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.

After reading about the use of chemical weapons on innocent Syrian civilians, including babies and children do you think President Trump will do something about Assad in Syria?

Should he? Is there humanitarian responsibility as commander-in-chief? Is there political consequences if he orders US troops into battle- as Obama feared? Does Trump need approval polls for this at all? Will sending US troops to "save-the-day" in Syria help "Make America Great Again"?

Could US boots on the ground help the freedom fighters in Syrians defeat a Russian-allied dictatorship?

I was not a Trump supporter, but I would support a strong US action in Syria given this week's news about children being gassed to death by Assad's forces.

Troops would be a bad idea, unless you are willing to risk turning a proxy war with Russia in to a real war. Russia have been clear they are going to support Assad to the end, and they are doing a lot of posturing. They may not back down.

He couldn't do worse than the previous administration if he was doing crack. Who knows though. We should have committed forces when it was winnable. Now there's way to many players. If we worked out a deal wit Russia though it could work.

 womprat49 wrote:
After reading about the use of chemical weapons on innocent Syrian civilians, including babies and children do you think President Trump will do something about Assad in Syria?

Should he? Is there humanitarian responsibility as commander-in-chief? Is there political consequences if he orders US troops into battle- as Obama feared? Does Trump need approval polls for this at all? Will sending US troops to "save-the-day" in Syria help "Make America Great Again"?

Could US boots on the ground help the freedom fighters in Syrians defeat a Russian-allied dictatorship?

I was not a Trump supporter, but I would support a strong US action in Syria given this week's news about children being gassed to death by Assad's forces.

There are already Marines and special forces in Syria now, as well as at least one unit of heavy artillery.

Well there's always the issue that if the West commits troops to Syria they'll wind up fighting the Russian special forces there who're backing the dictatorship. (The Russian media having already claimed to have killed Israeli special forces, but well, not that any of that holds water).

Its perhaps a moot point at this stage. Had the West committed troops when the civil war started we may have been a different position than we are now (for one the rise in terrorist organisations has correlation with Assad's regime maintaining power, though that's not to say Western involvement wouldn't also have had similar results).

That Trump is in power may lead to a different tact than what's happened already. Unfortunately the man can't be trusted to say the same thing on two different days of the week.

There's also the elephant in the room that any involvement which doesn't support the Russian cause may be, well let's just put it this way "not on the Trump administration agenda". The Putin government seemed rather happy that America elected a leader who wanted to take a hands off approach about Russia's nonsense, so if the US does involve itself in the region, well ...we'll just have to take that into account.

Hmn, I haven't looked up what's been happening with the Peshmerga recently. Obama's administration was all for arming them. I'd imagine that support has continued, but I've no idea what Trump's stance on an independent Kurdistan is (presumably whatever the Russians are thinking. I suppose on the same not that'd fall into what his opinion of Israeli involvement is...).

I'm personally getting tired of fighting wars in other people's countries after, what, 14 years?

The last thing in the world I want is to go into another country and try to rebuild it while simultaneously blowing it up.

Toss in the Russian influence to boot and it just sounds like a bad idea. Let someone else be the world police this time. It's not like America gets viewed favorably whether they get involved or don't, so may as well save ourselves the trouble and not.

That being said, that's what I'D do, which wasn't the OP's question.

Will trump? Hrmm.

He has upped defense funding in his first budget, and has maintained a very far-right pro-military stance. And he already has committed some marines and heavy artillery to Syria and has criticized Obama for not intervening in Syria. Would he? I doubt anyone, even trump, knows for certain, but it's a real possibility. I just know I wouldn't be happy about it.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Well there's always the issue that if the West commits troops to Syria they'll wind up fighting the Russian special forces there who're backing the dictatorship. (The Russian media having already claimed to have killed Israeli special forces, but well, not that any of that holds water).

Its perhaps a moot point at this stage. Had the West committed troops when the civil war started we may have been a different position than we are now (for one the rise in terrorist organisations has correlation with Assad's regime maintaining power, though that's not to say Western involvement wouldn't also have had similar results).

That Trump is in power may lead to a different tact than what's happened already. Unfortunately the man can't be trusted to say the same thing on two different days of the week.

There's also the elephant in the room that any involvement which doesn't support the Russian cause may be, well let's just put it this way "not on the Trump administration agenda". The Putin government seemed rather happy that America elected a leader who wanted to take a hands off approach about Russia's nonsense, so if the US does involve itself in the region, well ...we'll just have to take that into account.

Hmn, I haven't looked up what's been happening with the Peshmerga recently. Obama's administration was all for arming them. I'd imagine that support has continued, but I've no idea what Trump's stance on an independent Kurdistan is (presumably whatever the Russians are thinking. I suppose on the same not that'd fall into what his opinion of Israeli involvement is...).

I am confused. The US is bad when it takes out a murdering dictator who's killed tens or hundreds of thousands of his own people.

But then the US is bad is when it DOESN't take out a murdering dictator who's killed tens or hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Lesson learned-stay out of it.

