The Student Room Group

Why don't we help the Assad regime to destroy ISIS?

The situation in Syria is a mess right now. We're fighting ISIS as a coalition but we're also against Assad, who is fighting ISIS. In a way, were creating a complicated war, supporting various small groups like the FSA, who can't really do anything, instead of supporting the one guy who can actually destroy ISIS.

I can understand that Assad is also killing civilians but he isn't killing people in our country. The purpose of our intervention in the war is to protect us from radical terror groups like ISIS. They are the ones who are killing us and committing terror attacks- Assad is leaving us alone. Even if he does decide to then turn on us, we could always fight back as a coalition against him. Right now, he is the only person who can defeat ISIS, so why don't we help him?

Assad, although evil, provided stability in Syria and is st the forefront in the fight against ISIS. His government has more of a socially liberal, secular policy than ISIS and their extreme brand of radical Islam.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Ladbants
The situation in Syria is a mess right now. We're fighting ISIS as a coalition but we're also against Assad, who is fighting ISIS. In a way, were creating a complicated war, supporting various small groups like the FSA, who can't really do anything, instead of supporting the one guy who can actually destroy ISIS.

I can understand that Assad is also killing civilians but he isn't killing people in our country. The purpose of our intervention in the war is to protect us from radical terror groups like ISIS. They are the ones who are killing us and committing terror attacks- Assad is leaving us alone. Even if he does decide to then turn on us, we could always fight back as a coalition against him. Right now, he is the only person who can defeat ISIS, so why don't we help him?

Assad, although evil, provided stability in Syria and is st the forefront in the fight against ISIS. His government has more of a socially liberal, secular policy than ISIS and their extreme brand of radical Islam.


It's quite possibly that the US and Britain could start supporting Assad as earliest as next spring. The new president Trump is very pro-Putin and that could result in US forces fighting alongside Assad as Russians are at present. May has a close relationship with Trump which means British forces are likely to go in alongside US and Russian forces in support of Assad's war on terror.

I have to admit that I'm no fan of Trump or indeed May but this could be the only good thing that could come out of the election of Trump. I've always thought Assad should remain leader of Syria and that we need to learn more from Russia.

What we need to do after the war between the UK,US and Russia is support Assad in Rebuilding of Syria and come to some agreement on the creation of an autonomous Syrian Kurdistan. Kurds have do the most to fight ISIS and only deserve autonomy in a federal Syria under Assad.
(edited 7 years ago)
Valid point, but for me the main issue is the relationhip with the Kurds. The YPG/SDF have been very effective against ISIS, probably more effective than the Syrian government. And they're secular, but unlike the Syrian army they have a pretty good human rights record.

But unless there is some sort of negotiation for a semi autonomous region or something like that (which is what the YPG is aiming for), once ISIS is defeated and the Syrian army reaches YPG lines, there could just be another war. The government and YPG don't fight each other much, but they certainly are enemies. We don't want to squeeze ISIS between the YPG and Syrian army only to have another war break out once that fight is done.
Original post by RF_PineMarten
Valid point, but for me the main issue is the relationhip with the Kurds. The YPG/SDF have been very effective against ISIS, probably more effective than the Syrian government. And they're secular, but unlike the Syrian army they have a pretty good human rights record.

But unless there is some sort of negotiation for a semi autonomous region or something like that (which is what the YPG is aiming for), once ISIS is defeated and the Syrian army reaches YPG lines, there could just be another war. The government and YPG don't fight each other much, but they certainly are enemies. We don't want to squeeze ISIS between the YPG and Syrian army only to have another war break out once that fight is done.


My hope is that the Syrian Kurds could be given the same level of autonomy by Assad that Iraqi Kurds enjoy in Iraq.
A Syrian Kurdistan would span the entire border between Syria and Turkey. That should not be a problem to Assad because Turkey has been the main cause of problems in Syria, rebels and ISIS have got most weapons via Turkey.

