TBD on Ning
Syria, Again...
So, no silver bullet, Kemo Sabe, and no other good options either for what is going on in Syria. And yes, its complicated, and getting more so every day.
As to Red Lines, well, these are becoming some of a palate, rather than a color, that there are hues and nunance to the color red, much less any action required to validate the use of a line, no matter what color, that is not to be crossed.
The worse part of the Syrian situation is that it could be resolved in a way that just creates a bigger mess, a worse humanitarian crisis and further inflamed region already burning.
So, what to do? Do nothing, or nothing that makes things worse probably is what would be desired. Nothing means, that other options will seem as possible when practically they are impossible or improbable. The idea of a commitment of America troops in naked invasion is clearly impossible, and impossible for a number of reasons including how to insert troops and maintain them in hostile, and isolated territory. Afghanistan was done that way, but Syria is in the middle of a complicated, political map that does include a whole lot of what and who 'istans.
The use of standoff weapons is possible, but other than shock and awe, what are the viable targets? Blowing up chemical weapons depots are not viable option for the use of any weapon except attack, capture and impounding by highly trained, highly supported troops is a tactical nightmare.
The use of a proxy, such as Israel, to deliver the blows and force regime change is not viable, and could only serve to incense the Arab street and cause retaliation against the Israelis, who we are obligated to protect.
The use of the UN and international troops is an intellectual enterprise with no validity other than to invoke the International Court in the Hague as waiting to try Assad and others, if they are ever brought to justice. Without full and enthusiastic support of the Russians and Chinese, any international intervention is not going to happen, and no, the French can't go it alone, either.
As to the direct support of insurgents with weapons, that can only be on a limited, low capability level in that any such weapons. once introduced. are not longer in our control and become useful for what other purposes and who else's objectives end up with them.
Therefore, the one viable option, again seems to be. do nothing.
Let the killing go on, and hope that this is only a limited geography civil war that will resolve itself without a radical, Islamic government as a result. This option however, shows America as weak, uncaring, only involved with its own self-interests and seeking to isolate itself as a matter of policy regardless of what threats there may, in the long run, be to the security of American allies and other world interests, and a sign of a new isolationism of the American government and the American people to retreat, once again, behind the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
Views: 105
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ProblemAgain on
-
Therefore, the one viable option, again seems to be. do nothing.
This option however, shows America as weak, uncaring, only involved with its own self-interests and seeking to isolate itself as a matter of policy regardless of what threats there may, in the long run, be to the security of American allies and other world interests, and a sign of a new isolationism of the American government and the American people to retreat, once again, behind the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
or get involved how? oh doing nothing is the best option but instead spend treasure and lives to fuck it up worse? sometimes there isn't a thing that you can do to make anything better so you wait for the outcome instead of making more enemies for no purpose
-
-
Permalink Reply by LoveLife&Laughter on
-
Well written Ex; well thought out.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ioruach on
-
On the matter of isolationism. Does anyone here know the number of countries where the U. S. currently maintains a military presence, not counting those where there are merely a few marines at the embassy? I don't, but it is more than just a few.
-
-
-
here are a few links regarding troops stationed overseas and there is some info about the number of countries...be aware some have an axe to grind so the numbers may be more or may be less in order to promote an agenda
http://www.defense.gov/faq/pis/mil_strength.html
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.military.troops/
http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=5841
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military
http://www.vetfriends.com/US-deployments-overseas/
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2009/12/02/Deployment-of-US-tro...
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-military-overextende... -
-
-
Thanks, Problem. As I thought---a lot. Fulfilling our role as policeman of the world, I suppose. A question: has the level of success justified the cost?
-
-
-
that's a hypothetical question, an 'if we weren't there, this would have happened' conjectural exercise. in some cases, it's pretty clear that us being in a place did alter what might have been but in others, who is to say? lots of these are not nearly as clearcut as we had things post ww2 and part of that depends on the view form where one stands.
-
-
Permalink Reply by exedir on
-
So, shoes are going to drop, or rather that is, cruise missiles are the current number one option, and it is going to be soon.
The hard question, Ok, now what? To what point? And rather, what is the point?
The media's consensus option seems to be use missiles to take out air defense and degrade command and control, then take out the air assets on the ground, all in about three days.
Will this take out the Assad regime? Not likely. But it will stir things up, a lot.
What it does mean that if Thursday is H-day then the president faces a meeting in Russia of the G-20 where Val is not going to be happy, not happy at all. If the president ducks the meeting, and if the others go, what does that mean? How are the Russians going to take it, if the others show up and make a scene, or don't, and yank the "we agree with what you doing" rug from under the president.
And yes, it is complicated.
-
-
-
Is target Assaad a solution?
-
-
-
Only a threat, but not likely practically or tactically.
Assad is taking risks but he has to have figure the probability the international community will miss like in the cases of Gaddafi and Hussein. What he must have is already an escape plan which probably includes a booking into Russia to join Snowden.
-
-
-
Not to add to the mess, but, if H-day happens, the most likely target for retaliation by Syria and the proxy Hezbollah is Israel, like it was in Gulf War I. And is bad because the Israelis have a trigger finger that just needs an excuse to take out targets in Syria, Lebanon and Iran and chaos in the air is just right tactical situation to sneak in and do some serious damage.
Clearly the Administration is aware of this, and has to have a plan to keep Israelis grounded and safe behind the Patriot Iron Dome. If they don't, who knows how big this could get; real big and real bad is a good answer.
-
-
-
If Israel comes in to this mess the UN will call for a cease fire immediately, as usual.
-
© 2025 Created by Aggie.
Powered by
