Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.

Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?

I always wonder how people come to the conclusion that the guy who employed helicopter gunships on crowds protesting for more democracy and was willing to let almost half a million of his own people get killed over a bit of power is going to bring stability? I guess once he's done carpet bombing the other side's civilians and filling up those mass graves/torture prisons we can finally have some stability with the handful of people Assad will let live.

 Compel wrote:
I'm reminded that i should read the Quran one day so i can further discuss my points. So I'll concede, not personally knowing further about the Muslim faith that i personally am unable to argue my point further. Smarter men than i can, of course. I imagine the answer will be related to the various versions of the faith, including i believe the extreme ends of wahabiism.

It's certainly just as complicated as Christianity, with different branches disagreeing on the exact meaning of this and that because they might not even be using the same translation of the bible.

The muslims would seem to have an advantage in that the Quran is supposed to be read in Arabic (as the only true version of Allah's word) but sadly for them it's written in classical Arabic, meaning that converts (or indeed even many speaking modern Arabic) will usually need help interpreting the verses. And it's spread out from Mohammed's first revelation to his death 23 years later, with some scholars claiming newer entries make old ones obsolete and others dismissing such a notion. I guess the wahhabists concentrate on Mohammed's later entries from when he was a ruler keeping order instead of the earlier ones where he was more flexible, merciful and reasonable. Also the shia/sunni divide and different versions of so-called hadith (accounts?) and tafsir (interpretations) make it harder to understand than we'd think. So just like people can use the bible to justify almost anything with the right turn of words a preacher can use the Quran and associated writings to push almost any agenda to those listening. And ofc, if you don't like religion (or that religion) you can make almost any absurd statement about what it allows.

YMMV ofc, I'm not a Quranic scholar either.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.

Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?

I always wonder how people come to the conclusion that the guy who employed helicopter gunships on crowds protesting for more democracy and was willing to let almost half a million of his own people get killed over a bit of power is going to bring stability? I guess once he's done carpet bombing the other side's civilians and filling up those mass graves/torture prisons we can finally have some stability with the handful of people Assad will let live.

"Better the devil you know".

Just what exactly are the alternatives right now? Who do you propose should replace Assad? What's the plan for reconstruction of the government? How will you maintain peace, and prevent a power vacuum and internecine factionalism?

We saw in Libya what happens when you lob a few bombs to help depose a dictator, then prematurely declare Mission Accomplished. Libya is a failed state with warring factions and a massive migrant crisis. Gadaffi once threatened to flood Europe with migrants...his death achieved the same result.


Ever since Iraq, we've been lobbing bombs then scrambling to come up with a plan to deal with the fallout after the fact. We deposed Saddam without a plan for what comes after. We deposed Gadaffi without a plan for what comes after, then washed our hands of Libya because we didn't want to repeat the Iraq occupation.

Now we're escalating our involvement in Syria, and sliding down a slippery slope that inexorably leads to deposing Assad...without a plan for what comes after.

We keep repeating the same mistakes.

 Medium of Death wrote:


Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?

Maybe those meddling Americans shouldn't have given a damn about all those English children Hitler was bombing while they were at it too? He was the most likely one to restore Order in Europe after all....

"We are told that the American soldier does not know what he was fighting for, Now, at least he will know what he is fighting against." - Gen Dwight D Eisenhower, outside the Buchenwald subcamp at Ohrdruf

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, put them all on an express train to Germany. Mother Merkel invited them after all.

Send them to the USA, we have Montana, Alaska, and the Dakotas that are pretty empty.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Now we're escalating our involvement in Syria, and sliding down a slippery slope that inexorably leads to deposing Assad...without a plan for what comes after.

We keep repeating the same mistakes.

I hate to ask, but have you ever seen a war turn out as planned? Even World War 2 had several plans to rebuild afterward, not one of which went off without a hitch.

I'll make another prediction: the length of time that the West has screwed around will be directly proportional to the amount of time they will be left having to Occupy Syria.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Now we're escalating our involvement in Syria, and sliding down a slippery slope that inexorably leads to deposing Assad...without a plan for what comes after.

