Explain the Syrian Civil War

[Grumpuss]

The war in Syria has now been going on for over 6 years. It has involved numerous rebel groups, Islamic terrorists, Russia, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, a coalition of NATO countries, and of course the Assad regime that had previously been seen to be Syria's legitimate government.

Undeniably, the first violent actions were committed by armed rebel insurgents, but the actions of the regime as well as external state actors and ideology contributed to the conditions that as of today have left ~470,000 people dead, 1.9 million people wounded and more than 5 million people displaced or become refugees.

What are the top reasons, in your opinion for starting the war and why it has continued this long?


(Feel free to discuss or explain your selections below.)

 

[Nathan Malone]

The hardest thing is to understand where it began. How far back do you go? One thing always leads on to another, creating a lengthy train of causes and consequences. It lead to a point where some of the youth in Syria cottoned on to their lack of living standards and wanted a democratic government, supposing they could then prosper like other democratic nations. Being inexperienced in changing their nation's direction, they sought assistance from other more experienced groups who had other agendas.

To make it more confusing, ISIS, who are an extreme Islamic front, with a non-religious socialist management--the Ba'ath Party influence from Saddam Hussein's men--who would like to take over Syria, yet have a relationship with the Assad government. Saddam's ex-generals of the Ba'ath Party used to regularly meet with Syrian generals to plot against America, because the Assads were afraid Americans might topple his government as they did Sadam's.

The Assads are in league with Iran. Their ally is Russia. The Assads have used ISIS against his rebel enemy, and have made deals with them, for which reason the Syrian and allied airforce never bomb ISIS.

The ones who suffer most in this shambles is the Syrian rebels and their families, many who consider themselves freedom fighters; who are considered rebels by the Assads; and considered terrorists by Putin.

Who is to blame? That depends on your political persuasion? Liberty lovers like me would support the rebels in their cause for freedom and prosperity. The far left may not support the rebels, and may support Russia's views on the situation. There are so many voices and so many agendas involved. But at the end of the day it comes down to a support for freedom or tyranny, as it always does.

 

[sun rise]

I voted 'other' for all of the above + the British with the French and the Sykes-Picot agreement that carved the region up ignoring sensible boundaries.

 

[Kemosloby]

Other, we don't know and they aren't saying. but, They lied about WMD to start the war in the middle east. Because you need a good reason to start a war if you want to look like the good guy doing it. So if you have an oppressive regime, Assad, bad guy. And masked terrorists, ISIS, bad guys. You have two bad guys fighting each other. no matter what allied forces do in the area they will come out smelling like a rose. So who created ISIS? CIA?

 

[DavidFirth]

Hello Grumpuss, I hope you're doing well.

This war is a tragedy. It's dragging on like Afghanistan and there is no compromise or end in sight. I just wish a viable solution can be found so that the killing and violence might stop some day soon.

 

[Nathan Malone]

So who created ISIS? CIA?

I don't believe the CIA created ISIS, not intentionally anyway. Maybe indirectly in a way. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army, mostly of the Sunni minority, were disbanded by Americans in 2003 and became unemployed and bitter. The military leaders of Saddam's Ba'ath Party, which was socialist, went underground. Some of them, like Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi, united with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist trainer considered too extreme by even Al-Qaida's standards, and formed their plan to control the masses. And so Islamic State of Iraq was born.

 

[Grumpuss]

Hello Grumpuss, I hope you're doing well.

This war is a tragedy. It's dragging on like Afghanistan and there is no compromise or end in sight. I just wish a viable solution can be found so that the killing and violence might stop some day soon.

Hello Mr. Firth. Afghanistan would've been a pretty easy one, by comparison, to pick the causes of the current war there: The United States, Islam and The United States (again).

Just thought I'd ask this question about Syria, before the usual trolls tried to co-opt it to become a discussion about Trump, transgenderism and crotchless underwear.

