McCain Invades Syria to Back Rebels

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.

**djones520**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
djones520 wrote:
The FSA is the best of a bunch of poor choices.

With proper support, and training, they can be turned into an effective force though. People were saying the same thing about the Libyan rebellion before hand.

So you are in favor of intervention to support a group who deploy chemical weapons on civilian population and who torture and murder prisoners of war?

Why are they a better choice than the existing regime?

Firstly, there is no cemented proof that they were the ones who used the chemical weapons. Secondly, I'm not saying support won't be contingent on certain things. We don't just have to hand out a blind check.

You guys are acting like there is only one way to look at all of this. Any intervention will require multiple layers of gak to be worked through. There will be no perfect solution. But personally, I'll be damned if we let that country either 1. Stay in the hands of a dictator who supports terrorists that are actively trying to kill me and my family, or 2. let it fall under the control of those said terrorists. Especially when we have the ability to help ensure it doesn't.

And don't think I'm just arm chair generalling here. In 4 months I will be living less then 100 miles from the Syrian border.

**Seaward**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It's still an incredibly poor choice. They have no cohesive leadership, are often at cross purposes with each other and with no guarantee that whatever we give them won't end up in the wrong hands. That's ignoring murdering captives, shelling civilians and possibly deploying chemical weapons. But remind me again how stable Libya is, and how Al-Qaeda managed to get a cell in with not insignificant firepower to storm an embassy and kill US citizens. And how happy Russia will be at losing a port, especially as we'll need their help over Iran's nuclear program, and the fact that they're shipping advanced SAM systems to Syria.

There's never a guarantee that any support we give won't end up in the wrong hands somewhere down the road. Pandora's box is already open on that front, however. We've armed everybody for decades.

I think the argument that al-Qaeda managed to get a cell into Libya to storm an embassy is rather irrelevant. They also managed to get a cell into the US to take down the World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon, and I'd argue we're a pretty stable country. Libya may not be, currently, but it's miles ahead of where it has any right to be, given what it went through.

Russia would not be at all happy about losing Tartus. It's their only foreign port. Which, hey, makes it a pretty effective bargaining chip, doesn't it? Half (or more) of the Iranian nuclear program is Russian tech. Iran's been cozy with the Russians for a long, long time. Having Tartus in our back pocket to let them hang on to would go a long way towards genuinely getting them on board for Iranian intervention of some sort, whereas claiming we'll do something about their Syrian client state, and then running as fast as possible in the other direction once our bluff was called...well, I don't think it'll impress Putin overly much. He's a pretty traditional authoritarian. Like it or not, he operates on hard power, and we just raised a white flag.

**BaronIveagh**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And this one isn't ours. Lets keep it that way

I might point out that the war in Chechnya wasn't the US problem either, until bombs started going off at the Boston Marathon.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You mean the one you mentioned before that just mentions appropriate aid? By all means, let's send humanitarian supplies. That's our best option.

No, I was talking about the one with Israel, who's the most likely (atm) to drag the US into a shooting war there. NATO isn't the only treaty the US has in the region.

I know a lot of people here like to reason that isolationism is the best policy for the US, but the time that was possible has long since come and gone.

**Jihadin**

Will you still support a US mission in Syria five years down the road? Ten years down the road? I remember the popular support for OIF and OEF at the beginning.....stick with the popular support and not why we got into Iraq portion...

**BaronIveagh**

Jihadin wrote:
Will you still support a US mission in Syria five years down the road? Ten years down the road? I remember the popular support for OIF and OEF at the beginning.....stick with the popular support and not why we got into Iraq portion...

We both know that entirely depends on events on the ground and spin doctors in offices in NY and Washington.

Or are you talking about me, personally?

Yes, though with certain caveats. Pyramids of heads outside every village is a good way to lose my support, for example.

That said, I think that Syria is a problem better dealt with than not. However it goes, this is a problem that needs to be solved before it gets bigger. Syria 2013 doesn't need to become Serbia 1914.

**Seaward**

Jihadin wrote:
Will you still support a US mission in Syria five years down the road? Ten years down the road? I remember the popular support for OIF and OEF at the beginning.....stick with the popular support and not why we got into Iraq portion...

Why does everyone assume we would have needed to go in with conventional ground forces? There was an extremely broad range of options on the table well before, "Do Iraq all over again."

And, for the record, we maintained a no-fly over a portion of Iraq for an incredibly long time prior to 9/11, and nobody in this country gave a gak about it, or even knew, aside from the occasional news story about us shooting at something or something being shot at us. I doubt it would be any different with Syria.

**Noble713**

I've read every post in this thread. And about 90% of the discussion misses the forest for the trees. Issues about human rights and dictatorships and freedom and democracy are minor concerns and a distraction from what is really going on:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-16/mystery-sponsor-weapons-and-money-syrian-rebels-revealed

Previously, when looking at the real underlying national interests responsible for the deteriorating situation in Syria, which eventually may and/or will devolve into all out war with hundreds of thousands killed, we made it very clear that it was always and only about the gas, or gas pipelines to be exact, and specifically those involving the tiny but uber-wealthy state of Qatar.

Needless to say, the official spin on events has no mention of this ulterior motive, and the popular, propaganda machine, especially from those powers supporting the Syrian "rebels" which include Israel, the US and the Arabian states tries to generate public and democratic support by portraying Assad as a brutal, chemical weapons-using dictator, in line with the tried and true script used once already in Iraq.

On the other hand, there is Russia (and to a lesser extent China: for China's strategic interests in mid-east pipelines, read here), which has been portrayed as the main supporter of the "evil" Assad regime, and thus eager to preserve the status quo without a military intervention. Such attempts may be for naught especially with the earlier noted arrival of US marines in Israel, and the imminent arrival of the Russian Pacific fleet in Cyprus (which is a stone throw away from Syria) which may catalyze a military outcome sooner than we had expected.

However, one question that has so far remained unanswered, and a very sensitive one now that the US is on the verge of voting to arm the Syrian rebels, is who was arming said group of Al-Qaeda supported militants up until now. Now, finally, courtesy of the FT we have the (less than surprising) answer, which goes back to our original thesis, and proves that, as so often happens in the middle east, it is once again all about the natural resources.
.....

Why would Qatar want to become involved in Syria where they have little invested? A map reveals that the kingdom is a geographic prisoner in a small enclave on the Persian Gulf coast.