Secondly its thanks to the Kurds that ISIS has not taken more territory from the regime. The Kurds have all but cut ISIS off from their allies and supplies in Turkey. That has brought a lot of relief to Assads forces. ISIS are now weak and short of armaments and struggling to attack the regime. Assad has a lot of reasons to thank the Kurds YPG, YPJ etc.

Edit:
Also the fact that Trump is less likely to bend over backwards to please Turkey like Clinton and Obama have done, which means there is hopefully more support to the YPG and YPJ.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Ladbants
The situation in Syria is a mess right now. We're fighting ISIS as a coalition but we're also against Assad, who is fighting ISIS. In a way, were creating a complicated war, supporting various small groups like the FSA, who can't really do anything, instead of supporting the one guy who can actually destroy ISIS.

I can understand that Assad is also killing civilians but he isn't killing people in our country. The purpose of our intervention in the war is to protect us from radical terror groups like ISIS. They are the ones who are killing us and committing terror attacks- Assad is leaving us alone. Even if he does decide to then turn on us, we could always fight back as a coalition against him. Right now, he is the only person who can defeat ISIS, so why don't we help him?

Assad, although evil, provided stability in Syria and is st the forefront in the fight against ISIS. His government has more of a socially liberal, secular policy than ISIS and their extreme brand of radical Islam.


If you're OK with more families being bombed in their homes, sure.
Original post by KingBradly
If you're OK with more families being bombed in their homes, sure.


More people are getting bombed by ISIS than the Assad government. Fighting against both like they do now is not working. You need to eliminate one first before you neutralize the other. They have to make some kind of sacrifice
Reply 6
Avatar for Trapz99
Trapz99
21
I completely agree with your point and I've often wondered this myself. Assad is an awful guy, but he's not the one who is committing terror attacks in Europe and the US, it is ISIS that are doing that. As well as this, Assad is capable of destroying ISIS- I highly doubt that us dropping a few bombs and sending a few guns to the FSA is going to help the fight against ISIS.

The purpose of our involvement in the war should be to protect the UK against ISIS, not to overthrow a government we don't agree with it. We need to stop complicating the war and focus on destroying ISIS and protecting our own nation.
Because the saudis are a major ally of the united states and Britain.Now the saudis are sunni but the assad government and Iran are shia.Sunni and shia muslims have a centuries old feud.As the saudis are our allies and have great influence on america and britain,we will continue to denounce assad.Basically Britain and america are picking sides in a war between shia and sunni muslims.Its got nothing to do with defeating terrorism.If that were the case then why the unconditional support for saudi arabia and qatar,both known exporters of extremism.The moderate rebels in syria are so pathetic that they may as well not exist.America has been supporting jihadist rebels in syria,though it does stop short of supplying certain weapons.
Reply 8
Avatar for Trapz99
Trapz99
21
Original post by KingBradly
If you're OK with more families being bombed in their homes, sure.

Is the Assad regime bombing us? No, it's ISIS who carried out the November 2015 Paris attacks and its them who inspired dozens of other terror attacks in Europe and the US. Assad is one of the biggest players in the fight against ISIS in Syria.
Original post by Trapz99
Is the Assad regime bombing us? No, it's ISIS who carried out the November 2015 Paris attacks and its them who inspired dozens of other terror attacks in Europe and the US. Assad is one of the biggest players in the fight against ISIS in Syria.


He's also one of the biggest contributors to the 15,000 children who have died in the civil war.

Original post by Metalfros
More people are getting bombed by ISIS than the Assad government. Fighting against both like they do now is not working. You need to eliminate one first before you neutralize the other. They have to make some kind of sacrifice


Why? Why not get boots on the ground to combat ISIS, rather than just carpet bombing Aleppo? I don't have a problem with how Britain and America are currently conducting airstrikes on ISIS, they seem pretty tactical and precise, but Russia and Assad's approaches are just horrible and counter-intuitive.
Original post by KingBradly
He's also one of the biggest contributors to the 15,000 children who have died in the civil war.



