War with Syria?

[kappapa]

I hope the Clinton warmongers are happy that they got what they wanted. Hopefully Trump realizes his mistake and retracts his idiotic war of aggression scheme that has plagued our military policy for the past 20 years!

However, there could be a positive to this if played out right. Maybe Trump and Putin struck a deal to take out Assad and in return both team up in a full fledged war against ISIS/in the future N. Korea. IF, and that's a big IF, we go into Syria, we need to not half a** it this time.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[AROTC-dad]

In my opinion, President Trump accomplished five things with this action. (Doesn't make it right).

1. He sent a message to Assad to back off.
2. He sent a message to Pyong Yang to back off.
3. He distanced himself from being too "chummy" with Russia.
4. He pushed the meeting with China's president into the background.
5. He demonstrated military decisiveness at a time when his popularity was deeply in trouble.

Full disclosure, I didn't vote for him, but he is my DS's current Commander in Chief.

 

[Day-Tripper]

I hope the Clinton warmongers are happy that they got what they wanted. Hopefully Trump realizes his mistake and retracts his idiotic war of aggression scheme that has plagued our military policy for the past 20 years!

However, there could be a positive to this if played out right. Maybe Trump and Putin struck a deal to take out Assad and in return both team up in a full fledged war against ISIS/in the future N. Korea. IF, and that's a big IF, we go into Syria, we need to not half a** it this time.

That's my 2 cents.

Don't worry, the "war" is over. One time cruise missile strikes a la Bill Clinton's Operation Desert Fox (awesome title for a military operation that amounted to little in reality) in 1998. Time for a "VS (Victory over Syria) Day parade?

I agree that the Syrian Civil War, as awful in bloodshed and lack of humanity as it has been does not represent a threat to the vital interests of American national security. Overthrowing the government of Bashar al-Assad does nothing to help the US. Supposing Assad is overthrown, then what? The 25% of Syria that is Alawite, Druze & Christan is either murdered or evicted by vengeful Sunni force. What then? It's not too dissimilar from Iraq post-Saddam - and I doubt the American people are too excited to have another decade-long occupation of an Arab state, requiring 100,000 or more troops involved in counter insurgency operations with no end in sight.

The air strikes against ISIS, which I do agree with, has been largely aimed at assisting Iraq regain control over all its national territory. Similarly, US special forces assistance to the Kurdish militias has been aimed at defending the Kurdistan province of Iraq and its spillover into Kurdish areas of Syria which the Syrian government has long since lost control of. This US action has been in support of local Moslem ground forces that are reasonably friendly to the US, without requiring large scale US military commitments.

I disagree greatly with you in regards to Trump/Putin striking some kind of anti-Assad alliance. Moscow has had close relations with the Assad family since 1969, lavishing that regime with billions of rubles worth of military hardware. Russia's only military base in the Mediterranean is in Latakia, the Syrian coastal port city, granted to them by the Assad regime decades ago. Russian has intervened in the Syrian Civil War expressly to help the Assad regime win. Why would they ever turn on Assad at this point? It would be like the US switching their support from South Vietnam to North Vietnam in 1970. Impossible to imagine.

Iran is another big supporter of the Syrian government, bringing the Moscow-Tehran nexus even closer together. In 2016 the Russian Air Force was briefly using Iranian airspace and Iranian air fields while carrying out operations in Syria. The Russia-Syria-Iran alliance grows stronger every day and for Russia to pull back from it seems absurd.

The Russians also have good relations with North Korea and, like China, wouldn't want to see that country get taken over by South Korea and bringing an American ally to their border (North Korea shares a small border with Russia, just a few miles from the Russia's primary Pacific port city of Vladivostok.)

There's precious few, if any, common interests for America and Russia to "team up" with anywhere on earth. Russia is (and has always been) implacably hostile to US foreign policy everywhere. The idea of a military alliance of some kind is laughable.

 

[Day-Tripper]

In my opinion, President Trump accomplished five things with this action. (Doesn't make it right).

1. He sent a message to Assad to back off.
2. He sent a message to Pyong Yang to back off.
3. He distanced himself from being too "chummy" with Russia.
4. He pushed the meeting with China's president into the background.
5. He demonstrated military decisiveness at a time when his popularity was deeply in trouble.

Full disclosure, I didn't vote for him, but he is my DS's current Commander in Chief.