 

[DavidFirth]

Hello Mr. Firth. Afghanistan would've been a pretty easy one, by comparison, to pick the causes of the current war there: The United States, Islam and The United States (again).

Just thought I'd ask this question about Syria, before the usual trolls tried to co-opt it to become a discussion about Trump, transgenderism and crotchless underwear.

 

[shunyadragon]

Most people neglect the history of the Middle East and European colonialism involved with the history of conflict in those regions. In Syrian as throughout this region the boundaries of these countries are made up by European powers to divide up the region like a colonial pie neglecting natural tribal, and religious boundaries endemic to these regions. This resulted in conflicting religious and tribal groups being divided and lumped together and separated in artificial boundaries, setting the ground work for generations of bloody conflict. Divide and conquer and control was the rule during and after the colonial rule. Religious issues entered into establishing the boundaries of Palestine (later Israel), Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.

The colonial period of direct rule gave way to post colonial control that encouraged dictatorial autocratic governments that supported their desire to control resources such as gem stone, mineral resources and eventually oil. The subverted democratic efforts of popular governments that eventually lead to bloody violent series of revolutions and internal conflicts.

Like almost all the conflicts and oppressive, violent, and dictatorial governments evolved out of this. Syria is in the middle of this today.

 

[Nathan Malone]

The subverted democratic efforts of popular governments that eventually lead to bloody violent series of revolutions and internal conflicts.

I agree that when a foreign nation favours one side in a conflict of a country like Syria, or any other, it can cause greater division in that country as the opposing view rebels, and this principle applies to whatever political stance the interfering foreigners have, whether democratic or communist.

Example: America going into Iraq resulted in a socialist rebellion which turned into ISIS... or Tyrannical Assad government resulting in pro-democracy rebels.... Those socialist elements in ISIS from Iraq and democratic elements among Syrian rebels plus the religious agenda have all collided in Syria.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree that when a foreign nation favours one side in a conflict of a country like Syria, or any other, it can cause greater division in that country as the opposing view rebels, and this principle applies to whatever political stance the interfering foreigners have, whether democratic or communist.

The history is a matter of well documented facts. After the colonial period the Western Parties manipulated this whole region to prevent democracy regardless of whether they were communist, socialist or other. They most definitely preferred dictatorial governments with strong militaries that supported Western economic and political interests.

There is an added tragic note here in the history of western, particularly USA military involvement in the East and the West is that the USA polices not only allowed, but often openly encouraged Drug traffic to the USA in exchange for political military alliances to the point that the USA government is responsible for the drug pandemic in the west with collusion of European allies..

 

[Nathan Malone]

Let's face it, America and other western countries have a mixed agenda, which is why there is so much division and less tolerance between political parties. There are both liberty lovers and socialists in the governments. See how John Bachtell of the Communist Party USA openly uses Democrats to pass policy, in his own words.

Whoever is in charge of foreign policy at any given time may determine whether democracy or dictatorship is supported in a foreign country. But also sometimes it's a matter of supporting leaders in the lesser evil variety. American support for some country leaders has been in the 'lesser evil' category. So more research needs to be done before one can say America has supported dictators.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Whoever is in charge of foreign policy at any given time may determine whether democracy or dictatorship is supported in a foreign country. But also sometimes it's a matter of supporting leaders in the lesser evil variety.

By 'lesser evil' I suppose you actually mean 'more in line with American policy', right?

American support for some country leaders has been in the 'lesser evil' category. So more research needs to be done before one can say America has supported dictators.

No, it really doesn't. America has supported dictators. But let's not make this a pick-on-America party. All the major powers and plenty of lesser ones have done the same at times.

 

[Nathan Malone]

America has supported dictators.

Yes but there are a lack of options sometimes. It is better to have a tyrannical government than no government at all, and sometimes the lesser tyrannical system must be supported until a better option comes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let's face it, America and other western countries have a mixed agenda, which is why there is so much division and less tolerance between political parties. There are both liberty lovers and socialists in the governments. See how John Bachtell of the Communist Party USA openly uses Democrats to pass policy, in his own words.

