What is the solution to Syria?

[Kazuma]

Heimdalr

Kazuma

Heimdalr

but I'm concerned about the implications of compensation for military engagements.

I think the more concerning issue should be why such unnamed Arab countries are so willing to foot the bill to get the United States involved in this.

Heimdalr

piss off Putin and help Israel get rid of Hezbollah. Was I an American and several cubits to the right, I would probably have supported it. I have no idea why WND, Drudge and Beck make it a point to oppose this gold mine.

Proxy war, Gulf state money, aiding Islamic rebels... Sounds vaguely familiar to me.

Yes, it does sound familiar. What doesn't sound familiar at all is your specific opposition to a war.

I don't think it's in America's interest for Syria to become an al-Qaeda playground. That is what the endgame is going to be if Assad is defeated and overthrown: everyone and their own private militas are going to fight it out for who gets to control the country and the al-Qaeda backed ones are the ones who are going to be able to bring in the most fighters and arms. We don't need to be providing air support for al-Qaeda and its franchise affiliates.

[Wendigo]

We really could've used that kind of thinking a war or two ago.

[azulmagia]

Wendigo

azulmagia

Nobody excepting psychopaths are in favour of violent revolution for the sake of violent revolution. People are in favour of effective revolutions. How violent they turn out to be is entirely out of their hands. This should be the A-B-C to everyone except confirmed reactionaries.

Even a completely bloodless, peaceful and legal revolution is based upon force. The efficacy of ALL politics whatsoever is premised upon force. Whether or not there is an actual bodycount is an entirely contingent matter.

To clarify even further, strictly speaking, nobody is in favour of revolution. You either recognise the necessity of a revolution or you don't. The means are che sera, sera. It doesn't change the necessity, retroactively.

Conversely, if you believe that a revolution is necessary and one is not, that belief does not make a revolution any more necessary. Once one concedes the necessity of a revolution, one can rationalize the belief that the violence of one's revolution has been forced on one by circumstance, rather than the means chosen actively as a complement to one's end. After all, any government is fairly unlikely to just hand over the keys to the kingdom because you ask, even if you ask really politely.

Violence in revolution is normally forced upon the revolutionaries as a matter of course, and not a rationalization. I mean, look at the French Revolution. The King wasn't even removed, much less beheaded, until after he'd proved his treachery (which was entirely predictable). Even in Russia, the real violence began with the Civil War (The ouster of Kerensky's regime was virtually bloodless - nobody was willing to risk their skin for him. The Bolsheviks even went as far as setting a few tsarist generals at liberty under promise that they'd not take arms against the Soviet!). And, in every revolution to date, the counter-revolutionary forces rack up a higher kill count than the revolutionaries. This was true for the various French Revolutions, the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, etc. Even in Vietnam, in terms of deaths by terrorism, the US/South Vietnam killed more people than the Viet Cong.

The necessity of revolution has little to do with wanting a revolution, as. It's not just that the ancien regime is committing abuses, it's that it's no longer fit for command. People literally have to take matters into their own hands to solve society's most pressing problems. It no longer becomes possible to kick the can - whatever that may be under the circumstance - down the road. And there are quite a few such cans these days.

As for violence, the Soviet Union indeed tolerated the Baltic States appropriating the "keys to the kingdom" without a casualty, so you can have a bloodless national liberation. The fall of the Soviet Union: also relatively bloodless, but not a real revolution since the self-same ruling elite just turned themselves into capitalists. The transition to capitalism itself though cost an excess mortality of some two million people. At least one coup in Thailand came out bloodless save for one traffic policeman dying (if I remember correctly) - it's mentioned in passing in Yukio Mishima's Runaway Horses. As for things that could count as revolutions, the transfer of power to the Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919 was technically bloodless. Usually we expect resistance, but every once in a blue moon, the ancien regime folds like a lawn chair.

Quote:

Quote:

And to equate revolution with regime change via intervention is purest sophistry, even if we granted for sake of argument that they both involve "violent overthrows".

Oh? Seems to be more than a passing resemblance to me. Certainly more than a little, if we consider that Syria is attempting a revolution at the moment, presumably one that has been waiting in the wings a good long time. (Between four and five decades of Ba'ath party rule-by-force, and all.)

Whether the Syrian civil war turns into a real popular revolution - as opposed to a mere sectarian/regional conflict - is yet to be seen. Certainly Egypt hasn't reached that phase yet. The goal would have to be to unseat the military rule which deposes presidents as it sees fit. And the class power behind the military.

