Saddle up for Syria? Or Op Deny Christmas '13

[Tonka]

We should of just let Iraq have Kuwait...

[Clark Griswold]

We should of just let Iraq have Kuwait...

Different circumstances... a major oil producer and control of major oil supplies was at stake with a clearly definable objective (initially) of ousting Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

Syria is a tragedy but other than the vaguely definable objective of thwarting an ally of Iran, there is no compelling interest in assisting the rebels / Islamic extremists in overthrowing the existing regime.

These are not necessarily the people we want to help...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/25/shock-video-allegedly-shows-al-qaeda-linked-terrorists-stopping-truck-drivers-on-side-of-road-then-executing-them-for-not-being-sunni-muslims/

[waveshaper]

So if its proven that the rebels conducted this chemical attack then I would conclude that our good buddies Al Qaeda and their affiliates now have lethal chemical weapons (WMD's). Now that can't be good for the homeland or our interest internationally.

[Tonka]

Different circumstances...

Agreed, however (without sparking an entirely different debate) putting our foot down on Kuwait has at least *partially* led us to where we are today (being involved in everything in SE Asia). The only winning move is not to play the game... I think we are 20+ years into the game.

[Clark Griswold]

Agreed, however (without sparking an entirely different debate) putting our foot down on Kuwait has at least *partially* led us to where we are today (being involved in everything in SE Asia). The only winning move is not to play the game... I think we are 20+ years into the game.

2

But there we are ways to leave the game not lose it... but back to Syria specifically, my two cents only... don't strike with stand off weapons, the damage would not substantially affect Asad's regime and will only give lran and Syria the action they want, the best move(s) right now is to:

build a coalition of allies

isolate the regime further

put together a plan for what happens after Asad is gone

a whole of government approach from many governments is necessary if we decide that intervention is the appropriate option but I still think this is not our fight alone, now if all or most of the usual suspects want to help out along with some local help (UK, Germany, Italy, France, Canada, Turkey, Jordan, etc...) then maybe but it just reinforces the idea the "international community" can just call on the US anytime there is conflict and we come to stop it... not a sustainable path...

Edited August 26, 2013 by Clark Griswold

[Fuzz]

2

But there we are ways to leave the game not lose it... but back to Syria specifically, my two cents only... don't strike with stand off weapons, the damage would not substantially affect Asad's regime and will only give lran and Syria the action they want, the best move(s) right now is to:

build a coalition of allies

isolate the regime further

put together a plan for what happens after Asad is gone

a whole of government approach from many governments is necessary if we decide that intervention is the appropriate option but I still think this is not our fight alone, now if all or most of the usual suspects want to help out along with some local help (UK, Germany, Italy, France, Canada, Turkey, Jordan, etc...) then maybe but it just reinforces the idea the "international community" can just call on the US anytime there is conflict and we come to stop it... not a sustainable path...

So what exactly are we or the international community supposed to do when Asad is gone? The people who will have ousted him are just as bad and are barbarians (reference your video or the dozens coming out of there of them executing children and teens). Who are we going to help form a government in that area or bring any sort of peace? Frankly we missed our opportunity to effect a real change when we drug our feet in supporting the original rebels (the citizens of the country actually revolting) now we let them be co-opted or disbanded by the outside extremists that flooded the country. The only options we have is to pretty much play containment and let whatever happens in Syria stay in Syria or nuke the place and wipe out both parties at once.

[Butters]

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[Clark Griswold]

So what exactly are we or the international community supposed to do when Asad is gone?

Maybe nothing... not to be callous but this may be something they have to work out for themselves, now the problem of something worse arising in Syria (a new hostile Islamic state for example) is a possibility but there is a low low possibility that we can erase sectarian tensions and strife, encourage a secular society there and extricate ourselves in anything less than 10+ years if we decide to intervene and rebuild Syria, with or without a coalition with us...

Ultimately we need a strategy, not tactics for dealing with the ME and Islamic fascism. We just keep reacting to whatever crisis erupts there and we are overextending and wasting our resources (financial, military, diplomatic, etc..) trying to fix that which is inherently screwed up: a large number of ethic and religious factions put together into made-up countries with scarce resources and a long history of scores they would like to settle amongst each other.

Again, don't take the bait.

