Before ISIS it would be getting rid of Assad. Now you have to tame ISIS first or let them take over?
Many believe that Putin in Russia actually supports Assad even though he does not pub.
If this is the case, this will not be easy to get rid of Assad. It is almost like in Korea War: When Soviet was behind China, and China was behind North Korea, it is then next to impossible to get rid of North Korea because there were “big guys” behind them.
Recently, I read somewhere that Russia beefs up their military advising support to Syria’s government. It could get complicated because, in the future, Russia-supported military (air force) may target the allies in Syria supported by US.
My imagination may run away here: Russia lost big during Reagan’s era and shortly after that; now they think they have a golden opportunity to take advantage of the hostility of the Arabs (due to the historic events) against the west to recover from their loss of “territory”/“allies”.
“Is there any cost-effective way to help these would-be migrants to stay put?”
Cost effective? I don’t thnk so. To encourage Syrians to stay put you would need to get rid of ISIS and Assad (who is supported by Russia) and then remove from power his many cohorts and beneficiaries.
That means war, followed by quite a bit of social “re-engineering” in Syria.
If one agrees with Lergnom, that the US tends to be naive and underinformed when dealing with the Middle East (and there’s plenty evidence to support that) it seems like an undertaking that has very small odds of succeeding. And certainly not in a cost-effective (and peaceful) way.
I think it’s all due to the Olympics moment. One circle out of 5 Olympic circles didn’t inflated right. I think it was an embarrassing moment for Putin. He has since do his best to undo this embarrassing moment but it has not worked, sort of like but poking the West in the eye.
Somehow I got the gut feeling (my gut feeling might not be right though) that, Putin “liked” G.W. Bush, at least not as hostile as he is toward the west/US in recent years. (Didn’t G.W. bush invite him to his own branch in Waco, Texas and they had a very good time together at one time?) Maybe the “charisma” of the younger Bush not only had an effect in US only, but also extended beyond US (except Europe though.) If I remember it correctly: Dick Cheney once complimented the personal quality of the younger Bush along this line: He (the younger Bush) actually fits his role very well because this is what he is good at (I think he referred to his excellent people skill – but this could be the case as long as his target audience is not an European though.) If only he would not listen so much to someone like Rumsfeld!
Or, it might be because Russia was “weaker” and Putin’s political power in Russia was not that solid back then, so Putin chose a different strategy that was the best for him at that time.
What if the “supreme leader” of North Korea and the current President of South Korea have a BBQ in the latter’s home? (He labeled her as a borderline prostitute in the past.) When this happens, will a lot of problems be resolved? I am day-dreaming here.
Or it might be because when one draws a red line and doesn’t mean it, he or she is rendered irrelevant. It is also interesting to me that so many in the world are so upset by a picture of one dead child on a European beach but never noticed the many corpses of children killed by chemical weapons in Syria.
It seems at this point Putin and Donald Trump may become friends.
Putin liked Bush because he realized right away Bush was a twit.
Media is powerful.
Media is very powerful. Not to mention manipulative. When people ask why they didn’t see this coming, I ask where they get their news and why they are comfortable being spoon fed an agenda. Because media bias is all about what isn’t prominently featured.
That reminds me why I don’t read a certain newspaper and don’t watch certain channel, I don’t want my mind to be polluted. 
Well I don’t think information is polluting. I aggressively seek out sources that don’t share my world view every day and am daily amazed by the difference in what is chosen to be covered on both sides. The crisis in Syria is a noteworthy example in what is covered and how it is covered. The cool thing is to see something noteworthy on the “other” side that is unfamiliar and then research it to its sources and history and draw my own conclusions. I don’t appreciate the paternal approach some news organizations take toward their viewers or readers. I find it greatly amusing when people who only get their news from sources with a particular worldview consider themselves educated and informed.
It seems Vincente Fox, then-President of Mexico, might like G. W. Bush even more, likely due to the interests shared by them:
http://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_RFEA_113_0070–george-w-bush-and-mexican-immigration.htm
The above link covers many aspects of the immigration issue regarding Mexico migrants to US. Wonder whether the countries in Europe face the same issue
Jeb Bush’s wife surely does not like what Trump has to say.
