What's everyone's opinion on the current conflict in Syria?

[My2Cents]

That's an interesting idea, but what country would want to put even a small force into the middle of a very ugly civil war? Lebanon doesn't seem that far from being sucked into this conflict too and if that happens things will get much worse.

Secondly, considering the current circumstances in the US, I don't see washington being willing to park an aircraft carrier off the coast of Lebanon long term.

The US or Europe don't look willing to put up the ground forces. African forces are proven to be too corrupt to trust to keep al Qaeda from getting hold of some weapons. And under the circumstances I don't think the rebels would tolerate a Russian presence due to ties to the Assads. Do you think the Chinese would be willing to take the job as a way to demonstrate their reach as a global power?

The place to station backup forces is Turkey, not on naval vessels. You can position and secure large fully mechanized units from there and a much larger and more capable aircraft force. A carrier offshore is too vulnerable to a Syrian cruise missile attack in case of a sudden breakout scenario.

 

[Jonton]

I would say the conflict continued and hardened at all. I can't imagine there will be any intervention since the UN are at strife and Obama lacks in support.

 

[Feanor]

The US or Europe don't look willing to put up the ground forces. African forces are proven to be too corrupt to trust to keep al Qaeda from getting hold of some weapons. And under the circumstances I don't think the rebels would tolerate a Russian presence due to ties to the Assads. Do you think the Chinese would be willing to take the job as a way to demonstrate their reach as a global power?

I don't think anyone will care what the rebels will put up with. But you're probably right about Europe. The main thing with Russia is that they will not want to pay for the deployment. On the other hand even one motor-rifles brigade would be more then a match for the relatively rag tag forces the rebels have. Remember we're not talking about waging a COIN campaign, merely providing security for a refugee camp.

The place to station backup forces is Turkey, not on naval vessels. You can position and secure large fully mechanized units from there and a much larger and more capable aircraft force. A carrier offshore is too vulnerable to a Syrian cruise missile attack in case of a sudden breakout scenario.

Sure Turkey would work better, though I doubt the Syrians can really mount an attack of that sort. Not even before the civil war, nevermind now.

 

[colay]

Obviously Congress doesn't place much value in buttressing the President's credibility abroad. I still think Obama has too much to lose by NOT striking if things move too,slowly or talks derail. He's not running for reelection and it won't do his legacy any good by letting an apparent WMD villain off the hook. Future presidents will thank him for,striking, with or without Congressional,OK.

 

[Twain]

Honestly I don't know who would be willing to. But there's quite a few countries that can. If the desire was there, I don't think it would that hard to do. Assad would have little reason to attack such a force, in fact given his fear of intervention, he'd be likely to make sure nothing happens even by accident. On the other hand the rebels are far too weak and too disorganized to try attacking a professional military, even if the force in question isn't that large, and would similarly lack motivation.

On the second point, in your opinion, why not?

I just don't see any country with a competent military being willing to commit to putting troops in the ground even in small numbers. Assad may find it to be in his best interests to avoid any provocations with UN troops and maybe not. Similar to the chemical weapons attack, any attacks on a peace keeping force could be easily blamed on the other side. Then add in the fact, kidnappings are getting out of hand again in Lebanon. They could easily see any UN troops as potential hostages. There are just too many sides in this conflict and predicting the actions of all of them is impossible.

As to the carrier question. I just don't see it happening for a number of reasons.

1. contrary to Obama's red line statement, the US just isn't heavily invested politically in any side winning. It's a no win situation for the US. Acting in any significant way in Syria (as in US troops, aircraft etc.) doesn't really advance The USA's national interests. You may call this a rather cynical view but countries rarely act in a completely altruistic manner. Basically" What's in it for the US?"

2. Cost: parking an aircraft carrier or putting aircraft in Turkey won't be without a dollar cost.

3. The US doesn't like to tie down it's aircraft carriers long term unless there is a significant national interest involved.

4. Perhaps most important: The US public is generally opposed to any intervention in Syria. The US is war weary at this point. One aircraft going down in Syrian territory (mechanical failure or being shot down) would cause significant domestic problems. The American public is actually pretty non-interventionist at this point.

 

[Twain]

The US or Europe don't look willing to put up the ground forces. African forces are proven to be too corrupt to trust to keep al Qaeda from getting hold of some weapons. And under the circumstances I don't think the rebels would tolerate a Russian presence due to ties to the Assads. Do you think the Chinese would be willing to take the job as a way to demonstrate their reach as a global power?

I'm certainly no china expert but I doubt it. The Chinese attitude toward internal security seems to be that whatever happens inside a countries borders is that country's business and no one else should get involved.