However, what if Syria & North Korea don't "back off"? Syria's Bashar al-Assad might stop using Sarin gas, but he sure stop using barrel bombs and starvation sieges to laughter another half million of his citizens, if that's what it takes to remain in power. What then? Will US policy be to bomb Assad's forces if they using chemical weapons but not any other kind of weapons?

North Korea will continue to expand its missile and nuclear programs. Nothing short of war will stop them. And neither the US, South Korea or Japan favors war on the Korean peninsula. The 2003 US invasion of Iraq taught the world one important lesson: the US will attack & invade you if you're like Iraq, with no WMD, but will treat you with kid gloves if you're like Pakistan, armed with nukes. Iran & North Korea have taken note. Others will follow.

 

[kinnem]

Will US policy be to bomb Assad's forces if they using chemical weapons but not any other kind of weapons?

Don't know what the folks at the top have in mind but I hope that only bombing them for the use of chemical weapons would turn out to be what happens. I can make a case for punishing violators of chemical weapons treaties, but as disdainful as it is, civil war is a legitimate political activity. Don't like it, and would love to see it stop, but aside from any refugee crisis it's none of our business. It seems Trump felt the same way until the chemical weapon attack. Hopefully he still thinks the civil war itself is none of our business.

 

[Jcleppe]

I hope the Clinton warmongers are happy that they got what they wanted

Not sure I follow your logic, there has not been a Clinton in the White House for over 16 years, and if memory serves me right our ongoing two wars were started during the Bush administration. While I am not a fan of our current administration, the response seemed to be a measured one, what happens next will be the real story.

IF, and that's a big IF, we go into Syria, we need to not half a** it this time.

Not sure you can call one person a "Warmonger" and at the same time express a need to not half a** it.

Since you are aspiring to the USNA you may one day find yourself on a ship launching the very same Tomahawk Missiles, you'll want to resist the urge to call anyone a Warmonger, either that or stay with the USMMA.

 

[Day-Tripper]

Will US policy be to bomb Assad's forces if they using chemical weapons but not any other kind of weapons?

Don't know what the folks at the top have in mind but I hope that only bombing them for the use of chemical weapons would turn out to be what happens. I can make a case for punishing violators of chemical weapons treaties, but as disdainful as it is, civil war is a legitimate political activity. Don't like it, and would love to see it stop, but aside from any refugee crisis it's none of our business. It seems Trump felt the same way until the chemical weapon attack. Hopefully he still thinks the civil war itself is none of our business.

Everyone with a heart feels sympathy with the victims of Sarin gas attacks. But to commit the US to war, in a civil war in a Moslem nation in which there aren't 2 sides, but as many as 50 different warring factions (none of whom is particularly pro-US, with the exception of the Kurds), particularly after the Afghanistan-Iraq experience of the last 16 years, is absolutely insane.

Republicans (including Donald J Trump) mostly opposed intervention in Syria when Barrack Obama was president. They were right. What has changed since then? Nothing.

 

[kappapa]

Not sure I follow your logic, there has not been a Clinton in the White House for over 16 years, and if memory serves me right our ongoing two wars were started during the Bush administration. While I am not a fan of our current administration, the response seemed to be a measured one, what happens next will be the real story.
Not sure you can call one person a "Warmonger" and at the same time express a need to not half a** it.
Since you are aspiring to the USNA you may one day find yourself on a ship launching the very same Tomahawk Missiles, you'll want to resist the urge to call anyone a Warmonger, either that or stay with the USMMA.

Referencing the first uninformed point, the Clinton warmongering crew I am referencing is the 2016 Hillary run and her advocacy for a no fly zone in Syria, along with NeoCons McCain and Lindsey Graham. Trump has unfortunately decided to continue the Obama and Bush era interventionist policies. Warmongering is the lust for war for personal satisfaction or gain, it is not illogical to state that if we were to continue the Bush and Obama era idiocy, that we stop messing around and commit to actual invasion rather than relying on a proxy war to do NeoCon bidding, which in the end prolongs conflict and possible harm to service members/cost to the taxpayer. People like you seem to have short term memory loss when it comes to Middle East intervention strategy. This Foreign Policy opinion would have nothing to do with my decision to follow orders to carry out this kind of strike, bringing personal conviction into it is grossly inappropriate and immature.

