[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

And you seem incapable of understanding that such an action would be completely, utterly pointless, and that it is worse than stupid to engage in a pointless act that could possibly get you drawn into a protracted civil war.

Why do you think Obama latched onto the Russian plan so quickly? He knew it would be ridiculously stupid to get involved there militarily but he had painted himself into a corner with is idiotic remarks, and he took the first off-ramp he saw. And good for him.

Er, apology for what? Was this a misquote or are you high?

Quite possibly. And likely to no effect. Or to an effect greater than intended. But that is less likely now that we are on a diplomatic track. After all, the plan being crafted makes no allowance for military force in retaliation to noncompliance or further CBW use. It specifies sanctions and other non-military avenues of coercion. Which is fine by me. I am OK with "toothless" in this partiicular situation, because the alternative is dangerous and stupid.

If we can find any actual moderate rebels there, fine, but by most reports they have been almost completely overtaken by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nusra / Al Qaeda affiliates. The time to really do that was back in 2011. It's too late now. I'm not real keen on arming islamic terrorists, personally, and the "moderates" who are getting the weapons have a really bad track record so far of letting those weapons fall into the hands of uh, "less-moderate" rebels.

Really? Would you please tell that to the Russians before they go through with their plan to sell the Iranians the S-300 system and build them a new nuke reactor?

We *should* be allies with the Russians against Islamic terror, but they aren't playing ball.

 

If this is directed at me I think you misunderstand me. I don't think that the agreement is a "waste of time". I am glad that we were able to avert intervention.I just don't actually expect the agreement to result in Assad turning all of his weapons over or anything like that. It will simply be used as a mechanism to deflect attention and stall while he tries to beat the rebels.

It works out well for everyone involved except for the rebels, actually. I just caution that if you actually expect the agreement to produce it's stated intended effects you are likely in for a big disappointment.

 

So, everyone who wants Assad to fall or who wants us to support the rebels in Syria really needs to read the following article:

Al-Qaeda-linked fighters seize Syrian town of Azaz from more moderate rebels

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/al-qaeda-linked-fighters-seize-syrian-town-of-azaz-from-more-moderate-rebels/2013/09/18/113e0954-20ad-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html

I suspect we are going to see alot more stories like this coming down the pipeline. I said weeks ago in regards to the prison breaks in Iraq and elsewhere that those guys were going to start surfacing in Syria. And here they are.

So... Whose side are we going to be on in Syria? Al Qaeda's, or Assad's? Because the "moderate" rebels (translation: merely Muslim Brotherhood) are getting edged out of the picture fast. Oh, we're not taking anybody's side, you say? So we're going to attack both sides, then? Hmm....

I will say it for the hundredth time: we really need to stay the hell out of this one.

 

It was more generally directed but yes, your recent postings got me thinking that way.

Not sure about most others, but I expect it to be messy with many bumps on the ways and I wouldn't at all be surprise that it fails, especially given the aggressive schedule for compliant. Yet, I hold a positive view and think it's as likely to succeed as it is to fail. I'm definitely not dismissing it like I think you have.

I'm very glad it happen and that the US and Russian are talking, taking significant actions and that military strike is averted, so far. I think it shows that the threat of real US's military can still scare the ***** out of nations while the US is willing and prepare to back down given good reasons.

If it's view as a total failure at the end (mid next year) or if Assad is showing solid signs of clearly blocking or refusing to follow through with the agreement, I'm thinking military action is back on the table and there would be stronger reasons and wider support for it. For that, I'm hoping the agreement will succeed.

Totally agree (to your other post) to stay the hell out of their internal conflicts.

 

A few comments...

1) It's of course possible that the agreement will yield the desired results, but given the logistics of it and the history of the players involved I think it's very, very unlikely. I am expecting it to fail but will be pleasantly surprised if it works. The main purpose was to avert a military strike, however, and in that it has succeeded, at least for the time being.

2) Of course the threat of a military strike by us is still terrifying to the bad guys of the world. The last two guys we did it to were Saddam and Khaddafi. One ended up hanging from a rope and the other ended up with a bayonet shoved up his a$$ before his death. The rest of the naughty crowd in the region takes notice of these types of things.

3) The greater risk with a military strike was always that it would go too far and end up tipping the balance too much, resulting in Assad fall. Which would probably be the worst case outcome, as someone (us) would then have to go in on the ground and secure all of those WMD.

4) There is no way that it is happening on the timetable agreed to. The delays have already begun. Don't expect it to happen according to that timeline. No one involved does.

We can hope for its success, but our expectations need to be realistic going into it.

