Syria

J

JMS

5-Year Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
444
Well, it looks like Syria crossed a line with chemical weapons use, and the 'train is about to leave the station' regarding a new military operation of some sort. Any views out there on if a military op by the US in Syria is a good idea?
 
Sounds like a good UN mission... and it would be hard to justify large cuts to the U.S. military if the federal goverment is gearing up for comflict overseas...

My personal opinion, if there safety of the U.S. isn't an issue, don't get invovled. Does Syria pose a direct threat? Probably not.

I'm also disgusted by what has happened there... but leaders are/have been killing their people all over the world.

But as you said, the train appears to be leaving the station, and LITS's opinion have never really mattered.
 
Last edited:
The only real difference between a US mission and a UN mission is the number of non-Americans searching for parking spaces for white trucks.
 
From the article that hornet posted:

Lastly, Obama may be tempted to strike because he foolishly drew a “red line” over this issue and feels his credibility is now at stake. But following one foolish step with another will not restore that lost standing. U.S. power is most credible when it is used to protect vital U.S. interests
Click to expand...
.

Sums my thoughts up pretty well.
 
scoutpilot said:
The only real difference between a US mission and a UN mission is the number of non-Americans searching for parking spaces for white trucks.
Click to expand...

Just don't park them next to a Mustang. Mustang's are always dinging other people's cars.
 
+1 to Packer. In any case, if the train does leave the station, the Prez needs to make the objective both achievable, somewhat significant, measurable, and publicly known. Perhaps wipe out the chem weapons or "significantly" degrade their air power. The reason I say this is that we need to be in a position to say it succeeded when we end it 2 - 7 days later (hopefully). Otherwise we still end up looking like a paper tiger, and while I like paper tigers, its not good to look like one on the world stage. Hate to do it though just to make the Prez look credible for something he (foolishly?) said on the campaign trail.

I think we're better served by letting the two sides in Syria just keep shooting at one another. Keeps 'em busy at least.
 
Syria crossed an arbitrary line of using chemical weapons. I didn't realize we signed some sort treaty to take military actions when another country uses chemical weapon. Kerry supposedly said something along the line would you use chemical weapons against children. The answer no. But at the same time there are thousands and thousands children that are hungry, abused, sick, and etc. Kerry is not advocating we take actions to stop suffering of those children.

I think the Powell Doctrine (From Wiki) is a good template in determining if we should take any military action

1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7.Is the action supported by the American people?
8.Do we have genuine broad international support?
Click to expand...

Where any military action against Syria fails are, unless President Obama is fully committed,

2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Click to expand...

If our objective is to stop use of chemical weapons, it's attainable - full strike against Syrian military assets that are related to chemical weapons (i.e. suspected chemical depots, missiles, cannons, aircrafts, throw in Command and Control too). But this will be a temporary fix as we have to deal with the outcome. If we attack Syria, the likely outcome is the balance shifting to the rebels. Unless we luck out and Syria maintains stability like Libya after the rebels won, we are obligated to reestablish stability in Syria.
 
MemberLG said:
Syria crossed an arbitrary line of using chemical weapons. I didn't realize we signed some sort treaty to take military actions when another country uses chemical weapon. Kerry supposedly said something along the line would you use chemical weapons against children. The answer no. But at the same time there are thousands and thousands children that are hungry, abused, sick, and etc. Kerry is not advocating we take actions to stop suffering of those children.

I think the Powell Doctrine (From Wiki) is a good template in determining if we should take any military action



Where any military action against Syria fails are, unless President Obama is fully committed,



If our objective is to stop use of chemical weapons, it's attainable - full strike against Syrian military assets that are related to chemical weapons (i.e. suspected chemical depots, missiles, cannons, aircrafts, throw in Command and Control too). But this will be a temporary fix as we have to deal with the outcome. If we attack Syria, the likely outcome is the balance shifting to the rebels. Unless we luck out and Syria maintains stability like Libya after the rebels won, we are obligated to reestablish stability in Syria.
Click to expand...

Whatever we do, I don't think it will be enough to topple the current regime. The rebels may eventually triumph, but the Assad regime will still have a lot of fight left in it (which is why we need to be able to declare a victory of sorts) and it will take several months of fighting before the rebels triumph. In that scenario I doubt we'll be seen as being under any obligation to maintain stability.

Frankly I'm beginning to think the best outcome is to have the Turks take over the whole artificial construct. Or whack it up between the bordering countries in some fashion and let the Alawites have their own country. Not quite sure what you do with the Christians though, although a country of their own might not be a bad idea. Not sure if any of these constructs could hang together economically though. Like all things in the middle east it's far beyond my ken. :frown:

EDIT: And if it weren't for Iran my preference would be we don't do anything at all.
 