We keep repeating the same mistakes.

I hate to ask, but have you ever seen a war turn out as planned? Even World War 2 had several plans to rebuild afterward, not one of which went off without a hitch.

Pretty much every plan goes to **** at D+1

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Now we're escalating our involvement in Syria, and sliding down a slippery slope that inexorably leads to deposing Assad...without a plan for what comes after.

We keep repeating the same mistakes.

I hate to ask, but have you ever seen a war turn out as planned? Even World War 2 had several plans to rebuild afterward, not one of which went off without a hitch.

At least we actually had a plan. WW2 is not a good comparison.

In Libya and Syria, our leaders are just flailing around, lobbing bombs as though its a solution then scrambling to deal with the mess they left behind (if not outright ignoring it).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.

Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?

I always wonder how people come to the conclusion that the guy who employed helicopter gunships on crowds protesting for more democracy and was willing to let almost half a million of his own people get killed over a bit of power is going to bring stability? I guess once he's done carpet bombing the other side's civilians and filling up those mass graves/torture prisons we can finally have some stability with the handful of people Assad will let live.

"Better the devil you know".

Just what exactly are the alternatives right now? Who do you propose should replace Assad? What's the plan for reconstruction of the government? How will you maintain peace, and prevent a power vacuum and internecine factionalism?

We saw in Libya what happens when you lob a few bombs to help depose a dictator, then prematurely declare Mission Accomplished. Libya is a failed state with warring factions and a massive migrant crisis. Gadaffi once threatened to flood Europe with migrants...his death achieved the same result.


Ever since Iraq, we've been lobbing bombs then scrambling to come up with a plan to deal with the fallout after the fact. We deposed Saddam without a plan for what comes after. We deposed Gadaffi without a plan for what comes after, then washed our hands of Libya because we didn't want to repeat the Iraq occupation.

Now we're escalating our involvement in Syria, and sliding down a slippery slope that inexorably leads to deposing Assad...without a plan for what comes after.

We keep repeating the same mistakes.

Better the devil we know is such a silly saying in this case. We know what Assad is doing to the opposition and his own civilians. He is responsible for the majority of the casualties that have fallen in the civil war. I'm quite willing to bet Assad has killed more Syrians than any of the rebel groups (the UN has said the government has committed the "vast majority" of atrocities) and ISIS. You literally can't get any worse than Assad. He isn't in any position to rule his country anymore, you need an alternative, cause Assad will need to murder or expel the vast majority of Syrians to regain any kind of control over his country. Almost a third of the Syrian population has already left the country and won't likely be returning to Assad and after six years the civil war is still ongoing with over 10% of the population killed or wounded. There is no government with any legitimacy anymore. Syria has ceased to exist, the country has collapsed and half the people are gone.

Assad will have peace when all his opponents are dead and seeing how slowly he is winning the war it will stay a giant power vacuum for the foreseeable future.

Libya is a failed state because the approach there failed. But can you say with full conviction that less people would have been killed if we didn't help the rebels against Qaddafi? It would have been a massacre, now its low scale political conflict not mass warfare and close to genocide like Syria. Furthermore the migrant crisis is exactly the problem that was caused by Assad, the majority of the people causing the 'crisis' were/are Syrians running from Assad. Are you willing to take these people into the UK if Assad stays in power?

What is our plan when Assad wins? Avert our eyes and hope history doesn't judge us to harshly for looking away when the first great mass murderer of the 21st century is tearing his country apart?

 thekingofkings wrote:
Pretty much every plan goes to **** at D+1

A plan that goes to gak is still better than no plan whatsoever.

Who or what are we going to replace Assad with?
How will we rally support around this new Leader or Government?
How will we prevent a power vacuum?
How will we prevent ISIS and other extremists from taking advantage of said power vacuum?
How will we rebuild the Syrian government?
How will we rebuild the Syrian infrastructure?

