US, Gulf allies blame each other for rise of Islamic State

[Publicus]

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/we-re-at-war-and-we-have-been-since-1776/

Calander years The US has been at war since 1776

War: 214 years

Not at war: 21 years

T

That's a hysterical post of wildly imagined fiction.

Whoever put the list together is definitely frightened of his own shadow.

The list linked below includes the "Indian Wars" from the first colonists through the 19th century, but excludes the thousands of times over three centuries and 2800 km of continent an Indian or a settler got the drop on the other.

http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm

Your post does not distinguish between the nature or character of the various wars.

The Revolutionary War was a justified necessity, much the same as the French Revolution. The Civil War was unavoidable as civil wars through history pretty much are.

The Spanish-American War drove Spain out of Cuba and left the Cubans to organize their own sovereign republic.

The Great European War, aka after the fact as World War I, saved Europe from itself, as did World War II. Without the Korean Conflict South Korea today would be a part of the People's Republic of China or of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and would be singing to Kim Jing Un.

The major flaw of the link is however that there is a significant difference between a war and a military campaign. World War II was a war, what's going on presently in Iraq and Syria is a military campaign - and it has Arab and Western allies at the core and the center of it. Combatants die whether it's a war or a campaign, which is why your link believes it can get away with murdering facts and realities.

[Daniel Boon]

Sudai Arabia has beheaded many women in the last 6 months, its no big deal

To the gulf allies. Hey its YOUR back yard. Take responsibility for it! Man UP.

I suspect they do not consider beheadings of a few westerners as a reason enough to get engaged. Nor do they particularly care about Iraq and Syria losing a bit of territory. Plus they are not going to ally with Shias and Iran against their Sunni brothers, plus IS' Wahhabism is Saudi's creation and is very popular on the peninsula.

In this case it's a good thing that Arab governments are authoritarian and can commit their countries to wars without asking their people but how far can they stretch this is unknown. At some point they will have to explain themselves to their populations or face a new Arab spring. Saudi clans can exploit war with IS for their internal political gains but that makes them unreliable allies in a war that is supposed to last years.

[Ulysses G.]

The major flaw of the link is however that there is a significant difference between a war and a military campaign. World War II was a war, what's going on presently in Iraq and Syria is a military campaign - and it has Arab and Western allies at the core and the center of it. Combatants die whether it's a war or a campaign, which is why your link believes it can get away with murdering facts and realities.

The major flaw with the link is that it is to "Loonwatch". Loonwatch's central claim is that ALL critics of Islam and Muslims are "loons", despite the fact that every single week 150 people - at the very least! - die as a result of Islamic terrorism around the world.

[Thakkar]

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/we-re-at-war-and-we-have-been-since-1776/

Calander years The US has been at war since 1776

War: 214 years

Not at war: 21 years

T

That's a hysterical post of wildly imagined fiction.

Whoever put the list together is definitely frightened of his own shadow.

The list linked below includes the "Indian Wars" from the first colonists through the 19th century, but excludes the thousands of times over three centuries and 2800 km of continent an Indian or a settler got the drop on the other.

http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm

Your post does not distinguish between the nature or character of the various wars.

The Revolutionary War was a justified necessity, much the same as the French Revolution. The Civil War was unavoidable as civil wars through history pretty much are.

The Spanish-American War drove Spain out of Cuba and left the Cubans to organize their own sovereign republic.

The Great European War, aka after the fact as World War I, saved Europe from itself, as did World War II. Without the Korean Conflict South Korea today would be a part of the People's Republic of China or of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and would be singing to Kim Jing Un.

The major flaw of the link is however that there is a significant difference between a war and a military campaign. World War II was a war, what's going on presently in Iraq and Syria is a military campaign - and it has Arab and Western allies at the core and the center of it. Combatants die whether it's a war or a campaign, which is why your link believes it can get away with murdering facts and realities.

They say History is just one darn thing after another. As in chess, it is impossible to untangle where you are from where you were.

Does the author at the link I supplied take some liberties? Yes. The point is though that The US is in an almost constant state of struggle with one enemy or another. That's one reason it spends more on its military than the next dozen nations COMBINED. And most among the dozen are its allies!

