Kirk H. Sowell

Barzani greets Najm al-Din Karim in Irbil.https://twitter.com/MethaqAlFayyadh/status/1140720523091042305 …

Sept. 2013 was nearly six years ago. Since then Islamists generally and jihadists in particular only became stronger in the opposition, until the US-backed PYD-led offensive crushed IS in east Syria. Islamists dominate what is left now elsewhere.

For those who may have only read the comments of the last couple of days, I'd like to highlight this thread from Sept. 19, 2013 in which I discussed how the FSA might have merited support but even at that date were coming apart.https://twitter.com/UticaRisk/status/380769556030947328 …

Please read this from me in Sept 2013; I outlined my support for the rebel opposition as long the FSA was viable, but you can see that by that date I was realizing they might be hopeless. It is 2019 now, past time to give up on them. @Charles_Listerhttps://twitter.com/UticaRisk/status/380769556030947328 …

I agree it was not foreordained: I was sympathetic to pro-rebel intervention myself in the early years. I hate the fact that Assad won by deliberately making the situation worse. But we can't go back to 2011-2012 now.https://twitter.com/Michael_Youhana/status/1140672296190803968 …

To be clear: I never suggested Assad was a solution to the jihadists. At least now he has them preoccupied in Idlib. If Assad decides to sponsor jihadists again in the future, we hit his regime as hard as we need to. They have fixed targets we can hit.https://twitter.com/DMBenes/status/1140671877423255562 …

This is also true & is in fact the problem: Ahrar should not have been treated as legitimate. They are openly a mixture of salafi and Muslim Brotherhood elements, both intensely anti-American. For the West to empower them is insane.https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1140673490498084866 …

And I've not said he'd be effective fighting the terrorists, only that we can at least refrain from strengthening jihadist ourselves by arming Sunni Arab factions who work with them. If Assad uses jihadists again, his regime has targets we can hit. @Charles_Lister

These premises are all correct; repeating ad naseum that Assad stirred sectarianism, released jihadists, is a massive war criminal - we all know this. It doesn't change the Islamist-dominated nature of the opposition. How is this in US interests?https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1140672851458101248 …

The FSA was everywhere & they had sizeable forces in the north and south & failed, indeed they failed in the east to eject IS or (then) Jabhat al-Nusra. I don't see why we should have placed our confidence in them.https://twitter.com/dickgregory2011/status/1140663978642878464 …

Here's the *best case scenario* under a policy of full US support for the opposition: groups like Ahrar al-Sham emerge dominant, lead Syria to permanent war as they try to impose Islamic law while AQ types find their own space. That's Afghanistan pre-2001. @Charles_Lister

The deeper problem is that Ahrar al-Sham, which you frequently treated as legitimate, was always comfortable working with the salafi-jihadists until the latter tried to monopolize power, only then they clashed. That's the "mainstream" Sunni opposition.https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1140659538808528904 …

"#Assad's "fascism" is definitely not going to rid #Syria of extremism." Agreed on this; I never suggested otherwise. Yet past experience suggests a post-Assad Syria would become a jihadist playground. What evidence is there to the contrary?https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1140659538808528904 …

If it is "simplistic" to note that efforts to back the Sunni opposition always failed, resulting in the preeiminence of Islamists, I don't know what to tell you. And yes I think Syria would have been better under the secular officers the Islamists crushed.https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1140659538808528904 …

Log into Twitter, see I have ~50 Notifications, and wonder, "What did I do?" .... "Oh, that thread on Syria."

Thank you and yes, the US decision to back a PYD-dominated umbrella group was a cold, hard decision based on US interests. I think the Kurds merit sympathy for what they've suffered in Syria, but that is not a good reason for US military intervention.https://twitter.com/KaderAriz/status/1140201278926196736 …

Both these statements are true in a formal sense, but I think de facto US policy indisputably has empowered the PYD, & the PYD, which has been ruthless in excluding Kurdish critics, is the dominant power, so for short-hand on Twitter they are "the Kurds."https://twitter.com/Um_Samira/status/1140164240357150720 …

In my time in the region I've never heard that either, but Iraq's Shia militias don't call themselves "Shia militias" & Turkey or KSA don't say they are backing "Sunnis," but they do. These categories are real, but individuals don't ID themselves as such.https://twitter.com/Um_Samira/status/1140165168409825280 …

I do not think there was any "decision" to keep Assad, but the result of Assad's forces & their backers being resolute & organized while Sunni states backing the opposition worked at cross-purposes. + US lacked a vital interest in decisive intervention.https://twitter.com/seeinginfrared/status/1140065319383392257 …