Yes, but you assume whoever takes over would be against the Russians as well. Syria has been a Soviet/Russian proxy for decades, I would think that whoever “wins” would still be more in their corner than ours.
Considering that the Russians are supporting the government that’s gassing them, why?
I don’t know, but I don’t think that’s the point.
IMHO, the red line is the American interest, and is what sets this apart from other people getting killed while we watched – and once that red line has been crossed, we pretty much need to launch the attack; we don’t need to follow up with the Army on the ground if the Navy’s attacks from over the horizon don’t persuade anybody, because, hey, we didn’t commit to some kind of Carthage-Must-Be-Destroyed-And-Not-One-Brick-Shall-Be-Standing-Upon-Another-Plus-Make-Sure-To-Salt-The-Earth-So-That-Nothing-Will-Ever-Grow-Again course of action, y’know?
No, it’s that we hoped to get the job done with the threat of force rather than actual force – and if that’s failed, then we can (a) deliver the actual force, or (b) risk making it that much harder to get future results with easily-ignored threats.
It’s not hard to fix. You back track and hide behind the UN. “OUR red line is here, unfortunately, the UN’s red line is over there. OOOOH if only the UN would sign off we would SOOOO kick your ass.”
AFAIC we should have a solid handle on who we’re supporting before we support them. Installing a regime that is more hostile and oppressive doesn’t help.
Yes, well, you’re assuming that. Let the UN inspectors do their job, yeah?
Ok, so given that the Russians are supporting the government that the UN inspectors will find is gassing them, then why?
You’re assuming (tinfoil hat) that it was Assad’s government who did the gassing.
<.<
>.>
As has been pointed out by so many, many others, why gas 300+ civilians when you’ve already had a hand in killing over 100k?
Or c) shoot ourselves in the foot.
Look, I think you have a point about empty threats. But then again, does anyone really believe the US is not capable of exerting force if it wants? Does it matter if the President sometimes wears mom jeans or if Putin isn’t impressed with how big Obama acts like his dick is? I don’t think so.
Point is, an attack can have very serious consequences, and right now the potential for bad outcomes is even worse because there really isn’t a consensus that we *should *attack- not with the US population, not with the UN, not with the Arab League, and so on. And the kind of attacks that are being proposed are not really significant- we’ll blow up their artillery pieces and then go away. Right now I think Assad’s chances of getting assassinated have gone way up- he just gassed 1300 of his own people for crissakes! To take the focus of attention off of that for the sake of some bullshit dink ‘n’ dunk military action seems counterproductive. At the least we’d take a situation where I think even a lot of Assad’s domestic supporters are going to question their position and turn it into a national Death to America rally. At the worst we’ll stoke problems with Iran, Russia, and who knows what else could go wrong.
Someone mentioned setting up a no-fly zone. I don’t think they realize how non-trivial that is. Syria has something like 450 anti-aircraft installations. I bet they could be taken out with enough Tomahawks, but if we were to go that far I don’t think we’d want to stop there. Funny you mention Carthage- I wouldn’t want to go quite that far, but I think if we are going to commit acts of war over WMDs, the point should be to solve the problem instead of just silencing immature political opponents at home.
If Assad thinks he can get away with this kind of thing and turns into some kind of Gassy McGasserson, domestic and world opinion will shift to a green light for military action (maybe not at the UN because of Russia, but otherwise, yes). If there is to be a war over WMDs, don’t bother with any bullshit hit-and-run attacks. I’d prefer a cross between the Powell doctrine and ancient Roman brutality. Before we start, make clear that we will not be hanging around afterwards to rebuild- the best case is we get what we want and leave. Take out their air defenses so that the stealth bombers can turn Damascus into a smoking crater and the fighter jets can pick off whichever military targets they like- anything that moves really, all from the air. Destroy every goddamned bridge, airstrip, dam and power plant in the country until the regime coughs up every ounce of poison gas. We don’t care who stays in power, but we will. not. stop. until the WMDs have been turned over. Don’t bother giving a fuck about which faction is doing what, but rather define a new reality by force. Spray defoliants on the crops, wreck the roads, destroy the property of the heads of state, flatten whatever stands until we get the WMDs. It is hard on the civilian population, sure, but they are going to get killed one way or another anyway, so it might as well be in the service of world peace, right?