These are questions we should be asking BEFORE we depose Assad, not after.

 thekingofkings wrote:

Pretty much every plan goes to **** at D+1

Exactly, so all the whining about not having a plan is hilarious, because the longer between the creation of the plan and victory, the more likely that it's going to fail. Because as events progress, the plan has less and less to do with reality on the ground. The ideal time to plan for after the win is shortly before it. This way all the people you need alive afterwards are most likely still alive.

Remember folks, the plan for Europe after victory in WW2 was to eliminate Germany as an industrial nation in it's entirety and force them into agriculturalism. I might note that does not seem to have worked out, for some strange Russian reason.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Pretty much every plan goes to **** at D+1

A plan that goes to gak is still better than no plan whatsoever.

Who or what are we going to replace Assad with?
How will we rally support around this new Leader or Government?
How will we prevent a power vacuum?
How will we prevent ISIS and other extremists from taking advantage of said power vacuum?
How will we rebuild the Syrian government?
How will we rebuild the Syrian infrastructure?

These are questions we should be asking BEFORE we depose Assad, not after.

"WE" arent the ones trying to depose him, we are supporting the people who are trying to do that, we can support them but we cant do it for them.

I don't even like the people we're supporting. Half of them are Islamic fundamentalists with links to Al Qaeda if not worse (ISIS). I have no faith in the Syrian rebels' ability to build a better Syria than a Syria ruled by Assad.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


A plan that goes to gak is still better than no plan whatsoever.

Who or what are we going to replace Assad with?
How will we rally support around this new Leader or Government?
How will we prevent a power vacuum?
How will we prevent ISIS and other extremists from taking advantage of said power vacuum?
How will we rebuild the Syrian government?
How will we rebuild the Syrian infrastructure?

These are questions we should be asking BEFORE we depose Assad, not after.

1) Who knows? I vote for the Kurds, just to Piss Off Turkey. The reality is though that no one knows who would be a good Syrian leader for Syria. Particularly not on this board.
2) This is actually easy. I even have a slogan for him: 'He's in favor of your children NOT dying horribly!' I see this as a winner.
3) By putting a squad on every street corner and actually being helpful. If you/'re the one putting their house back together and making sure the mail comes on time, they're less likely to rocket grenade you. And it's important to make sure that the public knows that the US soldiers are there to actually help, and make it very, very visible that they're helping.
4) ISIS at least, will have to be run off by any occupying force. This is where the Russians have really failed, by simply ignoring ISIS.
5) By holding elections and ensuring a well equipped and supplied army backs the government,.
6) With the Army Corps of Engineers. This is NOT something that should be palmed off on contractors. For this to work at all the US Military has to be SEEN working to make things better for the average Syrian.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I don't even like the people we're supporting. Half of them are Islamic fundamentalists with links to Al Qaeda if not worse (ISIS).

Pretty much everybody in this one is a giant sopping gak sandwich. Its a matter I guess of "our turds" or "their turds", I think we are just hoping our turds will be less gakky than theirs in the end.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


1) Who knows? I vote for the Kurds, just to Piss Off Turkey. The reality is though that no one knows who would be a good Syrian leader for Syria. Particularly not on this board.
2) This is actually easy. I even have a slogan for him: 'He's in favor of your children NOT dying horribly!' I see this as a winner.
3) By putting a squad on every street corner and actually being helpful. If you/'re the one putting their house back together and making sure the mail comes on time, they're less likely to rocket grenade you. And it's important to make sure that the public knows that the US soldiers are there to actually help, and make it very, very visible that they're helping.
4) ISIS at least, will have to be run off by any occupying force. This is where the Russians have really failed, by simply ignoring ISIS.
5) By holding elections and ensuring a well equipped and supplied army backs the government,.
6) With the Army Corps of Engineers. This is NOT something that should be palmed off on contractors. For this to work at all the US Military has to be SEEN working to make things better for the average Syrian.

The Kurds have no interest in Syria beyond their territory, they wouldn't rule that crapbastket even if we paid them to do it.

