Paphitis wrote:Tim Drayton wrote:supporttheunderdog wrote:Tim Drayton wrote:supporttheunderdog wrote:See my post in the War on Syria thread.
All I can say is that I think there a few goodguys in the Syrian fight, when it comes to being either active as pro or anti Assad, withthe exception of the majority of the civilian population who just want a reasonable safe life. My own limited ulnderstanding was that as despots went Assad was no worse than any and better than many..ruthless with obvious opponents but not too capricious in victimising any group. His likely main fault as far as the USA was concerned was that he was anti isreali and openly supported Hezzbollah, which put him in the axis of evil. American foreign policy in the region has been a disgrace, hypocritical in the extreme in supporting various despotic rulers, and casting them off once a better option came along. Few of the benefits of the American way of life filtered through, hence serious local distrust of the USA at all levels.
Regime change through eg the last Iraq war and the Arab Spring has not been a success, mainly because there has been no credible successor with enough local support to properlly fill the space left by the departing regime. That is always a recipe for disaster. That is demonstrated in Syria by the factionalised nature of the opposition and tgat Assad retained suffucient support to survive.
The Americans might be begining to appreciate the meaning of tbe saying, "better the devil you know".
Partition is a possibility. Whther thst is on the cards, I do not know, but one may end up with Kurdish autonomous region, as in Iraq. That raises many possibiliies, not all goid.
I take your point. For those of us who believe the USA and other Western powers were at least instrumental in bringing Erdoğan to power in Turkey, and looking at his dictatorial leanings, it is pretty hypocritical for them to demand that a dictator like Assad go.
America has long been selective in the dictatorial regimes they chose to support and doubly hypocrtical by imposing dictators where they are concerned that an alternative with better democratic credentials may not toe their line.
Of course, if you believe it's based on principles, then it appears to be hypocritical. On the other hand, based on the premise that it's all about self-interest, then it makes sense. Russia wants to keep its Mediterranean naval base and it sees Assad as guaranteeing that, so he is a good dictator in their eyes. It baffles me as to why the West doesn't consider a secular Western-oriented Turkey to be to its advantage, but the Western ruling elites obviously continue to believe that the islamist Erdoğan serves their interests and so he is a good dictator in their eyes, even if nowadays we hear the odd sanctimonious word of disapproval from some Western leaders about Erdoğan's 'excesses'.
It's all swings and roundabouts.
The West owes Erdogan nothing and is more than willing to let him fall whenever the people of Turkey see fit for this to happen.
Basically, they don't particularly care who is in power in Turkey.
I beg to differ there. Global capital, and especially Western capital, has turned Turkey into a major manufacturing base and I think they care very much who is in charge.