The Syrian War Is Spreading: Should U.S. Get Involved?

[SherriMunnerlyn]

No, we should stay out of it.

 

[Circe]

No, we should stay out of it.

Assad is declaring victory now, and he may be right. It would be something if he actually comes out of this successful --- none of the other revolutions in the "Arab Spring" have ended that way --- Egypt, Tunisia, etc.

I don't know what significance that would have for U.S. interests. Syria is an Iranian puppet state, but we had some ties with the Assad regime before.

 

[richstacy]

If Assad goes it would be a major defeat for Iran, for it's surrogates in Hezbollah, and indirectly for his supporters in the Kremlin. It would thus be a victory for freedom in the region, and would be in the security interests of both Israel and the U.S.

 

[Katzndogz]

It would not be a victory for freedom any more than deposing Mubarak was a victory for Egyptian freedom. Assad would be replaced by the same kind of non governmental terrorism that exists in Libya.

Leave Syria alone. Assad will prevail, restore stability to Syria, Russia will keep its Navy base and the world will go on. We should never have mixed in Syria, never have mixed in in Egypt. obama needs to learn when to keep his mouth shut. We just lost Egypt as a friendly nation, much less an ally in the region on account of him.

 

[R.C. Christian]

It's all about Iran. Iran is the key. Every world power has a stake in this. Iran is an affront to American imperialism. Without Iran, the U.S. will no longer be a super power. Has nothing whatsoever to do with nuclear weapons, or silly WMD. This is a proxy war at the beginning of new cold war or possibly WWIIi. The stakes are dangerously high, and the president is a fucking idiot.

 

[Circe]

We just lost Egypt as a friendly nation, much less an ally in the region on account of him.

No, no --- the Egyptian Army is ours, body and soul (and certainly 100% of its weapons). And this is what we pay them to do: keep Egypt stable and keep it from marching against Israel.

We paid for this coup and we got it. I assume it's all been coordinated in the State Department. I have no problem with this: mob rule is no good.

Egypt looks VERY like that zombie movie out, World War Z. I recommend the movie.

 

[Ropey]

It's not a Syrian war. None of the Arab countries were created by Arabs. They were created by incoming and outgoing empires. Done to facilitate trading in the Western way.

The true believing Muslims don't believe in borders. There are no borders with Allah. It's all the Ummah. One big piece of world that is under the control of Allah and will not be at peace until the entire world is subjugated by those who are true believers who submit to the will of Allah.

Then the fight is on between who is the real true believers? Sunni or Shia?

The countries that have both Sunni and Shia together are in a major trouble that is a recurrence and is not tied to anti-West philosophies other than the West's attempt to restrain the Sunni/Shia schism so as to facilitate the trades.

Then there are quite a few splinter groups from the Sunni and Shia, but in the end they will continue to kill each other in an ebb and flow.

President Obama has little idea of how to work the middle eastern game although he does understand the Sunni/Shia schism. He understands that Muslim "Peace" and Western "Peace" have two entirely different meanings.

The US has to be involved. If it wasn't, then the Russians and Shia would be even stronger. Considering what they've accomplished against the Western forces (in the last 40 years or so).

Backing off is not a possibility. Bugging out is.

 

[georgephillip]

Ropey, do you have any idea how many of the worlds one billion Muslims actually believe in the Ummah?

 

[georgephillip]

No, we should stay out of it.

I'll try to find a link to a recent article I read suggesting several hundred anti-Assad fighters are currently being trained and equipped with US supplied weapons every month in Jordan with the idea of launching an August offensive against Damascus. If it's true Assad has the support of 25% of all Syrians, it's hard to see him facing the same fate as Gaddafi and Mubarak, although he richly deserves it.

 

[Ropey]

Ropey, do you have any idea how many of the worlds one billion Muslims actually believe in the Ummah?

No. You make a count and get back to me with the relevant statistically referenced information and you can enlighten me.

What I see is that the Sunni Arabs Muslims and the Shia Persian Muslims who do believe in the Ummah have their own idea of who should be in control of it.

The leaders are willing to use the borderline concept to further their own desire to create another empire of control over the ME, but when these sectarian wars have ever come to the arena, the history shows the borders just vanish. You're seeing the effects firsthand in Iraq and Syria. These guys (Sunni/Shia/Kurds) in the ME are creating a reformation within the boundaries. The Ummah is conceptional to the true belief.

For the last 400 years of its existence, the Caliphate was claimed by the Turkish Sultans of the Ottoman Empire who clearly believed in it.

So, as far as the creators of the belief systems, it's rather clear.

The Ummah" represents a universal world order, ruled by an Islamic government (the Caliph) in accordance with the "Law of God" (the Shariah, Islamic religious law), and patterned after the community founded by Muhammad at Medina in 622 AD; it even includes Jews and Christians living within its territory as separate (and inferior) communities.

Spiritual Life --What is the Muslim Understanding of "Ummah"?