America is a young nation conceived in violence (driving out Native Americans), built on deceit (repeatedly breaking treaties with Native Americans they'd already stolen from) and born in hypocrisy ("All men are created equal"--unless you're Black, Native American or a Chinaman). Much of what followed, including a sense of national entitlement thus originated.

The Revolutionary War was nothing like the French Revolution. It was mostly about the White Male Elite in America deciding they would stop taking orders from the White Male Elite in Britain, or their cohorts in America. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it happened, because a better, more idealistic nation eventually emerged on the world stage. Eventually.

The Civil War was avoidable if The North would've accepted two nations instead of insisting on hegemony over The South. The issue of slaves was an afterthought. It was a war between two elites with different interests. The North, with Lincoln, wanted an American free market, free movement of labor and high tariffs to protect American manufacturers (who were mostly in the north). The Southern elites saw all that as a threat to their prosperous lives. Seven of the southern states seceded when Lincoln, with the above northern agenda, was elected.

The Spanish-American war wasn't about helping Cubans gain independence. It was about opening up Cuba for American business. The Spaniards were in the way. The Cuban rebels had already been fighting the Spanish colonialists for three years. Philip Foner in his book "The Spanish-Cuban-American War" says, 'The McKinley Administration had plans for dealing with the Cuban situation, but these did not include independence for the island.' When McKinley asked Congress for war in April 1998, he did not recognize the the rebels as belligerents (almost half of whom were blacks, by the way) or ask for Cuban independence.

Howard Zinn in "A People's history of the US" explains:

'Several years after the Cuban war, the chief of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce wrote: Underlying the popular sentiment [a sentiment btw which was stoked by newspaper magnates with vested interests], which might have evaporated in in time, which forced the US to take up arms against Spanish rule in Cuba, were our economic relations with the West Indies and the South American Republics...The Spanish-American war was but an incident of a general movement of expansion which had its roots in the changed environment of an industrial capacity far beyond our domestic powers of consumption. It was seen to be necessary for us not only to find foreign purchasers for our goods, but to provide the means of making access to foreign markets easy, economical and safe.'

'Upon defeating the Spanish Army, the American military pretended that the Cuban rebel army did not exist. No Cuban was allowed to confer on the Spanish surrender, or sign to sign it. The Americans disallowed any armed rebels to enter the capital [ostensibly to prevent massacres]. By the end of the American occupation of Cuba in 1901, 80% of the export of Cuba's minerals were in American hands.' Before leaving, the Americans imposed on Cuba a constitution friendly to American interests.

My view on the American involvement in the two world wars is too long to get into here. Suffice it to say that I don't think it was all about freedom and roses. I suggest you watch Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States" and read the companion book.

As for the Korean War, let's not pretend America fought on the side of freedom. They fought to preserve a brutal, but American-friendly right wing dictatorship. By 1953, both North and South Korea were lead by iron-fisted tyrants. One was Soviet-friendly and leftist, the other American-friendly and rightist. As it happily turned out, the South is now democratic, but that wasn't what the Americans fought for in 1950.

I'd like to point out that you conveniently skipped Vietnam and the illegal Granada and Iraq Invasions.

You start by eschewing nuance and paint things black and white (America: good) but end by introducing non-existent nuance. Whether you call it campaign or war, both involve military hostilities. And just because America's roped in others, doesn't make it any less at war; it's just more war with more people and more death.

Having said all that, I concede that we are fortunate that the world's sole super power is America rather than Russia, or even France. Things could be a lot worse.

Patriotism is fine, but it doesn't mean defending everything one's government does or idealizing self-interested acts. A true patriot is one who works and seeks to uplift one's country without agreeing to be party to impoverishing another.

T

[Publicus]

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/we-re-at-war-and-we-have-been-since-1776/

Calander years The US has been at war since 1776

War: 214 years

Not at war: 21 years

T

That's a hysterical post of wildly imagined fiction.

Whoever put the list together is definitely frightened of his own shadow.

The list linked below includes the "Indian Wars" from the first colonists through the 19th century, but excludes the thousands of times over three centuries and 2800 km of continent an Indian or a settler got the drop on the other.

http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm

Your post does not distinguish between the nature or character of the various wars.

