End Game. It's time for Western Military Intervention in Syria.

Would the safest bet not be to support an intervention done by the Arab league or the African union?

I think this would be better than any westerners or communists going in for peace keeping operations since they don't like us all that much. Chances a are if the West, Russia or even some Asian nation stepping in will only make matters worse.

Throw the political BS and agendas out of the window and this problem might never have reached this level.

reply to post by canucks555


Its time for Americans to take care of America..

we can not be the beacon of freedom with all the corruption going on here..

there are cities here that have been ghetto's for 50 years..

America is not the police of the world..

"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Thomas Jefferson

reply to post by RAY1990


I support this idea, but they will do nothing, in my opinion, other than "talk" while the violence continues.

reply to post by benrl


I remember watching a film on the massacre of tourists years ago in I believe Rowanda (might be wrong though)
Africa has always been a hell hole maybe that is why nobody gives a... hand.

Safe to say it was a wakeup call for me that film, what goes on in Africa daily is scary and although it may look primitive and barbaric on the surface there is a method to the madness and although barbaric, when traced back a lot of this is not so primitive.

Africa really needs our help not our bloody money.

Edit
Actually I'd love to find out that film's name and watch it again I was young then and would like to watch it again and reflect. anybody know?

reply to post by reeferman


imo there is no such thing as money. (as far as government is concerned)
Interjecting in Syria would be payed for by vague contracts. Oil deals, re construction, It aint pretty, you certainly don't have to agree with it, but you know the drill.

This is not a criticism of the OP this is more about Syria threads in general it just so happens that I am posting it on this thread.

There seem to be quite a lot of threads of late on the Syrian civil war that are actually really quite ignorant of events in Syria. The authors of these threads seem to be advocating various solutions that are frankly utterly pointless or just so extreme there is no equilibrium to the cost/benefit delicate balance.

A no fly zone has been ruled out by the Joint Chiefs, they point out that only 10% of casualties are the result of the Syrian air force and that it would be very difficult to enforce compared to Libya. The idea of boots on the ground is equally as troublesome while yes it would put a end the any civil war it would also create even more deaths on both sides in the short term and there is no political will in Washington for such a move. A full scale invasion of Syria to put boots on the ground to stop the fighting would only create a new Iraq that would be just a messy, costly and deadly if not more so. Another big problem with any military intervention is that after the UN passing of UN resolution 1973 (the Libyan no fly zone) the Russians and to some extent the Chinese are very likely to veto any move to have a UN resolution to provide legal backing to any western military intervention, they feel they were “cheated” in Libya.

The unfortunate truth for American policy makers is that there are no good options left for Syria, the way I see it there are 3 real options available. Firstly they could just leave everything alone and leave Assad to kill all of his supporters, the only problem with that is that you would need to have all states agree to it and that’s not going to happen. Secondly the international community really ramps up their backing of the Syrian National council and the FSA or thirdly western forces created a NATO defended safe zone inside Syria. Now I am sure there are others who will think up some other type of solution and point out the pitfalls of the ones I have listed above but when we boil this all down there are no good options left, all we can do is try to pick out the best of a bad bunch.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin



There seem to be quite a lot of threads of late on the Syrian civil war that are actually really quite ignorant of events in Syria. The authors of these threads seem to be advocating various solutions that are frankly utterly pointless or just so extreme there is no equilibrium to the cost/benefit delicate balance.

You are wrong in your assumption that a "no fly zone" is not on the table.
Ignorant on Syria? I am pointing out that people are dying in Syria every day and NO ONE seems to want to do anything about it.
How, exactly, is that ignorant?

Your post was engineered to urk me, that is plain.

Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by benrl

 

You are off topic. This isn't a thread for intervening in Africa, or Botswana or Algeria. This is a thread about Syria. It doesn't make your points invalid, no. It's just that the thread is about Syria.

Either the Rebels or Assad bombed a NATO country today. In case you didn't hear.

That, my friend, is considered a "No-no"

edit on 11-5-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

If intervention in Syria meant fighting ended? That might be one thing...but intervention doesn't mean peace. It means the West simply joins the fight in the hope that massive escalation of force and body count to one side over the other will force collapse and victory for the favored one.

The hope hasn't worked out ...once...That I'm aware of. It kinda did in Serbia, but they'd had a few years to run their course of things before anyone intervened in any meaningful way. Peacekeeping needs sides who want peace to begin with ..which absolutely doesn't exist in Syria. Otherwise? It's only changing the nature of the war...not ending it. The only winning move, is not to play this one.

reply to post by canucks555

I'm a little surprised at the answers the posters are giving you. They seem to be saying what we did in the past has to be our approach now. I don't understand that.

