4 ms·

No, the US did not plan to start a civil war which left the Syrian regime in place while destabilizing their own allies. The US has been involved in all of this

No, the US did not plan to start a civil war which left the Syrian regime in place while destabilizing their own allies. The US has been involved in all of this, of course, but the Syrian civil war is largely a result of the a series of 2011 uprisings that started by accident.

thera2 5y ago
They underestimated Syria and Assad leadership, they hoped they could take over the country. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syri...
- 9999px 5y ago
  Nailed it. The US is only concerned with imperialism and maintaining a stranglehold in the region. Syria was meant to be Libya Part 2: Electric Boogaloo, but it was just a royal mess from the beginning.
srswtf123 5y ago
Well, this seems an entirely fair point. Starting a civil war is not the same as toppling a government. From my perspective, the difference is irrelevant. The broader plan seems to have been to throw the Middle East into chaos by upending every government of consequence in the region -- except Israel. Did the US government succeed in the broader plan? Perhaps mostly? As a US citizen, it sure doesn't feel like a win, or even remotely the correct course of action.
- showerst 5y ago
  Generally speaking, the US prefers stability over chaos, even among its enemies. Plans with respect to every country have changed over time and author, but I think it's safe to say that many in the US had a vision of the middle east's various leaders being replaced quickly and 'cleanly' by more US-friendly alternatives, hopefully supported by the people who they rule over. In many cases we did things, overtly or covertly, to encourage that. I don't think it's reasonable to assume some hidden master plan to cause chaos. It is however, valid to question what stupid choices we made to get to this point, and if they looked just as stupid at the time.
csomar 5y ago
Sure. These poor revolutionaries and their billions of $$ of weapons.
conception 5y ago
Not by accident - one of the first major climate change conflicts - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150302-sy... Not the best source but lack of resources (water) due to shifting climate patterns is one of the stronger roots of the civil war.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Hm. No mention of the [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Anatolia_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Anatolia_Project ? Sloppy... I mean, who could have thought a few large dams lead to drought downstream? That would be extreme! [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrology#/media/File:NASA's_GRACE_Sees_Major_Water_Losses_in_Middle_East.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrology#/media/File:NASA's_G...

thera2 5y ago

They underestimated Syria and Assad leadership, they hoped they could take over the country. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syri...

9999px 5y ago
Nailed it. The US is only concerned with imperialism and maintaining a stranglehold in the region. Syria was meant to be Libya Part 2: Electric Boogaloo, but it was just a royal mess from the beginning.

srswtf123 5y ago

Well, this seems an entirely fair point. Starting a civil war is not the same as toppling a government. From my perspective, the difference is irrelevant. The broader plan seems to have been to throw the Middle East into chaos by upending every government of consequence in the region -- except Israel. Did the US government succeed in the broader plan? Perhaps mostly? As a US citizen, it sure doesn't feel like a win, or even remotely the correct course of action.

showerst 5y ago
Generally speaking, the US prefers stability over chaos, even among its enemies. Plans with respect to every country have changed over time and author, but I think it's safe to say that many in the US had a vision of the middle east's various leaders being replaced quickly and 'cleanly' by more US-friendly alternatives, hopefully supported by the people who they rule over. In many cases we did things, overtly or covertly, to encourage that. I don't think it's reasonable to assume some hidden master plan to cause chaos. It is however, valid to question what stupid choices we made to get to this point, and if they looked just as stupid at the time.

csomar 5y ago

Sure. These poor revolutionaries and their billions of $$ of weapons.

conception 5y ago

Not by accident - one of the first major climate change conflicts - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150302-sy... Not the best source but lack of resources (water) due to shifting climate patterns is one of the stronger roots of the civil war.

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
Hm. No mention of the [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Anatolia_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Anatolia_Project ? Sloppy... I mean, who could have thought a few large dams lead to drought downstream? That would be extreme! [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrology#/media/File:NASA's_GRACE_Sees_Major_Water_Losses_in_Middle_East.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrology#/media/File:NASA's_G...