[B52gator]

Slight side track, my dad brought up an interesting point that I never really considered before. We've been at war for roughly 12 years. How much intel do you think our "enemies" have collected on us? Granted, the way we are currently fighting in Afghanistan and to a certain extent were fighting in Iraq are not the way we are going to fight say China, Russia, N.Korea, etc...but they have probably picked up a lot of info on the way we do business.

[Clark Griswold]

Slight side track, my dad brought up an interesting point that I never really considered before. We've been at war for roughly 12 years. How much intel do you think our "enemies" have collected on us? Granted, the way we are currently fighting in Afghanistan and to a certain extent were fighting in Iraq are not the way we are going to fight say China, Russia, N.Korea, etc...but they have probably picked up a lot of info on the way we do business.

A lot...

[Vprdrvr69]

I think the answer to this mess is for us to stay the hell out! Everything we entangle ourselves in turns to mess. Our foreign policy is so broken and this will prove to be simply the latest chapter in a book of failures. The senior WH official talking out of his ass, swearing that this is Assad's chemical act with evidence that proves it, while saying that three days of UN delays will prove any evidence at the site useless, makes me question the story even more. Not that the story makes sense from any angle (as others have pointed out already). We (WH bobble heads) are positive that Assad's military carried this out even though we don't have a shred of evidence. Shocking. Common sense and objective thinking says otherwise. The only folks that have shown this type of pure disregard for innocent lives are the various barbaric factions that comprise the Syrian rebel groups. Reference the multitude of decapitations, road-side assassinations, etc. scattered across the internet for examples and grotesque illustrations.

Our foreign intervention and covert entanglements led to what we currently hate about Iran. Our explorations In Vietnam were a huge success, and that started with a fairy tale much like this one likely will prove to be. How about our dealings with the Freedom Fighters a couple decades later in Afghanistan? Fast forward to Iraq and what a utopian paradise we turned that place into. We're still confused about what we're doing in Afghanistan now, so we might just walk away and call that a success too. I guess the US sponsored Arab Spring is the real model of success that we are looking to craft in Syria. Those are working out beautifully in places like Egypt. We're on a roll, why stop now?

Our country is bled dry and needs CPR. Another wasted war in another wasteland is not the lifeline we need right now. What exactly is our objective if we go in? How do we define success and when do we exit? Will we even ask these questions? If only we had leaders that understood this or cared. Instead, here we go marching into Syria (it's good for economic spending right) wasting more valuable resources to replace one tyrannical government with a lawless group of Islamic fundamentalist that will rage a civil war well into the future; well past the our attention span. This'll be fun.

[waveshaper]

I think the answer to this mess is for us to stay the hell out! Everything we entangle ourselves in turns to mess. Our foreign policy is so broken and this will prove to be simply the latest chapter in a book of failures. The senior WH official talking out of his ass, swearing that this is Assad's chemical act with evidence that proves it, while saying that three days of UN delays will prove any evidence at the site useless, makes me question the story even more. Not that the story makes sense from any angle (as others have pointed out already). We (WH bobble heads) are positive that Assad's military carried this out even though we don't have a shred of evidence. Shocking. Common sense and objective thinking says otherwise. The only folks that have shown this type of pure disregard for innocent lives are the various barbaric factions that comprise the Syrian rebel groups. Reference the multitude of decapitations, road-side assassinations, etc. scattered across the internet for examples and grotesque illustrations.

Our foreign intervention and covert entanglements led to what we currently hate about Iran. Our explorations In Vietnam were a huge success, and that started with a fairy tale much like this one likely will prove to be. How about our dealings with the Freedom Fighters a couple decades later in Afghanistan? Fast forward to Iraq and what a utopian paradise we turned that place into. We're still confused about what we're doing in Afghanistan now, so we might just walk away and call that a success too. I guess the US sponsored Arab Spring is the real model of success that we are looking to craft in Syria. Those are working out beautifully in places like Egypt. We're on a roll, why stop now?

Our country is bled dry and needs CPR. Another wasted war in another wasteland is not the lifeline we need right now. What exactly is our objective if we go in? How do we define success and when do we exit? Will we even ask these questions? If only we had leaders that understood this or cared. Instead, here we go marching into Syria (it's good for economic spending right) wasting more valuable resources to replace one tyrannical government with a lawless group of Islamic fundamentalist that will rage a civil war well into the future; well past the our attention span. This'll be fun.