The Revolutionary War was a justified necessity, much the same as the French Revolution. The Civil War was unavoidable as civil wars through history pretty much are.

The Spanish-American War drove Spain out of Cuba and left the Cubans to organize their own sovereign republic.

The Great European War, aka after the fact as World War I, saved Europe from itself, as did World War II. Without the Korean Conflict South Korea today would be a part of the People's Republic of China or of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and would be singing to Kim Jing Un.

The major flaw of the link is however that there is a significant difference between a war and a military campaign. World War II was a war, what's going on presently in Iraq and Syria is a military campaign - and it has Arab and Western allies at the core and the center of it. Combatants die whether it's a war or a campaign, which is why your link believes it can get away with murdering facts and realities.

They say History is just one darn thing after another. As in chess, it is impossible to untangle where you are from where you were.

Does the author at the link I supplied take some liberties? Yes. The point is though that The US is in an almost constant state of struggle with one enemy or another. That's one reason it spends more on its military than the next dozen nations COMBINED. And most among the dozen are its allies!

America is a young nation conceived in violence (driving out Native Americans), built on deceit (repeatedly breaking treaties with Native Americans they'd already stolen from) and born in hypocrisy ("All men are created equal"--unless you're Black, Native American or a Chinaman). Much of what followed, including a sense of national entitlement thus originated.

The Revolutionary War was nothing like the French Revolution. It was mostly about the White Male Elite in America deciding they would stop taking orders from the White Male Elite in Britain, or their cohorts in America. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it happened, because a better, more idealistic nation eventually emerged on the world stage. Eventually.

The Civil War was avoidable if The North would've accepted two nations instead of insisting on hegemony over The South. The issue of slaves was an afterthought. It was a war between two elites with different interests. The North, with Lincoln, wanted an American free market, free movement of labor and high tariffs to protect American manufacturers (who were mostly in the north). The Southern elites saw all that as a threat to their prosperous lives. Seven of the southern states seceded when Lincoln, with the above northern agenda, was elected.

The Spanish-American war wasn't about helping Cubans gain independence. It was about opening up Cuba for American business. The Spaniards were in the way. The Cuban rebels had already been fighting the Spanish colonialists for three years. Philip Foner in his book "The Spanish-Cuban-American War" says, 'The McKinley Administration had plans for dealing with the Cuban situation, but these did not include independence for the island.' When McKinley asked Congress for war in April 1998, he did not recognize the the rebels as belligerents (almost half of whom were blacks, by the way) or ask for Cuban independence.

Howard Zinn in "A People's history of the US" explains:

'Several years after the Cuban war, the chief of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce wrote: Underlying the popular sentiment [a sentiment btw which was stoked by newspaper magnates with vested interests], which might have evaporated in in time, which forced the US to take up arms against Spanish rule in Cuba, were our economic relations with the West Indies and the South American Republics...The Spanish-American war was but an incident of a general movement of expansion which had its roots in the changed environment of an industrial capacity far beyond our domestic powers of consumption. It was seen to be necessary for us not only to find foreign purchasers for our goods, but to provide the means of making access to foreign markets easy, economical and safe.'

'Upon defeating the Spanish Army, the American military pretended that the Cuban rebel army did not exist. No Cuban was allowed to confer on the Spanish surrender, or sign to sign it. The Americans disallowed any armed rebels to enter the capital [ostensibly to prevent massacres]. By the end of the American occupation of Cuba in 1901, 80% of the export of Cuba's minerals were in American hands.' Before leaving, the Americans imposed on Cuba a constitution friendly to American interests.

My view on the American involvement in the two world wars is too long to get into here. Suffice it to say that I don't think it was all about freedom and roses. I suggest you watch Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States" and read the companion book.

As for the Korean War, let's not pretend America fought on the side of freedom. They fought to preserve a brutal, but American-friendly right wing dictatorship. By 1953, both North and South Korea were lead by iron-fisted tyrants. One was Soviet-friendly and leftist, the other American-friendly and rightist. As it happily turned out, the South is now democratic, but that wasn't what the Americans fought for in 1950.

