mheslep said:
Most of the Russian attacks have been on ... ex-Syrian military.
Source? (I hope this shortened version of your reply is what you meant to say).
mheslep said:
As the US DoD has now
admitted the US had not materially intervened in the Syrian civil war as of a few weeks ago, not even after Assad's use of chemical weapons. Only a handful of rebels have been trained, and US airstrikes, the few that were actually executed, have been against ISIS.
Note that I was not speaking only about US intervention in the sentence you respond to, I mentioned gulf states too:
The
Financial Times reported that
Qatar had funded the Syrian rebellion by "as much as $3 billion" over the first two years of the civil war.
[104] It reported that Qatar was offering refugee packages of about $50,000 a year to defectors and family.
[104]
The
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated that Qatar had sent the most weapons to Syria, with over 70 weapons cargo flights into Turkey between April 2012 and March 2013.
[104][105]
Qatar operates a training base in its territory, in conjunction with the
CIA who run the training, training about 1,200 rebel soldiers a year on three week courses.
[106][107]
The
Financial Times reported in May 2013 that Saudi Arabia was becoming a larger provider of arms to the rebels.
[104] Since the summer of 2013, Saudi Arabia has emerged as the main group to finance and arm the rebels.
[113] Saudi Arabia has financed a large purchase of infantry weapons, such as Yugoslav-made recoilless guns and the
M79 Osa, an anti-tank weapon, from
Croatia via shipments shuttled through
Jordan.
[101] The weapons began reaching rebels in December 2012 which allowed rebels' small tactical gains this winter against the army and militias loyal to Assad.
[101] This was to counter shipments of weapons from
Iran to Assad's forces.
[101]
Bashar al-Assad pointed at Saudi Arabia as the major supporter of terrorists and "leading the most extensive operation of direct sabotage against all the Arab world".
[114]
In May 2015,
The Independent reported that Saudi Arabia and
Turkey "are focusing their backing for the Syrian rebels on the combined Jaish al-Fatah, or the Army of Conquest".
[12] The Army of Conquest reportedly includes an
Al-Qaeda-linked
Al-Nusra Front,
[11] which had been declared a
terrorist organisation by the United States.
[115]
US's part is admittedly smaller:
In June 2012, the
Central Intelligence Agency was reported to be involved in covert operations along the Turkish-Syrian border, where agents investigated rebel groups, recommending arms providers which groups to give aid to. Agents also helped opposition forces develop supply routes, and provided them with communications training.
[88] CIA operatives distributed assault rifles, anti-tank rocket launchers and other ammunition to Syrian opposition. The State Department has reportedly allocated $15 million for civilian opposition groups in Syria.
[17]
In July 2012, the United States government granted a non-governmental organization called
Syrian Support Group a license to fund the Free Syrian Army.
[89]
In early March 2013, a Jordanian security source revealed that the United States, Britain, and France were training non-Islamist rebels in Jordan. In an effort to strengthen secular elements in the opposition as a bulwark against Islamic extremism, and to begin building security forces to maintain order in the event of Bashar al-Assad's fall.
[90] In April 2013, also in Jordan, the United States had set up a $70 million program in the country "that is training the kingdom's special forces to identify and secure chemical-weapons sites across Syria should the regime fall and the wrong rebels look like getting their hands on them."
[91]
In April 2013, the Obama administration promised to double non-lethal aid to rebels, specifically to $250 million.
[92]
On 13 June, government officials state that the Obama administration, after days of high-level meetings, has approved providing lethal arms to the Supreme Military Council (SMC).
[93] The SMC is a rebel command structure that includes representatives from most major rebel groups, and excludes the Islamic extremist elements.
[94] The decision was made shortly after the administration has concluded that the Assad government has used chemical weapons on opposition forces, thus crossing the "red line" drawn by Obama earlier in 2012.
[95] The arms will include small arms and ammunition, and possibly anti-tank weapons.
[96] However, they will not include anti-aircraft weapons, something repeatedly requested by the armed opposition.
[96] Further such weapons would be supplied by the US "on our own timeline".
[97] The United States is also considering a no-fly zone in southern Syria, which would allow a safe place to equip and train rebels.
[98]
During September 2013, it was reported by US officials that under "a covert CIA program," small arms and anti tank weapons had begun reaching some moderate rebel groups. Although Free Syrian Army Commander Salim Idriss denied receiving lethal aid, some analysts commented that information on US arms may not have reached Idriss due to poor communications as the Free Syrian Army command was based in Northern Syria whilst weapons were reportedly reaching rebel groups in the south.
[99]
mheslep said:
There were some 200K fatalities in Syria before the US dispatched a single military resource towards the conflict.
Source?
mheslep said:
And the massacres of Assad's father Hafez are
legendary.
Yes, they are, and yet no one thought it should matter at the time, and he resolved the crisis without making Syria a failed state, and with less casualties.
mheslep said:
Where was the US supposed to be? The question was about US mistakes in Syria. The action/inaction of the US elsewhere in the world is immaterial to this question
The US wants to control Syria? Consider that the US, and many other countries, might simply not want another failed state in Syria that allows a fertile breeding ground for the like of ISIS. Otherwise you might have saved us both some time and cut to your point, a demonization of the US regardless of what it does or does not do.
I'm not trying to demonize the US, I don't think the US wants to control Syria, It wants it's Sunni allies happy, and it wants Iran weaker (with the second objective I can sympathise).
My point is that morality is not a large part of the decision making of neither the US or Russia.
Both sides use morality related arguments, although it has little to do with their actions.
US's actions are more likely to cause Syria to become a failed state than those of Russia though, since once Assad's regime and ISIS are gone, the strongest player would be Al Nusra, and once\if they're gone the smaller factions would continue to fight among themselves over who gets to dominate.
All the other failed states so far were created through a similar process.