The place to station backup forces is Turkey, not on naval vessels. You can position and secure large fully mechanized units from there and a much larger and more capable aircraft force. A carrier offshore is too vulnerable to a Syrian cruise missile attack in case of a sudden breakout scenario.

That would certainly offer options for more capabilities but for the reasons I listed above, I just don't see the US putting any forces into this conflict long term.

 

[colay]

The prospect of isolating Iran and reducing it's influence within the region would be in the US national interest. The Saudis have expressed willingness to bankroll any military intervention so let them pick up the tab. No one wants to contain Iran than the Saudis and other Gulf States. IMO it's the boots on the ground that is not acceptable at this time, an air campaign will be tolerated. If not, may as well pull back all forward deployed forces to CONUS as US power projection will have become a paper tiger.

 

[Twain]

The prospect of isolating Iran and reducing it's influence within the region would be in the US national interest. The Saudis have expressed willingness to bankroll any military intervention so let them pick up the tab. No one wants to contain Iran than the Saudis and other Gulf States. IMO it's the boots on the ground that is not acceptable at this time, an air campaign will be tolerated. If not, may as well pull back all forward deployed forces to CONUS as US power projection will have become a paper tiger.

I agree that the outside support is really aimed at removing Assad and weakening Iran. The question is this, will removing Assad (or even weakening him) and thereby weakening Iran really be the only result and would the outcome be worse for the US even with a weakened Iran. With all the various factions involved in Syria, no one can accurately predict that.

Even if Assad leaves the country, is killed etc. That war will be far from over. Between the Kurds, several militant Islamist groups, Syrian national rebels etc., who ends up with any power in the resultant vacuum? Odds are it won't be a government that is friendly to western nations and it certainly won't be friendly with Russia. It could easily result in another Taliban style country. From the US point of view, is that cost worth weakening Iran?

 

[Feanor]

Why wouldn't it be friendly with Russia? Look at Libya. For all the ties Gaddafi had to Russia, the new government recently had negotiations with Russia revolving around unfreezing the pre-war weapons contracts.

 

[Twain]

Why wouldn't it be friendly with Russia? Look at Libya. For all the ties Gaddafi had to Russia, the new government recently had negotiations with Russia revolving around unfreezing the pre-war weapons contracts.

Well I don't know that unfreezing weapons contracts means that there are friendly relations. They need weapons. Trade with a country doesn't necessarily imply friendly relations.

Secondly Russia has taken a much more direct and long term approach to supporting Assad than they did with Gadaffi.

 

[Feanor]

Well I don't know that unfreezing weapons contracts means that there are friendly relations. They need weapons. Trade with a country doesn't necessarily imply friendly relations.

Secondly Russia has taken a much more direct and long term approach to supporting Assad than they did with Gadaffi.

True. On the other hand weapon sales aren't just trade. They're political in nature. And the fact that the Libyans didn't go to China, Iran, North Korea, or the west for weapons isn't an accident. Your second point is far more persuasive. But I have a strong suspicion that it wouldn't take long for the new regime to find itself in need of weapons, and lose their support from the west.

 

[Lcf]

"Al-Qaeda-linked militants seized a key northern Syrian town from rebels on Wednesday, as mounting friction between anti-*government extremists and more moderate, Western-backed opposition factions erupted into all-out conflict."

Al-Qaeda-linked fighters seize Syrian town of Azaz from more moderate rebels - The Washington Post

And off we go...

 

[STURM]

Interesting. The article here mentions someone ''embedded'' [don't quite like the word] with a Syruan army unit in the Damascus suburd where the chemicals were used; it seems there was a Syrian army local offensive on at that time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...tal--untouched-by-obamas-threats-8825005.html

There was also a pic of someone using an I-Pad as a make do ballistics computer for his mortar. Not sure how this is possible and what software one would use.

One aircraft going down in Syrian territory (mechanical failure or being shot down) would cause significant domestic problems. The American public is actually pretty non-interventionist at this point.

Which reminds me of the 2 [or was it 1?] USN A-7s shot down by the Syrians in Lebanon back in the 1980's. If I remember correctly, the pilots were handed over to Jesse Jackson.

If not, may as well pull back all forward deployed forces to CONUS as US power projection will have become a paper tiger.

Not really, it provides Uncle Sam with the means to respond in the event that something happens to threaten Western interests, it reassures countries like Saudi Arabia who are worried about internal security and it keeps the Sunni Gulf States Arabs safe from the ''heretic'' Iranians. I believe that the withdrawal of Western troops and bases from Arab lands will solve a lot of issues but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

From the US point of view, is that cost worth weakening Iran?