Chemical weapons on the ground makes major ground operations a little risky.

Personally, I'd be in favor of giving Assad an ultimatum. Turn yourself over to the UN for warcrimes within X days or the US will come and get you, alive or dead. Then if he refuses, send in a strike team to capture/eliminate him.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Chemical weapons on the ground makes major ground operations a little risky.

Personally, I'd be in favor of giving Assad an ultimatum. Turn yourself over to the UN for warcrimes within X days or the US will come and get you, alive or dead. Then if he refuses, send in a strike team to capture/eliminate him.

And what happens when they strike team is killed? What if the Russians shoot down the helicopters?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Well there's always the issue that if the West commits troops to Syria they'll wind up fighting the Russian special forces there who're backing the dictatorship. (The Russian media having already claimed to have killed Israeli special forces, but well, not that any of that holds water).

Its perhaps a moot point at this stage. Had the West committed troops when the civil war started we may have been a different position than we are now (for one the rise in terrorist organisations has correlation with Assad's regime maintaining power, though that's not to say Western involvement wouldn't also have had similar results).

That Trump is in power may lead to a different tact than what's happened already. Unfortunately the man can't be trusted to say the same thing on two different days of the week.

There's also the elephant in the room that any involvement which doesn't support the Russian cause may be, well let's just put it this way "not on the Trump administration agenda". The Putin government seemed rather happy that America elected a leader who wanted to take a hands off approach about Russia's nonsense, so if the US does involve itself in the region, well ...we'll just have to take that into account.

Hmn, I haven't looked up what's been happening with the Peshmerga recently. Obama's administration was all for arming them. I'd imagine that support has continued, but I've no idea what Trump's stance on an independent Kurdistan is (presumably whatever the Russians are thinking. I suppose on the same not that'd fall into what his opinion of Israeli involvement is...).

I am confused. The US is bad when it takes out a murdering dictator who's killed tens or hundreds of thousands of his own people.

But then the US is bad is when it DOESN't take out a murdering dictator who's killed tens or hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Lesson learned-stay out of it.

Intervention - bad. No intervention - bad. Reality is an unfortunate place.

My personal stance is for someone to just wipe out all the sides (especially the Russians...) and let the Kurds have the lot, but well...

As mentioned, we DO have 'boots on the ground' in Syria.

Additionally, I don't think there is any definitive proof who used the Sarin. Rebels, jihadists and Assad's troops have all used chem in the past.

Honestly I'm not sure what the big deal is. Barrel bombs, conventional artillery, bullets and chem all make kids dead. Intentionally targeting civilians (and again, all sides have done so) is bad, regardless of the means used. The reality is this is a particularly violent civil war in which the population has been targeted and used as 'human shields' by all sides. Capping a few dozen with Sarin really is a drop in the bucket compared to the scale of killing going on there.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Chemical weapons on the ground makes major ground operations a little risky.

Personally, I'd be in favor of giving Assad an ultimatum. Turn yourself over to the UN for warcrimes within X days or the US will come and get you, alive or dead. Then if he refuses, send in a strike team to capture/eliminate him.

And what happens when they strike team is killed? What if the Russians shoot down the helicopters?

Yeah, this isn't like taking out Osama in a fortified private compound. What Grey Templar is talking about abducting/assassinating a democratically elected head of state from his seat of power in the center of a literal army. Not only is that FAR easier said than done, but is also VERY much an act of war. Depending on how far the Russians are willing to go to protect Assad, that could be a half step away from declaring war on Russia, which is generally considered a bad idea.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Chemical weapons on the ground makes major ground operations a little risky.

Personally, I'd be in favor of giving Assad an ultimatum. Turn yourself over to the UN for warcrimes within X days or the US will come and get you, alive or dead. Then if he refuses, send in a strike team to capture/eliminate him.

And what happens when they strike team is killed? What if the Russians shoot down the helicopters?

Yeah, this isn't like taking out Osama in a fortified private compound. What Grey Templar is talking about abducting/assassinating a democratically elected head of state from his seat of power in the center of a literal army. Not only is that FAR easier said than done, but is also VERY much an act of war. Depending on how far the Russians are willing to go to protect Assad, that could be a half step away from declaring war on Russia, which is generally considered a bad idea.

You do know that we've done similar things before. Its not like its an impossible task or one that we're not familiar with.

And sure, he was democratically elected. So was Hitler. How you got into power is fairly irrelevant if you need to get eliminated.

The Russians have (theoretically) reinforced the AA nets around the capital as well, potentially manned by Russians.

 Frazzled wrote:
The Russians have (theoretically) reinforced the AA nets around the capital as well, potentially manned by Russians.

Which definitely would be a concern of course. Its not like we'd just send in a single helicopter into the jaws of death without actually planning for those things.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Chemical weapons on the ground makes major ground operations a little risky.

Personally, I'd be in favor of giving Assad an ultimatum. Turn yourself over to the UN for warcrimes within X days or the US will come and get you, alive or dead. Then if he refuses, send in a strike team to capture/eliminate him.