It relies upon the export of LNG, because it is restricted by Saudi Arabia from building pipelines to distant markets. In 2009, the proposal of a pipeline to Europe through Saudi Arabia and Turkey to the Nabucco pipeline was considered, but Saudi Arabia that is angered by its smaller and much louder brother has blocked any overland expansion.

Already the largest LNG producer, Qatar will not increase the production of LNG. The market is becoming glutted with eight new facilities in Australia coming online between 2014 and 2020.

A saturated North American gas market and a far more competitive Asian market leaves only Europe. The discovery in 2009 of a new gas field near Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria opened new possibilities to bypass the Saudi Barrier and to secure a new source of income. Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to receive the gas. Only Al-Assad is in the way.

Qatar along with the Turks would like to remove Al-Assad and install the Syrian chapter of the Moslem Brotherhood. It is the best organized political movement in the chaotic society and can block Saudi Arabia’s efforts to install a more fanatical Wahhabi based regime. Once the Brotherhood is in power, the Emir’s broad connections with Brotherhood groups throughout the region should make it easy for him to find a friendly ear and an open hand in Damascus.

A control centre has been established in the Turkish city of Adana near the Syrian border to direct the rebels against Al-Assad. Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Saud asked to have the Turks establish a joint Turkish, Saudi, Qatari operations center. “The Turks liked the idea of having the base in Adana so that they could supervise its operations” a source in the Gulf told Reuters.

The fighting is likely to continue for many more months, but Qatar is in for the long term. At the end, there will be contracts for the massive reconstruction and there will be the development of the gas fields. In any case, Al-Assad must go. There is nothing personal; it is strictly business to preserve the future tranquility and well-being of Qatar.
.....
So there you have it: Qatar doing everything it can to promote bloodshed, death and destruction by using not Syrian rebels, but mercenaries: professional citizens who are paid handsomely to fight and kill members of the elected regime (unpopular as it may be), for what? So that the unimaginably rich emirs of Qatar can get even richer. Although it is not as if Russia is blameless: all it wants is to preserve its own strategic leverage over Europe by being the biggest external provider of natgas to the continent through its own pipelines. Should Nabucco come into existence, Gazpromia would be very, very angry and make far less money!

We know in the long run that both China and Russia are eager to move away from the US dollar as a reserve currency -- the entirety of the US's global political, economic, and military dominance is built on the bubble created by the Petrodollar. In order to sustain our (falsely inflated) quality of life we have to keep most of OPEC on our side (so they agree to only sell oil for US dollars). So if our energy-exporting friends want to rape a nation to keep the gas flowing, then the US gov't will help them. Especially when the side effects include:

- Removing an ally of Russia from the region
- Removing a military base of Russia from the region
- Removing an ally of Iran from the region
- Removing an ally of Hezbollah from the region

These last two are important to the US's puppet masters in Israel.

The war in Syria has nothing to do with freedom from oppression***. Those are all the usual BS excuses that the US gov't employs to sell a course of action to the ignorant masses. If our government really gave a damn about not seeing innocent people killed we would stop using drones to drop Hellfire missiles on houses in Yemen and Pakistan when we can't even identify who half of the occupants are beforehand.

***Look at the rate of violent crime in Syria ~2009-2010. It *was* a reasonably safe place to live. I'd also like to quote this State Department article from 2010:

While the [Syrian Arab Republic Government] SARG tolerates the presence of terrorist organizations and is vocal in its support for groups like HAMAS and Hezbollah, the SARG maintains a strong national security apparatus designed in part to monitor and neutralize extremist threats to the regime. The SARG recognizes that terrorist operations against U.S. and/or western targets on Syrian soil run contrary to Syria's interests, especially given its efforts to expand ties to the West and develop its tourism industry. Syria works to deter and counter threats of anti-western terrorist acts in Syria.

Just like Saddam, Assad was a kinda-good guy before he was a bad guy.

**Seaward**

Well, I think it's time for my usual response to that sort of thing, so here we go:

The whole Kennedy thing is so huge because it's at the center of so many other covert shadow-government operations. Kennedy himself was the smallest part of it, because it was actually a power play between Dulles' CIA, the anti-Castro military, LBJ, the Giancana Mafia, and a bunch of other dirty players. Oswald was a patsy, sure, but he put a gun on Jack. Of course, so did other test-mules from Dulles' MK-Ultra LSD-mind-control experiments. Zapruder was in on it, too: He was a KGB mole from way back. And the whole thing had ripple effects, like Jonestown, which was an assassin training camp that got found out. As for the Warren Commission, that thing was a joke—Dulles himself was on it, and there was only one person on the whole commission who wasn't on the CIA payroll and suspected Oswald didn't act alone. He died in a plane crash, after a young congressional aide named Bill Clinton drove him to the airport. It's all true, but nobody wants to admit it. Nobody.

As always, thank you, The Onion.

**Noble713**

Seaward wrote:
Well, I think it's time for my usual response to that sort of thing, so here we go:

As always, thank you, The Onion.

When in doubt, follow the money. But instead of thinking critically about the long-term economic implications and the second and third order effects of the policy decisions of national leaders, you'd rather dismiss the issue entirely with a scoff, a reference to conspiracy theorists, and The Onion.

Is this what you typically consider adding substantive and quality discourse to the debate? Just let me know now, so I can skip over your posts in the future.

**BaronIveagh**

Did I miss the line for free LSD?

That said, there are many many motives for involvement here.

**Seaward**

Noble713 wrote:

When in doubt, follow the money. But instead of thinking critically about the long-term economic implications and the second and third order effects of the policy decisions of national leaders, you'd rather dismiss the issue entirely with a scoff, a reference to conspiracy theorists, and The Onion.

Is this what you typically consider adding substantive and quality discourse to the debate? Just let me know now, so I can skip over your posts in the future.

Claiming that Israel is the United States' "puppet master" is worthy of nothing further than a scoff, a reference to conspiracy theorists, and of course the Onion. I've also seen the fringe claim that it's OMG all about a gas pocket before, but not from anyone credible, and that's definitely not where our intelligence assessments lie.

If that's your idea of substantive and quality discourse, then I'm afraid I can't say I'd regret you skipping my posts.

**BaronIveagh**

Before we start on the racism or conspiracy train, we'll just acknowledge there are other motives besides crimes against humanity for involvement.

**Seaward**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Before we start on the racism or conspiracy train, we'll just acknowledge there are other motives besides crimes against humanity for involvement.