Well the countries that are doing what the're doing to rid themselves of Assad seem to think so.

The fall of the Alawite Baathist government - as all of use here are aware - will severely weaken Iran and leave it even more isolated, and would also severely affect Hezbollah; this would make the West, the Israelis and Sunni Arabs happy campers. In the past, Assad has made it clear that he would never severe his strategic ties with Iran and Iran has said the same with regards to Syria, on a number of occasions. A few years ago, the Israeli's demanded that Assad ditch Iran as condition for parts of the Golan to be returned; Assad refused. Assad the elder was the only Arab statesman who provided assistance to Iran, during the 8 year war which Saddam started with the tactic approval of Washington, London, Riyadh, Cairo, Amman and quite a few other countries; the Iranians haven't forgotten the debt they owe Syria.

 

[colay]

I agree that the outside support is really aimed at removing Assad and weakening Iran. The question is this, will removing Assad (or even weakening him) and thereby weakening Iran really be the only result and would the outcome be worse for the US even with a weakened Iran. With all the various factions involved in Syria, no one can accurately predict that.

Even if Assad leaves the country, is killed etc. That war will be far from over. Between the Kurds, several militant Islamist groups, Syrian national rebels etc., who ends up with any power in the resultant vacuum? Odds are it won't be a government that is friendly to western nations and it certainly won't be friendly with Russia. It could easily result in another Taliban style country. From the US point of view, is that cost worth weakening Iran?

In a cold-blooded calculus, some governments would accept a fragmented Syria mired in fighting that effectively removes a key Iranian ally from the equation. Sucks for the Syrian people who will be pawns in all this mayhem though.

 

[Feanor]

In a cold-blooded calculus, some governments would accept a fragmented Syria mired in fighting that effectively removes a key Iranian ally from the equation. Sucks for the Syrian people who will be pawns in all this mayhem though.

I doubt the idea of a Somalia-like failed state on the borders of Israel and Turkey would be well received. In fact it could even spill over into Iraq, which has only narrowly avoided a civil war itself.

 

[colay]

I doubt the idea of a Somalia-like failed state on the borders of Israel and Turkey would be well received. In fact it could even spill over into Iraq, which has only narrowly avoided a civil war itself.

I was thinking of a Lebanon scenario, with multiple factions engaged, each with their respective backers. Lots of dogs in this fight. Ultimately the Syrian people will be the decisive factor on what emerges from the rubble.

 

[STURM]

Was going through the Wall Street Journal, there was a report about an FSA commander who was fire upon and killed by another faction, whilst escorting Turkish and Malaysian aid workers. It seems the other faction mistook the Malaysian flag - stuck to vehicles used to distrubute food - for the U.S. flag [the same thing happened to Malaysian troops on a number of occasions in Somalia - friend of mine who was there told me that his patrol was actually approached by apologetic Somali gunmen who offered them a quanity of khat for compensation!]. The report also mentions that the FSA has been forced out of a few key areas by other factions who are better armed.

It seems the chemicals used were originally sold to Yemen, Egypt and Libya. The article raises other interesting stuff as to doubts some have at the UN and why Assad would use chemicals whilst the UN was there.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/gas-missiles-were-not-sold-to-syria-8831792.html

Syria has handed the UN a list of its stockpile.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-of-chemical-weapons-to-watchdog-8831501.html

 

[colay]

If the chemical weapons were indeed looted from Libyan stockpiles and are presumably in hands of non-state actors unfriendly to the West, then this could just be a preview of things to come. The decision not to put boots on the ground in Libya if only to secure WMD depots will have come home to roost and given the same hesitation in Syria, the diploatic maneuverings had better succeed.

 

[STURM]

The danger is chemicals ending up in the hands of any non-state actors that are 'unfriendly' to anyone - not only the West - who does not agree with them or who hold opposing views. The question is, how long will it be before chemicals end up in other places?

Strangely enough, the rebels appear not have many MANPADS, or perhaps the ones obtained from Libyan stocks or elsewhere were mostly time expired?

 

[colay]

The danger is chemicals ending up in the hands of any non-state actors that are 'unfriendly' to anyone - not only the West - who does not agree with them or who hold opposing views. The question is, how long will it be before chemicals end up in other places?

Strangely enough, the rebels appear not have many MANPADS, or perhaps the ones obtained from Libyan stocks or elsewhere were mostly time expired?

You're right, it's not just the West who is at risk.
As fr the MANPADS, maye we can take some comfort that the 20,000 figure floated in media is probably overstated.. still that leaves thousands of launchers/missiles unaccounted for.,Scary.

MANPADS Myths in Libya | Cato @ Liberty