If for some supremely unlikely reason, the U.S. took up the old business of empire building, would toppling Syria and setting it up as a U.S. Territory (unincorporated organized, like Guam) have any benefit that outweighs the significant downsides?
No.
One “side effect” that might be seen as a disadvantage would be that Syrians would then have an automatic right to emigrate to the US itself. The case of Gonzales v. Williams established that Puerto Ricans could not be excluded from moving to New York, regardless of whether they fulfill the suitability criteria for legal immigration, since they were not foreigners and only foreigners are subject to immigration restrictions.
One question I have is why the US and many (most?) other countries have given up on trying to expand their territory/build an empire. If the world was as it is a few hundred years ago, you would expect that every few years some country or another would try to invade the Panama Canal to try to claim the economic power of controlling a major shipping lane, but clearly this is not happening, and not because the military of Panama is especially renowned. Several countries tried for several hundred years to capture Puerto Rico because of its strategic position, only one ever succeeded in holding it for more than a few days, and after that nobody has tried since. Greece seems to be ok letting Turkey keep Constantinople/Istanbul - even before their financial crisis they seemed to be a it’s a done deal, let’s live and let live country.
Modern weaponry is more devastating, reducing the value of conquered territories, and many nations have found that trade is more profitable than war.
Yeah, invading Iraq worked out so well for us; let’s try another one.
However that would be balanced by the fact that millions of Americans could move to Syria.
Well, sign me up. I’ve grown so tired of bourgeoisie luxuries like, you know, civilization.
How are we defining “outweigh”? Like, a benefit that would completely offset the downsides—like, say, if you conquered Elbonia, it would cause a lot of trouble, but you’d completely control the world’s supply of Unobtanium, making you an unassailable ultrapower—or any benefits that can merely be stacked against the downsides, even if they might not be worth it (like, say, you conquer Elbonia, and you gain a respectable portion of the world’s crouton manifacturing plants)?
It’s an interesting question and…I don’t know. Every now and then I’ll read someone suggest that as Russia’s population shrinks and China’s continues to grow, the Chinese will take over Siberia in the pursuit of “Lebensraum.”
It theoretically makes “sense,” but I have a hard time believing it will happen. It just seems like modern countries don’t annex and incorporate new territories anymore. Even if territories want to be annexed it seems unlikely to happen.
If I were in China, I wouldn’t go for Siberia to begin with. Instead, my first move would be to attack Ural and then put a significant amount of troops in Ural as an obstacle to Russia inevitable counter-attack. Then, after the Russian attack failed, I would take Siberia. This, of course, assumes that I am either in control of Japan or am allied to Japan’s owner.
Syria, I’ve heard, has terrific pistachios. Also, dates. So there’s that.
Damascus is one of the oldest continuously occupied areas in history. After you expelled most of the population ( I’d probably leave a few % for “local color” ) and tourist it up a bit more, you could turn it into one heck of an amusement park/cultural museum.
Damsacus-Land! Fun for the whole family!
Hardly any oil, just like in North Korea. Slim chance of an invasion. More likely a Bosnia-style bombing and air denial campaign.
It’s not profitable anymore. And America hasn’t really given it up; the conquest of Iraq was in part an attempt at imperial expansion, and it demonstrated yet again why such imperialism by conquest has gone out of style. Profit was the biggest driver of the old colonial empires, and these days conquest in practice amounts to the equivalent of piling up a significant portion of your nation’s money in a heap and setting it on fire.
Not long ago, I read Michael Korda’s Hero: The Life & Legend of Lawrence of Arabia. After the war, Lawrence tried to see the promises he’d made were kept–but the great powers carved up the old Ottoman Empire into client states. Especially the areas with oil.
France insisted it had a “right” to Syria because of the country’s great sacrifice on the Western Front–much of which was in France. The right was also based on Crusaders’ conquests–although Damascus was already ancient in those days.
The days of “acquiring” territory are long gone. But benefits for corporations can still be sought…
No blood for kimchi.
I can’t imagine what value Syria could have. We probably have several times more oil in Texas, Alaska, or half a dozen other states than Syria does. Not to mention reserves in the infinitely-more-friendly nation of Canada. It’s not a particularly stategic location AFAIK.
Seriously, what the hell would we be doing there?
Fabulous pistachios and dates, as mentioned upthread. Seriously don’t people read threads before responding?
I LOVE PISTACHIOS!!! I don’t care if a million american lives are lost in occupying Syria if it means access to this wonderful food.