Numerous ones. They've been listed several times in this thread. Crimes against humanity isn't even near the top of the list. Nobody on either side of the aisle is fond of lifting a finger in those circumstances.

**Dreadclaw69**

BaronIveagh wrote:
I might point out that the war in Chechnya wasn't the US problem either, until bombs started going off at the Boston Marathon.

It still isn't. I wasn't aware that those carrying out the terrorist attacks in Boston were motivated to kill Americans by what Russia had done to their region. It is quite a sea change though from your previous comments defending them, and suggesting that they were innocent.

BaronIveagh wrote:
I know a lot of people here like to reason that isolationism is the best policy for the US, but the time that was possible has long since come and gone.

Who is arguing isolationism? If it's a conflict that will benefit us, and tackle a clear and imminent threat then that's fine. If it's to get involved in a civil war with no side to back, and with everyone shooting at us, with no outcome that works to our advantage, with geopolitical ramifications, with little public support or appetite for war after over 10 years of involvement in Afghanistan, and a public purse sorely lacking in funds then it's probably a bad idea.

**Seaward**

So you genuinely see no alternatives beyond a full conventional ground campaign, and no particular benefit to being the guys who de facto get to decide whether or not Russia keeps its only foreign naval port? Interesting.

**Dreadclaw69**

Seaward wrote:
So you genuinely see no alternatives beyond a full conventional ground campaign, and no particular benefit to being the guys who de facto get to decide whether or not Russia keeps its only foreign naval port? Interesting.

I don't recall saying "a full conventional ground campaign". And if we strip Russia of her port that makes it difficult to get her support on Iran and North Korea, or anything they could veto through the UN. If we depose Assad and have a say in whether Russia gets to keep the port I'm sure they'll be so happy with us for being so magnanimous that they'll forget all about us costing them millions in arms deals, and getting rid of an ally in the region, as well as the fact that we interfered in their affairs, right?

**Seaward**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I don't recall saying "a full conventional ground campaign". And if we strip Russia of her port that makes it difficult to get her support on Iran and North Korea, or anything they could veto through the UN. If we depose Assad and have a say in whether Russia gets to keep the port I'm sure they'll be so happy with us for being so magnanimous that they'll forget all about us costing them millions in arms deals, and getting rid of an ally in the region, as well as the fact that we interfered in their affairs, right?

I think it's irrelevant whether or not they're happy. It's a bargaining chip. Entities generally aren't happy when leverage is used against them, but if the outcome's what we want, who cares how Russia feels about it?

**Dreadclaw69**

Seaward wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I don't recall saying "a full conventional ground campaign". And if we strip Russia of her port that makes it difficult to get her support on Iran and North Korea, or anything they could veto through the UN. If we depose Assad and have a say in whether Russia gets to keep the port I'm sure they'll be so happy with us for being so magnanimous that they'll forget all about us costing them millions in arms deals, and getting rid of an ally in the region, as well as the fact that we interfered in their affairs, right?

I think it's irrelevant whether or not they're happy. It's a bargaining chip. Entities generally aren't happy when leverage is used against them, but if the outcome's what we want, who cares how Russia feels about it?

And what price is that bargaining chip going to cost us (even assuming that we get a sympathetic regime in Syria) in the long term from Russia? We'll get some co-operation from them until they get their port back, then we've burnt our bridge. They're still out of pocket significantly, have a port in a country that will remember their role in arming their oppressors, and we've offended their strong sense of national pride. That is something that they won't forgive and you can bet that they'll be antagonistic further down the line.
That's even working on the assumption that if we do get a sympathetic regime installed that they'll hand the port back to the country that was supplying a dictator with the weapons used to kill them.

**Seaward**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And what price is that bargaining chip going to cost us (even assuming that we get a sympathetic regime in Syria) in the long term from Russia? We'll get some co-operation from them until they get their port back, then we've burnt our bridge. They're still out of pocket significantly, have a port in a country that will remember their role in arming their oppressors, and we've offended their strong sense of national pride. That is something that they won't forgive and you can bet that they'll be antagonistic further down the line.
That's even working on the assumption that if we do get a sympathetic regime installed that they'll hand the port back to the country that was supplying a dictator with the weapons used to kill them.

Are you under the assumption that Russia currently likes us? Putin's very much of the mindset that Russia's still a superpower in direct competition with the US.

We have a lot of experience at ensuring sympathetic regimes. Like it or not, a number of countries have danced to a favorable tune we've chosen since the end of World War II. We didn't suddenly forget how to do that. Syria would play ball for any number of reasons, not least of which could well be our assistance being contingent on them doing so.

And as far as Tartus itself goes...we get to use it as a bargaining chip to get Russia to do what we want. Why would Russia go along with that? They highly value Tartus, for one, and doing what we want them to do doesn't have a downside as far as their national reputation goes. If Russia suddenly starts truly cooperating on Iran, exactly who's going to get pissed, other than the Iranians? Europe would probably have a parade.

Playing softball with Putin simply isn't going to work. We made that assessment years ago, and then the current administration decided to 'reboot.' Rebooting apparently has an obscure meaning synonymous with 'rolling over.'

**Dreadclaw69**

I know that Russia doesn't like the US, it hasn't for quite some time. If you think that the Russians won't think that the US interfering to take away Tartus, and then giving it back will sting national pride then you have have underestimated them.
I'm glad that you think that the US can install a sympathetic regime, because we have such a great history of it - Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan's Major of Kabul, etc. And if we do go in and back a yet unspecified group what's to stop them telling us to do one after? Short answer is, not a lot. Not unless we want to spend significant man power to set up and install a friendly regime and make sure it is stable. And remember, we still don't have that after 10+ years in Afghanistan. And we don't have the finances to support it.
Better still you haven't told us how we go about this intervention. You seem to have ruled out boots on the ground, so what else are you suggesting?
- Do we back the fractured and less than competent FSA, who are accused of war crimes and using chemical weapons?
- Do we back the AQ affiliated groups who are actually capable, but who'll have a new base of operations?
- Do we just send over weapons and hope that they don't end up in the wrong hands? (hello Fast and Furious)
- Do we have no fly zones, when most of the fighting is done on the ground?
- Do we carry out airstrikes, knowing that there are still a lot of civilians on the ground, and with the possibility of dispersing chemical agents?