No true revolution is about merely overthrowing a government. I can understand why Second Amendment loving gunloons associate revolution with armed force used to overthrow a government, but they're idiots. I can't see what your excuse is for repeatedly conflating coup d'etats, civil wars, emeutes, coups de mains, bunts and palace coups with revolutions No revolution can stop at merely replacing the head of state, his cronies etc. It's not just the king or tsar that has to go, it's the prerogatives and power of the entire aristocracy. That was even true in the so-called "Roman Revolution" described in the book of the same name. It wasn't just the Optimates that had to go, but the entire Republic. The transition from Republic to Empire actually enabled more Italians to rise to Roman citizenship and increased their likelihood of attaining Senatorial status and the highest magistraties than was previously the case. The problems that give rise to revolutions are supra-political, they are pathologies of the entire system that can neither be solved satisfactorily in terms of the existing system, nor in terms of the interests of those who run the various facets of the systems - not just political, but economic, military, media, the church and so forth.Those "patriots" who think that all that has to be done is to put in place a "restoration of the Constitution" have a nasty surprise waiting for them. The system of international hegemony requires that the President has extra-constitutional foreign policy powers, for instance.

Quote:

Quote:

It's one thing for the Syrian people to oust Assad if they're tired of his bullshit, because it's their ******** country in the first place. It's another thing entirely for the United States to interlope.

Is it? No matter how tired of the Ba'ath party's bullshit they may be (this is only their second Assad after Hafez), the would-be revolutionaries stand a good chance of all dying, given how much more powerful Assad's military apparatus is. Happened in Iraq once, not long ago. Gunship helicopters are real hard on groundlings.

I'm not talking about the capacity in terms of force to overthrow a regime, but who has the rights to do it. To say the US has the right to do it is the same as saying that Syria is inherently America's bondsman. Calling such a thing a "right" is a contradiction in terms anyway - once we're talking about something the US can do to Syria, but not Syria to the US, we're talking about a privilege.

Going back to the past, exponents of mainstream liberalism, even those critical of slavery, were generally horrified when the slaves of Haiti successfully freed themselves. Such exponents thought only they - propertied white males - were qualified to be arbiters of those entitled to liberty. There's a direct line between that kind of liberalism (the original variety, in fact!) and the neoliberalism of today.

Quote:

Quote:

I mean, how retarded is it to assume that this time the US is going to establish a true-blue democracy that will (a) be responsive to its people's needs, (b) friendly to the the US and Israel, and (c) not beholden to the US in any way?

I'd settle for A. I'd also roll any number of johns like Assad for a chance at A. Or without a chance at A; Assad's a ******** and should be dead.

I would settle for (a) too, but the entire point of imperialism is that Third World countries exist primarily for our benefit, not for theirs. The United States has consistently stood against (a), even conniving in coups against liberal democrats like Goulart in Brazil and Bosch in the Dominican Republic. Needless to say, the United States considers itself the arbiters of what a given country needs, so if the people disagree, they must have fallen under the spell of ultranationalism, communism or what have you. Of course, America would do the same thing were they in the same shoes, and in fact did in the formative years. I know of an Alexander Hamilton quote that is FRIGHTENINGLY Third Worldist....

[Wendigo]

azulmagia

Going back to the past, exponents of mainstream liberalism, even those critical of slavery, were generally horrified when the slaves of Haiti successfully freed themselves. Such exponents thought only they - propertied white males - were qualified to be arbiters of those entitled to liberty. There's a direct line between that kind of liberalism (the original variety, in fact!) and the neoliberalism of today.

I'm pretty sure that the horror was focused on the idea of a similar uprising occurring elsewhere, and not being too particular about who gets the axe. Which is, even if you are an abolitionist, a sensible enough concern. I mean, given certain realities. John Brown was something of an outlier there, didn't work out well for him.

Quote:

Even in Russia, the real violence began with the Civil War (The ouster of Kerensky's regime was virtually bloodless - nobody was willing to risk their skin for him. The Bolsheviks even went as far as setting a few tsarist generals at liberty under promise that they'd not take arms against the Soviet!).

I am pretty sure that every man, woman and child in their royal family was summarily executed before it could roll around to October again. Or anyway, all the ones available.

