Mine, obviously. I think getting out makes America stronger as compared to getting more involved.
If this were a game of Civilization …
I wouldn’t care about Syria. They’ve been Russia’s ally for decades. We’re not going to war with Isil in order to protect Russia’s Ally, Assad, and we’re not going to war with Russia on behalf of the non-Assad forces.
I’d be sending ground troops to the Kurdish area of Iraq, with the goal of supporting America’s allies there. I wouldn’t care terribly about pissing off the non-Kurdish Iraqis. I would care about pissing off Turkey, but not so much that it would slow me down. I would find someway to get them onboard.
I would be proposing war games with Isrealis and Turks both, jointly or severally. I wouldn’t do it without their coorperation but ideally, I would cram as many American troops as we could fit into a small area.
Getting back to the Kurds … You know, if Russia is going to establish a permanent position in Syria, I would probably be making major moves to declare Kurdish Iraq as its own nation of Kurdistan. That would really piss of Turkey, but I would be more than willing to turn a blind eye to Turkey throwing all their Kurds out of Turkey (and confiscating their property in the bargain.) I’d be willing to throw a lot of cash - mean, a lot of cash - at both countries in the bargain, in order smooth the transition.
The point of all that, of course, is that I want a lot of American forces in position in case Russian’s Syrian adventure starts drifting toward Israel. (Then, of course, I would pass law declaring that from now on, Israel would be spelled Isreal.) If Isreal is secure, then we can use our Kurdistani base to obliterate Isil.
A lot people are going to suffer for this, but Civilization is suffering, as the Dread Pirate Roberts put it.
That’s good, but what about the remaining 98% of humanity?
IMHO, it’s about the difference between actual and perceived strength. Is it better to be strong, yet be perceived as weak, like the U.S.; or to be weak, yet be perceived as strong, like Russia? I’m not being rhetorical here - I honestly don’t know.
DAESH is, at the moment, more a potential threat than anything else. Sure, they’d kill us all if they could, but they can’t yet. Where as Hezbollah has, in fact, killed thousands of Israelis, is currently pointing thousands of missiles at Israel, and its Iranian masters, questionable deals aside, are still Israel’s no. 1 enemy. We don’t want DAESH to take control of the country - we’re not stupid - but we don’t want our actual enemies to grow any stronger, either. Hezbollah getting access to Syrian strategic weapons is something Israel will not accept under any circumstances. Any.
So let the Russians bomb whoever they want, so long as they stay out of Israel’s way.
Hezbollah has killed “thousands” of Israelis? That seems a little high. Where is that number from?
I think that often this appearing weak or strong is pundit bullshit - merely rhetoric to push public opinion.
I don’t think the US is actually perceived as “weak” – especially by countries like Russia. I think it’s mostly posturing and rhetoric.
Hmm. It was just an estimate, but subsequent research gives a number of about 500 since 1985, give or take. My bad.
Still, I can definitely say that the impact an extended missile campaign has on civilian society far exceeds the actual number of people killed.
Again I have to fight ignorance on the subject of Syria, and I will make it short as possible. The reason why we are weak in this situation is because we chose to be weak in this situation. Obama and the U.S for that matter were indecisive and weak in regards to Bashar Assad since 2012. We NEVER seriously supported the rebels, even the moderate ones. We always ignored even non fighting opposition organizations, and stabbed them in the back and left them dry. Remember the chemical weapons red line?
And when it came to regards to supporting rebels, it has been measly, but that is besides the point. Whether we give weapons to 5 or 5000, the issue was that we wanted them to fight ISIS and not Bashar Assad, get that in your everyone!!! So we only called for Assad’s ouster only in symbolic words, nothing meaningful.
We are weak not because Russia is stronger than us, but because we never wanted to support regime change in Syria, we(meaning the U.S administration)never wanted regime change in Syria. Part of it is our fears of what will happen after Assad goes, after seeing Iraq and Libya. This is “there is no good guys or nothing worth fighting for” is nonsense, an excuse and somewhat racist. That somehow people in that region is inherently evil and only can live with dictators.
