Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Why can't the US support secular rebels?

blueberry_crepe
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2013 10:35:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ok, this is what I know about Syria (based on a class I took on US military strategy):

Syria differs from Libya because the majority of the population do not support the revolution. In LIbya, there was 90% public support, while Syria is like 10% (the majority of fighters are non-Syrian arabs). Because of this, toppling Assad will lead to a power vacuum and civil war will ensue like it did in Yugoslavia. This is why the US cannot just support rebels. Another issue is that there are thousands of rebel factions, many of which are Islamic fundementalist. This poses a post-civil war dilemma of a potential Sharia theocracy government. And so the US seems in a deadlock with who to support if it wants to reduce the deaths.

My Solution:

Why can't we just support the most powerful secular rebel faction? If we support one faction, then we avoid the risk of a power vacuum since we know which one will take over. We will also prevent a theocratic government from rising since we are supporting secularists.
Kiroen
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2013 11:14:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You people sure like to get your nose in other people's countries' business, right?

Things you are assume while providing little o no backing:
-US should intervene
-US should topple a government that has the support of the vast majority
-There are secular or religious minorities against Assad in Syria at this moment
-And most importantly: US government cares about the Syrian

I'm still wondering why they're considering a super expensive plan to '(simply) bomb' the country instead of simply making a plan of humanitarian help for those displaced to Turkey, for example.
blueberry_crepe
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 12:35:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/8/2013 11:14:30 PM, Kiroen wrote:
You people sure like to get your nose in other people's countries' business, right?

Things you are assume while providing little o no backing:
-US should intervene
-US should topple a government that has the support of the vast majority
-There are secular or religious minorities against Assad in Syria at this moment
-And most importantly: US government cares about the Syrian

I'm still wondering why they're considering a super expensive plan to '(simply) bomb' the country instead of simply making a plan of humanitarian help for those displaced to Turkey, for example.

You are right, I am assuming we should intervene. However, I am not assuming there are secular/religious minorities, as that is backed by demographic evidence (quick google search will suffice). I will argue the other assumptions later if you want, but right now I want to know, under these assumptions, why is it bad to back secular rebels? And I mean why is it bad from the Syrian's point of view.
imabench
Posts: 21,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 1:17:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/8/2013 10:35:19 PM, blueberry_crepe wrote:
Ok, this is what I know about Syria (based on a class I took on US military strategy):

Syria differs from Libya because the majority of the population do not support the revolution. In LIbya, there was 90% public support, while Syria is like 10% (the majority of fighters are non-Syrian arabs).

I didnt find a shred of evidence anywhere usggesting that is true, in fact all evidence suggests that a majority of Arabs do support an ousting of Assad: http://www.zamanalwsl.net...

Because of this, toppling Assad will lead to a power vacuum and civil war will ensue like it did in Yugoslavia. This is why the US cannot just support rebels.

1) its not known if Syria will fall into a power vacuum like Yugoslavia did when Assad is ousted
2) Its not necessarily our problem if that does happen

Another issue is that there are thousands of rebel factions, many of which are Islamic fundementalist. This poses a post-civil war dilemma of a potential Sharia theocracy government. And so the US seems in a deadlock with who to support if it wants to reduce the deaths.

My Solution:

Why can't we just support the most powerful secular rebel faction?

1) We dont know who that is
2) They arent necessarily more powerful then all the other factions
3) There might not even be a very powerful secular faction to fund in the first place

If we support one faction, then we avoid the risk of a power vacuum since we know which one will take over.

Except that we dont, the uS has a rather sh*tty history of pouring funding into regimes they propped up that ultimately fail the second the US pulls back (Vietnam the most memorable one)

We will also prevent a theocratic government from rising since we are supporting secularists.

Jesus Christ, just because we support a secularist group it doesnt mean that they will be the ones who take power or can even hold on to power long enough to forge a stable country.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
blueberry_crepe
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 7:41:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 1:17:38 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/8/2013 10:35:19 PM, blueberry_crepe wrote:
Ok, this is what I know about Syria (based on a class I took on US military strategy):

Syria differs from Libya because the majority of the population do not support the revolution. In LIbya, there was 90% public support, while Syria is like 10% (the majority of fighters are non-Syrian arabs).

