Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

Now the Washington Post editorial board is sure there are anti-Assad rebels who the US can strengthen who will then take Assad down and subsequently take down Isis (I think)

Unfortunately, he still is not doing what is needed to “destroy” the Islamic State, as the president defined the goal on Sunday. That destruction would require a Sunni ground force, made up of Syrians, Iraqis and perhaps foreign troops from the Persian Gulf and Turkey, with substantial U.S. support.

But no such force will go after the Islamic State as long as Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his Iranian and Russian allies are waging their barbaric war on Sunnis in Syria. Though Secretary of State John F. Kerry is pushing a diplomatic process that he hopes could lead to a cease-fire, he’s unlikely to succeed until anti-Assad rebels are substantially strengthened on the ground. That remains the missing piece of Mr. Obama’s strategy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-missing-piece-of-mr-obamas-strategy/2015/12/07/76f88cf8-9d04-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html

It does seem clear that large swaths of Iraq and Syria are going to need to be put under Sunni authority unless anyone believes that the Shia govt in Baghdad is about to become multicultural + inclusive and the Alawite govt in Damascus is going to regain its appeal for the Sunnis living under its rule. And if there is going to be a Sunni authority inevitably we probably should get started on empowering them? Obv there's a lot of risk but what's the alternative?

that seems like what we've already been doing by supporting the free syrian army and other 'moderate' islamist groups in syria

we could hold our nose, cut a deal with assad to keep him around (or some remnant of the regime) and let the extant syrian government reassert itself over the rest of syria again

unless we're prepared to give assad significant amount of support that's just a recipe for another fracture

we could hold our nose, cut a deal with assad to keep him around (or some remnant of the regime) and let the extant syrian government reassert itself over the rest of syria again

Pretty sure it's headed this way.

ew: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/child-marriages-make-up-one-third-in-turkey.aspx?PageID=238&NID=92170&NewsCatID=339

Interesting stats from the Turkish army saying that of the 909 foreign nationals they arrested trying to cross into Syria this year, over a third were from China:

http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/suriye-sinirinda-en-cok-cinli-yakalandi-1489153/

Also suggests they didn't stop anyone from Tunisia, Morocco, the Balkans or Saudi so either they're getting in another way or they're slick enough not to get stopped.

Whaddya know:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/09/isis-recruiting-in-china.html

it seems like there has been muslim unrest in china for quite a while but state media has kept a lid on it

it's uighur unrest rather than muslim unrest surely, in the same way you'd say tibetan rather than buddhist

I thought it was mostly a local/separatist-nationalist thing though. I mean so are a lot of the conflicts from whence ISIS recruits, tbf -- that seems like part of their strategy, to try to create a sense of "global jihad" out of unrelated struggles that happen to involve muslims.

xp yes that's what i mean. i got lazy about looking up the correct spelling of 'uighur' which gives me problem. i only learnt this year that you pronounce 'uighur' as something like 'wigger' which made me lol when i first heard it from the BBC: "Wigger unrest in Xinjiang."

on today's pronunciation theme I say/have heard 'weegur'

"to try to create a sense of "global jihad" out of unrelated struggles that happen to involve muslims." i'm not 100% sure about this. from what i understood ETIM has had ties to Al-Qaeda - i was looking to confirm that this was true and apparently it's a somewhat controversial (tho often asserted) claim.

That's probably because Al Qaeda had/has a similar strategy.

well this could become terrifying:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/muslims-outraged-trump-considers-visiting-temple-mount-article-1.2460251

btw: last year we didn't do a rolling MENA 2015 bc Hurting complained about the nomenclature and i got pissy and decided not to do one. i do think we could use a new thread for 2016. here are some options i've been mulling: 1. rolling MENA 2016 - easy, geographically somewhat coherent, obv sequel. 2. rolling WANA 2016 - less eurocentric, easier to talk about north african and west asian countries that don't precisely fit the MENA rubric. 3. rolling GEOPOLITICS 2016 - ooo, no longer MENA now we can talk about Crimea, China, Congo, etc. pros: catchall for a certain kind of discussion, cons: too overly broad, might steal comments from other more region/country specific threads? anyway i don't care whichever we chose. thoughts?

do we actually have other more region specific threads? Like I don't recall there being any heavily trafficked threads about Asia, Africa, etc. (I may just be overlooking them).

This thread, by contrast, is always hoppin

there are chinese, russian threads. there's a congo thread, zimbabwe thread, and a nigeria thread. i think anglo countries for the most part have their own rolling threads. i don't think there are other catchalls like no Rolling Balkans or Rolling Sub-Saharan Africa.

well let's just list every country then. The rolling Israel-Jordan-Egypt-Syria-Turkey-Lebanon-UAE-Saudi Arabia-Tunisia-Libya-Morrocco-Iraq-Iran-Yemen-Kuwait-Oman-Bahrain thread

oops sorry Qatar sucks to be you!

Most people into geopolitics follow several of these threads. I say just roll everything that isn't US or UK domestic oriented, or an emerging issue (as needed), into one rolling geopolitics thread.

There's Rolling European Politics I think (too lazy to search).

Rolling Global (Dirty) South 2016

MENA seems good for me. What does WANA stand for?

Though thinking about it, seems slightly suspicious that the Middle East should always be first. So the right name is obviously 'NAME 2016'!!!

west asia north africa

I like that but, as with MENA, why even go for the acronym?

If you want an obscure thread title, just go for some obscure reference or quote like the rap writers do. "Rolling Thank God We Are Efficient Thread 2015" or some such. Something more recent would be better, obvs, but uyou get the gist.

