Until finally we can have a single vantage point on all sides involved: They're all bad.
Maliki's good ... then he's bad.
Assad is a partner for reform ... then he's bad.
The anti-Assad forces are good, or at least mixed ... then those that are left are all bad.
Heck, a lot of people even sort-of defended some of the Iraqi rebels (the enemy of my arch-rival has to be good guys). They're just all horrible now.
The Iranians? Still bad.
Turkey? Who wants to support Erdogan?
The only decent folk in all of this so far are people we don't really want to win, and that would be the Kurds. I mean, it would be incredibly destabilizing. So for now the Kurds in Syria are under assault while the Iraqi Xians and Arabs that don't like IS-IS (if you can't reduce it to IS, may as well reduce it to the "Islamic state Islamic State"
seek shelter with the Iraqi Kurds. That can't be good.
After all, if the Kurds get power it might destabilize Iraq and Syria and we can't allow that to happen.
In all honesty, I compare now to 2001 and 2001 was far more stable. Then again, I compare now to 2008 and 2008 was even far more stable. Perhaps not as stable as 2001--strongmen tend to produce stability while they're alive--but heck, that bar is set awfully low right now.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read