Syria limited strike and consquences

d

What do you think would be the result if we go the U.S goes thorough striking Syria? I fear that it will drag the U.S into a Vietnam like situation and this will hurt our economy.

It won't be Vietnam because they will never commit ground troops) but it won't be without cost. Surgical strikes are hard to achieve in practice os collteral damage of women and children will undermine the message and what is the exit strategy - once you start you need to work out how you stop. Syria may heed the warning and not use Chemical Weapons in which case all fine or they coulddecide they are not going to be intimidated and keep using them and then what does the US (and UK if they join them) do? Escalate? How? The Reels are a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists - does the US really want to inadvertently assist them in their attempts to take power? Egypt is a good example of what happens when you topple an established regime in the Arab world.

Frazzled UBM

It won't be Vietnam because they will never commit ground troops) but it won't be without cost. Surgical strikes are hard to achieve in practice os collteral damage of women and children will undermine the message and what is the exit strategy - once you start you need to work out how you stop. Syria may heed the warning and not use Chemical Weapons in which case all fine or they coulddecide they are not going to be intimidated and keep using them and then what does the US (and UK if they join them) do? Escalate? How? The Reels are a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists - does the US really want to inadvertently assist them in their attempts to take power? Egypt is a good example of what happens when you topple an established regime in the Arab world.

Amelia Ashton

It won't be like Vietnam because they wouldn't dare use chemical weapons.

designs

The US military may be hoping for a counter-attack from Syria via Iran which will give Israel and the US the green light to attack Iran's nuclear sites.

tinker

I would agree, the US may be strategizing for more then a one time hit over the chemical use. It will escalate to be sure. Makes me heartsick and grievous. I got out my old hippie peace beads and will be wearing them proudly everyday. Might even put some flowers in my hair.

d

I also fear that this could result in violence from the border countries.

straightshooter

Russia is moving a couple of warships into the area. Russia, China, and the UN Secretary frown on the U.S. taking action on their own. Even Britain is smart enough to stay out.

Resistance is Futile

What do you think would be the result if the U.S goes through with striking Syria? [edit]

It would be the first step into the quicksand that would drag us into a sectarian battle in a Muslim country. The thought of getting embroiled in this conflict has been literally turning my stomach.

Let's not kid ourselves, in the big picture, intervention into this war is about the US maintaining power and influence in an oil-rich region of the world.

It won't be Vietnam because they will never commit ground troops

I really wish I could believe that. Secretary of State John Kerry said he couldn't promise there would be no ground invasion, and of course he can't promise something like that. At least Senators McCain and Graham were honest about their goals of a regime change in Syria. I really wish someone could explain how you bring about regime change without troops on the ground. Maybe our CIA could funnel massive amounts of US taxpayer money and weapons to the opposition. That worked out real great when we supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, or Saddam Hussein and his military in the Iran-Iraq War.

Once the US strikes Assad's military we will not allow him to remain in power. Assad is an ally of Iran. Removing Assad and facilitating a puppet regime in Syria that will not align with Iran is the clear strategic goal of the US in this destabilized region of the Middle East. It's pretty clear how the US would like to shape the Middle East so that it's friendly to our national interests of having access to the region's oil. How that would actually play out, is an absolute nightmare.

You thought we had a debt problem already, wait till we get sucked into another Middle East war. Perhaps we can just stop funding public education to counter the increase in military spending and the funneling of US taxpayer money into rebuilding a Middle East government. An uneducated citizenry also makes it much easier to sell the idea of war to, so it would be a win-win.

I still believe the unedited Wolfowitz Doctrine provides a brutally honest appraisement of the US government and Western powers interest in the Middle East which still holds true to this day.

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

“Right now we are denying that we want to overthrow the regime, but the fact is when you are bombing targets, government targets in Syria, and there are rebels trying to overthrow the government, you are, whether you say it or not, trying to overthrow the government. But you're only doing it a little bit,” said Cato analyst Benjamin Friedman.

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-military-leaders-lay-out-goals-for-syria-attack/1743665.html

It's important to hear what our military leaders were previously saying about getting involved in the Syrian Civil War. Now that there's a massive push by our government to intervene, I wouldn't be surprised if those same generals change their tune or simply say nothing. "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more"

But the four-star Army general warned: “It is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state. We must anticipate and be prepared for the unintended consequences of our action. Should the regime’s institutions collapse in the absence of a viable opposition, we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control.”

The use of such force is “no less than an act of war,” he said, and would come at a time of growing fiscal restraint on the Pentagon.

“Some options may not be feasible in time or cost without compromising our security elsewhere,” he said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/martin-dempsey-syria-options-costly-risky-94588.html

I might have to go make my own peace beads like tinker. No War! No War! No War!

fulltimestudent

Resistance is futile:

Let's not kid ourselves, in the big picture, intervention into this war is about the US maintaining power and influence in a oil-rich region of the world.

I really should find out who is getting most of the oil exports from Iraq, but I have the impression that most of it is going to China.

d

I fear that it will drag the U.S into a Vietnam like situation and this will hurt our economy.

War is good for the American economy. The USA has the biggest arms industry in the world. And some have described the US economy as "militarised socialism." If a local area isn't doing well - just put an army post there, or an armaments factory.

And money hasn't been a problem in the past - the US has just borrowed more money from Japan and China, though I have a thought that since Bernanke's "financial easing," the Chinese have become a bit wary of US Bonds, and are now actively engaged into switching funds into 'owning' things in other countries.

Syria limited strike and consquences

Share this