 

[Jcc123]

Not sure I follow your logic, there has not been a Clinton in the White House for over 16 years, and if memory serves me right our ongoing two wars were started during the Bush administration. While I am not a fan of our current administration, the response seemed to be a measured one, what happens next will be the real story.
Not sure you can call one person a "Warmonger" and at the same time express a need to not half a** it.
Since you are aspiring to the USNA you may one day find yourself on a ship launching the very same Tomahawk Missiles, you'll want to resist the urge to call anyone a Warmonger, either that or stay with the USMMA.

Referencing the first uninformed point, the Clinton warmongering crew I am referencing is the 2016 Hillary run and her advocacy for a no fly zone in Syria, along with NeoCons McCain and Lindsey Graham. Trump has unfortunately decided to continue the Obama and Bush era interventionist policies. Warmongering is the lust for war for personal satisfaction or gain, it is not illogical to state that if we were to continue the Bush and Obama era idiocy, that we stop messing around and commit to actual invasion rather than relying on a proxy war to do NeoCon bidding, which in the end prolongs conflict and possible harm to service members/cost to the taxpayer. People like you seem to have short term memory loss when it comes to Middle East intervention strategy. This Foreign Policy opinion would have nothing to do with my decision to follow orders to carry out this kind of strike, bringing personal conviction into it is grossly inappropriate and immature.

I see you've enjoyed your high school history classes, and probably try to keep up with world events. That's nice.
When you get some actual experience as both a member of the military and an adult, you may have some standing to criticize fully contributing members of society and this forum. Until then, keep up the good work on that vocabulary, and be open to learning. There are teachable moments everywhere if you know where to look.

 

[Day-Tripper]

Not sure I follow your logic, there has not been a Clinton in the White House for over 16 years, and if memory serves me right our ongoing two wars were started during the Bush administration. While I am not a fan of our current administration, the response seemed to be a measured one, what happens next will be the real story.
Not sure you can call one person a "Warmonger" and at the same time express a need to not half a** it.
Since you are aspiring to the USNA you may one day find yourself on a ship launching the very same Tomahawk Missiles, you'll want to resist the urge to call anyone a Warmonger, either that or stay with the USMMA.

Referencing the first uninformed point, the Clinton warmongering crew I am referencing is the 2016 Hillary run and her advocacy for a no fly zone in Syria, along with NeoCons McCain and Lindsey Graham. Trump has unfortunately decided to continue the Obama and Bush era interventionist policies. Warmongering is the lust for war for personal satisfaction or gain, it is not illogical to state that if we were to continue the Bush and Obama era idiocy, that we stop messing around and commit to actual invasion rather than relying on a proxy war to do NeoCon bidding, which in the end prolongs conflict and possible harm to service members/cost to the taxpayer. People like you seem to have short term memory loss when it comes to Middle East intervention strategy. This Foreign Policy opinion would have nothing to do with my decision to follow orders to carry out this kind of strike, bringing personal conviction into it is grossly inappropriate and immature.

Kappa, if your policy vis-a-vis the Arab (Moslem) world is not to commit another generation of American troops to die and be crippled n further aimless wars in the Greater Middle East, then I salute your wisdom.

If you view military service as an extension of promoting Republican Party principles then, man, are you in for a surprise.

 

[kappapa]

Kappa, if your policy vis-a-vis the Arab (Moslem) world is not to commit another generation of American troops to die and be crippled n further aimless wars in the Greater Middle East, then I salute your wisdom.

If you view military service as an extension of promoting Republican Party principles then, man, are you in for a surprise.

I am fully committed to seeing America stay the dominant superpower, but not through meaningless and endless wars of aggression for which there is no end for our troops or for the citizenry. I am sick of seeing the endless regime changes and their consequential effects dwindling down to future generations to clean up... we should play no unilateral role in another sovereign nation's inner political conflict.
Republican Party? If you see me as a party hack, whewww lad. I do not see how you picked up that I am a Republican (maybe the knock towards the Clinton dynasty and NeoCon warmongers?), but I am no where near a Republican. Nor am I Democrat. However, the majority of the military polled/voting records show Right Wing ideological tendencies. But for myself, I consider myself a Classical Liberal. I'm not a huge fan of Political Parties/Collectivist Ideologies.

 

[kappapa]

I see you've enjoyed your high school history classes, and probably try to keep up with world events. That's nice.

When you get some actual experience as both a member of the military and an adult, you may have some standing to criticize fully contributing members of society and this forum.

