Guys how about the Arab countries unite and launch an operation on their own? I mean is it absolutely necessary to always be holding the American hand? From the posts I have read on this forum and seems to be most your countries, especially Saudi Arabia, are quite militarily strong and can achieve a lot.
I'm reading all your comments regarding this point you're trying to make and I still haven't figured out what group inside Syria are you advocating the Arabs -- and particularly Saudi Arabia -- and the Islamic Alliance needs to go in against with an operation of their own? Are you suggesting Assad and the Syrian regime itself? I'll wait for your exact answer to be sure I respond to the question correctly, but in the meantime I'll assume you are referring to fighting the Assad regime including the SAA and save the Syrian people from them.
You're a little bit all over the place because you're touting the Turks and the Iranians yet both of those are certainly not fighting for the Syrian people which is who you're advocating in your next quote.
The Syrian people are not 1 people, unfortunately. They've been fragmented and split into several groups of which a very large percentage of that group supports Assad. So the complexity of just that element puts an entire twist on your simplistic view of the conflict.
What you're suggesting is the Arabs fight the SAA which is supported by Iran and Russia and other rogue elements. Not even the US would do that, so that kinda puts an end to that idea but we'll entertain a few more thoughts.
The Arabs now have their own Islamic "NATO" as well, the combined military might of you folks can easy take over Syria and help save the Syrian people.
You need to be careful when you mention the Islamic Alliance because of not only who is running that alliance, but who are the members of that alliance? Isn't the great Pakistani General Raheel Sharif the head of the Islamic Alliance? Isn't Pakistan a member of the IA? So he basically has the final say in what that alliance does. So why hasn't he suggested what you just proposed? Isn't Turkey also a member of the IA? So by your own suggestions, the same onus you're putting on the selective Arabs you mentioned, you're putting just the same onus on Pakistan and Turkey.
So I'll ask you the same question, why isn't Pakistan doing something? Why are you just being selective with Arab states if you're suggesting the IA should get involved?
Look at Turkey for example, a non-Arab entity who sent in their own army and shed their own blood in Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch to save and help the Arab Sunni Syrians almost the entire Northern Syria. No doubt they had their own interests as well...but overall they have done far more than the other Arab countries.
No, their interests were not supplementary lol. They were the ONLY reason. The rest of the things you mentioned are the supplementary things they're doing in order to maintain the image that they're doing the right thing in weeding out any potential terrorism to their state and regime and country at their borders.
I had explicitly mentioned in my post that Turkey did most definitely have their own personal interest at stake as well, but that does not change the fact that they have shed their blood side by side amongst the Northern Syrian Sunni Arabs and provided them with a room to breath unlike their ethnic Arab brothers.
I love the way you describe that, "shedding their own blood side by side amongst the Northern Syrian Sunni Arabs" hahaha. That is good I gotta hand it to you. Let's see, why was it in the north? Oh yeah, it was right on their border. Where were they in the first 5 years of this war? Once they had enough of the refugee problem and saw the Kurds getting a strong foothold is when they decided to fight alongside their Arab Sunni whatever for very obvious reasons. Let's not make it look like they're there to save the Syrian people and what they've done is nothing compared to what you're putting the responsibility on the Arab states to do.
Russian, Iranians, SAA, USA, Kurds...they have all confronted someone at some point in time and shed their blood on the Syrian soil regardless of battles won or lost. Fortune favours the bold, not the second fiddles.
And every one of those is involved solely for the purpose of their own agenda. Please don't tell me that anyone of them is there fighting for the Syrian people.
Russia: Holding on to its only state of influence in the Middle East. Naval operational assets in the Mediterranean are the largest consideration.
Iranians: Regional influence and propping up a religiously affiliated puppet for access to Lebanon as a potential defensive area towards any Israeli attack on Iran proper as well as a proxy war against potential Saudi and Sunni expansion into the region.
SAA Following the orders of their dictator but they might be the only ones whom one can actually assign some legitimacy as to fighting for the people in Syria. But they are Syrian and they are the country's army so making it look like they're going out of their way is about as silly as can be. That's their sole responsibility! lol
USA I think it's pretty easy to determine what the US is doing there. Keeping an eye on things, making sure they're seen as fighting ISIS and helping squeeze a bit of pressure on the Russians with Israel.
KURDS Are only thinking about Kurds and a possibility of a Kurdish state as a piece of the pie if and when Syria gets cut up into pieces. They couldn't care less about the rest of the Syrian people who are the overwhelming majority.
Man seriously. People come with excuses such as "Oh...we don't border with Syria therefore what can we do?!"
As if Iran shares a border with Syria. Iran with it's ageing fleet manages to help their ally and fight side-by-side honouring their agreement, whilst the supposedly all powerful countries with excellent political clout and world class US weaponry are sitting with their gentlemen sausages in their hands tugging the US sleeves to take the lead while they play second fiddle.
Again, let's not pretend the Iranians are there because they care about the Syrian people. Neither are the Russians, the US or the Kurds or the Turks and certainly not the cretin groups. So to turn around and put the onus of caring for the Syrian people in the Saudi Arabian or any other Arab state's hands is not only disingenuous, but doesn't even take into account any of the dynamics on the ground and regarding all those groups that are already there and how it would actually make the situation much worst for the Syrian people than it already is.