Why? Why not get boots on the ground to combat ISIS, rather than just carpet bombing Aleppo? I don't have a problem with how Britain and America are currently conducting airstrikes on ISIS, they seem pretty tactical and precise, but Russia and Assad's approaches are just horrible and counter-intuitive.


Great idea! Last time they put boots on the ground they ****ed up Iraq and Afghanistan, who are still suffering from it. ISIS is even an (in)direct result of these invasions. Sending a platoon of soldiers is going to make it a lot worse. ISIS has to be destroyed, but conventionally it cannot. I am sure the people with actual military education and understanding know a better solution than this.
Original post by KingBradly
He's also one of the biggest contributors to the 15,000 children who have died in the civil war.



Why? Why not get boots on the ground to combat ISIS, rather than just carpet bombing Aleppo? I don't have a problem with how Britain and America are currently conducting airstrikes on ISIS, they seem pretty tactical and precise, but Russia and Assad's approaches are just horrible and counter-intuitive.


He's, but he isn't attacking us. Our aim in the war should be to destroy ISIS because ISIS are a direct threat to us, Assad isn't. Assad can help us to destroy ISIS and other radical Islamist groups that threaten the UK; we share one common goal. It's a lot better to aid him in the fight against ISIS, much like we are aiding the Iraqi government, than have the complicated mess that is going on now.
(edited 7 years ago)
Some countries just forgot the history. They forgot that Russians during the centuries saved the world and continue to do it at the moment.

For example, some words of this Russian song:
"Me and my comrade, before the morning tank battle, smoked together, and he told me: I feel it will be hard this time, I feel that fashist occupant will make a strong strike.
It doesn't insult that we may fall today. Insults the fact that we won't see the open of the Second Front (Western Allies). They are dancing there and playing music all the time. Comrade Stalin, call to Washington, as soon as possible.
I interrupt my friend: don't panic, we have something else to discuss, except Roosevelt and Germans. We'll be lucky, we will defeat Hitler ourselves and return peace days for the Soviet country. But my comrade insisted that it would be much more comfortable, if they opened the Second Front...
We got order and went forward, the game of life and death started... the salt tear in the eye, blue light of the sky... This day the German was slim, I'm alive by mirracle, but not my friend... Hospital train takes us to heaven... Comrade Stalin, you yourself may see as Washington let us down."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsUzdNn7SiM
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 13
Avatar for ward47
ward47
12
Original post by Metalfros
More people are getting bombed by ISIS than the Assad government. Fighting against both like they do now is not working. You need to eliminate one first before you neutralize the other. They have to make some kind of sacrifice


the issue with that statement is that its very easy to say that a sacrifice must be made when you are not one of the potential civillian victims. Plus I do not think that at least from a moral and ethical perspective, we can really justify backing a regime with numerous actions against human rights simply because they are more humane than isis. Plus I think it is very shortsighted of the origional poster to say that just because assads troops arent directly threatening britain like ISIS that we should turn a blind eye to his misguided regime.
Reply 14
Avatar for ward47
ward47
12
Original post by Metalfros
Great idea! Last time they put boots on the ground they ****ed up Iraq and Afghanistan, who are still suffering from it. ISIS is even an (in)direct result of these invasions. Sending a platoon of soldiers is going to make it a lot worse. ISIS has to be destroyed, but conventionally it cannot. I am sure the people with actual military education and understanding know a better solution than this.