Please tell us how you think it can be done, because so far I have yet to hear a practical idea anything Syria is discussed.

**Seaward**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I know that Russia doesn't like the US, it hasn't for quite some time. If you think that the Russians won't think that the US interfering to take away Tartus, and then giving it back will sting national pride then you have have underestimated them.

Well, we clearly don't announce that's what's occurring to the world. There's a reason back-channel communication exists.

I'm glad that you think that the US can install a sympathetic regime, because we have such a great history of it - Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan's Major of Kabul, etc.

We do, actually. Have we lost every war we've ever fought because Vietnam didn't go well? Latin America, multiple Middle Eastern countries...we've definitely had success at installing regimes friendly to our interests. And we abandon them when it's in our interests to do so. It's the way of the world, I'm afraid.

And if we do go in and back a yet unspecified group what's to stop them telling us to do one after? Short answer is, not a lot. Not unless we want to spend significant man power to set up and install a friendly regime and make sure it is stable. And remember, we still don't have that after 10+ years in Afghanistan. And we don't have the finances to support it.

We very much have the finances to support it, and money's where it's at. Afghanistan's a mess, but the supposition that because Afghanistan is a mess, every other country in the world would likewise be one is belied by history.

Better still you haven't told us how we go about this intervention. You seem to have ruled out boots on the ground, so what else are you suggesting?

An air campaign would be thoroughly effective. Prior to Hezbollah's involvement, it would have won the war. At this point in time, I'm suggesting absolutely nothing, because we've already waited far, far too long to get involved, and we've made it quite clear, by retreating as fast as possible from anything at all resembling a "red line" ultimatum, that we will never do so. Qusayr was the endgame.

**BaronIveagh**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

It still isn't. I wasn't aware that those carrying out the terrorist attacks in Boston were motivated to kill Americans by what Russia had done to their region.

The suspects came to the US because of those acts, however, IIRC. Further, the younger, stil living, suspect was heavilly influenced by those actions, according to what I read in the press.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

It is quite a sea change though from your previous comments defending them, and suggesting that they were innocent.

No, it isn't, and they still might be. After what happened in Florida, I'm a bit suspicious of any 'confessions' the FBI hands in. We'll see what happens at trial.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Who is arguing isolationism? If it's a conflict that will benefit us, and tackle a clear and imminent threat then that's fine. If it's to get involved in a civil war with no side to back, and with everyone shooting at us, with no outcome that works to our advantage, with geopolitical ramifications, with little public support or appetite for war after over 10 years of involvement in Afghanistan, and a public purse sorely lacking in funds then it's probably a bad idea.

Yes, because profit and fear of loss are the only American reasons to go to war. After all, no American would ever fight and die over what is essentially a question of morality.

*pauses to listen to the thundering sound of 642,392 Union and Confederate casualties rolling in their graves*

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22832615

A Lebanese man apparently protesting against the role of Hezbollah in the Syria conflict has been killed by gunfire outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut, Lebanese security sources say.

A small group was protesting at the embassy against the Shia movement and its backer, Iran, over their involvement in Syria.

It is not yet known who killed the protester.

Last week Hezbollah fighters helped retake the town of Qusair from rebels.

'Partisans attacked demonstrators'
Clashes broke out on Sunday between supporters and opponents of Hezbollah outside the Iranian embassy, on the outskirts of Beirut, a Lebanese army spokesman was quoted by news agency AFP as saying.

The young man was injured in the fighting and later died of his wounds, the army reportedly said.

Several other people were injured when Hezbollah partisans attacked the demonstrators, the spokesman told AFP.

The man killed was identified by Beirut media as Hisham Salman, head of the student section of the Lebanese Option party, a small opposition group.

The party's leader, like Hezbollah, is from the Shia community, however it strongly opposes Hezbollah's involvement in Syria.

The protesters outside the Iranian embassy in the Bir Hassan neighbourhood made demands for Hezbollah to leave Syria.

"Lebanon has never been so fragile. They are transferring the Syrian conflict into Lebanon. The Lebanese army should deploy on the border to stop Hezbollah from entering Syria," protest organiser Charles Jabbour told AFP news agency.

The incident underlines how deeply divisive the Syrian issue is in Lebanon and strengthens fears of further repercussions, BBC Beirut correspondent Jim Muir reports.

Hezbollah - or the Party of God - is a political and military organisation in Lebanon made up mainly of Shia Muslims.

It emerged with financial backing from Iran in the early 1980s and has always been a close ally of Syria.

Peace talks at risk
On Thursday, the White House called on both Iran and Hezbollah to withdraw fighters from Syria, where they have been helping government troops, particularly in the western town of Qusair, close to the border with Lebanon.

"It is clear that the regime is unable to contest the opposition's control of a place like Qusair on their own, and that is why they are dependent on Hezbollah and Iran to do their work for them," White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese Red Cross says nearly 90 Syrian rebel fighters have been taken to hospitals in Lebanon after being wounded in the battle for Qusair.

The strategic town, which is a major supply route for both rebel and pro-Assad fighters, was recaptured by government troops on Wednesday after weeks of fierce fighting.

Recent developments on the ground may affect efforts to convene a forthcoming international peace conference, the Syrian opposition says.

"What is happening in Syria today completely closes the doors on any discussions about international conferences and political initiatives," the interim head of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, George Sabra, told reporters on Saturday.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague also said on Sunday that the government's latest gains may reduce the chances of success at the peace summit due to take place in Geneva.

Seaward wrote:
Well, we clearly don't announce that's what's occurring to the world. There's a reason back-channel communication exists.

Who said anything about announcing it to the world? I certainly didn't so please don't make strawmen because you think they're easier to counter. Whether we announce it or not the fact remains, we'd have taken something of value from the Russians, and twisted their arm so they get it back. That does not engender furthering our long term interests, and as Russia has shown recently with legislation over adoption, they can do tit-for-tat retaliation very well.

Seaward wrote:
We do, actually. Have we lost every war we've ever fought because Vietnam didn't go well? Latin America, multiple Middle Eastern countries...we've definitely had success at installing regimes friendly to our interests. And we abandon them when it's in our interests to do so. It's the way of the world, I'm afraid.

You really aren't comparing like with like here. But I'd be interested in hearing what regimes the US did install recently in the Middle East that were successes

Seaward wrote:
We very much have the finances to support it, and money's where it's at. Afghanistan's a mess, but the supposition that because Afghanistan is a mess, every other country in the world would likewise be one is belied by history.