As for the rest, a bunch of poorly thought fantasies, one would imagine that Iraq and Afghanistan would have taught you better,

I don't think the Russians are ignoring ISIS, I think they are saving them for last. Realistically if they can eliminate the "moderate" *(and that is hard to say) rebels and all that is left is ISIS, it will be much harder for the world to condemn what they are doing. Basically make it a fight between two evils. With their evil of course being the lesser one. The Russians are clever and they are cunning, I do believe they have an end goal and are working to achieve it. Assad just needs to be careful that he remains a "necessary" evil for them, or it could go bad for him. Just like it went bad for their proxies in Afghanistan.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Probably won't be long until we start shooting down the Russians too.

I seriously doubt that. The US and nato forces will never attack someone that can strike back. We may only invade some third world country like syria, or afghanistand and iraq before it, no way we would start a war against russia.

I agree, but theres still a very real danger of mistaken identity, accidentally shooting down a Russian jet if we mistake it for a Syrian one.

You're right, but it already happened that turkey shot down a russian jet and nobody happened between those two countries. A war between super powers would be catastrophic, even with some serious accident I don't think we may live WW3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I don't even like the people we're supporting. Half of them are Islamic fundamentalists with links to Al Qaeda if not worse (ISIS). I have no faith in the Syrian rebels' ability to build a better Syria than a Syria ruled by Assad.

I completely agree, we're supporting the ISIS of the future. Remember the usa with the taliban? Islamic fundamentalist should be eradicated, no matter what. Starting with ISIS and finishing with saudi arabia.

Tyran wrote:

As for the rest, a bunch of poorly thought fantasies, one would imagine that Iraq and Afghanistan would have taught you better,

Sorry, the only real success anyone has had dealing with religious fanatics willing to die just to kill one or two more Americans was following WW2 and that's pretty much what they did in Japan.

Iraq and Afghanistan they palmed some of the important parts off on contractors because no one Drafts anymore, so the incredibly broad pool of talents and skills they could draw on AFTER a war dried up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:


I completely agree, we're supporting the ISIS of the future. Remember the USA with the Taliban? Islamic fundamentalist should be eradicated, no matter what. Starting with ISIS and finishing with Saudi Arabia.

I do recall the US siding with the mujaheddin, which is not actually the same as the Taliban or Al Qaeda, though there's some overlap in membership. It's like saying the French Resistance was the same thing as the Free French Army,

And what about Christian Fundamentalists? Or Jewish Fundamentalists? You going to assault Vatican City after this, because there's a lot of guys in there that are really hard core on religious doctrine.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Tyran wrote:

As for the rest, a bunch of poorly thought fantasies, one would imagine that Iraq and Afghanistan would have taught you better,

Sorry, the only real success anyone has had dealing with religious fanatics willing to die just to kill one or two more Americans was following WW2 and that's pretty much what they did in Japan.

Iraq and Afghanistan they palmed some of the important parts off on contractors because no one Drafts anymore, so the incredibly broad pool of talents and skills they could draw on AFTER a war dried up.

I think the further failures in Iraq and Afghanistan don't really support the idea that Baron is wrong. Afghanistan was never really a state in the sense that Iraq and Syria were. Furthermore the terrain means that guerrilla tactics are very effective coupled with the 'low' amount of manpower the US deployed to secure it all. The West never could have won Afghanistan as there were never enough troops to comb all the mountains for Taliban, when the army shows up the Taliban just pack up and leave for the next cave or blend in to the civilian population until they leave again. You can't really have any succes if you cant actually be present at all times in the area you need to secure. Syria however is mostly desert instead of mountains and is more heavily urbanized. Which makes it a lot easier to secure with less troops if able to succeed.

For Iraq the main failure was going in without any plan and expecting the locals to start chanting U.S.A U.S.A when the tanks finally rolled in. Then the 'geniuses' fired everyone and anyone who actually knew how to run and control the country. Compare this to an enhanced political process of involvement and the U.S. surge that occurred after five years stabilizing a lot of the violence in Iraq showing that more troops and more local involvement actually helps control the country. Go in to Syria and bring the lower parts of government (they kept Nazi's in charge after WWII so why not some government officials) and the rebels together (you can keep them in separate areas) and slowly rebuild and reform a new government might actually work.

