Assad - Deal Or No Deal?

[agchristie]

Is Heffer right and how differently does Britain have to work with various 'monsters'?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2754273/Why-deals-monsters-writes-SIMON-HEFFER.html

[Old_Geezer]

Apologies, not in the mood to read a long article, especially ones about celebs like Angelina Jolie; but I would say it has always been a political/diplomatic decision as to which 'bad guy' one has to align with in order to combat a 'worse bad guy'. It's pragmatism.

The fact is that we really need a further viable candidate for us to support to avoid the present choice. But past history says that even if one appears they may will be different than they seemed to be once in power.

The road to Hell is said to be paved with good intentions, and those who involved themselves get blamed. Which is why the wiser course of actions is to concentrate on self interest as opposed to moral interventions that go hideously wrong.

I'm not saying ethics go out the window, it is a fine aim, but one has to assign priorities in the realisation that support of a 'bad guy' should only be contemplated as a means to achieve a greater goal. It is balance, and case by case judgement, that is needed. And an acceptance that the enemy of your enemy can be your comrade in arms for now.

[Zacs-Master]

Unfortunately Heffer is right and as OG has stated, it is for the 'greater good' (although what Angelina Jolie has to do with it I'm not sure).

[agchristie]

OG - no need to apologise! Jolie was only referred to in the context of William Hague perhaps not grappling with more important matters.

You are correct of course, there are issues which are too essential to not co-operate properly simply because of poor historical relations.

It's a long hard road ahead...

[naomi24]

Supporting the greater good is sometimes a matter of choosing the lesser of the two evils.

[Obiter]

As Churchill said, "My enemy's enemy is my friend" (in refererence to the USSR entering the war against Germany).

[ichkeria]

In this instance we don't need Assad. On the contrary, working with the FSA, who are also fighting IS would be the preferred option. Quoting the example of Hitler and Stalin is useless: of course there are times when you need to ally with "monsters" but each case is different and that one does not compare.

[sevenOP]

"But the real reason is that attacking the Islamic State would mean allying ourselves with Bashar al-Assad, the tyrant of Syria, who, only a year ago, David Cameron wanted to launch a joint strike against."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2754273/Why-deals-monsters-writes-SIMON-HEFFER.html

That is the standard of journalism the West depends on.
Obviously you can attack ISIS and not support Assad.

But his rhetoric is out of date, as anyone who saw/listened to Obama's address to the US on Wednesday would realise, when Obama ruled out working with Assad ( thus ruling out UK-Assad collaboration).
{Please note at 5 minutes 40 seconds into the speech when Obama says "..in June I deployed several hundred service members to Iraq to assess how we could best support Iraqi security forces..." ..... yet the sudden presence of ISIS 'took everyone by surprise'.}

Quite a potentially dangerous speech as it rules out 'no hiding place' ... "we will hunt down terrorists that threaten our country wherever they are.."

http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000003107090/obama-addresses-the-nation-about-isis.html