Hey, did you ever get an answer to that submarine question?
This sounds very much like what former US leaders have said in other foreign crises. Russia is willing to take the lead on this and do some of the heavy lifting. Why not work with Russia instead of against them? Attach a small US force to fight side by side. We cooperate with the International Space station, and this could be another example.
We don’t have to *always *be in charge. Russia wants to take point on this crises. Great! We can avoid a nasty friendly fire incident by by working with them. Our airstrikes have to avoid their troops anyway. It lets us better be aware of whats happening (on the ground) and perhaps still influencing a very fluid and dynamic situation. But only in a minor way. Russia has the ball, let them run with it and we got their back.
Would this be so hard for the American people to accept? We’ve lead so many coalitions. Can’t we join somebody’s elses for a change? A quarter million people have died. Its time to end this crises. Using what ever sources and force is available. We don’t have to make a big contribution. A thousand troops might be enough to attach with the larger Russian force. Similar to what European troops commit to US lead coalitions.
Larov is correct. Air strikes (alone) will never end this crises.
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-calls-other-nations-help-arm-syrian-government-104328976.html
Usually, when you join a coalition you’re doing it because you have a common enemy. You do understand we are on the opposite side of the Russians in this conflict?
Well, it’s a good start. But let’s not forget that we also sent troops to Somalia to defend UN aid convoys. We’re bad people.
I envision a internal force supporting Russia. It’s Russia’s coalition. They supply most of the troops. But if each international partner supplies a thousand men each, then its an international force. Just like the coalitions the US has lead, except this time we are only one of many partners.
Why do we have to be at odds with Russia in this conflict? Assad’s government is the only one of maintaining order. If that government falls there will be another Iraq. Theres nobody else in Syria that could get enough support from the military to govern. We’d have Syrian troops refusing to fight just like in Iraq.
You are missing the point. Russia’s mission is to shore up the Assad government. We don’t like the Assad government. You seem to be saying we should join the Russians just for the sake of being in a coalition.
It’s time to put an end to ISIS. If that means supporting a tyrant then so be it. Work with with the tools at hand. Assad is a big tool right? 
Work with him, in exchange for moderating his policies. Ending atrocities committed by his forces. He’ll still be a tyrant but thats better than the anarchy we got now. A quarter million have died. That has to stop.
I’d love to see Assad run out of power. But there is no other government in Syria to maintain order. The US is taking the wrong position in insisting he go.
Maye years from now a natural political process can replace Assad. But right now, this civil war in Syria has to be stopped. ISIS is taking advantage of the chaos and gaining too much territory and power.
So you want to aid the man that by your own cite is the cause of the crisis? It doesnt make sense to me. Also, when they are duking it out in Iraq and Syria they arent threatening Israel which has nukes. The only lasting peace will be a region wide peace. But common sense tells me that this is neigh impossible. It might take a WWII style event in the Middle East to teach them what the Europeans learned 1939-1945.
ISIS is a natural political process. A horrible one, to be sure, but this is pretty much how undemocratic governments are replaced.
Like it or not the US’s attacks against Assad’s troops will have to end. Or risk WWIII. Just imagine if we bombed Russian troops embedded with the Syrian troops. That’s the worlds nightmare scenario right there. A direct confrontation between Russia and the US. Something we danced around for 40 years during the Cold War. The whole damn world nearly ended during the Cuban Missie crises. We were right there on the edge.
We absolutely cannot risk bombing Russian troops. Putin is just ruthless and crazy enough to press that Nuke button. He doesn’t give a crap if his country is destroyed too. I don’t see him blinking. Ever.
A lot depends on whether there’s enough Russian troops to embed with all the Syrian units. I just hope we get the right intel to know where to bomb and where not to bomb. At some point, our bombing will have to stop because it will just be too risky.
You do realize that Russia has about half the population of the USSR, right? Were it not for those Asiatic troops the Germans likely would have captured Moscow in 1941. Russia has absolutely no chance to win a war against NATO (a conventional one) and will not start one. Putin isnt crazy. He is a good judge of strength and weakness though.
Does that make it safer or even more dangerous? Putin knows he can’t win a ground force war against NATO. So, Nukes are his only trump card. Not having a plan B, concerns me. Because he could back himself into a corner and do something reckless and stupid.
The Soviets out numbered the US in troops. Especially in East Germany. I had a relative that was posted over there twice in the 1970’s. They used to call the American forces in West Germany a speed bump. There was no way they could have stopped that tidal wave of Soviet forces in East Germany and Poland. We were only there to reassure Germany that America would fight beside them if necessary.
Done, because this never happened.
So when Assad drops barrel bombs on women and children, what precise role would you like US troops to take? Should we be building the barrel bombs for Assad? Should Americans be helping to refuel the helicopters? Maybe we should join in and just carpet bomb hospitals? You know, just to make sure the good guy Assad stays in power?
Because Assad isnmore concerned about the oppositionists who are just outside of Damascus than fighting ISIL that’s hundreds of miles away in Raqqa.
ETA: how many Syrian refugees do you think the U.S. should take?
Or Putin could be making sure that ISIL doesnt become ISILC (Islamic State of Iraq Levant and the Caucases). As others have said…this could well be a repeat of 80s Afghanistan…when the Soviets had a larger and better army and an opponent on her border. The Russians will also have trouble supplying even a small force. We’ll see how Russian public opinion handles this.
