The Islamic State

[nycnoob]

For all intents and purposes, ISIS hijacked the revolution against Assad. The people fighting Assad today are, across the spectrum, a different group of people with different ideologies and goals.

As my mother would say "What did you think was going to happen?"

[Suvorov]

Keep in mind that we didn't throw out support for ISIS.

We threw out support for the FSA, which was much more secular and modern. IS gained a foot hold inside of the FSA, killed off its leadership, and a ton of FSA fighters threw up their arms and said, "I'm out. Ya'll be actin' a fool."

For all intents and purposes, ISIS hijacked the revolution against Assad. The people fighting Assad today are, across the spectrum, a different group of people with different ideologies and goals.

So do you think if we had given the FSA more support they would have been able to weather ISIS extremists and Assad or would ISIS just have more US made/supplied toys?

[Spr1]

As my mother would say "What did you think was going to happen?"

Exactly. Just like Egypt, the more aggressive, more organized take whatever help they can get from other groups or "useful idiots" and then consolidate power when convenient.

[Jeep]

The culture in the Middle East is just as poisoned as the ghettos of Chicago.

Go ahead, overthrow Assad and wipe out ISIS. Its the same outcome as arresting the neighborhood drug kingpin. The big boss goes down, and then the fighting starts over who gets to be the Newest Kittenhead.Out of the rubble emerges a true regime of evil, and were back to square one.

I basically agree, but I think there is a distinction. Assad is a thug and murder, who isn't interested in exporting his regime. ISIS are crazed maniacs dedicated to genocide (among other things) who want to export their particular revolution . If Assad regains control in Syria and ISIS disappears, we (and Syria) would be better off--even though Assad is really bad. If ISIS gains control, they will be cutting off heads with a passion and will immediately be attacking Lebanon and Jordan.

In other words, I think we are better off with the old drug kingpin than with the new contender.

[TGS]

So do you think if we had given the FSA more support they would have been able to weather ISIS extremists and Assad or would ISIS just have more US made/supplied toys?

My underinformed opinion would be the latter.

[Suvorov]

My underinformed opinion would be the latter.

The problem is that your admittedly under informed opinion is as good if not better than that of Kerry/Powers/Rice et al.

[TGS]

The problem is that your admittedly under informed opinion is as good if not better than that of Kerry/Powers/Rice et al.

Yes and no.

I think it'd be pretty brazen of me to assume I know better than people who do this stuff day in and day out as a career. In addition, there's no set gameplan that is bombproof. Putting Saddam Hussein into power was a pretty good play back in the day...there's no way we could have predicted, and thus no way we could place blame, for how it turned out.

In addition, for every instance of foreign military aid that doesn't work out, there are many instances we don't hear about because it did indeed work out accordingly.

All I know is that foreign policy has some similarities to our workplaces. Namely the phrase, "If we don't tell the employee what's going on, the rumor mill will." Similarly, if we don't get our hand involved and try to do something.....someone else will. That someone else will most likely do such with ill intent towards us.

In summary, foreign policy is not a zero defect game and thinking it will be (or even more sadly, someone thinking they're good enough to attain such) is pretty lofty. For every action there is a reaction, so I'd like to see anyone in this thread try to do a drastically better job......especially considering some of the most ardent critics (here and elsewhere) can barely qualify as educated professionals, let alone qualify as diplomats and/or policy makers.

Of course, this may just be my confirmation bias trying to reaffirm my career choices in life.

[Jeep]

Yes and no.

I think it'd be pretty brazen of me to assume I know better than people who do this stuff day in and day out as a career. In addition, there's no set gameplan that is bombproof. Putting Saddam Hussein into power was a pretty good play back in the day...there's no way we could have predicted, and thus no way we could place blame, for how it turned out.

In addition, for every instance of foreign military aid that doesn't work out, there are many instances we don't hear about because it did indeed work out accordingly.

All I know is that foreign policy has some similarities to our workplaces. Namely the phrase, "If we don't tell the employee what's going on, the rumor mill will." Similarly, if we don't get our hand involved and try to do something.....someone else will. That someone else will most likely do such with ill intent towards us.

In summary, foreign policy is not a zero defect game and thinking it will be (or even more sadly, someone thinking they're good enough to attain such) is pretty lofty. For every action there is a reaction, so I'd like to see anyone in this thread try to do a drastically better job......especially considering some of the most ardent critics (here and elsewhere) can barely qualify as educated professionals, let alone qualify as diplomats and/or policy makers.

Of course, this may just be my confirmation bias trying to reaffirm my career choices in life.

TGS: Don't sell yourself short. Kerry is a career politician who didn't even throw away his own medals when he threw them over the White House fence. Samantha Powers was a quasi journalist who decided we had a "duty to protect" people getting massacred without either putting forth any meaningful normative way of deciding how such duties arise or serving a day in uniform herself. And Susan Rice--who is considered to be one of the most difficult people in Washington--helped to restart the Ethiopian/Eritrean war all by herself during the Clinton administration when she was supposed to be mediating a settlement.

None are career diplomats, but even more importantly, none has much influence. In this administration all policy--including foreign policy--is made by the political staff at the White House, and the people they've placed in the various relevant agencies to make sure that they don't freelance on their own. And most of those White House guys know little about foreign policy; the only thing they care about is its effect on domestic politics. The same, of course, is true of most of Congress.

[TCinVA]

There are plenty of intelligent professionals in government. They often report to people who are not. Notice I left out the word "educated" there, because sheepskins on one's wall are certainly fine but are no guarantee of quality. The career of Jamie Gorelick would serve as a nice illustration of this principle. So would Eric Holder.

[JHC]

Yes and no.

I think it'd be pretty brazen of me to assume I know better than people who do this stuff day in and day out as a career. In addition, there's no set gameplan that is bombproof. Putting Saddam Hussein into power was a pretty good play back in the day...there's no way we could have predicted, and thus no way we could place blame, for how it turned out.

In addition, for every instance of foreign military aid that doesn't work out, there are many instances we don't hear about because it did indeed work out accordingly.

All I know is that foreign policy has some similarities to our workplaces. Namely the phrase, "If we don't tell the employee what's going on, the rumor mill will." Similarly, if we don't get our hand involved and try to do something.....someone else will. That someone else will most likely do such with ill intent towards us.

In summary, foreign policy is not a zero defect game and thinking it will be (or even more sadly, someone thinking they're good enough to attain such) is pretty lofty. For every action there is a reaction, so I'd like to see anyone in this thread try to do a drastically better job......especially considering some of the most ardent critics (here and elsewhere) can barely qualify as educated professionals, let alone qualify as diplomats and/or policy makers.

Of course, this may just be my confirmation bias trying to reaffirm my career choices in life.

Very good overall. Except Saddam hacked his way up the food chain of the Baathist Party from the late '60's through the '70's - finally taking over as President in '79. Installing sadists as dictators was not Jimmy Carter's thing. Later Iraq was played against Iran.

But the impossibility of the perfect strategy with zero chance of unintended outcomes is a great point to drive home.