Wouldn't West Asia include Russia and Caucasus and such? I get that 'Middle East' is obviously eurocentric, but if we acknowledge that, and go on?

Something something maghreb?

I've grown accustomed to MENA. It's ok with me.

NAME NAME NAME NAME

Rolling "We are not Orientalists, okay?" thread, 2016

this sounds promising: http://www.sfgate.com/news/nation-world/article/El-Chapo-threatens-war-on-ISIS-after-drug-6689840.php

Awesome.

"Are We not MENA, We are the rolling Israel-Jordan-Egypt-Syria-Turkey-Lebanon-UAE-Saudi Arabia-Tunisia-Libya-Morrocco-Iraq-Iran-Yemen-Kuwait-Oman-Bahrain & North Africa thread"

lol

ILXIL?

lol

Reuters is reporting that Putin has announced Russia is providing arms, ammunition and air support to the FSA!

meanwhile erdogan is playing the part of spurned friend and has been meeting barzani and rolling out the flag of kurdistan

turkey seems to be seriously trying to annex northern iraq and syria, not sure how this has escaped this thread's attention

There's some debate as to whether the presence of new Turkish troops in Iraq is an escalation or whether they're replacing the soldiers who were already working with / training the Peshmerga. Iraq clearly doesn't want them there either way though. It's pretty controversial in Turkey as well - there's a perception that they're doing it at the behest of the US and it runs counter to Turkey's own interests.

Putin expertly clowning anyone who thought they might have got some vague handle on this clusterfuck.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/middleeast/isis-what-arab-states-are-doing/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obinsite

The problem with deploying a large number of Arab troops is that no individual country is likely to risk it, and no nation has a mandate to act on behalf of everyone else.

Even if that wasn't the case, the likelihood of Syria or Iraq endorsing foreign military intervention is extremely unlikely, according to Ghadi Sary, a Middle East expert at Chatham House.

"I think it's going to be very hard for that to happen -- you've seen the Iraqi reaction to the presence of the Turkish army in northern Iraq," Sary says, referring to Iraq's ordering of Turkish troops out of the country on Monday.

"It is important for any intervening army to have the backing of the central government, or at least the army in the country," Sary says, "(including) the army of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who everyone will see as impossible to work with."

Sary also says most Arab militaries are more comfortable working inside -- not outside -- their own borders.

"For most of these countries, the over-involvement by the army in the internal affairs of the state has become acceptable, but when it comes to foreign intervention, it becomes problematic," he says.

"We're seeing the Egyptian army focus on the Sinai and its internal problems, we're seeing the Syrian army doing that, and in Yemen it's almost seen as the Saudi army cleaning up their own backyard -- but not really intervention on the international level."

Kerry heads to Moscow for tough Syria, Ukraine talks... "We are not playing 'Let's Make a Deal' here," the official said. "We are not trading Ukraine for Syria."

Can Kerry get the Russians to stop this tactic--

Aid agencies are warning of a worsening humanitarian crisis in northern Syria as sharply intensified Russian airstrikes paralyze aid supply routes, knock out bakeries and hospitals and kill and maim civilians in growing numbers.

Air attacks have escalated significantly since Turkey shot down a Russian warplane along the Turkey-Syria border on Nov. 24, the aid agencies say, with Russia responding to the incident by stepping up its effort to crush the anti-government rebellion in the insurgent-held provinces bordering Turkey.

Among the targets that have been hit are the border crossings and highways used to deliver humanitarian supplies from Turkey, forcing many aid agencies to halt or curtail their aid operations and deepening the misery for millions of people living in the affected areas, according to a report this month by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Hospitals and health facilities also have been struck, reducing the availability of medical care for those injured in the bombings. According to the U.N. report, at least 20 medical facilities have been hit nationwide in Syria since Russia launched its air war on Sept. 30.

“This is an emerging humanitarian crisis. There is extreme suffering, and people are not being protected,” said Rae McGrath, country director for Turkey and North Syria for the American aid agency Mercy Corps, one of the largest providers of food aid in northern Syria. Since the Russian strikes began, the agency has been able to deliver only a fifth of the amount it normally provides, he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/russian-airstrikes-force-a-halt-to-aid-in-syria-triggering-a-new-crisis/2015/12/14/cebc4b66-9f87-11e5-9ad2-568d814bbf3b_story.html

If I didn't know better I'd say Putin tries to escalate the refugee crisis to the point of massive civil unrest in Europe, then have Russian troops move in as a peacekeeping force? And I don't know better. After years of sanctions and COP21 the military is his only bargaining chip, and turning his opponents' weaknesses against themselves is very much Putin's style.

Of course there's a way to stop recession-fueled right-wing Fortress Europe demagogues dead in their tracks - a UBI, which enjoys growing support - but the over-aged political €stablishment isn't quite ready for that kind of sci-fi tomfoolery.

idk if that's Putin's plan. it requires too much cooperation on behalf of Europe to continue to accept any number of refugees (and it isn't clear there's the political will in Europe for that).

i dont think there are enough people in syria to destabilise europe to the point where troops are required, let alone extra foreign troops

The refugees themselves aren't the problem. The problem is fascists and "concerned citizens" beating refugees in the streets, hurling insults and bottles at Syrian children, and torching their shelters. Hundreds of shelters were burned down in Germany this year - most of them not yet occupied, though - and the number of incidents per week keeps rising.

the problem in a democracy is always the radicalization of the polity under stress

If I didn't know better I'd say Putin tries to escalate the refugee crisis to the point of massive civil unrest in Europe, then have Russian troops move in as a peacekeeping force?

Lol, no.