"Frankly I'm beginning to think the best outcome is to have the Turks take over the whole artificial construct. "

Not a bad idea. The whole middle east map is already a British/French artificial construct.
I wonder why those in the mid east are always looking to the west to fix their problems... plenty of weapons in the hands of the big players in the area. Why is no one asking them to act?
 
JMS said:
"Frankly I'm beginning to think the best outcome is to have the Turks take over the whole artificial construct. "

Not a bad idea. The whole middle east map is already a British/French artificial construct.
I wonder why those in the mid east are always looking to the west to fix their problems... plenty of weapons in the hands of the big players in the area. Why is no one asking them to act?
Click to expand...

Exactly, and you certainly don't see them rushing in. I expect the reason the Turks hold back is the whole "resurrection of the Ottomans" thing. In some ways I'd love to see the whole region (excepting Israel) united so someone would have a stake in making it "work" and could even act as a counter-weight to Iran. Why does it always have to fall on us (US)! (pun intended).
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, when I turn on the news (at least Fox... is there any other? :rolleyes: Maybe I should start channel surfing) I feel like I'm watching the build up to the air war in the first Gulf War. But for goodness sake, we aren't anywhere near being ready to launch anything politically yet. I fear the news broadcasts may be beating the drums to force, or embarrass, the President into taking some action that he is no where near ready to do. And Congress isn't even behind this yet (seems to me anyway).

I think it's a shame that the British Parliament can be called back early to debate this while our own Congress is on recess and apparently is not even considered in all this. I hope things are happening out of sight with respect to Congress and that the President is planning on delaying until they return. There doesn't seem to be any hurry as there is no secret here. We've already shown our hand. And once Congress is back in session one cannot prevent them from debating it, so if the President is going to proceed without them he better do it soon.

I wonder if we can be happy with an outcome where we forced Assad to take his eye off the ball in the civil war for some period of time while he prepares for a US attack (I would think we've accomplished that) and leave it at that? For there will surely be consequences to pay in the oil markets, if nothing else, if we do launch an attack. But then there is always that nuclear mongering and pesky Iran and N. Korea watching the outcome of all this.

Oh me oh my! This? :tank: or this? :angel: or just this? :zip:

Everything would seem to lead to this! :bang: :help:
 
Actually if you want to see something real funny tonite and have a lot of cable channels. An old episode of WKRP in Cincinnati is on at 9PM on ANTTV. It involves a helicopter and a lot of turkeys as a thanksgiving promo.
 
NorwichDad said:
In other news how about that Mylie Cyrus and Robin Thicke Performance!!!
Click to expand...

Probably not covered on the Al-Jazeera America, although I'm sure they would have live coverage of any jay-walking US troops would do in Syria.
 
goaliedad said:
Probably not covered on the Al-Jazeera America, although I'm sure they would have live coverage of any jay-walking US troops would do in Syria.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't knock Al-Jazeera that much. I have read a lot of their (English) reporting and I'd say it's on par with BBC. It also has an international reputation of being more independent than most American media sources. Just because they didn't hold back on reporting the wars back in 2001 and 2003 to our satisfaction doesn't mean they aren't a reputable news source. For any complaints of anti-Americanism....well, not like our own news networks are any more kind to those they disagree with. Like any news outlet, read everything with a grain of salt.
 
hornetguy said:
I wouldn't knock Al-Jazeera that much. I have read a lot of their (English) reporting and I'd say it's on par with BBC. It also has an international reputation of being more independent than most American media sources. Just because they didn't hold back on reporting the wars back in 2001 and 2003 to our satisfaction doesn't mean they aren't a reputable news source. For any complaints of anti-Americanism....well, not like our own news networks are any more kind to those they disagree with. Like any news outlet, read everything with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Not poking at them on the Anti-American theme, but more the "if it bleeds, it leads" perspective. They put CNN on the map back in the day when CNN got Al Jazeera's feed first. Now they will have the opportunity to have their CNN moment.

I would say that BBC far outdoes AJ on analysis. AJ has boots on the ground everywhere, but to me seems to lack the "above the fray" perspective that BBC and other fine outfits have.
 
tpg said:
I can recall when Iraq used Chemical Weapons against Iran back in the 80's....I do not recall our Nation getting involved in that dispute to "stop chemical weapon" attacks.

Keeping it simple, I see no real reason for us to become involved in Syria beyond sending the rebels more bullets and body bags. Personally I think we should sit back and watch this show.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this a lot (I need to get a life!). I've gotten to where I agree with you. We've no dog in this fight. Unfortunately I think the Pres has put himself in a position where he has to do something at this point. How stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top