So why are some of the Allied forces against Isis Trying to stop any progress?
Asked by
msh (
4270
)
February 7th, 2016
from iPhone
The summit that was being held with the allies fighting against Isis, was suspended until March, as of last Friday evening. The reason given for this postponement was because of infighting amongst the allied group of countries against Isis forces.
Questions of Russian and Syrian actions, the Middle Eaststern coalition, headed by Saudi Arabia and it’s members, have been accused of delayed participation in their supporting efforts, Russia is accusing Turkey of aggressive build up towards attack in recent activity between the two nations, and so on.
Wasn’t one of the initial ideas towards the destruction of Isis was from creating conflict from within their infrastructure? It could be argued that this tactic is destroying the Allied forces from within, sooner than these efforts against Isis will occur.
The Associated Press gave an inclusive report of all Allied participants detrimental actions, which has now delayed any action towards the halting of ISIS forces. Another city has fallen to their troops since.
What is the eventual outcome going to be?
Is this multi-nation group going to be effective now and in the long-run?
AP News:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3432324/Saudi-official-says-kingdom-ready-send-troops-Syria.html?ito=email_share_mobile-top
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
3 Answers
The real problem is that every one of the players (Syria, ISIS, Iran, US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the rebels) has entirely different reasons for screwing around in Syria. And off on the side, there is Israel.
Russia is in cahoots with Assad to save Assad’s butt; only secondary is their dislike of ISIS. The rebels can’t stand Assad but they don’t like ISIS either. Saudi Arabia hates Iran, hates ISIS because they see it as a threat, sort of supports the rebels because they don’t like ISIS. And then there’s the US who is sort of an ally to Saudi Arabia and Russia at the same time (ISIS enmity) but dislikes Russia because of the whole Crimea thing and the fact that Putin is becoming another czar.
Bottom line: it is a real mess. They all have stated goals and unstated goals, and there is no way for them to reach any sort of a meeting of the minds.
The US probably should have gotten involved three years ago – but there’s no guarantee that doing so would have changed anything. My guess is that Syria is going to come out ugly no matter what, and won’t get settled for a LONG time.
Everyone’s waiting for the United States to pour troops down the rat hole, but it ain’t gonna happen. At least it ain’t gonna happen before the election. Americans have short memories, but they aren’t quite short enough (yet) to forget Mr. Bush’s adventure and the resulting morass directly responsible for the current pile of sh*t. We can continue to blow stuff up from the air til not a rock is left larger than a marble. We’re no longer desperate for oil from the region, and the current slump in oil prices means billions of dollars in the pockets of Americans and the Saudis now dipping into their considerable pile of money to make ends meet. No one knows how it’s going to end, but Iraq as the unified entity it was under Saddam is almost certainly gone forever and even with the expulsion of Isis, the best to be hoped for is 3 separate states of questionable stability. Syria, on the other hand is almost certainly destined to remain in the grip of Assad. Both Iran and Russia want it that way, and unlike us are prepared to go the distance. We’ll make noise about it, but GW has rendered preventing it no longer politically feasible for the greatest power in the world.
Political correctness.
It will be the undoing of us all.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
