September 5, 2013

"America wants to help the extremists to control Syria, but they are wrong because we will defend our sect."

"They will commit a big mistake if they think it will be easy to strike Syria and change everything. We all have faith that God is on our side, and we will show them that the Shiites in all the world are able to fight their proxies from Al Qaeda and Nusra and the hated Free Syrian Army."

A quote that reflects what the NYT says is the view of the Shiite majority in Iraq.

32 comments:

David said...

The nation state is not the strongest magnet for loyalties in the Middle East.

chrisnavin.com said...

The Sunni/Shia split is a deeply bitter one. If Iran arrives at deliverable nuclear weapons, and seeks to extend the Shia crescent as far as it will go, and the U.S. pulls out with only Russian influence, expect the Saudis or the remnants of the Baath party to get the best weapons they can.

Then throw in Turkey, ethnic and sectarian splits, Israel, the rise of Islamism...

a real mess.

There are few good options if Iran gets to that point.

Hagar said...

I suspect the Iranian regime figure they have 3 years to make an Iraqi anschluss a fact on the ground.

Rick Caird said...

The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Sometimes he is just another enemy.

Unknown said...

The Syrian issue is a wretched and vile particular in which nothing we can do or, in regard to the particular circumstances, are likely to try to do will be better for the Syrian people. The situation is grotesque and will not be improved by degrading Assad's capabilities. But we must nevertheless attack because we and the civilized world cannot abide the use of WMDs in the way they have been used. Such an attack is only partly directed at punishing and deterring the Assad regime. It is directed universally at any power or group who would use WMDs. The world must know that the use of these weapons will be punished, no matter the circumstances. Not to do so will embolden those who imagine themselves safe in Hobson's-choice land.

BarrySanders20 said...

Halp Us Jon Carry. We R Stuk Here in Seeria.

cassandra lite said...

Bob Dylan could be reached for comment but declined on the grounds that he already had.

chuck said...

So we have Christian, Shiite, and Sunni. That's three dimensional chess. Time for POTUS to go golfing.

Almost Ali said...

Assuming Mr Obama wants to play commander-in-chief, it makes more sense to attack both sides. That is, ALL sides involved in the Syrian civil war. Cut off all the heads of the hydra. Anything less is moot court.

Titus said...

No war!

No strikes!

The American people, left, right, and bi have spoken.

viator said...

Shias and Sunnis demonstrably ready to fight to the death. Is America ready to join them?

The US Marines performed a miracle in Al-Anbar providence, Iraq 2004-2009. For what?

MadisonMan said...

Finally, something we can all agree on!

SteveR said...

Its basically a simple equation. If Bush/Cheney Iraq Adventure was stooopid then Obama/Jarrett Syrian Adventure is just as stupid. No need to point out the political influence in the voting. We only lose, saving innocent lives doesn't matter. They will end up hating us, and many already do. Stay away.

Inga said...

We need to stay out of this, and deal with what comes when we need to. We can't control anything that happens over there. What happens when they rebuild airstrips that we've destroyed? Russia and their allies will help them rebuild new ones and sell them more jets and weapons. This is a disaster, THEIR disaster.

n.n said...

Historically, the "rebels" represent the greater evil. While Assad represents a faction that protects the oppressed minorities. He is a mediator between a variety of belligerent groups. Just as the contained dictator Gaddafi was in Libya, before we attacked his government, and forcibly removed him from power. I doubt there are many minorities who would voluntarily support democratic reform in that part of the world.

Strelnikov said...

Never thought I'd agree with the Shiites.

Mark Trade said...

The Dems are trying to say that the real enemy here is chemical weapons. Let's fight a war on the use of chemical weapons!

Because wars on abstractions are ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA.

Cedarford said...

Unknown - "But we must nevertheless attack because we and the civilized world cannot abide the use of WMDs in the way they have been used."

Define "we"/
Define "the civilized world"

Seems the rest of the civilized world has come to rely on a system where America is the free 911 Global Police system and they have nothing to do but demand action by the US while they sit back. All set to "deplore matters" then lecture the US they better not harm a single hair on the head of an "innocent civilian" in the enemy camp - or they will demand evil Amerikkka pay.

Guess what?
Those days are over.
If the rest of the world wants to get off their asses and form meaningful coalitions and commit huge piles of blood and treasure - great!!

If the UN wants to adapt a new policy of forming and funding an army of do-gooders and expect those safe in Asian, European and Western Hemisphere university students and faculty to volunteer for it and die if need be along with war thirsty neocons that never served....Fine!!

But the days of declining America, on it's own, still expected to police the world for free and be lambasted by all the "civilized wise leftists safe in universities in the US and soiree`s in Paris -are over!!

Illuninati said...

