The Syrian War Is Spreading: Should U.S. Get Involved?

[Circe]

The war talk against Syria is heating up in the U.S. administration, and also in Europe.

My analysis is that no one much cares if Syrians kill each other: Syrians are pretty much the enemies of everyone everywhere, so them killing each other does the world a favor. Certainly no one has bothered to intervene over the full year the war has been going on.

However, their Civil War is indeed spreading. Hundreds of thousands are now in Turkish refugee camps, and besides the obvious food and sanitation problems, the refugees have started to fight among themselves, in large groups. Also, there have been border skirmishes from Syria into Turkey. Turkey is of course a member of NATO, which potentially involves Europe and the USA if Turkey calls for help.

It appears Iran may have been making use of the civil war to supply Hezbollah with modern rockets and artillery to attack Israel; at any rate, Israel seems to have bombed these military supply lines twice this weekend, resulting in hours of explosions last night, presumably because they hit an arsenal that blew up.

So the war is spreading into Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, and Iran is messing around with it, as Syria is a client state of Iran's.

Does that give the USA a reason to go in, and if we do, on which side and what would be the war goals? Troops on the ground or air only?

 

[dilloduck]

The war talk against Syria is heating up in the U.S. administration, and also in Europe.

My analysis is that no one much cares if Syrians kill each other: Syrians are pretty much the enemies of everyone everywhere, so them killing each other does the world a favor. Certainly no one has bothered to intervene over the full year the war has been going on.

However, their Civil War is indeed spreading. Hundreds of thousands are now in Turkish refugee camps, and besides the obvious food and sanitation problems, the refugees have started to fight among themselves, in large groups. Also, there have been border skirmishes from Syria into Turkey. Turkey is of course a member of NATO, which potentially involves Europe and the USA if Turkey calls for help.

It appears Iran may have been making use of the civil war to supply Hezbollah with modern rockets and artillery to attack Israel; at any rate, Israel seems to have bombed these military supply lines twice this weekend, resulting in hours of explosions last night, presumably because they hit an arsenal that blew up.

So the war is spreading into Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, and Iran is messing around with it, as Syria is a client state of Iran's.

Does that give the USA a reason to go in, and if we do, on which side and what would be the war goals? Troops on the ground or air only?

IMHO it was a civil unrest that mushroomed because it occured in an area that has been unstable for decades. Turkey and Israel can defend themselves quite easily. Why would the US even consider spending more money and lives on this mess ?

 

[MHunterB]

I think our ONLY contribution should be in assisting the neighboring nations to create and administer refugee camps - to the extent that any of those nations is willing.

IFF we are to put any 'troops on the ground', it should be the engineering units - to create safe and sanitary refuges for the Syrian people trying to escape the conflict.

 

[Katzndogz]

The war talk against Syria is heating up in the U.S. administration, and also in Europe.

My analysis is that no one much cares if Syrians kill each other: Syrians are pretty much the enemies of everyone everywhere, so them killing each other does the world a favor. Certainly no one has bothered to intervene over the full year the war has been going on.

However, their Civil War is indeed spreading. Hundreds of thousands are now in Turkish refugee camps, and besides the obvious food and sanitation problems, the refugees have started to fight among themselves, in large groups. Also, there have been border skirmishes from Syria into Turkey. Turkey is of course a member of NATO, which potentially involves Europe and the USA if Turkey calls for help.

It appears Iran may have been making use of the civil war to supply Hezbollah with modern rockets and artillery to attack Israel; at any rate, Israel seems to have bombed these military supply lines twice this weekend, resulting in hours of explosions last night, presumably because they hit an arsenal that blew up.

So the war is spreading into Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, and Iran is messing around with it, as Syria is a client state of Iran's.

Does that give the USA a reason to go in, and if we do, on which side and what would be the war goals? Troops on the ground or air only?

obama started it. He shouldn't be allowed anywhere NEAR the middle east. Not even a phone call.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Syrian War Is Spreading: Should U.S. Get Involved?

The opposite of whatever OBama says

 

[waltky]

Granny says...

... Obama wants to 'study' it some more...

... in the meantime let's arm the rebels...

... an' let `em sort it out demselves...

... no sense in fightin' the Arabs battles fer `em...

... as long as dey continue to gouge us on oil.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The U.S. should absolutely NOT get involved! That's on the other side of the entire planet! We need to get our own shit together before meddling in other people's nonsense.

 

[Circe]

It's interesting that so far no one here has supported the idea of the U.S. getting into this at all.

I don't support ANY involvement: the more they all kill each other, the better off for the West, IMO.

 

[MHunterB]

What's interesting to me is, I think we've seen posts from 'both sides of the aisle' here - and all saying about the same thing.

The ONLY 'action' I am willing to see our people involved in is humanitarian and OUTside of Syria proper. And that is as much for the benefit of training our own troops to do 'disaster recovery' , which will benefit our own citizens in the event of a 'Katrina' or a 'Sandy' or floods along the Mississippi.

 

[Katzndogz]

It was a humanitarian mission that ended in having an American dragged through the streets of Mogadishu and the movie Blackhawk Down that wasn't just a movie.

 

[Circe]

It was a humanitarian mission that ended in having an American dragged through the streets of Mogadishu and the movie Blackhawk Down that wasn't just a movie.

Yes, I don't think Turkey is inviting us to help on the caretaking issues of the refugee problem, though it is huge and increasing. The problem is more the war itself is spreading now.

As long as Israel holds its own (and by itself), I don't care if it spreads. It is not yet apparent how the Obama administration could use this pretext for war on Iran, which is the only way I can see it as important geopolitically.