“Some years ago in their highly provocative book, Latino Crossings: Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and the Politics of Race and Citizenship, Nicholas De Genova and Ana Ramos-Zayas proposed that since the nineteenth century Mexican labor in the United States had been constructed in the American popular imagination as illegal labor. [7] Nicholas De Genova and Ana Ramos-Zayas, Latino Crossings:…[7] Accordingly, Mexicans had been deprived of the right to gain citizenship, allowed citizenship for their labor mainly through exceptions, in the form of amnesty programs, which further inscribed the stigma of their unworthiness for membership in the American body politic. Mexicans were only wanted as guest workers, not as hardy immigrants. The clear economic implication of such stigmatization, De Genova and Ramos-Zayas argued, was to continually provide American businesses with cheap, tractable labor that lived in the shadow of the law, could not protest its work conditions, and which could be deported at a whim. The debates that have occurred so far about Mexican immigration under President George W. Bush’s administration seem to confirm the De Genova/Ramos-Zayas analysis. American businesses continue to want cheap, largely illegal Mexican labor to remain robust and profitable, refusing them any grander political or social participation in the republic.”
Yeah, Assad is using sarin on his own civilians. There’s a reason why half the population of Syria is now refugees. You’d take your kids away too, if the leader of your country started using chemical weapons on your neighbors.
- There's also some evidence at least one rebel group - there are so many but probably the Al-Nusra Front (very hardcore Islamist) - also used chemical weapons. Remember, the regime said they never authorized chemical use and they did cooperate with getting rid of their store under UN supervision.
- Russian support of Assad is no secret. Russian interests are to support the Shia against the Sunni because the conflicts in Chechnya & problems in Dagestan (1st & 2nd Wars, continuing insurgency that carries into Moscow - including mass murder in a theatre) pose a direct threat to Russian internal stability and they face actual, not putative violence. Assad also has the support of Iran and Hizbollah, which essentially controls Lebanon, and that is a big reason, as I've noted, why Russia is selling advanced weapons to Iran.
Note that Assad has been dropping bombs on civilians for years now. This isn’t all that new: his father killed maybe 10,000 people putting down a revolt in Homs decades ago.
I read the reporting by the left wing and the right wing media. Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies even closer…
I’d send my kids away with their mother and then, I’d gather some friends and I’d get Dear Leader.
@zoosermom Very true about the media. I am from Europe and read a lot of news in my native language. However, it is often as one-sided as American news. My favorite news magazine is the British ECONOMIST because it usually shows both sides of an issue.
@Lergnom The bombing of the Muslim brotherhood by Assad, the father, was in Hama in 1982. Simultanously, he ran a very tight ship trough individual torture and imprisonment of any possible opponents. However and not unlike Saddam, he kept the country relatively peaceful for his thirty-year tenure. (Of course, Syria was formally at war with Israel and meddled in Lebanon).
I think all these immigrants problem is making Britain think seriously about Brexit.
Brexit on the cards? Polls point to yes http://www.cnbc.com/id/102975908
Thanks, TallyMom, I forgot it was Hama since Homs has been in the news so often. My bad.
I don’t think the Economist does a particularly good job on daily news but its longer pieces tend to be interesting.
Some basic news sources in English are:
Al-Monitor - a collection of sources from the region with lots of articles about Turkey (by Turks). Has a series of political bents depending on the country and the conflict. As in all the Israeli contributors are leftist.
Egyptian Streets - modern website with articles on many Egyptian topics, including some news
Egypt Independent - a fairly decent paper
Egypt Daily News - collects a bunch of sources but nothing in depth
Lebanon Daily Star - not a good paper but every once in a while there’s something. Afraid of offending Hizbollah.
Egypt Source - note 6 peacekeepers, including 4 Americans, wounded by IED’s in Sinai on 9/4. Anyone hear about that?
Al-Bab - sort of deeper reporting about issues, like corruption in NGO’s
Syrian Observer - today’s lead article is a bio of Zahran Alloush, military commander of the Islamic Front.
I don’t read much about the Gulf States. There are papers from Saudi Arabia but they tend to be non-critical reporting, more like a bunch of press releases.