Of course, the problem then comes up "What do we do?" Certainly we must not give aid to the rebels or Assad, that would be intervention. Perhaps, as the posters seem to be saying, we should announce to Russia, Iran, and all the other countries interested "You can turn Syria into whatever you want, we won't do anything."

Just for a hypothetical thought experiment, the world pretty much sees Assad's forces as murdering terrorists. It has been fairly well established that the rebels contain murdering terrorists. Treating them equally, does it matter who dies, as long as the fighting ends? Indiscriminate death would be a powerful disincentive. NOTE: Again, this is not my position or belief. Remember? Hypothetical thought experiment?

reply to post by charles1952


As hard as it sounds...Yes.
It's my opinion that Syria had become a failed state... And a danger to the rest of the region.
If that means cutting up the pie when the dust settles, then so be it.

reply to post by canucks555

You are wrong in your assumption that a "no fly zone" is not on the table.

Really....?

"The U.S. military has the capability to defeat that system, but it would be a greater challenge, and would take longer and require more resources" than in Libya, Dempsey said during a lunch meeting with reporters.

"The air defense picture in Libya is dramatically different than it is in Syria," he said. "Syria has five times more air defense systems, some of which are high-end systems, that is to say higher altitude, longer range."

Link

Because it doesnt seem like the JCS is keen on the idea....

I am pointing out that people are dying in Syria every day and NO ONE seems to want to do anything about it.

well i have a thread on that, just posted it today if your interested.

Syria and Obama’s Failing Foreign Policy

Why do we have to step in? It's NOT our fight! They have been fighting in that part of the world for thousands of years!

We have no interest in saving their people, it's all bs. The only reason we get involved is because they have something we want!

Like another member said Africa is much worse yet we dont get involved there. Why? Well they don't have anything we want. If oil was found there then you can bet your rear we'd suddenly show interest in the people there.

We need to stay out of it, let them fight their own battles! Life isn't fair and in some areas it down right sucks but that doesn't mean we need to get involved. We need to fix problems at home first before we criticize other countries.

reply to post by charles1952


Not sure what you are asking in your experiment. Seems you are asking a question that is zero-sum since if (and that is a big if) the killing stopped we would still end up with murderous people to deal with.

Also, there are only so many tools in the toolbox. I wonder what you had in mind when you said that when we are seeing and have seen the end (again...will it really end?) Result of the majority of them. Are there tools we can apply that haven't already been brought to bear?

reply to post by canucks555

Dear canuck555,

You've certainly presented a defensible position. I believe many have that as their desire. No criticisism from me at all.

Two questions come to mind. Why then are we shipping money over there? Obama must have some goal in mind. Is he taking the rebels' side in this? It seems so.

Are we declaring, by backing away, that the US has no national interest in Syria? If we don't, then again, why help anybody? If we do, then we should be looking for the most effective way to protect those interests.

By the way, the President's "Red Line" dithering seems to be one of the more depressing failures in foreign affairs.

Forgive me for rambling, you can see I'm not certain on this issue. I'm just trying to find a good path and looking for wisdom here.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by canucks555

Three months, war over

Do you not keep up with the news?

Libya took 7 months, now Syria is way more challenging than Libya and any “war” as you call it would take longer, not less than half the time.

How did you come up with the 3 month figure?

No

reply to post by mblahnikluver


Again. A NATO ally was attacked today. While I'm not suggesting that you agree with "not supporting allies", the truth is, allies were attacked, allies will be protected.
It's spilling over, and if allies are effected in a negative manner then it is what it is.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


No where in your post does it say that NATO will never exercise a no fly zone over Syria no matter what happens.
You think it's ridiculous to think that the Higher ups in NATO are thinking about a no fly zone??
Think again.

reply to post by canucks555

Again. A NATO ally was attacked today

And so far we don’t know if it was an attack by the Syrian state, a Syrian rebel fraction or the terrorist group the Kurdish Workers Party who have been fighting against Turkey for years. My money is on the later and just because Turkey is a member of NATO does not mean that all of NATO is suddenly going to drop everything and start fighting a war on Turkey’s behalf. As I said to you on another thread Article 5 of the Northern Atlantic Treaty has only been invoked one, 9/11 and we still don’t know who was responsible for today’s attack so it is way too early to start talking about NATO involvement.

reply to post by canucks555

No where in your post does it say that NATO will never exercise a no fly zone over Syria no matter what happens.

You are never going to get them to say “we will never have a no-fly zone over Syria” just like you are not going to get Obama to actually say “no we will not put boots on the ground” they play politics. It is very clear that the JSC does not want a no fly zone and that there is not the appetite for it in Washington so he has gone as far as he can at ruling it out without actually using the word “never”.

Read between the lines “no America will not be seeking a no fly zone with the current situation”.