Whoever is in charge of foreign policy at any given time may determine whether democracy or dictatorship is supported in a foreign country. But also sometimes it's a matter of supporting leaders in the lesser evil variety. American support for some country leaders has been in the 'lesser evil' category. So more research needs to be done before one can say America has supported dictators.

No research needed, The facts are overwhelmingly available that USA government has consistently supported oppressive militaristic dictatorial governments at their convenience and allowed the associated drug traffic to flourish.

The main issue has been described in detail that the colonial European countries and the post-colonial European powers and the USA are the ones responsible for the violence and bloodshed and the conflicts and wars that plague the region as well as Syria.

The USA and the European powers has played the Middle East like a power broker chess game with the main motive is self interest and oil resources.

 

[JustWondering]

Money and lust for power are the primary causes of all wars. The leaders never tell the people they are sending to die to make them rich the truth. The leaders starting all these conflicts make up stories making it sound like these wars NEED to be fought for noble reasons. For instance, there is plenty of messed up stuff going on around the world that America is ignoring. So why is America all up in Syria's business? Why aren't we after all dictators everywhere? Why does North Korea get to play with nukes and ICBM's without us doing something about it yet we're all up in the some small middle eastern nations business? It's not easy to figure out. To the .1% that own and run everything Syria is just a game with money on the line.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes but there are a lack of options sometimes. It is better to have a tyrannical government than no government at all, and sometimes the lesser tyrannical system must be supported until a better option comes.

I just think you need to step outside. The good/evil dichotomy. Or study South American history in the post war era.

America (like other powers) has commonly made decisions in what they thought at the time was to America's benefit. If you think that's always about good and evil you're drinking the kool-aid.

 

[Nathan Malone]

The facts are overwhelmingly available that USA government has consistently supported oppressive militaristic dictatorial governments at their convenience and allowed the associated drug traffic to flourish.

Drug trafficking thrives in socialist countries funnily enough. Then why not use them to overthrow the tyrants who threaten peace in the world? I think it's a brilliant idea. Then the new, hopefully more proactive government, can manage their own affairs.

 

[Nathan Malone]

America (like other powers) has commonly made decisions in what they thought at the time was to America's benefit. If you think that's always about good and evil you're drinking the kool-aid.

When I say the lesser evil, I mean the less tyrannical regime as opposed to a harsher regime. What I call good, is liberty. That's my measurement scale folks.

 

[Augustus]

What are the top reasons, in your opinion for starting the war and why it has continued this long?

Same as other Arab Spring countries, protests against corrupt and authoritarian leaders. When Assad decided to try to crush the rebellion it degenerated into a civil war.

Pretty quickly, as is true in most violent revolutions, the moderate factions pretty quickly get overwhelmed by the more ideological/fanatical groups leading to extreme polarisation and the inability to deescalate.

Add in the countless competing state, and sub-state, entities involving themselves in the conflict with vastly differing goals, then you get a conflict that drags on and on.

America going into Iraq resulted in a socialist rebellion which turned into ISIS... or Tyrannical Assad government resulting in pro-democracy rebels.... Those socialist elements in ISIS from Iraq and democratic elements among Syrian rebels plus the religious agenda have all collided in Syria.

I think your understanding of the situation is about 30-40 years out of date. That people who were part of the Baath Party (which was everybody on the government payroll) later joined ISIS does not mean they were 'socialists'. Maybe many of them would have been in the 1970s, but in more recent times there was a significant move towards Islamism as it true in many places since the end of the Cold War. Those who joined ISIS (not founded it) were likely those who were already Islamist.

Liberty lovers like me would support the rebels in their cause for freedom and prosperity.

The remaining rebel factions are no fans of liberty as they are overwhelmingly dominated by extreme Salafists who would oppress women and religious minorities. They score even lower than Assad as regards 'liberty'.