Of course this is depending on how well is planned and what actually happens. But going in to Syria should not in any way resemble the U.S. approach in either Afghanistan or Iraq and start of way better in at least the planning phase and demographic distribution.

 thekingofkings wrote:

"WE" arent the ones trying to depose him, we are supporting the people who are trying to do that, we can support them but we cant do it for them.

This actually bothers me: own that gak. YOU (and unfortunately US since the treaty says so) are going to depose this Hitler wanna be and make the world a somewhat better place for everyone (possibly including terrorist gaks). Or it looks like it's heading that way, anyway.

People keep asking 'What will we do after deposing him'? What will the firemen do after putting out the fire? Letting the house keep burning is every bit a failed nonsolution as doing nothing to stop genocide and other crimes against humanity. Can you imagine if our grandfathers dithered about 'But what if eliminating Hitler gives rise to something worse!?!?'

All these English whiners would be typing their responses in German.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

"WE" arent the ones trying to depose him, we are supporting the people who are trying to do that, we can support them but we cant do it for them.

This actually bothers me: own that gak. YOU (and unfortunately US since the treaty says so) are going to depose this Hitler wanna be and make the world a somewhat better place for everyone (possibly including terrorist gaks). Or it looks like it's heading that way, anyway.

People keep asking 'What will we do after deposing him'? What will the firemen do after putting out the fire? Letting the house keep burning is every bit a failed nonsolution as doing nothing to stop genocide and other crimes against humanity. Can you imagine if our grandfathers dithered about 'But what if eliminating Hitler gives rise to something worse!?!?'

All these English whiners would be typing their responses in German.

There was actually some kind of plan, you know, the one which had the allies invade and liberate western Europe.

Eliminating Assad leads to.........what exactly, what is the end game? What possible outcome is there that sees a reduction in the threat posed by extremism? What outcome is there that eliminates what will effectively become clan on clan violence?

Look at recent reports from Iraq, people from areas liberated by ISIS are now under threat from government militias.

Really we should only be supporting fronts active against ISIS even then with parameters tighter than a ducks arse and maybe not at all. If realpolitik was not an issue then Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would be added to the axis of evil.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

"WE" arent the ones trying to depose him, we are supporting the people who are trying to do that, we can support them but we cant do it for them.

This actually bothers me: own that gak. YOU (and unfortunately US since the treaty says so) are going to depose this Hitler wanna be and make the world a somewhat better place for everyone (possibly including terrorist gaks). Or it looks like it's heading that way, anyway.

People keep asking 'What will we do after deposing him'? What will the firemen do after putting out the fire? Letting the house keep burning is every bit a failed nonsolution as doing nothing to stop genocide and other crimes against humanity. Can you imagine if our grandfathers dithered about 'But what if eliminating Hitler gives rise to something worse!?!?'

All these English whiners would be typing their responses in German.

There was actually some kind of plan, you know, the one which had the allies invade and liberate western Europe.

Eliminating Assad leads to.........what exactly, what is the end game? What possible outcome is there that sees a reduction in the threat posed by extremism? What outcome is there that eliminates what will effectively become clan on clan violence?

Look at recent reports from Iraq, people from areas liberated by ISIS are now under threat from government militias.

Really we should only be supporting fronts active against ISIS even then with parameters tighter than a ducks arse and maybe not at all. If realpolitik was not an issue then Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would be added to the axis of evil.

There was aslo a plan for a occupation and post war. Granted it screwed a few nations over... Poland for example but it was a plan agreed by the the big 4.

There was post war planning. If you declare a war, you need a plan for post war.

I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.

Since when did fighting extremism become the ultimate goal of foreign intervention and not preventing hundreds of thousands of people getting killed? Almost feels like Rwanda all over again.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.

Since when did fighting extremism become the ultimate goal of foreign intervention and not preventing hundreds of thousands of people getting killed? Almost feels like Rwanda all over again.

Since always. Africa is in a never ending state of civil wars and ethnic conflicts and you never see either the West or Russia even mentioning it.