I think you begin to see the conflict that exists between these two concepts. This is especially true in the Muslim World which finds itself divided into a number of independent nation-states, each with its own constitution, usually patterned on western political models as much as on the values and principles of Islamic law. Today, a growing number of Muslims reject this situation, which they view as favoring the "big powers", and are pushing for a return to a single umma once again. One might say this is the Muslims Hope. One Arab political party, the Hizb ut-Tahrir or Liberation Party, is actively seeking to bring the Muslim World under one umbrella; opposing democracy (rule by the people), its utopian rallying cry is that "the rule is for none but Allah." But, since achieving its goals involves political struggle, it has been outlawed in the Arab World and is carrying on its activities from--where else but England!

 

[georgephillip]

Ropey, do you have any idea how many of the worlds one billion Muslims actually believe in the Ummah?

No. You make a count and get back to me with the relevant statistically referenced information and you can enlighten me.

What I see is that the Sunni Arabs Muslims and the Shia Persian Muslims who do believe in the Ummah have their own idea of who should be in control of it.

The leaders are willing to use the borderline concept to further their own desire to create another empire of control over the ME, but when these sectarian wars have ever come to the arena, the history shows the borders just vanish. You're seeing the effects firsthand in Iraq and Syria. These guys (Sunni/Shia/Kurds) in the ME are creating a reformation within the boundaries. The Ummah is conceptional to the true belief.

For the last 400 years of its existence, the Caliphate was claimed by the Turkish Sultans of the Ottoman Empire who clearly believed in it.

So, as far as the creators of the belief systems, it's rather clear.

The Ummah" represents a universal world order, ruled by an Islamic government (the Caliph) in accordance with the "Law of God" (the Shariah, Islamic religious law), and patterned after the community founded by Muhammad at Medina in 622 AD; it even includes Jews and Christians living within its territory as separate (and inferior) communities.

Spiritual Life --What is the Muslim Understanding of "Ummah"?

I think you begin to see the conflict that exists between these two concepts. This is especially true in the Muslim World which finds itself divided into a number of independent nation-states, each with its own constitution, usually patterned on western political models as much as on the values and principles of Islamic law. Today, a growing number of Muslims reject this situation, which they view as favoring the "big powers", and are pushing for a return to a single umma once again. One might say this is the Muslims Hope. One Arab political party, the Hizb ut-Tahrir or Liberation Party, is actively seeking to bring the Muslim World under one umbrella; opposing democracy (rule by the people), its utopian rallying cry is that "the rule is for none but Allah." But, since achieving its goals involves political struggle, it has been outlawed in the Arab World and is carrying on its activities from--where else but England!

True enlightenment would come from knowing which percentage is greater: Muslims seeking the Ummah or Jews endorsing Abraham Kook.

"The earlier influence of fundamentalist Rabbi Abraham Kook (1865-1935), or Kuk, was significant. He preached Jewish supremacy and said: 'The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.'

"His teachings helped create the settler movement, and his son, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, founded the extremist Gush Emunim (GE) under the slogan: 'The Land of Israel, for the people of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel.'"

Al-Ahram Weekly | Focus | Religious fundamentalism in Israel

 

[asaratis]

...the US cannot refuse to be involved. We can however, refuse to arm either side. In doing so, we would be arming our future enemies, no matter which side wins.

 

[georgephillip]

...the US cannot refuse to be involved. We can however, refuse to arm either side. In doing so, we would be arming our future enemies, no matter which side wins.

What form of US involvement in Syria would not involve selling arms?
FWIW, I think you're dead right about future enemies.

 

[Ropey]

Ropey, do you have any idea how many of the worlds one billion Muslims actually believe in the Ummah?

No. You make a count and get back to me with the relevant statistically referenced information and you can enlighten me.

What I see is that the Sunni Arabs Muslims and the Shia Persian Muslims who do believe in the Ummah have their own idea of who should be in control of it.

The leaders are willing to use the borderline concept to further their own desire to create another empire of control over the ME, but when these sectarian wars have ever come to the arena, the history shows the borders just vanish. You're seeing the effects firsthand in Iraq and Syria. These guys (Sunni/Shia/Kurds) in the ME are creating a reformation within the boundaries. The Ummah is conceptional to the true belief.

For the last 400 years of its existence, the Caliphate was claimed by the Turkish Sultans of the Ottoman Empire who clearly believed in it.

So, as far as the creators of the belief systems, it's rather clear.



Spiritual Life --What is the Muslim Understanding of "Ummah"?

I think you begin to see the conflict that exists between these two concepts. This is especially true in the Muslim World which finds itself divided into a number of independent nation-states, each with its own constitution, usually patterned on western political models as much as on the values and principles of Islamic law. Today, a growing number of Muslims reject this situation, which they view as favoring the "big powers", and are pushing for a return to a single umma once again. One might say this is the Muslims Hope. One Arab political party, the Hizb ut-Tahrir or Liberation Party, is actively seeking to bring the Muslim World under one umbrella; opposing democracy (rule by the people), its utopian rallying cry is that "the rule is for none but Allah." But, since achieving its goals involves political struggle, it has been outlawed in the Arab World and is carrying on its activities from--where else but England!

