See, this is why I come back here every day. Sweet Lou and I can go at each others' throats in the other thread and come over here and be in complete agreement. Two days of missile strikes will accomplish nothing. If we want to actually accomplish something relevant (which I'm not sure we actually do) it would require a sustained air campaign and likely at least some boots on the ground. Even Kosovo required that. And SL42 is right, there is almost certain to be collateral damage (people like Assad *love* using human shields, they work when they protect a target and they work when they become martyrs). I just hope that if we do this we actually don't tip the balance. Not that I want Assad to win, but I really don't want Al Nusra (and Al Qaeda ) to win.
If we do go beyond simple Tomahawk strikes, then this is going to become very significant: http://en.ria.ru/world/20130826/182973052/All-Contracts-with-Russia-on-Track---Syrias-Assad.html My understanding is that it is known that Syrian crews have trained on the use of the S-300 system, but it is unknown whether those systems have actually made their way to Syria and into the field yet. If they have, then that could mean big trouble. It might also be the reason that word is it will be just cruise missiles this time around, because by all reports this is a very effective air defense system. We have a carrier group in the area now. If we do more than just shoot a few missiles the carrier group and likely some land-based aircraft in the US and Europe will be involved. Its F/A-18Es would be very vulnerable and we'd likely lose some pilots/planes. Something to keep an eye on.
This was from January: http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html
Sure - but that's different tiers of military action. Your position was that military action doesn't work in general. And it's unclear exactly what our objective with the missile strikes will be at this point. Unlike Bosnia, we're inserting ourselves into a relative stalemate instead of a one-sided massacre - it doesn't require as much to tip the scales, if that is our goal. I'm pretty sure when people talk about our actions risking lives, it is referencing American troops and not Syrian civilians. Syrian civilians are dying as is - a bunch just got obliterated by a chemical attack. The whole theory of intervening is to reduce that. I'm pretty sure our military action in Bosnia reduced the number of total people dying. You may be right. But all the same things were said by opponents of Bosnian intervention too. At this point, there's no way to know without knowing the breadth of the them, the targets, how long we sustain, Syria's response, and on and on. You seem to have prejudged the methodology and criticized the potential outcome based on that.
You think fear of domestic retribution from Hizbollah and Iran should affect a decision in this case? I disagree. If there is going to be intimidation involved with those two, it should flow the other direction. I'm not advocating strikes, just saying the thought process has to be clear-headed. If you want to argue strikes will negatively affect negotiations over Iran's nuke development or Lebanon's stability, I'm good with that. Those are examples of where "we need to tread very lightly".
I'm really not sure. I don't think Obama wants anything to do with this mess, but he's stuck with it, and I'd guess they've run out of patience sitting on the sidelines watching innocent people die. On one hand, there's the real-politic aspect that if you keep the two sides fighting, you drain resources from Assad/Iran/Hezbollah/Al Qaeda/etc - all of which is great. But it also takes a little lack of humanty to do something that knowingly sustains or worsens a humanitarian crisis. While I see the strategic benefits and it's a justification for staying on the sideline, I'm not sure I can see us actually intervening with that goal in mind. Assad winning is clearly not an outcome we want, so that leaves his overthrow and whatever uncertainty comes with that. But there are too many unknowns from the outside to know if we'd really push that - depends on how deep our connections are within the opposition, how much we think we can influence a future government, what Israel's concerns/goals/interests are, etc. Unlike most of the Arab Spring, this doesn't seem to be as much a quest for Democracy as it is a hatred for Assad - so it could be that we think a new non-AQ dictator/king type government will come into power, and we can have influence there. Getting Syria out from under the shadows of Iran has its own benefits as well, and with Iran supporting Assad's regime, a new opposition might be staunchly opposed to them regardless of philosophical alignment. It would also weaken Russia and China's influence a bit to have them on the "losing" side there. I imagine we are heavily involved behind the scenes, but without knowing how exactly, it's all just uneducated speculation on my part. At this point, really, I have no idea - I could see any number of possibilities, but my guess is that, ultimately, Assad's going down (rebels can fight forever) and we'd want to be seen as aligned with the winning side of that battle, even if they are not really our friends.
There are many reasons we should tread lightly. I threw out the possible Hizbollah/Iranian agent activation just to point out the Pandora's Box potential here. Such activity could potentially kill hundreds or thousands of US citizens on our own soil. Would that be worth intervention in Syria? I don't think so. Assad could decide to move his weapons into Hizbollah territory for "safe keeping". That would be a very bad development. Iran could decide to more openly become involved in the war, which could lead to a general ME war. There is a Russian presence in Syria at Tartus. What if they are operating S-300s there, and some are used against us? There is potential for escalation there that we neither want or need. What if one of our missiles or other munitions hits a target that turns out to be stocked full of civilians. Those bodies will be on display across the muslim world and even further turn them against us. There ware *waay[* too many things that could go wrong here. I want us to stay the hell out. No telling the can of worms intervention will open, and you never know what you're really in for until after you pull the trigger.