I'd like to point out that you conveniently skipped Vietnam and the illegal Granada and Iraq Invasions.

You start by eschewing nuance and paint things black and white (America: good) but end by introducing non-existent nuance. Whether you call it campaign or war, both involve military hostilities. And just because America's roped in others, doesn't make it any less at war; it's just more war with more people and more death.

Having said all that, I concede that we are fortunate that the world's sole super power is America rather than Russia, or even France. Things could be a lot worse.

Patriotism is fine, but it doesn't mean defending everything one's government does or idealizing self-interested acts. A true patriot is one who works and seeks to uplift one's country without agreeing to be party to impoverishing another.

T

Thx for defining a "true patriot" in contrast to an untrue patriot. Or izzit an unpatriotic patriot?

And thx for making my posts look short and sweet.

But no thx for the presumptuous statement issued summarily and chirped from a perch that, "My view on the American involvement in the two world wars is too long to get into here. Suffice it to say that I don't think it was all about freedom and roses. I suggest you watch Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States" and read the companion book."

Did both last year.

What coms next, that I needs must watch Michael Moore as if I haven't? I love hearing from my Canadian friends too, from either side of the barricades. (Justin Bieber however requires a forbearance beyond the call.)

Your posts invite my justifiable response that some people need to learn about who other people are and what they know rather than to self-embarrassingly create fictional posters not to mention fantasy postings.

[Thakkar]

^^

Let me get this straight.

You engaged *me* with a bunch of sanitized high school history 'facts' essentially saying USA! USA! USA!

I responded to you point by point with actual facts and references. You reply that I was verbose but respond (irrelevantly) only to the one point where I didn't elaborate.

The rest of your post is just a word salad, something about Justine Bieber...and that you are apparently a "somebody" who knows "things"

Okey-dokey.

T

[Publicus]

^^

Let me get this straight.

You engaged *me* with a bunch of sanitized high school history 'facts' essentially saying USA! USA! USA!

I responded to you point by point with actual facts and references. You reply that I was verbose but respond (irrelevantly) only to the one point where I didn't elaborate.

The rest of your post is just a word salad, something about Justine Bieber...and that you are apparently a "somebody" who knows "things"

Okey-dokey.

T

Yes, you.

The guy who creates fictional posters and fantasy postings.

That guy.

[Thakkar]

^^

Let me get this straight.

You engaged *me* with a bunch of sanitized high school history 'facts' essentially saying USA! USA! USA!

I responded to you point by point with actual facts and references. You reply that I was verbose but respond (irrelevantly) only to the one point where I didn't elaborate.

The rest of your post is just a word salad, something about Justine Bieber...and that you are apparently a "somebody" who knows "things"

Okey-dokey.

T

Yes, you.

The guy who creates fictional posters and fantasy postings.

That guy.

More incomprehensible innuendos instead of addressing the issues.

T

[Asiantravel]

Cost of US war against Isis passes $780m as Pentagon hints at request for more

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/us-war-isis-cost-millions-estimate-pentagon-strikes

[BATHIK]

They still print what, 40 billion a month?

[Publicus]

They still print what, 40 billion a month?

It's easier and better than bartering for tanks.

Or sifting for gold to make an aircraft carrier, not to mention the fighter planes.

The ayatollahs of Iran could swap oil with Russia for nuclear warheads.

A false and unnecessary debt obsession might be the new root of all evil.

Last time I looked people liked having money.

[Chicog]

Well Britain has joined in, sending two Tornados at the request of the Kurds to bomb the cr*p out of some IS targets.

[Bwanatickey]

USA guilty as charged. The Iraq invasion then the lack of support for Assad in his fight against Islamic insurgents, and in fact the US's support for these insurgents in Syria had created an environment that has cultured ISIS/ISIL into what it is today.

The only way to fix it now is to back Assad, draw a line on the map in Syria, and create a free fire zone north - northwest of that line. Whilst the Kurds,Iraqis and Iranians squeeze them up from the West.

Time for the US to eat some humble pie and team up with their self proclaimed enemies in the name of global unity and to destroy IS now.

"USA guilty as charged" - get a life.