I am starting to get that sinking ROPE-A-DOPE feeling, AGAIN. I have lost track of what ROPE-A-DOPE round the U.S. is now in but the pending Rumble in the Syrian Arab Republic looks like it may be fixing to start in some form. Some recent U.S. ROPE-A-DOPE rounds in the Islamic world; Beirut, Somalia, Afghanistan War, Iraq War, Libya TBD, Egypt TBD, Syria TBD.

[Clark Griswold]

Decent article on non-intervention in Syria.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/03/the_real_reason_not_to_intervene_in_syria/

Not sure if no action is the best choice but I am sure that no direct kinetic action should be taken alone or without some sort of international backing.

[Prosuper]

Little long but informative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TqtCOxeGAHE

[Snooter]

Boys, boys, boys... You all are missing the point. The point is not that civilians are dying or our current enemy is fighting our future enemy or some convoluted mess thereof. What's really concerning is that with this whole sequestration thing there are large companies who give lots of money to congress that are going to be taking hits to their bottom line after we pull out from Afghanistan. I'm sure General Dynamics is ready to provide as many Predators Reapers and Avengers as we need and Boeing is ready to bring Airlift, fighters, etc. Halliburton, URS, & Sallyport are ready to provide hot meals and base support to the personnel on a new base in a neighboring country that they will gladly build for a no bid contract rate. I as an American citizen am willing to let Arabs kill Arabs in an Arab country but those companies are really just looking out for humanity and ensuring that select politicians get reelected...

Edited August 26, 2013 by Snooter

[Snooter]

At this point, yes...

[Ram]

Hm...I've always wanted to shoot a HARM. Neat-o.

How would we be helping, exactly? My ACSC readings are stressing critical thinking and how we effect the geo-political end state. I want to shoot things, but the cognitive dissonance I'm suffering has sent me VFR direct to my Gentleman Jack.

Getting old is hard.

[Champ Kind]

My ACSC readings

You're doing the readings?

[Ram]

As hard as I try not to, I still catch the occasional nugget of info in between CNTL-F sprees...

[HeloDude]

I can't believe that there are actually a few guys on here who support even some sort of military action. Usually it takes the United States 25-30 years to forget why it's a bad idea to get involved in another country's pile of dog shit. I guess it's the age of high speed electronics--we just impatient and can't wait that long!

[Buddy Spike]

I can't believe that there are actually a few guys on here who support even some sort of military action. Usually it takes the United States 25-30 years to forget why it's a bad idea to get involved in another country's pile of dog shit. I guess it's the age of high speed electronics--we just impatient and can't wait that long!

Wag the Dog

[AnimalMother]

Im going to go ahead and repost this, just in case someone missed it the first time.

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-American-Militarism-Americans/dp/0199931763/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377566016&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+american+militarism

[HeloDude]

Im going to go ahead and repost this, just in case someone missed it the first time.

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-American-Militarism-Americans/dp/0199931763/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377566016&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+american+militarism

I just read the description on Amazon...seems interesting. As I always say, "when in doubt, follow the money."

So here's a question: Will Obama go to Congress to get the 'ok' before (if) he bombs? And if he does, what will the vote look like? Personally I'm curious to see how guys like Cruz and Rand Paul vote...along with some of the big 'anti-war' libs.

[Ram]

I'm looking forward to Fox News saying that a war might not be a great idea. For the first time ever.

[raimius]

(from CNN) In addition' date= a military strike would seek to degrade the Syrian regime's capabilities enough to weaken it without causing it to fall to an opposition considered unprepared to assume power, the official said.

Using military force without the intent to actually defeat the group you are attacking. That seemed to work out well in the past.

If we want to stop groups from using chemical weapons, bringing down the hammer on anyone who does is a logical choice. I don't think there is a "good" aftermath in Syria, but if we want to send the "no WMD" message, a couple cruise missiles is probably not going to be enough. That's like a $500 fine for rape.

With both sides accusing the other of using chemical weapons, I sure hope we can find proof of responsibility before we start throwing around high explosives.

Edited August 27, 2013 by raimius