Like Mogadishu, Syria is otherwise completely unimportant. It has no oil, Israel can repeatedly punish it with no hope of reply and often has, and other than Israel, the war can immediately spread only into areas of no more importance to our national interests than Rwanda was, namely Lebanon and Jordan and Turkey and such. I'd say it simply doesn't matter, so far: let it burn itself out unless it spreads to, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran.

 

[Circe]

It is interesting that the rebels and the Syrian government both accuse each other of use of Sarin and what-not chemical weapons; they recognize that this actually may be a "red line."

I thought about that -- it's because we are trying to outlaw the use of these weapons in war (a hopeless task in the long run, all weapon are always normalized, but delay is the main tactic of all politics) along with nukes and biologicals. However, by now everyone knows from the Hezbollah experience that those types lie and lie and lie and lie, doesn't matter which side they are, they are certainly lying. Looks to me like so far nobody has used chemical weapons but both sides are lying that the other did. This is NOT a good reason to go to war.

 

[dilloduck]

It is interesting that the rebels and the Syrian government both accuse each other of use of Sarin and what-not chemical weapons; they recognize that this actually may be a "red line."

I thought about that -- it's because we are trying to outlaw the use of these weapons in war (a hopeless task in the long run, all weapon are always normalized, but delay is the main tactic of all politics) along with nukes and biologicals. However, by now everyone knows from the Hezbollah experience that those types lie and lie and lie and lie, doesn't matter which side they are, they are certainly lying. Looks to me like so far nobody has used chemical weapons but both sides are lying that the other did. This is NOT a good reason to go to war.

However wiping civilians out with "conventional" weapons is somehow totally acceptable. War is stupid.

 

[Katzndogz]

The situation in the middle east is a direct result of obama's failed mid east policies. Of course chemical weapons have been used in Syria. There are the bodies of the dead to prove it. But, miracle of miracles, obama says that such weapons have not been used and gullible people believe it. They want to believe it. That makes it true.

An American invasion or help in the middle east can only make things worse. The policies were wrong, are wrong and will continue to be wrong. We cannot fix that mess. All America should do, or can do, is stand back and let someone else fix this latest obama mess. Someone that isn't so foolish.

obama isn't interested in leadership. His goal is to do everything he can to destroy the nation and especially destroy the republicans. It blinds him to any action that could otherwise be taken. His first consideration is "How can this hurt republicans?" Not whether it is the right thing to do or even the workable thing to do.

 

[Desperado]

Absolutely no involvement. Not our problem.
have we not learned our lesson? Never get involved in a civil war.

 

[Circe]

The situation in the middle east is a direct result of obama's failed mid east policies. Of course chemical weapons have been used in Syria. There are the bodies of the dead to prove it. But, miracle of miracles, obama says that such weapons have not been used and gullible people believe it. They want to believe it. That makes it true.

I am following all this closely and I think there is constant, prolific lying going on on both sides with the strong desire by many Syrians to get the U.S. into the war.

Not everything is about Obama. Some things involve other countries and other peoples. He's not so powerful that everything in the world is about him.

Obama stupidly said that "red line" thing, I guess it was stupid, because it just invites all Syrians to lie, and it invites all O's domestic enemies to constantly say there's been Sarin and he's not doing his red-liney thing!

Biggest political game in the country is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, on many issues. I'm not interested in all that nonsense. It's all lies anyway.

 

[Circe]

However wiping civilians out with "conventional" weapons is somehow totally acceptable. War is stupid.

War isn't stupid. War is an evolved method of intraspecific evolution on the inbreeding group level. I.e., Indians lose and we get their land.

There is no use saying that qualities that have been part of the human condition forever and will be forever are "stupid," IMO.

It's in our national interests to keep down the atrocity level of wars, such as fighting with disease, poison gas, or nuclear bombs. All that has been done, and a lot more than most people know in the first two cases. We are trying to keep that genie in the bottle before they stream out over Baltimore and Boston, via guerrilla invaders. It's in our interests because we have drones and tanks and a navy and many high-tech weapons and they don't. So we can make war and they can't, is the idea.

Smallpox, though, or bird flu or SARS or anthrax -------- anyone could do those, and deliver them. So best make these weapons illegal and "red-lined."

 

[Katzndogz]

There is certainly a strong desire on the part of al quaeda to involve us in the Syrian civil war because obama has been supporting them from the first.

To obama it's all about obama. Therefore for the United States it's all about obama. He did this. He did this almost single handedly.

To make matters even WORSE, John Fool Kerry is going to Moscow to discuss Syria. If he does that same idiot job that he did in Bolivia, the situation will undoubtably worsen. I just hope that Putin realizes that Kerry is a really stupid man and dismisses anything he says as coming from an unfortunate retard.

 

[Katzndogz]

He did this. He did this almost single handedly.

I hope you don't mean Obama cooked up the Syrian civil war.

Whoops, we just segued into conspiracy theory, like Bush did 9/11 or Obama did the Boston bombing. Time for me to go work on some garden stuff if the conspiracy theories are getting loose again.

obama didn't need to cook up a civil war. He chose a side, the al quaeda side, at the beginning and gave that side support. Had he not done that, Assad would have put down the rebellion in a few weeks, at most. Syria would not be back to what ever peaceful country it was. Those thousands of people would not have died. They'd be back living their lives.

What made obama monumentally foolish was thinking he ran the world. He didn't bother to consider that Russia had a vested interest in maintaining the Assad regime and would help him. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have realized that Russia was not going to let their nuclear naval base fall into terrorist hands.

Now, obama has basically forced Iran to publicly support Assad, while it is arming terrorists at the same time. Moreover, using the conflict in Syria to transport weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

This isn't a fine kettle of fish, but it is obama's kettle of fish.

 

[editec]

Putting US boots on Syrian soil would be a stupendous mistake.