ISIS (now IS) was originally formed by the remnants of the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi Bath Party - two very important groups that Paul Bremer refused to allow to participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. Paul Bremer, as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority controlling Iraq after the brief war, took his instructions from Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Disbanding the Iraqi Army and the Bath Party didn't mean that these two groups would just disappear as hope, however. They regrouped in Syria and are now back on the offensive with a vengeance. Originally engaging these two groups in the rebuilding of Iraq would have been a much better strategy. In hindsight, Cheney and Rumsfeld made one of the worst calls in modern history - IMHO.

Paul Bremer, did not know that one day he would be the founder of ISIS , he was put in charge of Iraq after Saddam was ousted by outside forces, and he did not know anything about the country he was in charge of.

[manarak]

In doing so, the US and its allies walked into the trap Assad had set for them. For much of the last three years of bitter fighting in Syria that has killed an estimated 160,000 people and displaced 6.5 million others, Assad's troops have confronted non-jihadist forces rather than those of the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant (ISIL), the name by which the group was known before it rebranded itself as the Islamic State in June. Assad's sparing of the jihadists was designed to allow them to emerge as the dominant force rallied against him so that he could project himself as indispensable in the struggle to contain Islamist extremism.

Syrian support for jihadists dates back to aid provided by the Assad government to al-Qaeda in Iraq for targeting of US troops, according to documents captured by American forces in 2007 in Iraq's Sinjar mountains and published by the US Military Academy at West Point. The documents reveal that Syria facilitated the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. Many of them were Saudi and North African nationals, who today are among the largest of Islamic States' foreign fighter contingents. They utilise the same support structures and logistics networks that were originally established in Iraq with Syrian aid. Moreover, several Islamic State operatives are men who were detained by Syrian authorities on charges of terrorism and later released in a series of general amnesties, according to the New York Times.

Assad's win-win strategy

Assad's strategy has worked well. Islamic State has emerged as the Syrian leader's foremost opponent. The United States and its allies struggled with how to confront the group not only in Iraq but also in Syria without legitimising or cooperating with the one Arab leader whose ouster they sought. Irrespective of whatever strategy the allies develop, Assad benefits. Cooperation with his regime, as is being demanded by Russia, would bring Assad in from the cold. If the coalition opts to take on the Islamic State in Syria without coordination with Damascus, Assad can sit back as his enemies confront the most immediate threat to his regime and do the dirty work for him.

It is hard to believe that Iran and Russia, with their intimate involvement in the Assad regime's battle for survival, had been oblivious to the Syrian leader's nurturing of jihadist forces first in Iraq and, since the eruption of widespread opposition to his regime in 2011, in Syria itself. It was a high risk strategy for both Russia, with its soft underbelly in the Caucasus repeatedly wracked by jihadist violence, and Iran that sits at one extreme of the Middle East's increasing Sunni-Shi'ite divide.

Ahem...

Putin supporting Jihadists... sure.

Assad deliberately sparing Jihadists while they attack his refineries and sources and income... yeah.

Therefore Hizbollah fighters opposed ISIS fighters...

These 4 paragraphs just don't make sense, the author is a US apologist and says in a nutshell that Assad supports the Jihadists, which is bullshit.

Funnily enough, the article doesn't mention Israel, but I think Israel is important for understanding relations between the US and Assad.

There is something hidden from public view between the US and Assad which we still have to understand.

I have the feeling it is something that runs deep, I would bet it is an episode of failed bullying - Syria is at the heart of middle eastern issues, involved in the Lebanese issues, is friendly with Iran, didn't intervene in the second war against Saddam... Basically, Syria doesn't do as the US command.

Can anyone shed light on the issue? Why do the US hate Assad?

[simple1]

In doing so, the US and its allies walked into the trap Assad had set for them. For much of the last three years of bitter fighting in Syria that has killed an estimated 160,000 people and displaced 6.5 million others, Assad's troops have confronted non-jihadist forces rather than those of the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant (ISIL), the name by which the group was known before it rebranded itself as the Islamic State in June. Assad's sparing of the jihadists was designed to allow them to emerge as the dominant force rallied against him so that he could project himself as indispensable in the struggle to contain Islamist extremism.