This is unusual, I agree with Inga that we should stay out of Syria. However, I do not agree that our interference will make no difference. I believe that even without congressional approval, and without our air force, Obama can still put his finger on the scale with enough force to possibly enable the Muslim Brotherhood to win. He won't do it openly, but through covert aid channeled through his friend and Islamist Mr. Erdogan of Turkey.

sonicfrog said...


Blogger Rick Caird said...

The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Sometimes he is just another enemy.


That!

I was listening to John McCain saying that all the Al-Qaeda fighters were mostly gone and that the rebels are all the good guys now....

And I was thinking that he's either gone senile, or he's simply delusional. We need to stay out of this...

Well, if we are, and many suspect, already shipping arms to the rebels under the table, that's as far as we should go... And stop that too!

mtrobertsattorney said...

Obama's proposed missile attack can go bad in any of 100 ways:collateral civilian deaths, one of our ships is sunk, Assad is toppled and rebel groups connected to Al Qaeda take control, etc, etc.

But his attack can go well in only one way: nothing bad happens--no civilians are killed, Assad mends his ways or he resigns, rebel groups take over and announce a Jeffersonian democracy, and every disparate group in Syria renounces violence.

Would any rational person bet on the chance that nothing bad will happen?

Jay Vogt said...

Where is James Baker when you need him? You can almost hear him on the phone in that honeyed east-Texas drawl talking to Jordan's King Abdulla II:

JB- Good evening your Excellency. How was your visit to Napa Valley?

KA2 – Hello, Jim. It was great. Rania and I really appreciated the cases of Caymus Reserve that you had sent back for us. Diplomatic pouches can’t be big enough can they?

JB- No, no, no they can’t. So, glad to hear you got them. The owner, Chuckie, well, he owes me a favor or two. Yea, sometimes you need a big bag that can hold things that a lot folks wouldn’t understand. . . . . Speaking of which, heck of a problem you got on your northern frontier there. Sad really. Those people living in tents and squalor and whatnot. Fine Muslims people – just like ya’ll. And, all that violence and religious excitement. Hard to contain it inside any border for much longer really.

KA2 – Don’t you know it? I’m glad you brought it up Jim because I was just going to give you a call about that.

JB - . . . .why you don’t say.

KA2 - Yes I was. See we really could use some. . .er . . .help on that front.

JB – Well you know friends love to help friends. They do.

KA2 – That’s just what I was thinking

JB – Wa’d ya have in mind.

KA2 – It’s very expensive to maintain a refugee camp that size. And it’s growing by the day.

JB – Won’t be too long until it looks like Jordan’s been invaded, will it? Why we’d sure love to pick up the tab on that for you.

KA2 – Really! You’d do that for me. . . er I mean for the Kingdom.

JB - Well hold on there. I mean we might be persuaded to do that, but it seems kinda risky to be throwing more money up there - your money or ours. Hmm. . . .if only there was some way to diminish the risk up in Damascus. That fella Assad running around like that causing trouble. Trouble in . . . . your . . . neighborhood.

KA2 – Yea he’s a nut job for sure. You Americans Should do something about him.

JB – Well, we’d love to, but it seems more like a neighborhood problem. They’ve got no oil, no oil pipelines. Heck you know me, I’m just a small town lawyer in the 'ol bidness'. What to do? What to do? If only there was an army and intelligence service in the area that could take care of the problem by locally accepted – you know culturally appropriate methods. Oh, by the way have you ever heard of George Zimmerman?

KA2 – That young man down in Florida that got away with killing that other fellow. Yes, why?

JB – Oh, no reason, no reason at all. Just letting my mind wonder. You know that we pretty much pay for and train and keep tabs on your army and Da’irat al-Mukhabarat al-’Ammah for you . . . I mean the Kingdom.
Training wheels gotta come off sometimes, don’t they? You’ve got kids, don’t you? So, you know what I mean. Sure be nice if one day one of them boys could become King too, wouldn’t it? King with a loyal army and intelligence service paid for by your friends - that would be a beautiful thing. We’d like that too. It’s just that your friends would like to know that we were getting what we paid for. That’s just good business don’t you think?

KA2 – Good business? Uh . . .

JB – Well you think things over. See if any ideas come to mind about how we could get you that money. Meanwhile I’m sending over another few cases of Caymus Reserve in a diplo-pouch. I’ll tell you what, that Cab is as red as blood. Maybe you can find something else to put in that big bag when you’re done with it.

Achilles said...

Obama just claimed he didn't set a red line and that his credibility wasn't on the line. If our foreign policy was being developed to advance the interests of our country whether we went in or not it would be one thing. If you are going to attack then you crush your enemies. if you are not going to commit then dont waste lives and money. But a pointless "limited" strike on weapons that have been hidden with civilians that has no real purpose except to keep Obama from looking dumb is not in our interests. He is willing to kill people to protect his credibility.

But Obama has made it clear he thinks it it "his military" and he will do with it what he wants because he is a child and the opposite of a leader.

Hyphenated American said...