Quote:

Violence in revolution is normally forced upon the revolutionaries as a matter of course, and not a rationalization. I mean, look at the French Revolution. The King wasn't even removed, much less beheaded, until after he'd proved his treachery (which was entirely predictable).

And when they did kill him, things must have been smooth sailing in Post-Revolutionary France, with no imperialist regimes to worry about, and freedom and equality for all people.

Quote:

Even in Vietnam, in terms of deaths by terrorism, the US/South Vietnam killed more people than the Viet Cong.

Since that was what they had set out to do, it was a roaring success. I mean, it was a dumb idea, since that's no way to defeat an insurgency, and they keep making that mistake over and over again...but "killing lots of people" seems to be something that our military brass find inherently appealing.

Quote:

No true revolution is about merely overthrowing a government. I can understand why Second Amendment loving gunloons associate revolution with armed force used to overthrow a government, but they're idiots. I can't see what your excuse is for repeatedly conflating coup d'etats, civil wars, emeutes, coups de mains, bunts and palace coups with revolutions.

I will point out where my meaning for the word arises.

Quote:

8.a. Overthrow of an established government or social order by those previously subject to it; forcible substitution of a new form of government. In early use also: rebellion.

c. In Marxist theory: the violent overthrow of the ruling class and the seizure of power through control of the means of production by a class to whom such control was previously denied;
(OED)

Quote:

revolt (v.) Look up revolt at Dictionary.com
1540s, from Middle French revolter (15c.), from Italian rivoltare "to overthrow, overturn," from Vulgar Latin *revolvitare "to overturn, overthrow," frequentative of Latin revolvere (past participle revolutus) "turn, roll back"
(Etymonline)

That is, violent overthrow is the literal meaning of the word without ambiguity. Other types of overthrow are possible, yes. A coup sometimes takes the form of simply holding the previous ruler hostage, or removing people in key leadership positions. Sometimes power is handed over "peacefully," in the sense that you might hand your wallet over peacefully to a mugger. Sometimes, faced with the possibility of violent overthrow, reforms are voluntarily undertaken. Or pretend to be undertaken, in the case of Egypt. The lot are not significantly different from one another in form, just in results. Which can be a function of how long and how excessive the abuses being fought happen to be.

Quote:

Whether the Syrian civil war turns into a real popular revolution - as opposed to a mere sectarian/regional conflict - is yet to be seen. Certainly Egypt hasn't reached that phase yet. The goal would have to be to unseat the military rule which deposes presidents as it sees fit.

Well, duh.

Anyway, yes. Treason doth never prosper.

[azulmagia]

Wendigo

azulmagia

Even in Russia, the real violence began with the Civil War (The ouster of Kerensky's regime was virtually bloodless - nobody was willing to risk their skin for him. The Bolsheviks even went as far as setting a few tsarist generals at liberty under promise that they'd not take arms against the Soviet!).

I am pretty sure that every man, woman and child in their royal family was summarily executed before it could roll around to October again. Or anyway, all the ones available.

Not without reason, though. One of the White armies was converging on Ekaterinburg, which could result in their escape from custody.

Quote:

Quote:

Violence in revolution is normally forced upon the revolutionaries as a matter of course, and not a rationalization. I mean, look at the French Revolution. The King wasn't even removed, much less beheaded, until after he'd proved his treachery (which was entirely predictable).

And when they did kill him, things must have been smooth sailing in Post-Revolutionary France, with no imperialist regimes to worry about, and freedom and equality for all people.

Of course not. The most that the original French Revolution could achieve at that point in history was bourgeois property rights.

Quote:

Quote:

Even in Vietnam, in terms of deaths by terrorism, the US/South Vietnam killed more people than the Viet Cong.

Since that was what they had set out to do, it was a roaring success. I mean, it was a dumb idea, since that's no way to defeat an insurgency, and they keep making that mistake over and over again...but "killing lots of people" seems to be something that our military brass find inherently appealing.

Depressing, isn't it?

[Lord Cameron]

Heimdalr

Lord Cameron

Heimdalr

Lord Cameron

Heimdalr

Lord Cameron

2. follow up with EMP and hacking attacks to minimize their ability to make propaganda out of the massive amount of civilian deaths.