Syrian support for jihadists dates back to aid provided by the Assad government to al-Qaeda in Iraq for targeting of US troops, according to documents captured by American forces in 2007 in Iraq's Sinjar mountains and published by the US Military Academy at West Point. The documents reveal that Syria facilitated the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. Many of them were Saudi and North African nationals, who today are among the largest of Islamic States' foreign fighter contingents. They utilise the same support structures and logistics networks that were originally established in Iraq with Syrian aid. Moreover, several Islamic State operatives are men who were detained by Syrian authorities on charges of terrorism and later released in a series of general amnesties, according to the New York Times.

Assad's win-win strategy

Assad's strategy has worked well. Islamic State has emerged as the Syrian leader's foremost opponent. The United States and its allies struggled with how to confront the group not only in Iraq but also in Syria without legitimising or cooperating with the one Arab leader whose ouster they sought. Irrespective of whatever strategy the allies develop, Assad benefits. Cooperation with his regime, as is being demanded by Russia, would bring Assad in from the cold. If the coalition opts to take on the Islamic State in Syria without coordination with Damascus, Assad can sit back as his enemies confront the most immediate threat to his regime and do the dirty work for him.

It is hard to believe that Iran and Russia, with their intimate involvement in the Assad regime's battle for survival, had been oblivious to the Syrian leader's nurturing of jihadist forces first in Iraq and, since the eruption of widespread opposition to his regime in 2011, in Syria itself. It was a high risk strategy for both Russia, with its soft underbelly in the Caucasus repeatedly wracked by jihadist violence, and Iran that sits at one extreme of the Middle East's increasing Sunni-Shi'ite divide.

Ahem...

Putin supporting Jihadists... sure.

Assad deliberately sparing Jihadists while they attack his refineries and sources and income... yeah.

Therefore Hizbollah fighters opposed ISIS fighters...

These 4 paragraphs just don't make sense, the author is a US apologist and says in a nutshell that Assad supports the Jihadists, which is bullshit.

Funnily enough, the article doesn't mention Israel, but I think Israel is important for understanding relations between the US and Assad.

There is something hidden from public view between the US and Assad which we still have to understand.

I have the feeling it is something that runs deep, I would bet it is an episode of failed bullying - Syria is at the heart of middle eastern issues, involved in the Lebanese issues, is friendly with Iran, didn't intervene in the second war against Saddam... Basically, Syria doesn't do as the US command.

Can anyone shed light on the issue? Why do the US hate Assad?

He is a long term contributor to the balance of power issues in the region that is causing grief for the US Administration. A whole lot more info on the rub between US & Syria at the US State Department website. God only knows what else is going on...

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3580.htm

[manarak]

In doing so, the US and its allies walked into the trap Assad had set for them. For much of the last three years of bitter fighting in Syria that has killed an estimated 160,000 people and displaced 6.5 million others, Assad's troops have confronted non-jihadist forces rather than those of the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant (ISIL), the name by which the group was known before it rebranded itself as the Islamic State in June. Assad's sparing of the jihadists was designed to allow them to emerge as the dominant force rallied against him so that he could project himself as indispensable in the struggle to contain Islamist extremism.

Syrian support for jihadists dates back to aid provided by the Assad government to al-Qaeda in Iraq for targeting of US troops, according to documents captured by American forces in 2007 in Iraq's Sinjar mountains and published by the US Military Academy at West Point. The documents reveal that Syria facilitated the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. Many of them were Saudi and North African nationals, who today are among the largest of Islamic States' foreign fighter contingents. They utilise the same support structures and logistics networks that were originally established in Iraq with Syrian aid. Moreover, several Islamic State operatives are men who were detained by Syrian authorities on charges of terrorism and later released in a series of general amnesties, according to the New York Times.

Assad's win-win strategy

Assad's strategy has worked well. Islamic State has emerged as the Syrian leader's foremost opponent. The United States and its allies struggled with how to confront the group not only in Iraq but also in Syria without legitimising or cooperating with the one Arab leader whose ouster they sought. Irrespective of whatever strategy the allies develop, Assad benefits. Cooperation with his regime, as is being demanded by Russia, would bring Assad in from the cold. If the coalition opts to take on the Islamic State in Syria without coordination with Damascus, Assad can sit back as his enemies confront the most immediate threat to his regime and do the dirty work for him.