I have a relatively decent understanding of millitary protocol, (millitary family, cadet for 6 years, member of my universitys war studies society), and all of this has suggested to me that in the case of combating extremist elements it is almost impossible to conventionally defeat these type of terrorist groups simply through the application of air supremacy and strategic bombing. this is mainly beacuse not only are boots on the ground fundamentally neccesary to flush out entrenched extremist position in order for them to be effective targets for strategic bombing but also indiscriminatley carpet bombing areas like allepo in many cases will likely lead to higher levels of extremism as accidental civilian casulatys, which are inevitable even with american and british tech, can often lead to higher levels of radicalisation among the general populace. currently with no coalition boots on the ground its effectively like trying to fight the vietnam war only using helicopters, yeah you can continue carpet bombing the area for days if you want but unless youve got infantry to flush hostiles out into the open and confirm any kills you may as well be firing blind.
Original post by Trapz99

The purpose of our involvement in the war should be to protect the UK against ISIS, not to overthrow a government we don't agree with it. We need to stop complicating the war and focus on destroying ISIS and protecting our own nation.


It's also worth taking things one step at a time. Trying to muddle in a regime change in the middle of a civil war is never going to be peaceful. At least if ISIS were out of the way first, real diplomatic steps could be taken to doing something about Assad, rather than using the civil war as cover to throw money and weapons to fuel it.

Original post by KingBradly
He's also one of the biggest contributors to the 15,000 children who have died in the civil war.


If Nato were on the same side as Syria and Russia, we might have been able to influence this somewhat. Instead, we make the civil war worse, and turn into utter mayhem.
Original post by ward47
I have a relatively decent understanding of millitary protocol, (millitary family, cadet for 6 years, member of my universitys war studies society), and all of this has suggested to me that in the case of combating extremist elements it is almost impossible to conventionally defeat these type of terrorist groups simply through the application of air supremacy and strategic bombing. this is mainly beacuse not only are boots on the ground fundamentally neccesary to flush out entrenched extremist position in order for them to be effective targets for strategic bombing but also indiscriminatley carpet bombing areas like allepo in many cases will likely lead to higher levels of extremism as accidental civilian casulatys, which are inevitable even with american and british tech, can often lead to higher levels of radicalisation among the general populace. currently with no coalition boots on the ground its effectively like trying to fight the vietnam war only using helicopters, yeah you can continue carpet bombing the area for days if you want but unless youve got infantry to flush hostiles out into the open and confirm any kills you may as well be firing blind.


You are right. Your airplanes bombard Kenigsberg and our infantry took it. My great grandpa together with other high-ranking USSR officers also took part in the sturm. If you didn't destroy their fortresses we would have much more casulties.
Original post by Farm_Ecology


If Nato were on the same side as Syria and Russia, we might have been able to influence this somewhat. Instead, we make the civil war worse, and turn into utter mayhem.


I remember the end of 2013, when the head of Russian Church at Kremlin palace told us about the great numbers of murdered christians in the
Middle East. He told that we need to help them and save their lifes. It's the holy goal.
I can understand why siding with Assad might seem an obvious choice to defeat Da'esh in Syria but his regime isn't really any better. Da'esh are definitely more of an international threat without a doubt - Assad, for his many atrocities, isn't a threat to the West. But Syrian regime forces have used weapons of mass destruction on their own population - killing both rebel fighters and civilians alike. There can be no alliance with Assad because of this & the general laissez-faire attitude the Syrian regime forces have when it comes to discriminating between combatants & non-combatants.

It's difficult to find any kind of reliable figures of deaths in the Syrian Civil War & which side has caused them but the figure that keeps cropping up is between 150,000 & 200,000 Syrians killed & that Assad's forces are responsible for more of these than Da'esh are.
Original post by Trapz99
He's, but he isn't attacking us. Our aim in the war should be to destroy ISIS because ISIS are a direct threat to us, Assad isn't. Assad can help us to destroy ISIS and other radical Islamist groups that threaten the UK; we share one common goal. It's a lot better to aid him in the fight against ISIS, much like we are aiding the Iraqi government, than have the complicated mess that is going on now.


He's bombing families though. They may not be "us", but I believe they still deserve just as much recognition as human beings.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you