The US has the finances to support another war? So the sequester, budget issues and massive deficit are not real problems? The government hasn't been cutting spending or anything like that because of a financial black hole?

Seaward wrote:
An air campaign would be thoroughly effective. Prior to Hezbollah's involvement, it would have won the war.

What do you mean, prior? Hezbollah have been working with Assad since close to the beginning.

**Noble713**

Seaward wrote:

Claiming that Israel is the United States' "puppet master" is worthy of nothing further than a scoff, a reference to conspiracy theorists, and of course the Onion. I've also seen the fringe claim that it's OMG all about a gas pocket before, but not from anyone credible, and that's definitely not where our intelligence assessments lie.

If that's your idea of substantive and quality discourse, then I'm afraid I can't say I'd regret you skipping my posts.

3 lines in any way associated with Israel yields the most vociferous of denouncements. Must have hit close to the mark on that one.
30 lines of text about Qatari energy manipulation and the Petrodollar get's a "Meh, fringe claims, our intel is different."

Because "our intel" has a strong history of accuracy and credibility? And what exactly is "our intelligence assessments" anyway? Defense Intelligence Activity? CIA? NSA? Corporate intelligence about gas exploration from Exxon-Mobil? Be specific, if you can please.

Seaward wrote:
So you genuinely see no alternatives beyond a full conventional ground campaign, and no particular benefit to being the guys who de facto get to decide whether or not Russia keeps its only foreign naval port? Interesting.

So you want to install a shaky democracy in a fractured country via increased military support (i.e. weapons and an air campaign). Net loss in stability and international security in the Middle East.
And you want to remove Russia's foreign port, reducing their ability to conduct counter-piracy operations around Somalia as well as their ability to "share the load" for any other security situations in the region. Again a net loss in stability.

So other than pissing in Russia's cornflakes for laughs, how does any of this actually benefit anyone's quality of life?

BaronIveagh wrote:
After what happened in Florida, I'm a bit suspicious of any 'confessions' the FBI hands in.

Ain't that the truth. But hey, they are from the government and here to help. Just like the NSA is just helping all of us recover our forgotten passwords with their secret PRISM and Boundless Informant programs.

**BaronIveagh**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Beautiful over-simplification of the US Civil War. The fact that you would distort that, and cheapen the many deaths that resulted from it, only serves to make it look like you are acting in bad faith and undermines whatever you hope to achieve.

No, what's beautiful is that you could distort a statement that suggested that Americans died for their moral beliefs and make it a negative. While there were a great many reasons, almost all of them are related in one way or another to the question of slavery.

Or do you think it cheapens their deaths to suggest they died for a noble purpose rather than for the profit of American business?

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Do you think that it is moral to support;
- Assad, who has committed war crimes and is suspected of using chemical weapons?

Nope.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

- the FSA who rocket civilian areas, eat hearts, slit the throats of captives, are suspected of using chemical weapons, or try to carve out their own empires?

Khalid al Hamad aka Abu Sakkar does not represent the FSA. He is though a symptom of the issue, that this has been allowed to go on so long. And make no mistake, the longer it does, the more men like him will emerge in positions of 'leadership'. THis is what hte result of doing 'nothing' is.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

- what about the AQ affiliated militias? Once the dust has settled and they have a friendly and compliant regime (just like what happened in Lebanon) they can start setting up camp there.

Let's look at those Lebanon AQ affiliates, shall we? According to Lebanese Intelligence the major players are...

A group led by "Abu Thaer," a Lebanese national named Khodor Huwailed. The group has a presence in the area of Wadi Khaled and Mashta Akrum, and includes "mujahideen" of different nationalities. His main aid-De-camp: Farid Sameh, a Syrian national. The group consists of about 200 men.

The Tripoli group, pretty much the home grown group, led by Lebanese national Hussam Abdullah al-Sabbagh (nicknamed Abu al-Hasan). He commands around 250 to 300 men, through which he controls neighborhoods in the city, like Bab al-Tebbaneh, Beddawi and Bab al-Raml. The repeated rounds of violence with Jabal Mohsen, a neighborhood mostly inhabited by Alawites, are spearheaded by this group. Sabbagh’s main aide is Kamal al-Bustani, a person known for his pro-Qaeda activity.

The Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp group, whose key figures are Ziad Abu-Naaj, Naim Ismail Abbas, Muhammad Ahad al-Dawkhi, and a person nicknamed "Haitham al-Shaabi. This group consists of about 100 to 150 men, mostly Egyptian, Palestinian, Gulf, Syrian, and Moroccan nationals.

The Al-Qaa group, led by its Syrian emir Muhammad Khalid Hijazi, assisted by the Syrian Khalid Mohammed Turk and another person (of an unknown nationality) named Mohammed al-Qunays.

I keep seeing 'Syria' over and over again. I wonder why that is?

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

In close proximity to many of our allies.
And both of these groups are heavily Islamic so expect to see Sharia law brought about, with the accompanying curtailment of women's rights, gay rights, religious freedom etc. Still sure that is a moral choice?

I might point out that a great many people are Islamic in the Middle East. You're conflating 'Islamic' with 'the Islamist movement'. Further, without a positive counter balance, yes, they will be predominantly Islamist, because no one else could be bothered.

It's like not voting and complaining you didn't like who got elected.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

But I do like how you misrepresented my argument that we should stay out because we're scared of loss or financial reasons.

That was exactly what you gave as reasons that the US should not be involved.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
If it's to get involved in a civil war with no side to back, and with everyone shooting at us, with no outcome that works to our advantage, with geopolitical ramifications, with little public support or appetite for war after over 10 years of involvement in Afghanistan, and a public purse sorely lacking in funds then it's probably a bad idea.

**Jihadin**

UN asking for 5 billion to support the refugee's flooding out the country..........yep....lets go for the logistical support of the fighters and refugee's support...I know where we have ungodly amount of Circus Tents with logistics for thousand people and quick "FoB" in the cans that can support 1200....sitting in Afghanistan

**BaronIveagh**

Jihadin wrote:
UN asking for 5 billion to support the refugee's flooding out the country..........yep....lets go for the logistical support of the fighters and refugee's support...I know where we have ungodly amount of Circus Tents with logistics for thousand people and quick "FoB" in the cans that can support 1200....sitting in Afghanistan

Why am I utterly unsurprised? (Both that you know where they are and that they exist.)