True enlightenment would come from knowing which percentage is greater: Muslims seeking the Ummah or Jews endorsing Abraham Kook.

"The earlier influence of fundamentalist Rabbi Abraham Kook (1865-1935), or Kuk, was significant. He preached Jewish supremacy and said: 'The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.'

"His teachings helped create the settler movement, and his son, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, founded the extremist Gush Emunim (GE) under the slogan: 'The Land of Israel, for the people of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel.'"

Al-Ahram Weekly | Focus | Religious fundamentalism in Israel

It looks to me that the true enlightenment is that the Muslims will continue to kill each other until they stop long enough to kill the Jews.

Then they will go back to killing each other again in order to find the perfect submission to Allah.

Likely that's why I'm not concerned about true enlightenment.

It's all beyond time.

 

[Ropey]

OMG, this must be foreign policy for dummies week.

This crap is very simple. It isn't Muslims or the stupid Jews. It's about empire, and unless you can understand that simple premise then you will remain lost.

Seriously, when was the last time you saw France and Britain stewing to get in on the action? Hello, they know what is at stake here. So do the Russian dogs and their commie allies in China.

What happens in Syria very well may lead to WWIII. It's that important to all players.

Yes, about Empiric thrusts.

It's Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Kurds, Turks, etc. Then there's the Jews.

It's not world war III. The stakes are not what they once were. Africa is a greater concern to the long term US foreign policy and they're off to a slow start compared to China and Russia.

It's a ME wide Empiric thrust with Sunni and Shia protagonists. The Turks have something to say as well and the Kurds will be a bitter pill for the Shia and Sunni to accept.

Israel and Jews are far down the list. Unless one side really starts losing. Still, the big players are not going to fight each other over Jews & Muslims.

The Chinese are simply in the political sessions to ensure that what happens politically and militarily does not happen in the Chinese regions, ie. The Turkic Uighur, etc.

The Russians are simply keeping their foot in the fight as long as they can. This also is their pattern in the ME. They supplied Egypt and Nassar as well, but when the US moved from Defcon 3 to Defcon 2, they left Egypt with their supplies, and that was before they found their vast oil and gas deposits.

Nope, not happening imho.

 

[Lipush]

The war talk against Syria is heating up in the U.S. administration, and also in Europe.

My analysis is that no one much cares if Syrians kill each other: Syrians are pretty much the enemies of everyone everywhere, so them killing each other does the world a favor. Certainly no one has bothered to intervene over the full year the war has been going on.

However, their Civil War is indeed spreading. Hundreds of thousands are now in Turkish refugee camps, and besides the obvious food and sanitation problems, the refugees have started to fight among themselves, in large groups. Also, there have been border skirmishes from Syria into Turkey. Turkey is of course a member of NATO, which potentially involves Europe and the USA if Turkey calls for help.

It appears Iran may have been making use of the civil war to supply Hezbollah with modern rockets and artillery to attack Israel; at any rate, Israel seems to have bombed these military supply lines twice this weekend, resulting in hours of explosions last night, presumably because they hit an arsenal that blew up.

So the war is spreading into Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, and Iran is messing around with it, as Syria is a client state of Iran's.

Does that give the USA a reason to go in, and if we do, on which side and what would be the war goals? Troops on the ground or air only?

don't get involved

 

[asaratis]

...the US cannot refuse to be involved. We can however, refuse to arm either side. In doing so, we would be arming our future enemies, no matter which side wins.

What form of US involvement in Syria would not involve selling arms?
FWIW, I think you're dead right about future enemies.

Air support, no-fly-zone, medical aid (supplies, triage doctors, field hospitals), transportation, food, intelligence, money, assistance to refuges, etc....there is much more to waging war than weapons and ammo.

Still I think we would be giving aid and comfort to future enemies. Whichever side wins will likely be our enemy afterwards.

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem the US has with aiding either side in muslim lands is that both sides hate us.

 

[Circe]

Seriously, when was the last time you saw France and Britain stewing to get in on the action? Hello, they know what is at stake here. So do the Russian dogs and their commie allies in China.

What happens in Syria very well may lead to WWIII. It's that important to all players.

So, what do you think they think is at stake here? You XXXXX assert it's the dooryard of World War III, but you don't explain why you think that. CAN you explain?

I don't think little, oilless Syria is of any particular concern anywhere, anywhen. It never has been, except briefly during the Crusades when Christians held it, or during one battle with camels in Damascus in World War I. It's a good place for Israel to run Palestinians into, but even they haven't used it for 50 years or so.

Besides, looks like Assad will keep hold of it, and that's probably good for our side.

 

[richstacy]

The problem the US has with aiding either side in muslim lands is that both sides hate us.

Indeed, the single thing that appears to rile them the most is the troops of "infidels" on their soil.