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isi... A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria. 3. See #2 above, we clearly funded and armed what became ISIS. 4. You're right on this one. The reports of the two parties backed by the CIA and Pentagon fighting each other had me mixed up. That doesn't change the rest of the stuff above for which I've provided citations.