I'd suggest it would be a good place to send all the oversupply that Brown and Root/Haliburton/Etc have been providing rather than let it rot in warehouses.

**Seaward**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Who said anything about announcing it to the world? I certainly didn't so please don't make strawmen because you think they're easier to counter. Whether we announce it or not the fact remains, we'd have taken something of value from the Russians, and twisted their arm so they get it back. That does not engender furthering our long term interests, and as Russia has shown recently with legislation over adoption, they can do tit-for-tat retaliation very well.

Sorry, I must not have understood what you were talking about. For Russia's national pride to be wounded over something, my presumption was that Russia'd have to be publicly aware of it.

Ultimately, though, I'm simply not sure where this delicacy about Russia comes from. Our interests stand in direct conflict to theirs in the region. They don't want to be on our side. They have no desire to be a less powerful ally; their goal is to be a more powerful competitor. They're eager for low-intensity puppet conflicts, because that's how they're going to land their punches right now. Walking on eggshells to avoid pissing them off serves no purpose. It's like the old cliche from '80s teen movies; doing the jock's homework doesn't get the nerd invited to the cool parties, it just gets the jock's homework done. They are not suddenly going to have a change of heart and throw their lot in with our goals in the Middle East because we decided we no longer like to use leverage. We get things done by muscle in that region in many others, be it financial, political, or military, and Russia subscribes to that philosophy in spades as well. Power needs to be deterring power. Power met with conciliatory attempts to be nice just gets mildly amused before doing exactly what it intended to do.

You really aren't comparing like with like here. But I'd be interested in hearing what regimes the US did install recently in the Middle East that were successes.

How recent do you want to talk?

The US has the finances to support another war? So the sequester, budget issues and massive deficit are not real problems? The government hasn't been cutting spending or anything like that because of a financial black hole?

They're not real problems that prevent us from acting if we choose to, no. We haven't suddenly become a solely regional power incapable of expeditionary warfare.

An air campaign. Against a country being supplied with advanced AA from Russia. Dropping munitions on FSA, AQ affiliated militas, and the Syrian army all in close proximity. And often in areas with many civilians. And who would we be targeting again? Where would we be getting reliable intelligence from in a highly dynamic conflict?

This is the part that really confuses me, to be honest. We're extremely good at what you just described. We've been doing exactly those kinds of air strikes for the past decade. Taking out the Syrian AD network and hitting their airfields with the intent of grounding their air force is something that's eminently within our capabilities. As I said, even getting Syria out of the air would have been enough, at the point in time where intervening would have made a difference, so the specter of having to hit targets among densely-populated civilian areas with great frequency would be a bit overstated.

If it became necessary, however, again...we've been doing that for a long time, and we're good at it. I'm sure you'll claim otherwise, due to the fact that we occasionally inflict collateral damage, but here's the thing. I could give you a lot of personal anecdotal experience, but instead I'll just point to the ridiculous number of sorties we flew in OEF and OIF, the sheer amount of ordnance we threw into those hellholes, and ask if you genuinely believe the overwhelming majority of air strikes were not "clean." There's no other air power in the world that can come even close to doing what we do.

Good, that means we aren't getting sucked into a needless conflict.

I suppose it's good only if the outcome will have no broader impact on the region or the world as a whole. That is extraordinarily unlikely.

**Frazzled**

Seaward wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
...so?

So, isolationism, while nice in theory, doesn't work. We need influence in the region. We, in short, need the region to be more concerned about us getting involved than Russia. We need to be seen as willing to follow through on warnings we issue. There's a waterway we need to keep navigable, there's brushfires in the region we need to put out with a quiet word behind the scenes, there's allies that we need to be able to support and keep from going apegak, etc.

We don't suddenly start disengaging just because we didn't get involved in Syria. We simply lose leverage having said, "If the red line gets crossed, gak's going down," and then seeing to it that, once the red line was crossed, gak did not go down. There were a lot of low-risk, low-cost options on the table.

Not to mention the moral cost of not supporting tens of thousands of fairly moderate guys who just didn't want to live under a dictator anymore, most of whom are dead or are going to be.

Actually it works just fine for most of the world. If its good enough for Western and Central Europe, and generally all of Central and South America, its good enough for me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
I would not have had a problem with drones support only, maybe even some level of air support, if it's done under a UN or NATO mandate.

Even then I'd only go so far because we said we would if chemical weapons were used, and it appears they have been (though by who seems a totally open question). If the United States says something, we need to mean it.

I'd have a problem with that as well. Lets be neutral and act neutral, providing humanitarian aid and offers for diplomacy only. THAT should be US policy generally.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Well, if the islamic world sees fit to do nothing, it's not for us to intervene either.

If they are willing to allow their brothers and sisters to suffer and die, we should not send our best and bravest in there either.

If they or anyone else interferes with the Suez canal or shipping, trade or the general smooth running of the rest of the world outside their borders, crush it mercilessly. Otherwise, our forces would be far better placed to do some good lopping the heads off a few African (oh hai Mugabe) dictators and regimes to bring order there. Efforts there and elsewhere can bring real benefit and change, instead of the continued swapping of one evil for another in the middle east, an area that seems immune to tinkering and would be best served by just leaving it all alone and trading with whoever emerges from it victorious.

MGS has the way of it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Yeah, look at what an air campaign did for the Libyan rebellion. It turned it a whole 180 degrees, and we lost exactly 1 aircraft, and 4 lives and the country to tribal extremists and Al Qaeda throughout the whole affair.

Corrected your typo.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:
*sigh*

None of them are good options. But this has the potential to get much worse and become a bigger problem for the US in the long run if they sit back and do nothing than in the short run where they lose men and material.

It's like the many many wars in Africa. No one wants to commit (though, thank you, Legion Estranges) and the problem rolls on and on and starts to get worse and worse and spreads, becoming 'First World' countries problems in unexpected ways (piracy, anyone?).

Not that the US allies will probably let it get that far before citing one of the numerous pacts that hte US has with countries in the middle east and dragging them in as well.

There are no Middle East problems, there are no European problems, there are no Asian problems, there are no American problems.

There are just problems.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

Please demonstrate one method where an action by the US turns out for the better for the US?
Frankly given the powers there, Assad was the most stable option.