It is hard to believe that Iran and Russia, with their intimate involvement in the Assad regime's battle for survival, had been oblivious to the Syrian leader's nurturing of jihadist forces first in Iraq and, since the eruption of widespread opposition to his regime in 2011, in Syria itself. It was a high risk strategy for both Russia, with its soft underbelly in the Caucasus repeatedly wracked by jihadist violence, and Iran that sits at one extreme of the Middle East's increasing Sunni-Shi'ite divide.

Ahem...

Putin supporting Jihadists... sure.

Assad deliberately sparing Jihadists while they attack his refineries and sources and income... yeah.

Therefore Hizbollah fighters opposed ISIS fighters...

These 4 paragraphs just don't make sense, the author is a US apologist and says in a nutshell that Assad supports the Jihadists, which is bullshit.

Funnily enough, the article doesn't mention Israel, but I think Israel is important for understanding relations between the US and Assad.

There is something hidden from public view between the US and Assad which we still have to understand.

I have the feeling it is something that runs deep, I would bet it is an episode of failed bullying - Syria is at the heart of middle eastern issues, involved in the Lebanese issues, is friendly with Iran, didn't intervene in the second war against Saddam... Basically, Syria doesn't do as the US command.

Can anyone shed light on the issue? Why do the US hate Assad?

He is a long term contributor to the balance of power issues in the region that is causing grief for the US Administration. A whole lot more info on the rub between US & Syria at the US State Department website. God only knows what else is going on...

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3580.htm

there must have been a major spat in relations since the Bush administration.

Bush started in 2005 to send funds to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood to destabilize Assad's government and overthrow him. I wonder what the US are thinking - do they believe the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate?

Today's situation is, I guess, at least partially a result of US policy.

No wonder Assad stamped the US as an enemy.

Did Bush launch an "Arab spring" program designed to destabilize authoritarian middle eastern regimes to replace them with the Muslim Brotherhood?

That's playing with fire.

It seems the US caused the civil war in Syria.

EDIT:

found on the state department's website:

<<

2000 to 2007

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001 the Syrian Government began limited cooperation with United States in the global war against terrorism. However, Syria opposed the Iraq war in March 2003, and bilateral relations with the United States swiftly deteriorated. In December 2003, President Bush signed into law the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which provided for the imposition of a series of sanctions against Syria if Syria did not end its support for Palestinian terrorist groups, end its military and security interference in Lebanon, cease its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and meet its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq. In May 2004, the President determined that Syria had not met these conditions and implemented sanctions

I have a feeling the real reason is not listed in the above.

>>

Edit2:

from wikipedia:

<<

The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act (SALSRA) is a bill of the United States Congress passed into law on December 12, 2003.

The bill's stated purpose is to end what the United States sees as Syrian support for terrorism, to end Syria's presence in Lebanon, which has been in effect since the end of the Lebanese Civil War in 1990, to stop Syria's alleged development of WMDs, to cease Syria's illegal importation of Iraqi oil and to end illegal shipments of military items to anti-US forces in Iraq.

>>

interesting wording: "to end what the United States sees as Syrian support for terrorism"

Regarding the responsibility for the rise of IS, it becomes clear that the US had a major role in it.

[Chicog]

Paul Bremer, did not know that one day he would be the founder of ISIS , he was put in charge of Iraq after Saddam was ousted by outside forces, and he did not know anything about the country he was in charge of.

Bremer was put there for one reason only: To organise the distribution of inbound US tax dollars to the "appropriate entities".

I think it was something like $12 BILLION that was never accounted for.

[chuckd]

Well Britain has joined in, sending two Tornados at the request of the Kurds to bomb the cr*p out of some IS targets.

It seems the British war efforts to this point have been flyovers and returning with unexploded ordinance. They're not bombing the cr*p out of anything.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29 September 2014

Fifth RAF Iraq mission ends with 'no reports' of bombing

The pair returned to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, and BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said there were "no reports of any weapons dropped".

The first jets to take part in a mission against Islamic State (IS) militants had carried out armed reconnaissance missions at the weekend.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29405978