If it isn’t worth inflicting the Wrath of Allah on Syria over WMDs, then I guess the issue is merely bullshit and we should not bother with it. Go big or go home, that’s the threat. I don’t think Assad is afraid of dink ‘n’ dunk at all. But the kind of ruin that Syrians 100 years from now will regret provoking? Yes.
OK, but if we bomb the shit out of the country how does that help anything?
Not that I’m in favor of what seem like inevitable strikes against Syria, but I find the replication of the events you portray as highly unlikely as happening again. Particularly in the case of the Maine, which dates to the 19th century. Really?
So we tell Assad forces to leave so US-backed Al Qaeda forces can move in? I don’t feel slimy at all.
We retrieve WMDs from their grasp. Make up your mind- is it worth war or not?
Relax. By threatening, if our demands are not met, to commit acts of Dyre and dreadfull Warfare, we might end up killing off all the other sides.
Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations Bashar Jaafari lashed out Wednesday at the warnings and threats.
“We are not warmongers. We are a peaceful nation seeking stability in the area because instability would serve the Israeli interests,” he told reporters at the U.N. headquarters in New York.
That’s from an article on CNN’s front page. I find the the accusation that “instability” would “serve the Israeli interests” to be…interesting. Out of all the places the Syrian government could point fingers, they pick Israel? Hasn’t Israel been pretty much quietly standing by and watching events unfold?
Strange.
Strange? Really?
65 years of Arabs blaming Israel for everything (and seriously, I mean everything, from bad crops to (I am not kidding you) decreased (or, sometimes, increased) libido in Arab males to shark bites) - and this statement is strange?
Israel is never quietly standing by. Nor should they.
Make up my mind? I don’t see the value in getting involved in a civil war where everybody involved hates my country.
I don’t think we’ve made any demands. We’re too pussy. Killing off both sides? Are you kidding? Israel maybe has the balls but no one’s going to let them.
Yes it’s strange because the major players in this drama have not really included Israel, at all. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised but it seems pretty stupid to say something like that. Whatever happened to the Great Satan?
Yeah, you’re right. In terms of media coverage of this particular escalation however, Israel has been silent.
Tonight I took a long look at the map of the middle east, studying the complexity of the shared borders in the region and the relative size of a country compared to it’s roar. This exercise is not recommended for after 6 p.m. if you want a sound night’s sleep. The borders of Syria, a country in crisis, touch on Jordan, Lebanon, Isreal, Iraq and not to forget Turkey; Saudia Arabia and Egypt not that far off. Considering the difference in cultures, the centuries old conflicts of religions reaching for control and territory, I can’t see how anyone would expect the countries of the region to coexist in peace. The daily bombings, death in the streets, cities of rubble… people become desensitized to what should be percieved as horror. They live on streets with burned up cars and buildings that no longer have fronts, and it has to be acceptable. While they are forced to live it (“they” being the guy or woman going out in the morning in Iraq trying to get to market or to the work placework without being blown up), I watch it every day on TV…“40 people killed” and no longer take in what that really means. But I do. I kept looking at the map thinking of the daily state of war and hostility in the area and how that pressure cooker of insanity just has to lead to the making of insane leaders (or is it the other way around?). Seems to me we are getting too close to the tipping point of no return…too many countries with too many year’s old hostilities and to many fluid parts morphing and moving at once…like a lava lamp. Actually, as I came on to this forum all I had wanted to post (this is my first time here, I hope this is not what you call a rant.) before writing all of the above is this…(attributed to Einstein and also attributed to a soldier towards the end of WWII)…when asked what the next world war would look like he said he did not know how the next war would be fought, but he knew the one after that would be fought with sticks.