The drums have been beaten for months now, and the US and Britain are moving warships into the region in response to reported chemical weapon attacks on rebels/militants/terrorists/civilians. IMHO it’s only a matter of days before we hear of cruise missile strikes on government installations in response, and to help the people that the West has decided should win in this Civil War.
It won’t end well, for anyone.
So, in YOUR opinion, what is the outcome of this? Does it draw the US and her (few and dwindling) allies into another war? Does it result in a convulsive attack on (or by) Israel that could lead to a broader regional conflict? Does it result in nothing but some good video for the evening news, and a feeling that we’re “doing something” in a conflict that nobody outside of the region cares about, while people continue to die?
But if you’d like to bet, I’m game. “A matter of days” implies less than a week. How much would you like to wager that there are no cruise missile attacks by this time next week?
You don’t need to move warships to launch cruise missiles.
And there are plenty of aircraft in the area. There’s a Navy carrier in the mediterranean, there are Air Force jets in Turkey. It’s only a few minutes flying time to Syria, for either a missile or a plane.
There are drones, too, although they may take a bit longer–maybe a few hours. No need to wait a matter of days.
If Obama intended to use force, he would have already.
Obama is in between a rock and a hard place on this one. He said the use of chemical weapons would be crossing a red line. Well, now there’s reasonably solid evidence that chemical weapons were used. If he does nothing, he gets slammed for not backing up his words. If he does something, he gets slammed for starting another war.
There’s not an easy answer here. There’s no real “good guys” in the Syrian conflict. One side uses chemical weapons against children, and the other side has ties to Al Qaeda.
I think eventually we’ll end up sending a few cruise missiles to blow up some stuff, but that’s about as far as we’re going to go. Syria’s got more air defense than we really want to destroy to make a bombing campaign viable, but missiles are relatively cheap and don’t risk American casualties.
Oakminister is mostly correct. If the poison gas is spread by aircraft, the US will
probably start hitting the planes on the ground the way the Japanese knocked out
our air force on the ground in Luzon. If the poison gas is delivered by artillery, then
Obama will probably use drone strikes if they are cheaper than cruise missiles.
I really doubt that any American will actually enter Syrian territory or air space to
accomplish this mission.
What makes this the right time to make our move is that the UN Secretary General has
called for retaliation and Russia has joined in the condemnation of Alawite gas warfare.
What are the chances of that any of the following will work:
diplomacy
boycots
murderingAssad himself
offering Assad asylum and a couple million bucks if he will retire to a tropical island and lounge by the pool for the rest of his life (wel, it worked for that other dictator, Idi Amin, who got asylum in Saudi-Arabia)
The conflict is a civil war, not a popular uprising of the people against a regime. A series of missile strikes and an air campaign or no-fly zone will weaken the one side but will not stop the civil war. Removing Assad might temporarily weaken one side, but it will not stop the civil war. Many of the groups that are fighting on the Assad side are already beyond his control, they’re not going to lay down their weapons and let deeply hostile Islamists occupy their towns without opposition. Besides there are fighting between the Kurds and Islamists as well.
The only outside interference that’ll stop the civil war would be an insertion of a considerable force on the ground that can ensure the protection of the various people in the nation. But it’ll probably face insurgent opposition from all sides except the Kurdish. Are you ready to take responsibility for a new Iraq situation? If not, don’t start a bombing campaign.
Let Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt handle the situation. They’ve got modern military equipment en masse and large armies. What is it you think you are capable of that they are not if they had the will?
A diplomatic solution might also be available if the USA engaged Iran and Russia in serious diplomatic negotiations. But a considerable force of boots on the ground would still be required.
Yea, I suspect some missile strikes against sites that have something to do with Syrian chemical weapons or their delivery. Which is probably the right response, there isn’t really anything to be gained by getting dragged into a messy civil war, but on the other hand we don’t want to give the impression that chemical weapon’s can be used without consequences.
Has the US gov’t actually determined that the Syrian military used chemical weapons though? Seems kind of dumb of Assad to risk US involvement in a civil war that he seems to be winning.
There are 2.6M heavily armed Alawites in Syria who stand to be massacred en masse if the Sunni civil war side has its way now. How exactly do you think boycotts, diplomacy or murdering Assad will prevent these 2.6M fighting the other side to death? Are you going to move the 2.6 million people to a tropical island with a couple million bucks?
Winning hearts and minds in the M.E. seems nigh on impossible for the West. Sectarian friction and regional tribalism are endemic in most of that region. Perhaps it’s time for the U.S. and the rest of the west to butt out and let them settle accounts without our benificence. If there’s one lesson we should have learned by now is that whatever accounts they have to settle amongst themselves, they certainly agree that our meddling (i.e. military presence) is not wanted. The west ought to try to maintain good relationships with those nations that welcome our friendship. We should not give up on diplomatic means to achieve stability and peace in that region. But Assad is not Gaddafi and Syria is not Lybia and we should not expect things to go in the same fashion just because we’re using the same weapons to accomplish similar desired goals.
It’s starting to look like a ‘winner takes all’ civil war with the losers driven into the sea or the grave. Obama has painted himself into a corner, and whatever he does will unpopular with several sections of the American people.
Whatever we do, I hope it doesn’t trigger some kind of domino effect. Seems like everyone is warning everyone else. Iran, Russia, Israel, the US…and it doesn’t appear to me that it’s crystal clear that the rebels, whom are backed by Al-Qaeda, haven’t used or will use chemical weapons themselves.
The whole situation is a mess, a humanitarian disaster. I’m just not certain US intervention even on a scale of missile attacks to eliminate or reduce Assad’s chemical weapon inventory and delivery systems would be helpful in either the long or the short term.
I dunno. He could make life difficult (or over) for Assad, but it isn’t clear that would improve things. If the POTUS can’t do anything, maybe nobody can. Actually, Iran probably has more pull with this one.
No, it’s just that he’d rather not get the US into another war. Moreover, it’s seriously doubtful that Assad actually cared about Obama or “the international community” when he gassed his own people.
He had to be desperate.
Keep in mind he comes from a country where the only way people leave office is flat, whether from natural causes or being overthrown.
At this point the only way he doesn’t do whatever he thinks needs to be done to crush the rebels is if somebody can somehow convince him that not doing so won’t cost him his office and his life.
Also, remember he was raised on tales of how his father and Uncle crushed a rebellion from the Muslim Brotherhood in the 80s and before that how they wrested control of their country from Nasser.