If you're planning to nuke their airspace, I'd think the propaganda would make itself.

hey grandpa? NNEMPS? what we have been using for the last 15 years in the middle east?

sorry when I said EMP I was talking about conventional EMP and not s**t made in the 60s

Non-nuclear EMP technology hasn't been anywhere close to viability before October last year, and I'm pretty sure the CHAMP isn't being fielded just yet. If Command has any sense, that is.

"We took out the cameras", well why do you have a video of it then, jackass.

that's totally not true? there have been missile based NNEMPS since the 1980s

hell, even Russia had them back when they were slaughtering the chex

from what I read the only thing champ (lol) is revolutionizing is the size and length (hot) of the EMP

those mercury dynamos man

You've had them (presumably, too intoxicated to scour sources) but could they be actually used? No, you've been storming television broadcasting facilities as top priority targets. Goes to show that the most important thing you do to "free" a country is to have them watch Oprah and Dr. Phil.

LOL, a snooreweegan criticizing America's TV shows, I've seen your paint-dry channel

[Heimdalr]

Lord Cameron

LOL, a snooreweegan criticizing America's TV shows, I've seen your paint-dry channel

lolyes. State television is known for its slow pace. Postmodernist zen meets government indoctrination. In other news, I couldn't find your EMP's, and I believe you were describing a certain anti-gravity device used in Nazi UFO's operating from a secret Antarctic base. If you are to believe the hype.

[azulmagia]

Oh look. We got mission creep already, and the mission is not even approved, let alone ******** started!

[Ibliis]

Tranquil Surrogate

Syria is such a multidimensional problem that's incredibly tragic and difficult to predict. What started as a simply defined Middle Eastern uprising similar to that of Libya has now become complex beyond anything we could've imagined. It's not just the Free Syrian Army against the Syrian state, the increasingly powerful extremist splinters of Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra are also fighting alongside them (though operating independently). No doubt it's because they see the opportunity to exert some influence over whatever order rises out of the chaos. The war is essentially a game for these factions.

Meanwhile, the unethical tactics of the terrorist factions are making it increasingly difficult for the FSA to gain support from the West to the point that, now that many of the groups have pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda, military intervention is almost certainly out the window. This conflict will resolve itself in time, but Syria will likely never recover from this. Even if Bashar-Al Assad loses to the rebellion, it will become a free-for-all among the factions to gain power and the FSA will be locked in a constant struggle to maintain control.

What are your thoughts on this ED? Is there any hope for the future of Syria? Or is Syria inevitably going to be torn apart by the many radically different factions vying for power in a country plunged into post-autocratic anarchy?

Lack of action based on educated consequence prediction is not at all hard to comprehend.
And it's not at all hard to comprehend those consequences will lead to a gigantic conflict as most of them are based on very conservative politics (Religion).

[Chain Banning]

Wizrar

Tranquil Surrogate

Syria is such a multidimensional problem that's incredibly tragic and difficult to predict. What started as a simply defined Middle Eastern uprising similar to that of Libya has now become complex beyond anything we could've imagined. It's not just the Free Syrian Army against the Syrian state, the increasingly powerful extremist splinters of Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra are also fighting alongside them (though operating independently). No doubt it's because they see the opportunity to exert some influence over whatever order rises out of the chaos. The war is essentially a game for these factions.

Meanwhile, the unethical tactics of the terrorist factions are making it increasingly difficult for the FSA to gain support from the West to the point that, now that many of the groups have pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda, military intervention is almost certainly out the window. This conflict will resolve itself in time, but Syria will likely never recover from this. Even if Bashar-Al Assad loses to the rebellion, it will become a free-for-all among the factions to gain power and the FSA will be locked in a constant struggle to maintain control.

What are your thoughts on this ED? Is there any hope for the future of Syria? Or is Syria inevitably going to be torn apart by the many radically different factions vying for power in a country plunged into post-autocratic anarchy?

Lack of action based on educated consequence prediction is not at all hard to comprehend.
And it's not at all hard to comprehend those consequences will lead to a gigantic conflict as most of them are based on very conservative politics (Religion).

So you're saying the conflict is mainly based on conservatism and/or religious politics?

From what I've seen, there seems to be a civil war within the civil war. The Ghuraba al-Sham - who are pretty much a brigade of the Syrian rebels, are solely in favour of a non-religious state. They alliance themselves to the rebel faction, opposed to Assad, but are also opposed to Al-Qaeda and other Jihad groups operating within rebel ranks.