 

Related to my post above on AQ's increasing involvement there, another article:

Rebel-on-Rebel Violence Seizes Syria

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324807704579082924138453120.html?mod=fox_australian

Just reinforcing the point. It's too late to intervene and have a good outcome there.

I will say that the stuff described in this article is the same stuff that went on in Iraq. The Sunnis invited AQ in to help fight the infidel invaders, and ended up regretting it when AQ decided to impose their ideology on the locals. AQ's actions directly spurred the Sunni Awakening in Iraq. We can only hope that a similar dynamic takes hold in Syria before it is too late and AQ becomes too powerful there.

 

And here we go...

Russia says no plans yet to destroy Syrian chemical arms on own soil

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-no-plans-yet-destroy-syrian-chemical-120326953.html

I think what many fail to understand here is the scale of the task at hand. Understand that if the weapons aren't destroyed in either Russia or the US, they will almost certainly have to be destroyed in Syria. With a civil war raging around the effort. That is why you see projections of 60k-70k or more troops required to do this. As I keep saying, the logistics alone make this an almost impossible task...

 

Good to see you don't fall for the Surge done it claim.

I assume you did not view our efforts their as being "infidel invaders", though that is probably closer to reality than the war for wmd, democracy promotion, feminist rights Bush and the neo-cons led us on.

 

The surge and the Sunni Awakening, combined with some dealmaking with the Shiites, combined to effectively end the war. I was there during the surge. When we first got there we were getting attacked 2-3 times a week. The last two months I was there we didn't get attacked at all. And I wasn't in a Sunni area.

We had AQI all but destroyed when we left. We had killed or captured roughly 10k of them. Their leadership had been shattered and there were just a few remnants left, it was basically down to mopping up and continued pressure by the Iraqi govt. But we left before they were completely wiped out, and the Iraqi govt fumbled the ball. When that prison break went down they got alot of their leadership back.

Technically we are "people of the book", but we of course weren't viewed that way by our enemies. We were genuinely there to help the Iraqi people, and the intent was to help them build a civil society based on freedom and individual rights. We didn't really realize that it just wasn't in their character to make that transition until late in the game. We gave them every opportunity to make it work, but they couldn't do it. They can't change who they are.

There are alot of good people over there who want freedom and peace. But there are way too many people there who don't. They simply aren't ready for it at this time. And we'd be fools to think we just go next door and this time it'll work out...

 

so has it been a week yet? Are the chemical weapons destroyed? Obama, now what?

 

Yes, all of the weapons have been destroyed. President Obama and Secretary Kerry are the heroes of the day. Rest assured, Assad is most certainly NOT moving his CBW right this minute, as I type this, and the Al Qaeda affiliate Nusra Front is NOT battling the "moderate" FSA rebels, and seizing an ever bigger piece of the rebel pie.

All is well. Go back to sleep.

 

Oh... Wait...

Syria moves chemical weapons again, motive unclear

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/19/syria-moves-chemical-weapons-again-motive-unclear/

So, uh... Never mind. Forget I mentioned it. The motive for moving the weapons is uh... unclear. Yes, that's it: unclear. It's not that they want to evade the process and hide caches of their CBW in advance of inspectors flooding the country or anything. It's probably something else. Must be another reason. Perhaps they're redecorating the storage facilities. Yes, that's probably it. Redecorating. Most likely.

So yes, bigtexxx, all is well. The process is most certainly proceeding according to plan.

 

You people nag and whines too much. We get it that you think it doesn't have a chance in hell. At least get your fact right while during so. Bigtexxx with no credibility I understand, but treeman you know better about the one week target. Anyhow, leave it to you guys to post your daily rituals.. until there is some significant development, it's noise.

 

Well, if you bothered to read the news and not Fox News headlines, you would know that the current proposed agreement is that Assad will submit a list of his chemical weapons to the Security Council by tomorrow, and will then have them destroyed by mid-2014. Whether he upholds said bargain is a matter of discussion, but it makes you look like even more of an idiot to be demanding things which absolutely no one has agreed to at all.

 

Uh... Did you not get my humor? It wasn't THAT bad...

 

Better and better...

Hundreds of Syria rebels pledge loyalty to Qaeda groups: activists

http://news.yahoo.com/hundreds-syria-rebels-pledge-loyalty-qaeda-groups-activists-121713412.html

Remind me again why we think it's a good idea get involved in this and support the rebels, please?

 

Because it screws with Iran, keeps Islamic focus away from places we are involved in, creates a 'party' that can reach a compromise with Assad so it looks like a peace treaty, protect indigenous Christians if possible, protect refugees if possible, provide intelligence from the front lines

 

You're delusional, Dubious.

 

the fool in the white house got played