**Dreadclaw69**

BaronIveagh wrote:
No, what's beautiful is that you could distort a statement that suggested that Americans died for their moral beliefs and make it a negative. While there were a great many reasons, almost all of them are related in one way or another to the question of slavery.

Or do you think it cheapens their deaths to suggest they died for a noble purpose rather than for the profit of American business?

So pointing out a factual inaccuracy in your statement is now showing disrespect to those that died in the Civil War? Surely it is more disrespectful to use their sacrifices as a platform for an ill advised intervention

BaronIveagh wrote:
Khalid al Hamad aka Abu Sakkar does not represent the FSA. He is though a symptom of the issue, that this has been allowed to go on so long. And make no mistake, the longer it does, the more men like him will emerge in positions of 'leadership'. THis is what hte result of doing 'nothing' is.

So you manged to take a series of incidents carried out by the FSA, and reduced them to the one that you could almost-sort-of counter. Hardly an indication of wanting an honest discussion.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Let's look at those Lebanon AQ affiliates, shall we? According to Lebanese Intelligence the major players are...

A group led by "Abu Thaer," a Lebanese national named Khodor Huwailed. The group has a presence in the area of Wadi Khaled and Mashta Akrum, and includes "mujahideen" of different nationalities. His main aid-De-camp: Farid Sameh, a Syrian national. The group consists of about 200 men.

The Tripoli group, pretty much the home grown group, led by Lebanese national Hussam Abdullah al-Sabbagh (nicknamed Abu al-Hasan). He commands around 250 to 300 men, through which he controls neighborhoods in the city, like Bab al-Tebbaneh, Beddawi and Bab al-Raml. The repeated rounds of violence with Jabal Mohsen, a neighborhood mostly inhabited by Alawites, are spearheaded by this group. Sabbagh’s main aide is Kamal al-Bustani, a person known for his pro-Qaeda activity.

The Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp group, whose key figures are Ziad Abu-Naaj, Naim Ismail Abbas, Muhammad Ahad al-Dawkhi, and a person nicknamed "Haitham al-Shaabi. This group consists of about 100 to 150 men, mostly Egyptian, Palestinian, Gulf, Syrian, and Moroccan nationals.

The Al-Qaa group, led by its Syrian emir Muhammad Khalid Hijazi, assisted by the Syrian Khalid Mohammed Turk and another person (of an unknown nationality) named Mohammed al-Qunays.

I keep seeing 'Syria' over and over again. I wonder why that is?

Don't wonder, just say it.
And you completely omitted the Al-Nursa group, which is unfortunate because I've mentioned them several times before - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group

Syria's main armed opposition group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), is losing fighters and capabilities to Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist organisation with links to al-Qaida that is emerging as the best-equipped, financed and motivated force fighting Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Evidence of the growing strength of al-Nusra, gathered from Guardian interviews with FSA commanders across Syria, underlines the dilemma for the US, Britain and other governments as they ponder the question of arming anti-Assad rebels.

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said that if negotiations went ahead between the Syrian government and the opposition – as the US and Russia proposed on Tuesday – "then hopefully [arming the Syrian rebels] would not be necessary".

The agreement between Washington and Moscow creates a problem for the UK and France, which have proposed lifting or amending the EU arms embargo on Syria to help anti-Assad forces. The Foreign Office welcomed the agreement as a "potential step forward" but insisted: "Assad and his close associates have lost all legitimacy. They have no place in the future of Syria." Opposition leaders were sceptical about prospects for talks if Assad remained in power.

Illustrating their plight, FSA commanders say that entire units have gone over to al-Nusra while others have lost a quarter or more of their strength to them recently.

"Fighters feel proud to join al-Nusra because that means power and influence," said Abu Ahmed, a former teacher from Deir Hafer who now commands an FSA brigade in the countryside near Aleppo. "Al-Nusra fighters rarely withdraw for shortage of ammunition or fighters and they leave their target only after liberating it," he added. "They compete to carry out martyrdom [suicide] operations."

Abu Ahmed and others say the FSA has lost fighters to al-Nusra in Aleppo, Hama, Idlib and Deir al-Zor and the Damascus region. Ala'a al-Basha, commander of the Sayyida Aisha brigade, warned the FSA chief of staff, General Salim Idriss, about the issue last month. Basha said 3,000 FSA men have joined al-Nusra in the last few months, mainly because of a lack of weapons and ammunition. FSA fighters in the Banias area were threatening to leave because they did not have the firepower to stop the massacre in Bayda, he said.

The FSA's Ahrar al-Shimal brigade joined al-Nusra en masse while the Sufiyan al-Thawri brigade in Idlib lost 65 of its fighters to al-Nusra a few months ago for lack of weapons. According to one estimate the FSA has lost a quarter of all its fighters.

Al-Nusra has members serving undercover with FSA units so they can spot potential recruits, according to Abu Hassan of the FSA's al-Tawhid Lions brigade.

Ideology is another powerful factor. "Fighters are heading to al-Nusra because of its Islamic doctrine, sincerity, good funding and advanced weapons," said Abu Islam of the FSA's al-Tawhid brigade in Aleppo. "My colleague who was fighting with the FSA's Ahrar Suriya asked me: 'I'm fighting with Ahrar Suriya brigade, but I want to know if I get killed in a battle, am I going to be considered as a martyr or not?' It did not take him long to quit FSA and join al-Nusra. He asked for a sniper rifle and got one immediately."

FSA commanders say they have suffered from the sporadic nature of arms supplies. FSA fighter Adham al-Bazi told the Guardian from Hama: "Our main problem is that what we get from abroad is like a tap. Sometimes it's turned on, which means weapons are coming and we are advancing, then, all of a sudden, the tap dries up, and we stop fighting or even pull out of our positions."

The US, which has outlawed al-Nusra as a terrorist group, has hesitated to arm the FSA, while the western and Gulf-backed Syrian Opposition Coalition has tried to assuage concerns by promising strict control over weapons. "We are ready to make lists of the weapons and write down the serial numbers," Idriss told NPR at the weekend. "The FSA is very well organised and when we distribute weapons and ammunition we know exactly to which hands they are going."

Syria's government has capitalised successfully on US and European divisions over the weapons embargo by emphasising the "jihadi narrative" – as it has since the start of largely peaceful protests in March 2011. Assad himself claimed in a recent interview: "There is no FSA, only al-Qaida." Syrian state media has played up the recent pledge of loyalty by Jabhat al-Nusra to al-Qaida in Iraq.