I don't really think the conflict is mainly religious, or conservative. They do have an influence, but like all revolutions and civil wars, it's a libertarian movement against an authoritarian movement. The libertarian movement will mostly likely win only to realise authoritarianism is the best way forward and conform to the political ideals of it. So basically it's an authoritarian force overthrowing another authoritarian force, whom will in the future themselves be overthrown by an authoritarian force. Confusing right?

[Lucem Pristinam]

Barry's speech in a nutshell.

[Patton]

Wendigo

Patton

Helping Al Qaeda and the Al Nusra Front will perhaps make the Jihadists like the United States a little more.

Boy howdy

Talking about complicated situations like they're so simple you could decide them by flipping a coin, fun hobby.

I speak no more simply than the Obama administration. Targets listed in potential air strikes included Assad's air assets....vital to fighting the rebels moreso than whatever use they might have in deploying chemical weapons. By degrading Assad's capacity to strike down Al Qaeda, President Obama *gasp* would have made it that much easier for AQ et al to fulfill their objectives. Another complication ( rolleyes ) is that these strikes, while "unbelievably small", would in no way have damaged Assad's capacity to use those chemical weapons (thus calling into question the purpose of the air strikes in the first place). One does not need air assets to deploy chemical weapons.

Assad indeed has two simple options; those are that either he wins, or he dies. There are a plethora of precise outcomes...but they mainly fall into those two inevitable results. Not to mention, this simple "dichotomy" (whether false or not) is much more pertinent to the Syria issue than whatever result President Obama may think will come out of his silly air strikes.

But all this may very well be academic now. President Obama's desire to bomb another opponent to Al Qaeda has been foiled by Secretary Kerry's derp, allowing Putin to appear more diplomatic than the Nobel Peace Prize winner. Now that President Putin has stepped in, maybe we can avoid making a gift of sarin gas to Al Qaeda. After all, President Obama's "no boots on the ground" doctrine has already born fruit in Libya...where the administration has not only gifted Gaddafi's stockpiles of anti-aircraft missiles to groups that could potentially have relations with AQIM, but also failed to avenge the AQ murder of our Ambassador.

[Omnileech]

Patton

Wendigo

Patton

Helping Al Qaeda and the Al Nusra Front will perhaps make the Jihadists like the United States a little more.

Boy howdy

Talking about complicated situations like they're so simple you could decide them by flipping a coin, fun hobby.

I speak no more simply than the Obama administration. Targets listed in potential air strikes included Assad's air assets....vital to fighting the rebels moreso than whatever use they might have in deploying chemical weapons. By degrading Assad's capacity to strike down Al Qaeda, President Obama *gasp* would have made it that much easier for AQ et al to fulfill their objectives. Another complication ( rolleyes ) is that these strikes, while "unbelievably small", would in no way have damaged Assad's capacity to use those chemical weapons (thus calling into question the purpose of the air strikes in the first place). One does not need air assets to deploy chemical weapons.

Assad indeed has two simple options; those are that either he wins, or he dies. There are a plethora of precise outcomes...but they mainly fall into those two inevitable results. Not to mention, this simple "dichotomy" (whether false or not) is much more pertinent to the Syria issue than whatever result President Obama may think will come out of his silly air strikes.

But all this may very well be academic now. President Obama's desire to bomb another opponent to Al Qaeda has been foiled by Secretary Kerry's derp, allowing Putin to appear more diplomatic than the Nobel Peace Prize winner. Now that President Putin has stepped in, maybe we can avoid making a gift of sarin gas to Al Qaeda. After all, President Obama's "no boots on the ground" doctrine has already born fruit in Libya...where the administration has not only gifted Gaddafi's stockpiles of anti-aircraft missiles to groups that could potentially have relations with AQIM, but also failed to avenge the AQ murder of our Ambassador.

Assad already put himself in a win or die situation when he started his own civil war by crushing any and all organized dissent complaining about lack of civil liberties or the fact that Syria is a terrible, impoverished country with very limited economic opportunities and hasn't really embraced a free market ideology.

Seeing as Russia was responsible for giving the supplies necessary for Syria to use their chemical weapons, and that Syria denied even having them until Russia called them out on it and that Russia had blocked all efforts to even condemn Syria for atrocities in its civil war... eh don't put much faith in Putin's humanity. Obama lost face, but I doubt that Syria would have been voluntarily offering to give up weapons of mass destruction unless prompted to. That should make you happy since Syria and Israel are mortal enemies and the prospect of Syria engaging in chemical warfare terrifies the Israeli government.