The Syrian war is a gift from god (a vengeful God), Iranian and Lebanese terrorists battling al Qaeda. And then our stoooopid president had to open his mouth and talk about the red line. What an imbecile.

tim maguire said...

If we made a list of all the things the Obama administration didn't think of, how long do you figure that list would be?

Can't anybody there pay this game?

tim in vermont said...

If it weren't for the pleasure of seeing Obama and Kerry channel W, this whole thing would be an unmitigated disaster. Well, it still is an unmitigated disaster, my pleasure at watching lefties squirm and rationalize counts for nothing, I admit.

If there is going to be a WWIII, it will be because of the vacuum left by the US, and lobbing a few cruise missiles only emphasizes that vacuum. Not that I want an invasion, I don't.

Had we not left Iraq, were we not ready to cede Afghanistan, had we not just turned Libya into the latest failed state, things may have been different. IDK. I just can't help thinking that this could have been done by a general in a bid for power, to try and drag us into it.

I am trying to think how chemical weapons are worse than cluster bombs, massive shelling, or B-52 bombing runs like from the first Iraq campaign. They provide actors with a lever to control the US military to some degree, for whatever end they choose.

Disgusting as it is, we have to look away from that which we can't change.

damikesc said...

If this an issue that the international community demands to be dealt with --- you know, we ain't the only country out there with a military.

Somebody else can help.

France seems gung-ho --- but doesn't seem anxious to send troops right now.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
"We need to stay out of this, and deal with what comes when we need to. We can't control anything that happens over there. What happens when they rebuild airstrips that we've destroyed? Russia and their allies will help them rebuild new ones and sell them more jets and weapons. This is a disaster, THEIR disaster."

its THEIR disaster except you're fully acknowledging that Russia is funding them. Why is Russia involved if its THEIR problem alone? For us, the only option is pure neutrality, but for Russia they can arm the regime and its not interference.

And what happens when they rebuild he airstrips we've destroyed? Well, if they are weakened by the lack of airstrips maybe they don't rebuild those airstrips because they cease to,exist as a regime. But even if they were to rebuild their airstrips how long would hat take? A day? Ad won't it cost a lot of money? Money that they will have to divert from other things (like waging war). And lets say they spend a year and they finally rebuild their air strips. What happens then? another bombing of their air strips. What about that?

If Russia sells them more jets we target those jets while they sit on the airstrips that are being rebuilt. Make Russia have to think about how much they want to spend on arming this regime that is getting bombed into the Stone Age. If they hide their jets those are jets that are not in use and so money spent for nothing. That's another way to destroy a regime. Make them pay for weapons that can't be used as opposed to weapons that can.

This is like the lefty anti war argument that if we bomb them it will only create more terrorists. But why is this only true for us, and not for them as well? if that were so, then as the Assad regime gassed the rebels,it would only create more rebels. But we know that some rebellions are quelled and regimes ended. Just ask Sadaam Hussein who was witness to both.

jr565 said...

Sonic frog wrote:

I was listening to John McCain saying that all the Al-Qaeda fighters were mostly gone and that the rebels are all the good guys now....

And I was thinking that he's either gone senile, or he's simply delusional. We need to stay out of this...

McCain is overstating the case. But then so are those saying that the rebels are nothing but Al Qaeda and people that we can't back. The truth is somewhere in between.

jr565 said...

SteveR wrote:
Its basically a simple equation. If Bush/Cheney Iraq Adventure was stooopid then Obama/Jarrett Syrian Adventure is just as stupid. No need to point out the political influence in the voting. We only lose, saving innocent lives doesn't matter.

What if dealing with Iraq wasn't stupid and you were stupid for opposing it. and your argument is cynical and short sighted?
Also, if getting involved is stupid and lose lose, then why is Russia getting involved and selling weapons to the Assad regime? are they losing by doing that, or are they winning?
Your side always mentions how the only course of action is neutrality, but only on our part and any other course of action is futile. yet other countries who back the evil regimes you say we should do nothing about seem to recognize that its in their interest to back said regimes and that they gain something by doing so. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. And they seem to gain power and influence by doing so.
Russia backs Syria. Russia arms the regime it wants to win. Russia blocks our actions when we want to deal with the regime. How is that neutrality on their part?
It seems to work for them. is Russia special in some way where the same principles they are using only work for them but never for us?

From My cousin Vinny:
"Are we to believe that boiling waters soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than on any place on the face of the earth?! Well perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove! Were these magic grits? I mean, did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?!"

jr565 said...

Tim in Vermont wrote:
"Disgusting as it is, we have to look away from that which we can't change."

but Russia can? why is Russia not looking away, but arming the Assad regime. Do they have special powers that we as a country don't possess?
Or, do they think that by arming Assad they can help him destroy the rebels?
Does the principle of cause and effect operate differently for Russia?

Peter said...

The Syrian civil war is like Stalin vs. Hitler in WWII in that what's truly unfortunate is that both sides can't lose.