Major - I'd tend to agree that this ultimately ends with Assad's downfall. The problem is what comes after. Certainly having a moderate regime that is relatively friendly (meaning not openly hostile, which is the best you are likely to get in the ME) to the US and hostile to Iran would be a great benefit. But at this point I don;t really see that as remotely likely. I doubt the Administration does either, otherwise they would be pushing hard for Assad's ouster and we'd be talking openly about regime change. I don't think that's where we're at. I am also not particularly convinced that POTUS actually cares about the people dying there, as we had a much better window to intervene earlier in the conflict before the radical Islamists took over the opposition. If the impulse was truly humanitarian then 2011 would have been the time to intervene. I do agree that POTUS probably wishes this would all just go away. I actually feel some sympathy here for him - there are no good options in this one. My guess is we see a limited series of cruise missile strikes and that's about it. And the war will go on.
OBAMA, 2008: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. http://www.salon.com/2011/03/18/libya_2/
I agree. My calculus is simply that if Assad's going down regardless, you might as well try to hitch your wagon a little to the new guy. Whether there's any chance they will actually be friendly to us, I have no idea - but at the very least, they will probably not like Iran/Russia/China, at least at first. I think there's a distinction there. I think they DO care about it - but there's a difference between caring and intervening, and I don't know that they want to intervene. That said, there's a whole different level between not caring and doing something that will make the situation worse - and even if we don't care, I find it hard to believe we'd willingly and knowingly make the humanitarian problem worse. But it seems that acting to drag out the stalemate requires that, and that seems to be a hard line to cross. But I might just be naive there. I think that's definitely phase one and possibly (probably?) the only phase. But I think any potential Phase 2 would depend on how Syria/Iran/Russia respond, and also how our various allies respond (Turkey/Israel/France/etc) and then go from there.
I'd really be curious to know what Israel would like to see as the realistic endgame of all this, as they are directly impacted by it all.
If only we could somehow bomb Al Nusra while hitting Assad... Ah, but I dream. Wouldn't it be nice to figure out a way to take out both Assad and the jihadists? Probably too complicated to really strategize, likely impossible to execute. I don't think the humanitarian situation can get much worse. It's pretty bad, and has clearly been very bad since 2011. They may care on a personal level, but they don;t care enough to actually end it. If they did then US troops would be patrolling the streets of Damascus as we speak, probably dodging IEDs just like we did in Iraq. And I can definitely understand why they don't care enough to commit to that. I don't either. Again, there are ZERO good options here. If we prolong the conflict or allow it to continue, then many more innocent people will die. If we intervene to tip the balance then innocent people will still die, and jihadists may end up having their own state in the ME. A cruise missile strike and then either nothing or Pandora's Box. That's how I see it.
I think Israel is quite happy to not have to worry about a Syrian military threat anymore. But between the turmoil in Egypt, bubbling tensions in Jordan, and the uncertainty in both Syria and Lebanon they have got to be quite nervous. It would be an understatement to say that their future national security is very difficult to gauge right now.
Regardless, it won't work here. We don't want to tip the scales because we have no clue what the outcome of that would be. Bosnia there was an endgame to peace. Here that is lacking - and history has shown us that it would be costly as well. Ultimately I am sure it did, but it will not here. Beyond collateral damage, it may actually inflame the situation. With u.s. involvement it will become the central battleground for jihadists. It may make the situation worse, not better. What outcome do you even hope for - can you envision a realistic one that doesn't involve continuing bloodshed?
Sure - at some point, *someone* will win. At that point, the bloodshed will stop - or at least, diminish to be limited fighting instead of a country-wide civil war. Syria is not likely going to be a country in a perpetual state of civil war.
If Assad is toppled and the jihadists come out on top, don't expect the killing to stop. We will just start to see different victims. When Al Qaeda was invited into Iraq to help the Sunnis fight us, the locals initially thought it was a good idea. After awhile, the jihadists being who they are, decided to start enacting strict interpretations of sharia. This led to common acts of violence such as Taliban-style beatings of women on the streets who did not conform to their idea of modesty, impromptu sharia courts set up and sentences handed out by foreign interlopers on matters of Islamic law, and ultimately to the murder of local tribal leaders by Al Qaeda members and Takfiri. This ultimately turned the populace against Al Qaeda and led to the Sunni Awakening... They will do the exact same stuff in Syria - it's who they are. They will try and set a Taliban-style dictatorship. That entity will tolerate no disagreement and will unrelentingly seek to expand its sphere of influence. They WILL export their brand of Islam and their methods (read: terrorism) to surrounding nations in an effort to expand their influence. The goal is the re-establishment of the Caliphate, and they will not rest until that goal is achieved. It's one thing if they do it in backcountry Afghanistan, quite another if they do it in what is part of the nucleus of the Middle East, and a proximate doorway to Europe to boot. Understand that this situation could go VERY badly. There are actually worse options than Assad, though that is understandably difficult to see right now. The result could be perpetual terrorist warfare in the ME. How do we NOT end up with boots on the ground in such a situation? Think forward. Way forward, a dozen steps ahead of where we are. If the jihadists establish a firm foothold in Syria then there is no way we can ignore that, and you can't fix that situation from 30,000 feet in the air. We need to nip this in the bud one way or another. For now I'd rather we simply let them keep hitting each other and weaken each other. When/if we see the opportunity to take them both out, pounce on it. I'd love to see the moderates in Syria - and there are certainly some, they are still a significant faction, just not as influential as the jihadists at this point - win the war and take the helm. But they are in no position to do so right now. Deep involvement by external forces at this point will only muddy the situation, I think. If we are going to act decisively, then the timing needs to be right. Now is not that time.