I love how condescending and ageist you are, rather than addressing arguments you'd rather cast out ad homs. Top Kek.

 

[Jcleppe]

I have to admit, that's one of the first World of Warcraft references I've seen on this board, not surprised.

 

[kappapa]

I have to admit, that's one of the first World of Warcraft references I've seen on this board, not surprised.

It's more a 4chan reference nowadays, but you're too old/phased out to understand new internet counter-culture I suppose. Still doesn't dismiss your terrible arguments.

 

[AJC]

we should play no unilateral role in another sovereign nation's inner political conflict.

You might want to re-think your career aspirations.

 

[kappapa]

You might want to re-think your career aspirations.

My bad, I forgot the U.S Military was the world police and we shouldn't try to change the role NeoCons have put us in.

 

[AJC]

My bad, I forgot the U.S Military was the world police and we shouldn't try to change the role NeoCons have put us in.

If you succeed in obtaining a commission and you try to change the role "NeoCons" have put us in, it would be, indeed , your bad.

 

[kappapa]

If you succeed in obtaining a commission and you try to change the role "NeoCons" have put us in, it would be, indeed , your bad.

Ok, to get this straight, you are alright with the U.S policing nations with no real end goal besides global hegemony? I just don't want to die in a war of attrition in a land with no value because the Military Industrial Complex needs to keep it's wheels greasy. But I will do as my orders tell me to within the bounds of the law, but I will do everything within my power once I get older to change the situation people like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George Bush, etc, have put us in.

 

[cb7893]

I am fully committed to seeing America stay the dominant superpower, but not through meaningless and endless wars of aggression for which there is no end for our troops or for the citizenry. I am sick of seeing the endless regime changes and their consequential effects dwindling down to future generations to clean up... we should play no unilateral role in another sovereign nation's inner political conflict.

On the off chance that you aren't a troll...

In the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up Francis."

This morning, I read your comments on this thread and the one concerning SA athletics. I thought that I would give your some friendly advice and a short reading list to fill in the considerable gaps in your understanding of the evolution of American Military and Economic Power in general and the history of the Middle East in particular. I now see it would be a waste of time. The folks who've responded to you have served and/or have sons/daughters serving. (Don't bother with the TYFYS) They have either successfully done what you aspire to or they have watched their sons/daughters to so. This forum is a great resource. With a little bit of humility you could benefit from it.

You are so convinced of your understanding, so bereft of intellectual curiosity and so mechanical in your presentation, that those qualities alone would disqualify you in the eyes of anyone other than the most desperate or evil of recruiters. I am shocked anyone has even responded to you. I look at you more like the guy screaming at random people at a bus stop.

Don't worry. Bigger horses a$$e$ than you have attended SA's, commissioned and made careers in the military, but I doubt they had a steep a learning as you are facing.

 

[kappapa]

On the off chance that you aren't a troll...

In the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up Francis."

This morning, I read your comments on this thread and the one concerning SA athletics. I thought that I would give your some friendly advice and a short reading list to fill in the considerable gaps in your understanding of the evolution of American Military and Economic Power in general and the history of the Middle East in particular. I now see it would be a waste of time. The folks who've responded to you have served and/or have sons/daughters serving. (Don't bother with the TYFYS) They have either successfully done what you aspire to or they have watched their sons/daughters to so. This forum is a great resource. With a little bit of humility you could benefit from it.

You are so convinced of your understanding, so bereft of intellectual curiosity and so mechanical in your presentation, that those qualities alone would disqualify you in the eyes of anyone other than the most desperate or evil of recruiters. I am shocked anyone has even responded to you. I look at you more like the guy screaming at random people at a bus stop.

Don't worry. Bigger horses a$$e$ than you have attended SA's, commissioned and made careers in the military, but I doubt they had a steep a learning as you are facing.

More arguments from authority and personal attacks. Seriously? Can you address the actual arguments at hand or is your saddle on your high horse too comfy? I just want a debate about the use of our military (of course I'm not an expert who spent 10 years in the middle east as some CIA analyst, but my points are valid enough for you to address without brushing off them off with condescending one liners). I see now it is best not to rock the boat, because people want to maintain an echo chamber. "Disqualify you in the eyes of anyone other than the most desperate or evil of recruiters", "Bigger horses a$$e$ than you have attended SA's", "I look at you more like the guy screaming at random people at a bus stop.", why are you dishing out such malice?