Western governments say they are aware of the al-Nusra problem, which is being monitored by intelligence agencies, but they are uncertain about its extent.

"It is clear that fighters are moving from one group to another as one becomes more successful," said a diplomat who follows Syria closely. "But it's very area-specific. You can't talk about a general trend in which [Jabhat al-Nusra] has more momentum than others. It is true that some say JAN is cleaner and better than other groups, but there are as many stories about it being bad." Critics point to punishments meted out by Sharia courts and its use of suicide bombings.

The FSA's shortage of weapons and other resources compared with Jabhat al-Nusra is a recurrent theme. The loss of Khirbet Ghazaleh, a key junction near Dera'a in southern Syria, was blamed on Wednesday on a lack of weapons its defenders had hoped would be delivered from Jordan.

"If you join al-Nusra, there is always a gun for you but many of the FSA brigades can't even provide bullets for their fighters," complained Abu Tamim, an FSA man who joined Jabhat al-Nusra in Idlib province. "My nephew is in Egypt, he wants to come to Syria to fight but he doesn't have enough money. Al-Nusra told him: 'Come and we will even pay your flight tickets.' He is coming to fight with al-Nusra because he does not have any other way."

Jabhat al-Nusra is winning support in Deir al-Zor, according to Abu Hudaifa, another FSA defector. "They are protecting people and helping them financially. Al-Nusra is in control of most of the oil wells in the city." The Jabhat al-Nusra media, with songs about jihad and martyrdom, is extremely influential.

Abu Zeid used to command the FSA's Syria Mujahideen brigade in the Damascus region and led all its 420 fighters to al-Nusra. "Since we joined I and my men are getting everything we need to keep us fighting to liberate Syria and to cover our families' expenses, though fighting with al-Nusra is governed by very strict rules issued by the operations command or foreign fighters," he said. "There is no freedom at all but you do get everything you want.

"No one should blame us for joining al-Nusra. Blame the west if Syria is going to become a haven for al-Qaida and extremists. The west left Assad's gangs to slaughter us. They never bothered to support the FSA. They disappointed ordinary Syrian protesters who just wanted their freedom and to have Syria for all Syrians."

You're giving the impression that you pick and choose what suits your argument rather than even attempt to be objective

BaronIveagh wrote:
I might point out that a great many people are Islamic in the Middle East. You're conflating 'Islamic' with 'the Islamist movement'. Further, without a positive counter balance, yes, they will be predominantly Islamist, because no one else could be bothered.

It's like not voting and complaining you didn't like who got elected.

What "positive counter balance" do you think would work given that many Muslim countries embrace their faith as the guiding principals of their law

BaronIveagh wrote:
That was exactly what you gave as reasons that the US should not be involved.

Correct, and thank you for proving my point. I gave many examples and you chose two to paint my argument in the worst light.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
Sorry, I must not have understood what you were talking about. For Russia's national pride to be wounded over something, my presumption was that Russia'd have to be publicly aware of it.

Ultimately, though, I'm simply not sure where this delicacy about Russia comes from. Our interests stand in direct conflict to theirs in the region. They don't want to be on our side. They have no desire to be a less powerful ally; their goal is to be a more powerful competitor. They're eager for low-intensity puppet conflicts, because that's how they're going to land their punches right now. Walking on eggshells to avoid pissing them off serves no purpose. It's like the old cliche from '80s teen movies; doing the jock's homework doesn't get the nerd invited to the cool parties, it just gets the jock's homework done. They are not suddenly going to have a change of heart and throw their lot in with our goals in the Middle East because we decided we no longer like to use leverage. We get things done by muscle in that region in many others, be it financial, political, or military, and Russia subscribes to that philosophy in spades as well. Power needs to be deterring power. Power met with conciliatory attempts to be nice just gets mildly amused before doing exactly what it intended to do.

We aren't walking on egg shells not to p*ss them off. We're avoiding getting into another prolonged conflict that will be a financial mill stone around our necks, which the Russians can prolong, because all that does is weaken us and strengthen our enemies.
If you are trying to base geo-political ideas off the relationships between jocks and geeks in 80's movies then I'm really not sure what else I can do to move this debate along. So do we have to get involved, or can we have an 80's montage instead?

Seaward wrote:
How recent do you want to talk?

Lets see your examples

Seaward wrote:
They're not real problems that prevent us from acting if we choose to, no. We haven't suddenly become a solely regional power incapable of expeditionary warfare.

If you think a massive budget deficit is not a very real problem then I really don't know what else to say here. But if you want to completely bankrupt the country at least do so for a decent cause. Not to shore up AQ militias, or a largely incompetent rabble

Seaward wrote:
This is the part that really confuses me, to be honest. We're extremely good at what you just described. We've been doing exactly those kinds of air strikes for the past decade. Taking out the Syrian AD network and hitting their airfields with the intent of grounding their air force is something that's eminently within our capabilities. As I said, even getting Syria out of the air would have been enough, at the point in time where intervening would have made a difference, so the specter of having to hit targets among densely-populated civilian areas with great frequency would be a bit overstated.

If it became necessary, however, again...we've been doing that for a long time, and we're good at it. I'm sure you'll claim otherwise, due to the fact that we occasionally inflict collateral damage, but here's the thing. I could give you a lot of personal anecdotal experience, but instead I'll just point to the ridiculous number of sorties we flew in OEF and OIF, the sheer amount of ordnance we threw into those hellholes, and ask if you genuinely believe the overwhelming majority of air strikes were not "clean." There's no other air power in the world that can come even close to doing what we do.

So your suggestion on how to intervene in a conflict that is mainly close quarters urban warfare, with minimal Syrian air support, is to target their airfields? You'll forgive my obvious skepticism for the odds of that plan working.
The problem as well is that it doesn't matter how clean the strikes are, we'll only ever hear about the ones that aren't clean. And with a war-weary public wary of any intervention how long will it be before there are serious calls to pull out?

Seaward wrote:
I suppose it's good only if the outcome will have no broader impact on the region or the world as a whole. That is extraordinarily unlikely.

Lets see - Assad retains power, he does what most dictators do and deals with dissent. We start sanctions and write him a strongly worded letter. AQ affiliated militas don't get to set up camp and work on de-stabilising the region, or planning attacks against us, they don't get access to heavier weapons, and they lose a lot of support and fighters from the conflict.
What ramifications are you seeing for the region and the world?