Everyone who is fighting in Syria isn't for humanitarian concerns, they are there for the geopolitical and religious interests.

Tyran wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.

Since when did fighting extremism become the ultimate goal of foreign intervention and not preventing hundreds of thousands of people getting killed? Almost feels like Rwanda all over again.

Since always. Africa is in a never ending state of civil wars and ethnic conflicts and you never see either the West or Russia even mentioning it.

Everyone who is fighting in Syria isn't for humanitarian concerns, they are there for the geopolitical and religious interests.

Actually the African Union and the UN frequently direct help towards conflicts within Africa. The West only steps in to provide support if what is done is not sufficient. France for example has done so multiple times with very little to gain in a geopolitical sense. It also does not currently have the intensity of the Syrian Civil War.

Rwanda wasn't that interesting geopolitcally speaking, look where that ended up. When it became clear how horrifyingly genocidal it got some action was finally taken. Because it wasn't that interesting we let a million people get slaughtered. That always amuses me about the 'never again' arguments when commemorating WWII and its atrocities by governments/states, while at the same time just looking away at others trying to get in on the dark side of history. We have had humanitarian interventions, while it is a relatively new concept we should not pretend that it doesn't exist or that the West hasn't been a proponent of them.

Tyran wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.

Since when did fighting extremism become the ultimate goal of foreign intervention and not preventing hundreds of thousands of people getting killed? Almost feels like Rwanda all over again.

Since always. Africa is in a never ending state of civil wars and ethnic conflicts and you never see either the West or Russia even mentioning it.

Everyone who is fighting in Syria isn't for humanitarian concerns, they are there for the geopolitical and religious interests.

Right... We have 2,000 service members who are permanently assigned to the strategic oversight of Africa. In addition we have numerous units who constantly rotate in and out of Africa providing security, training, humanitarian support, etc. Just because it's not a hot news talking point doesn't mean we "ignore" the place.

 djones520 wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.

Since when did fighting extremism become the ultimate goal of foreign intervention and not preventing hundreds of thousands of people getting killed? Almost feels like Rwanda all over again.

Since always. Africa is in a never ending state of civil wars and ethnic conflicts and you never see either the West or Russia even mentioning it.

Everyone who is fighting in Syria isn't for humanitarian concerns, they are there for the geopolitical and religious interests.

Right... We have 2,000 service members who are permanently assigned to the strategic oversight of Africa. In addition we have numerous units who constantly rotate in and out of Africa providing security, training, humanitarian support, etc. Just because it's not a hot news talking point doesn't mean we "ignore" the place.

It must be exciting, heartwarming and a fething pit of despair at the same time.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.

Indeed. There are people in the armed forces who's job is basically to draw up tons of plans for various wartime scenarios.

I'll bet somewhere in the bureaucratic web of the US military that there are plans for combating and invading every country on Earth, especially in the Middle East. Even before WW1, the US had plans detailing fighting Japan. War Plan Orange was drafted up in 1911, but it was being bandied about in 1906. It wasn't officially adopted till 1924, but it had been around for a while.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the idea there isn't already a plan somewhere about invading and occupying Syria is a bit naive. If they didn't have one a lot of people wouldn't be doing their job for about 6 years now.

Since when did fighting extremism become the ultimate goal of foreign intervention and not preventing hundreds of thousands of people getting killed? Almost feels like Rwanda all over again.

Since always. Africa is in a never ending state of civil wars and ethnic conflicts and you never see either the West or Russia even mentioning it.

Everyone who is fighting in Syria isn't for humanitarian concerns, they are there for the geopolitical and religious interests.

Right... We have 2,000 service members who are permanently assigned to the strategic oversight of Africa. In addition we have numerous units who constantly rotate in and out of Africa providing security, training, humanitarian support, etc. Just because it's not a hot news talking point doesn't mean we "ignore" the place.

It must be exciting, heartwarming and a fething pit of despair at the same time.

Couldn't say myself. Got a friend whose heading there soon to do security/training. I'm sure I'll get his take on what the place is like.