I’m quoting my own comment from the other thread I posted yesterday, which is more appropriate to this thread than that. I will always quote this comment instead of coming up with something new.
"
- “Assad is fighting against ISIS”:
No he is NOT, he actually allows ISIS to encroach on rebel territory, throughout Syria. In fact he would rather ISIS take an area rather opposition forces, this “secular” murderer is apparently not so opposed to Islamists ISIS taking areas, he is more concerned about his own power.
Take this BBC article from last week: Islamic State battles Syrian rebel forces in Damascus - BBC News.
"A Syrian military official told the AFP news agency that he was “very happy” about the jihadists’ attacks on the rebels and that troops were “ready to react if they try to advance into government-held territory”.
The regime is happy that ISIS is beating back the rebels. Yep they prefer ISIS to ANY opposition forces, whether Nusra front or a secular group.
Get it in your head people!!! Bashar Assad if faced with a secular democratic Opposition and him leaving power, or ISIS controlling half of Syria and Assad controlling Damascus, I would guarantee BIG BUCKS that he would rather the latter situation than the first. Assad’s ONLY concern is staying in power and making dumb, ignorant or those with underlying motives people in the West and around the world, believe that he is a bulwark against ISIS and that the world needs him!!!
- “If we stop insisting that Assad leave, things would get better”:
Really our “insisting” anything won’t help the situation, our words won’t stop the war in Syria. I have not heard this from anyone on this message board, but have heard it in real life and elsewhere on the internet and it PISSES me off!
So let’s imagine Barack Obama changes tune and says Assad should/can stay in office and we need him too. Does anyone with a functioning brain actually believe the fighting will stop? Do you think the rebels, of all shades, will drop their war and say “shoot, Obama gave Assad green light, we should give up”? or that ISIS will close up shop? Really the rebels have lost faith in Obama and the West, as have the Arab nations. And the war against Assad is still ongoing. Heck when our president, as well as European and Arab leaders called on the butcher of Damascus to leave power three years ago, did he leave? So really our “insistence” or “words” will do shit.
- “We are fueling the fighting”
Now we are screwing up in Syria, but in another way. But this notion that the U.S and West are sending weapons to rebels is crap! We have ignored the rebels, and they have pleaded with us for help. Now the Arab nations and Turkey have stepped up giving help, they have said “screw Obama”. No the ones fueling the bloodshed in Syria for the MOST part, is not the West, Arabs, Turkey. It is the FILTHY Russians and Iranians. They support Assad, who is doing most of the killings.
http://www.businessinsider.com/assad...an-isis-2015-2
Yes dirtbags like Putin and Khamenei and his “moderate” stooge Rouhani are after Assad, killing more Syrians. Not us.
Now we are screwing up by only fighting ISIS, and not doing anything to help bring the fighting to an end. Our only concern is ISIS ISIS, not Assad. We are conducting strikes in Syria for a year now, and have never ONCE hit Assad’s targets.
So please spare this bold face lie that we are tough on Assad.
Thank you, and maybe I’ll think of more points, but those are the main ones."
Again this is to those like OP and AK84 who are sadly mistaken about Assad.
Oh yes so so clever he annexed a worthless territory like Crimea(no offense to anyone Russian or Ukrainian, I mean from economic standpoint), a place with no economic benefits and in turn had sanctions placed on him. So his economy is going down the drain all because he took an area and wanted to punish Ukraine.
I pity people who think Putin is clever and tough and he is one step ahead of everyone else.
If Russia had balls it would have forced Assad out, made a peace deal between Ba’ath party and moderate opposition way back in 2011. Then we would have looked like fools.
But no he supported Assad and along with Iran is prolonging bloodshed in Syria. Putin is only bent on opposing the west and not real solutions.
What a genius he is!!
Oh please this ludicrous, we are not attacking Assad’s troops, never have attacked it ONCE!!
And if we attacked Syrian and Russian troops WW3 would not happen. Trust me Putin will not attack us or our troops.
We would crush Russia’s troops, base in Syria and ditto with Assad whose military is worn down and running out due to fighting.
Trust me, Russian troops will not attack U.S troops, Putin will bark along with Assad, Khamenei and Rouhani and all those lovely creatures.
The sorry joke is Assad, always had the military upper hand and supported by to the hilt 100% by nasty Iran and Russia. Heck and the West has not targeted him at all, all the targeting has been against ISIS. We have barely supported rebels, only 60 of them- to fight ISIS.
He controls the skies too, yet Assad the “force for stability” is less stable and controls less than half of Syria. Now THAT is a pity and sorry excuse. For the obstacles rebels have been facing, they are holding their own well.
But keep thinking he is stable and holding Syria together. Oh and he is not against ISIS.
Santa Claus is not real either, nor the Easter bunny.
I’ll be back tomorrow, I have been fighting ignorance enough for tonight. Better call it a day.
It is (basically) a choice between two evils-ISIS or Assad-both are repugnant. But this is the Middle east- TE Lawrence predicted this 90 years ago. If we can get both sides fighting eachother to exhaustion, that would be best.
I see on the news last night Obama talking about this. Apparently some while ago he advised Putin that this would be a bad policy.
Putin did not take Obama’s advice, anyone surprised ?