I didnt find a shred of evidence anywhere usggesting that is true, in fact all evidence suggests that a majority of Arabs do support an ousting of Assad: http://www.zamanalwsl.net...

Because of this, toppling Assad will lead to a power vacuum and civil war will ensue like it did in Yugoslavia. This is why the US cannot just support rebels.

1) its not known if Syria will fall into a power vacuum like Yugoslavia did when Assad is ousted
2) Its not necessarily our problem if that does happen

It is not known, sure. But it is a general consensus among Political Scientists that it will. And frankly, to me, the assumptions by academics are more trustworthy than the assumptions of the lay analysts. Political Scientists Robert Pape is an example.

Another issue is that there are thousands of rebel factions, many of which are Islamic fundementalist. This poses a post-civil war dilemma of a potential Sharia theocracy government. And so the US seems in a deadlock with who to support if it wants to reduce the deaths.

My Solution:

Why can't we just support the most powerful secular rebel faction?

1) We dont know who that is
2) They arent necessarily more powerful then all the other factions
3) There might not even be a very powerful secular faction to fund in the first place

1) Send someone to figure it out
2) Our support will make them the most powerful
3) There are, such as the FSA

If we support one faction, then we avoid the risk of a power vacuum since we know which one will take over.

Except that we dont, the uS has a rather sh*tty history of pouring funding into regimes they propped up that ultimately fail the second the US pulls back (Vietnam the most memorable one)

This counter has to do with your level of trust with the government. I'm saying what the government should do. I'm not saying the government will do this, that if they said they'll do this they actually will, etc. I'm just saying what they should do to resolve this conflict in the most sustainable and peaceful way.

We will also prevent a theocratic government from rising since we are supporting secularists.

Jesus Christ, just because we support a secularist group it doesnt mean that they will be the ones who take power or can even hold on to power long enough to forge a stable country.

(Aside: please don't say things like "Jesus Christ" or use other hostile or condescending phrases. I understand I shouldn't retailiate, but I have a tendency to do so, and arguments then escalate to become uncivil. So to prevent that, please keep things purely objective and logical, without rhetoric) I think if we give them power and support their regime, the secular pro-democracy troops can maintain power.
imabench
Posts: 21,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 8:13:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 7:41:27 PM, blueberry_crepe wrote:

Because of this, toppling Assad will lead to a power vacuum and civil war will ensue like it did in Yugoslavia. This is why the US cannot just support rebels.

1) its not known if Syria will fall into a power vacuum like Yugoslavia did when Assad is ousted
2) Its not necessarily our problem if that does happen

It is not known, sure. But it is a general consensus among Political Scientists that it will. And frankly, to me, the assumptions by academics are more trustworthy than the assumptions of the lay analysts. Political Scientists Robert Pape is an example.

These are the same people who believed the Iraq war would last about as long as the first one, and that fell on its head pretty hard....

Why can't we just support the most powerful secular rebel faction?

1) We dont know who that is
2) They arent necessarily more powerful then all the other factions
3) There might not even be a very powerful secular faction to fund in the first place

1) Send someone to figure it out

-_________________- Its not as simple as that idiot.

2) Our support will make them the most powerful

If we give them everything we can then yes, but its pretty clear that the US will only give limited funding and resources to the rebels, and it likely wont be even close enough to make them the dominant faction of all the ones fighting for control

If we support one faction, then we avoid the risk of a power vacuum since we know which one will take over.

Except that we dont, the US has a rather sh*tty history of pouring funding into regimes they propped up that ultimately fail the second the US pulls back (Vietnam the most memorable one)

This counter has to do with your level of trust with the government. I'm saying what the government should do. I'm not saying the government will do this, that if they said they'll do this they actually will, etc. I'm just saying what they should do to resolve this conflict in the most sustainable and peaceful way.

Well sorry for me living in the real world.

We will also prevent a theocratic government from rising since we are supporting secularists.

Jesus Christ, just because we support a secularist group it doesnt mean that they will be the ones who take power or can even hold on to power long enough to forge a stable country.

I think if we give them power and support their regime, the secular pro-democracy troops can maintain power.

Everything just goes in one ear and out the other with you doesnt it?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015