so, i want to kind of translate this because the mainstream press, which now includes many of the sources i used to rely on, is just going to lie to you about what's going on.
idlib is essentially a terrorist safe haven - it's not isis, not by a long shot, but it is the closest thing remaining to it. in my perspective, wiping out what's left of these islamo-fascist nazi militants is just the last step in eliminating isis - so i support carpet bombing the region, with the intent to inflict a maximum death toll. if they're still there, they're not civilians, they're active participants, and i don't support taking nazis hostage, i support killing them on the spot. they need to be wiped right off the face of the earth.
the thing is that these nazis that are left in idlib are also the ones that we supported, in the west, via aid, mostly via turkey.
what the west, and this was under clinton's direction when she was secretary of state, tried to do in syria was essentially a replay of reagan's attempt to drive the soviets out of afghanistan, and while the end outcome appears to be essentially the same, it had a higher likelihood of success. nobody should have supported these groups, in contrast to assad - assad has some issues, sure, but he's at least a secularist. there's no justification to support islamicists over secularists, ever, under any circumstance - that's just reactionary, plain and simple. but, had these groups not broken into pro-turkish and pro-saudi factions and started fighting each other, it probably would have worked.
what the west, and this was under clinton's direction when she was secretary of state, tried to do in syria was essentially a replay of reagan's attempt to drive the soviets out of afghanistan, and while the end outcome appears to be essentially the same, it had a higher likelihood of success. nobody should have supported these groups, in contrast to assad - assad has some issues, sure, but he's at least a secularist. there's no justification to support islamicists over secularists, ever, under any circumstance - that's just reactionary, plain and simple. but, had these groups not broken into pro-turkish and pro-saudi factions and started fighting each other, it probably would have worked.
what ended up happening was that the pro-saudi faction turned into isis, and the pro-turkish faction got sort of stranded. the syrians & russians focused most of their attention on isis, initially, and eventually managed to defeat them (although the western press gives the credit to the kurds, who will be utterly destroyed if the saudis ever get their way in the area). now, they're turning their attention to the turkish-backed forces in idlib, in an attempt to actually end this war and reassert syrian territorial integrity.
i've been clear that i am hoping that the russians will insist upon a shift to civilian power in syria, when the time is appropriate for it, and i do believe that they probably will.
in the mean time, we've had a kind of shift of american policy. the amount of support that the saudis were providing to isis was always this shady issue, with conflicting reports and even some straight-up propaganda about them helping to fight them. the turks have not felt the need to hide their support for the rebels in idlib, which are ideologically essentially the same, and have even tried to resort to manipulating public opinion by framing the issue as a humanitarian crisis. this has accompanied a shift in american policy - withdrawal from syria - that i was initially cautiously optimistic about, but i now see is a realignment with the terrorist forces to try to destabilize the russians.
so, what these nato voices are doing here is standing up for their assets, and they're doing it by using a variety of methods: propaganda about humanitarian catastrophes, cynical ploys at the united nations, appeals to temporary ceasefires, etc.
i've been clear that i am hoping that the russians will insist upon a shift to civilian power in syria, when the time is appropriate for it, and i do believe that they probably will.
in the mean time, we've had a kind of shift of american policy. the amount of support that the saudis were providing to isis was always this shady issue, with conflicting reports and even some straight-up propaganda about them helping to fight them. the turks have not felt the need to hide their support for the rebels in idlib, which are ideologically essentially the same, and have even tried to resort to manipulating public opinion by framing the issue as a humanitarian crisis. this has accompanied a shift in american policy - withdrawal from syria - that i was initially cautiously optimistic about, but i now see is a realignment with the terrorist forces to try to destabilize the russians.
so, what these nato voices are doing here is standing up for their assets, and they're doing it by using a variety of methods: propaganda about humanitarian catastrophes, cynical ploys at the united nations, appeals to temporary ceasefires, etc.
but, the reality on the ground is that the turks are in a stupid position and need to get out - it's a matter of time, and they're playing a dangerous game that they can't win.
i don't think that these people can be reformed; it's an ideology at the root of the problem, a belief system that needs to be eradicated. the entire civilized world needs to be united against this. it's a shame that we're on the wrong side of it.
so, expect this to continue for a while, but realize that the syrians are on the cusp of victory, and the americans would be best to encourage the turks to just get the fuck out.
so, expect this to continue for a while, but realize that the syrians are on the cusp of victory, and the americans would be best to encourage the turks to just get the fuck out.