Admit it people!!
We are weak because we allow it, and don’t do anything. We can easily undertake a bombing campaign on the scale of Kosovo/Belgrade 1999. Forget an invasion, we can only destroy Assad’s entire airforce and missiles and then settle and let the rebels capture more territory.
So no Russia is not smarter or stronger than us, we can destroy Russia’s bases and warn Moscow that any retaliation will be met by brute force. Magically tough guy Putin will not respond. Same with Ukraine, we have not given their LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT any support, not even military. And Ukraine is not even MUSLIM, so it can’t be the threat of “Islamist takeover”.
Obama has had many achievements, but Ukraine and especially Syria have been foreign policy failures. He was never serious about it at all. And Putin knows it and therefore has filled the void. We still do not protect Syrian civilians, take Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s statements, NEVER did he pledge that the U.S would shield the rebels or civilians.
The truth is the rebels have lost faith in us long time ago and never trusted us. Same with the Arab states, therefore they have been supporting the rebels and have stopped waiting for the feckless United States.
Take Saudi foreign minister statements today in response to Russia bombing:
It’s like me sitting at home and not pursuing jobs, careers or asking women out and saying well “I’m weak and indecisive” blah blah.
No it’s because I choose to not change my life, not because I am by nature meant to be like this.
Same with the U.S on Syria, we choose to be weak, not because we are.
That’s a truism. Of course we’re weak because we (well, the Obama administration) chose to be weak. US as a country can easily be as strong as the next 10 countries combined - if it wants to be.
Right at the bottom -
“Senior Tories have backed Russia’s intervention in Syria, saying working with Assad is the “lesser evil” in the fight against Isis.”
- that’s news to me, thanks, I’ll have to chase that up.
Could you get away with it ?
If the news reports are correct, the Russians are bombing some of the folks we are supporting. This is going to get “interesting”.
From you, who cited this as an appropriate primary objective for the US in Syria.
Is international political diplomacy a completely foreign concept to you?
And don’t put words in my mouth. I said, up side to co-operation, not “primary objective”. The “primary objective” for the US, in my opinion, is to dramatically reduce involvement in this cluster eff. See the difference?
Now answer my question: What is the down side to co-operation?
Interesting perspective offered by Alessan, as usual. While Russia bombing the FSA may appear as a negative for some Americans, it’s a bit of a silver lining for Israel.
Heh. ISWYDT.
OK. I don’t really see why coordination with Putin is necessary for this, but whatevs.
To me? It helps Assad, hurts the Kurds.
It isn’t. The US has a choice. I think giving co-operation a chance is better than spitting in their eye because Crimea.
This is a complex regional conflict. Helping the Kurds, hurts the Turks. Helping the Turks adds insult to injury for the Armenians. On and on down the line. Even the US, in all it’s omnipotence, cannot help one party without insult and injury to another. It’s just not America’s fight.
{edit]
So, what is the relationship between Hezbollah and Assad’s regime? They’re both Shi’ite and both (AIUI) backed by Iran. Does that mean Israel wants Assad gone, or not?
The Armenians? The idea that helping NATO ally Turkey might offend the Armenians is not even remotely anyone’s concern.
I know right, Armenia is a small, inconsequential, poor and landlocked nation in the Caucus region. Turkey has always been viewed as more important than Armenia, which is why successive administrations have failed to recognize the Armenian Genocide, fearing alienating Turkey.
Anyways I just hope as long as we play games with the Syrian people, they will flood Europe and the entire world. I love to watch Europeans bitch and moan about refugees. Look, you are indecisive in Syria, therefore let these people search for new lives in the West. May hundreds of thousands of Syrians, as well as others, overwhelm us and strain our borders, resources et al.
Surely we did not think these people will sit and suffer in Syria, and we will go about our merry, jolly lives. No, no, more shall come and I hope the stream continues and all the while the governments in Europe cry.