And what happens when they strike team is killed? What if the Russians shoot down the helicopters?

Yeah, this isn't like taking out Osama in a fortified private compound. What Grey Templar is talking about abducting/assassinating a democratically elected head of state from his seat of power in the center of a literal army. Not only is that FAR easier said than done, but is also VERY much an act of war. Depending on how far the Russians are willing to go to protect Assad, that could be a half step away from declaring war on Russia, which is generally considered a bad idea.

You do know that we've done similar things before. Its not like its an impossible task or one that we're not familiar with.

Really? Any examples of a quick raid to kill/capture a head of state from his capital in the last few decades? Even grabbing Noriega involved an invasion of Panama and several days of fighting, and the grab was not a quick op.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
The Russians have (theoretically) reinforced the AA nets around the capital as well, potentially manned by Russians.

Nothing theoretical about it.

I get a sense people can just shrug their shoulders and move past those images of dead children. Being a new father myself I am absolutely appalled, saddened and pissed off when this gak keeps happening.

On the side of moral responsibility (come hell or high water) I hope the president can "throw-down" some hard lines himself when it comes to this issue and not wimp-out like Obama.

Some sort of hard-line ultimatum is needed.

Very unlikely to see more US (or European) troops showing up in Syria to fight the Assad regime (or indeed ISIS),

and probably no real chance of any significant manned air strikes due to the Russian air defences that have gone in

but I guess there is a slight chance Trump may decide to make a statement with cruise missiles or similar and take out some Assad infrastructure (probably with a fair amount of civilian casualties too)

Russia wrote:"What is that America? We accidentally bombed your forces? Oh that is so horrible! We are so dreadfully sorry. We really thought we were hitting terrorist positions! Please accept our sincerest apologies for this terrible mistake. We really should improve communication between our forces so mistakes like this will not happen again*. Please let us know your operations in advance next time. Love, Russia"

*no guarantee

If Trump is smart he won't do anything against Assad.

 womprat49 wrote:
After reading about the use of chemical weapons on innocent Syrian civilians, including babies and children do you think President Trump will do something about Assad in Syria?

Should he? Is there humanitarian responsibility as commander-in-chief? Is there political consequences if he orders US troops into battle- as Obama feared? Does Trump need approval polls for this at all? Will sending US troops to "save-the-day" in Syria help "Make America Great Again"?

Could US boots on the ground help the freedom fighters in Syrians defeat a Russian-allied dictatorship?

I was not a Trump supporter, but I would support a strong US action in Syria given this week's news about children being gassed to death by Assad's forces.

AFAIK we already have SF boots on the ground.

As for what Trump will do? Who the hell knows, but I would be surprised to see large ground elements deployed.

As for gas attacks, why gas is such a red line when bullets, blades, fire, explosions, shrapnel, smoke inhalation (technically its own form.of gas weapon) etc is not I don't know. They can all be just as horrific as gas, even moreso sometimes, and have been happening to children daily for half a decade now at this point.

Without a clear mission with clear goals and a defined timeline, not sure what we'd be doing aside from getting Iraq War III. We have a multipolar civil war with multiple different outside competing interests, and the US going deeper probably wont help anything.

 Frazzled wrote:

 womprat49 wrote:
After reading about the use of chemical weapons on innocent Syrian civilians, including babies and children do you think President Trump will do something about Assad in Syria?

Should he? Is there humanitarian responsibility as commander-in-chief? Is there political consequences if he orders US troops into battle- as Obama feared? Does Trump need approval polls for this at all? Will sending US troops to "save-the-day" in Syria help "Make America Great Again"?

Could US boots on the ground help the freedom fighters in Syrians defeat a Russian-allied dictatorship?

I was not a Trump supporter, but I would support a strong US action in Syria given this week's news about children being gassed to death by Assad's forces.

There are already Marines and special forces in Syria now, as well as at least one unit of heavy artillery.

All 4 branches are represented in Syria right now, and I'm not referring to SOF. From all I've heard, the plan is to put more in.

 Vaktathi wrote:

As for gas attacks, why gas is such a red line when bullets, blades, fire, explosions, shrapnel, smoke inhalation (technically its own form.of gas weapon) etc is not I don't know. They can all be just as horrific as gas, even moreso sometimes, and have been happening to children daily for half a decade now at this point.

In principle I agree that weapons are weapons, people die. Its more that they keep deliberately attack civilians over there. All sides there are horrible except for the Kurds. Assad is a particularly egregious offender, and I suppose he's the obvious person to blame rather than faceless rebels.

 womprat49 wrote:
I get a sense people can just shrug their shoulders and move past those images of dead children. Being a new father myself I am absolutely appalled, saddened and pissed off when this gak keeps happening.

On the side of moral responsibility (come hell or high water) I hope the president can "throw-down" some hard lines himself when it comes to this issue and not wimp-out like Obama.

Some sort of hard-line ultimatum is needed.

You go. Quit volunteering someone else's son.

This really is a US politics topic.