Lumping every single rebel with Al Qaeda just makes Al Qaeda stronger as an organization. I would hope that the United States government wouldn't operate on such simplistic terms. Cause if we do we'll continue to lose just like we have been for the past 12 years.

[Wendigo]

Patton

Assad indeed has two simple options; those are that either he wins, or he dies.

Yes, for Assad that is true. There isn't any middle ground; he is so beloved that his people will positively race to be the first put the bullet in his brain.

For the party which benefits from US interference, however, it is not either "Assad" or "Al Qaeda." This is the way that Assad would like to see the situation viewed, sure. And it's the way Gaddafi wanted Libya viewed - he was just fighting terrorists, Al Qaeda had put pills in his peoples' Nescafe. That was why they were rising up in revolt against him, shooting at his men, and why he was ultimately unceremoniously shot. Because of ******** Al Qaeda. Not because he was a murderous b*****d.

No. If you want to say that, it's because you're one of two things. Stupid, or a liar. Which do you want to be? You can have some Nescafe while you decide.

[UF6]

Omnileech

Patton

Wendigo

Patton

Helping Al Qaeda and the Al Nusra Front will perhaps make the Jihadists like the United States a little more.

Boy howdy

Talking about complicated situations like they're so simple you could decide them by flipping a coin, fun hobby.

I speak no more simply than the Obama administration. Targets listed in potential air strikes included Assad's air assets....vital to fighting the rebels moreso than whatever use they might have in deploying chemical weapons. By degrading Assad's capacity to strike down Al Qaeda, President Obama *gasp* would have made it that much easier for AQ et al to fulfill their objectives. Another complication ( rolleyes ) is that these strikes, while "unbelievably small", would in no way have damaged Assad's capacity to use those chemical weapons (thus calling into question the purpose of the air strikes in the first place). One does not need air assets to deploy chemical weapons.

Assad indeed has two simple options; those are that either he wins, or he dies. There are a plethora of precise outcomes...but they mainly fall into those two inevitable results. Not to mention, this simple "dichotomy" (whether false or not) is much more pertinent to the Syria issue than whatever result President Obama may think will come out of his silly air strikes.

But all this may very well be academic now. President Obama's desire to bomb another opponent to Al Qaeda has been foiled by Secretary Kerry's derp, allowing Putin to appear more diplomatic than the Nobel Peace Prize winner. Now that President Putin has stepped in, maybe we can avoid making a gift of sarin gas to Al Qaeda. After all, President Obama's "no boots on the ground" doctrine has already born fruit in Libya...where the administration has not only gifted Gaddafi's stockpiles of anti-aircraft missiles to groups that could potentially have relations with AQIM, but also failed to avenge the AQ murder of our Ambassador.

Assad already put himself in a win or die situation when he started his own civil war by crushing any and all organized dissent complaining about lack of civil liberties or the fact that Syria is a terrible, impoverished country with very limited economic opportunities and hasn't really embraced a free market ideology.

Seeing as Russia was responsible for giving the supplies necessary for Syria to use their chemical weapons, and that Syria denied even having them until Russia called them out on it and that Russia had blocked all efforts to even condemn Syria for atrocities in its civil war... eh don't put much faith in Putin's humanity. Obama lost face, but I doubt that Syria would have been voluntarily offering to give up weapons of mass destruction unless prompted to. That should make you happy since Syria and Israel are mortal enemies and the prospect of Syria engaging in chemical warfare terrifies the Israeli government.

Lumping every single rebel with Al Qaeda just makes Al Qaeda stronger as an organization. I would hope that the United States government wouldn't operate on such simplistic terms. Cause if we do we'll continue to lose just like we have been for the past 12 years.

I'd be careful of touting "free market" ideology in places like this since often it just means that people are ok for foreign investment to exploiting the population.

From what I've read our state deparment has been very cautious and has labeled many of these fighters under different terrorist groups. Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are both labeled terror groups among many from the relics of our past war. It's not the fault that our government (to a degree) that the media fails to oversight these groups to the public and keeps using a "group" most well known. Al Qaeda isn't a strong group and often many posers use the name since it brings fear when it's just a mere shadow of itself.

Speaking of his "humanity" he recently published this. I don't agree with this guy seeing how he fails to state many of those weapons were his or under the authority of past sovereigns of his country.