It’s the middle east, it doesn’t matter what the USA wants. All that matters is what Israel wants.
World exclusive: Iran will send 4,000 troops to aid Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Syria
Now it gets even murkier
What does Israel want? Do the Israelis even know which side they want to win this war?
Well, more than one power can play that game. PM Erdogan of Turkey has been facing a lot of domestic protests, and Turkey actively supports the rebels. At some point it might occur to him that invading Syria would be just the thing to divert public attention.
Both?
What are we trying to accomplish? Of the goals presented so far, the only one which seems like it may be likely would be a proxy war against Iran/Hezbollah. I’m not saying that it’s a good idea or that such a scheme will work, mind you. I’m just saying it’s the only really likely outcome.
Like most in this thread, I don’t really think we need to be doing much of anything there. However, if we’re going to limit it to small arms, that’s at least got the smallest likelihood of biting us in the ass laster. It will most likely just stretch out the conflict, but it might do more. I think the rebels have a command and control structure that’s not even up to the standards of most rebel groups, so extra weapons can’t hurt their chances, unless they’re in the possession of Assad’s forces. It is true that quantity has its own kind of quality, after all.
So, it’s a bad idea, but it’s the least bad option that has us intervening. It’s certainly better than us going all in, as far as risk. If our involvement stops at this, I won’t loose much sleep. That’s probably why they chose this course, it’s the politically feasible compromise that no group is going to go totally insane over.
Israel wants Hizballah and Iran to lose, but it doesn’t want al-Qaeda (or other GJ entities) to win.
So a perpetual state of civil war it will be.
What’s *your *recommendation?
While I’m enormously happy to talk about me and my important views it’s probably more apropos to suggest this switch in US policy (to arming the rebels) will have been approved by Israel, possibly in the light of Russia’s decision to send ground-to-air missiles to Syria (which in itself would be curious, given the lack of rebel flying machines, without an Israeli dimension).
Actually, most people around here are saying that the U.S. would be fools to get involved.
I don’t think that providing military assistance is a good option. I don’t think that there exist any good options, at this point. I do think that slight assistance without boots on the ground, similar to what we did in Libya, is our least-bad option available.
As I see it, we have basically six options:
1: Go all-out on the side of the rebels.
2: Support the rebels without going all-out.
3: Stay out of it.
4: Support Assad without going all-out.
5: Go all-out on the side of Assad.
6: A curse on both their houses, go all-out on our own side, and crush both.
Option 6 is absolutely terrible, would guarantee a quagmire at least as bad as what we had in Iraq, and would certainly destabilize the country.
Options 1 and 5 would be very likely to turn into option 6, or at the very least look so much like it as to have many of the same effects.
Options 4 and 5 are off the table, due to Assad using chemical weapons. And with all the rhetoric we’ve put out about absolutely not tolerating the use of chemical weapons, option 3 is pretty much ruled out, too
And so we’re left with option 2. Which sucks, but what else are we going to do?
Well, any Pakistani can tell you that having a superpower involved in your neighbour, even one you hate like poison is very very bad news.
[QUOTE=nachtmusick]
I am struggling with the calculus that Assad is encouraged by Iran,which fundsHezbollah who are all Shiite and who Russia is friendly with for some damnreason and allof whom are opposed to the Syrian rebelswho include Alqueda pricksthat Iraqs like whoare all Sunni and thatthe USsupports forsome damnreason; and where thehell Isreal falls intoplace;andwhy France and theUK have split with the USand EU onthe size ofthemunitions that shouldbe suppliedto therebels and that Saudi ArabiaandTurkey, who wereonce supporting therebelsare nowbarring themfromcrossingtheir bordersandthatJordanispissedaboutSyrianrefugeesandfuckmerunning.
[/QUOTE]
Assad seems to have (quite successfully) turned this into a “modern Syria against the forces of darkness” equation in putting his case to the Syrian people, rather than a sectarian issue. I do not think he would be overly concerned by US support for rebels, unless its direct action.
Do what Eisenhower once said to Dulles (after one too many screwups by the later). "For gods sake John, don’t do something" Obama, has played this well. He has tut tutted, and stayed out. If he gets involved.
The diplomatic prodigy Sarah Palin has spoken: “Until we have a commander in chief who knows what he is doing… let Allah sort it out!” What a loss that we have not had this brilliant mind one feeble heartbeat away from the Oval Office.
Obama is in a no-win situation. Without air support, the rebels are probably doomed. It doesn’t seem like the limited aid he is providing will make a lot of difference. I can’t say I like Assad any more than I like Hussein, but it isn’t worth trillions of dollars and massive loss of life to extract him from power.
Yep. Particularly since, as this thread has shown, whatever the US does, or doesn’t do, people will try to contrive some kind of devious, self-serving plan that the US and Israel are following.
I’ll be interested to see how things play out once the first U.S. aircraft is shot down with a U.S. supplied anti-aircraft missile.
I think it is rather amusing that every side of the conflict is almost as busy screaming obscenities at Israel as they are fighting each. Assad is promising brimstone on Israel once he is done mopping up the current nuisance, Hezbollah is calling the Sunni Islamists for Zionist Al Qaeda terrorists, and the Sunni rebels are calling Hezbollah for Mossadist and accusing Assad for being a Jew secretly in bed with ZOG. One should have though a common enemy could unite them, but apparently not.
There are already videos of “rebel” groups posing with crates of SA-16 anti-aircraft missiles. Those are Soviet weapon systems, but easily advanced enough that they can be used to down both military and civilian aircrafts. Probably they come from Libya but who knows.
Yeah, unfortunately, this is where I become a Republican. We should go in only because we established a “red line” that shouldn’t be crossed. Now that line has been crossed, for us to sit back, makes us looks like chumps.
- Honesty
We should do the right thing even if it makes us look like chumps. We should to what’s right even if it makes us look stupid. The problem is knowing what the right thing is, regardless of how it makes us look. And this situation is such a mess, I’m damned if I know what that right thing is. And until that question is resolved, or even properly addressed, I have no interest whatsoever in how it makes us look.