To Go To War: Intervention in the Syrian Civil War

It is only a matter of time, especially since it is now known that chemical weapons were used, the red line has been crossed and the world is watching America's reaction. HOWEVER, I would like to ask the community, is it in American interests to go to war/intervene in Syria?

 

I'm not american, so i don't know if support islamic fundamentalists is in american interest.

 

No, because this intervention will affect US history. Look at Europe, for at least two thousands years involvement in the Middle East, and here 'we' (they) go again (ofcourse France and Brittain, because the conflict between France and Brrittain is also historically, for centuries) The error was made two thousand years ago. The West have to take their hands off this conflict. The 'US' (never the common people) is currrently doing the same as Europe did two thousand years ago.

 

Absolutely Not!

There is no possible scenario that is even remotely beneficial to the Syrian people, the United States....or anyone anywhere. We cannot do anything constructive in a place where we are hated by everyone and every side. They do not want our help, so we would be a$$holes to try.

They will kill each other no matter what anyone does....there is no hope of preventing it.

 

It's not a yes or no question, it's a "Should the US intervene in this manner or that manner question".

And the decision should be based on what intelligence is coming from the area, and what our goal for the region is.
We are intervening by making speeches, by getting humanitarian aid to the region, by getting arms to one side.
Should we launch a few cruise missiles, bomb some weapons depots, that depends, if there is a good chance this will cause the downfall of Assad, then go for it, should we put boots on the ground, no, that has yielded disappointing results, and there's no reason to think this would be any better.

So it's a judgment call, if a little low risk aerial intervention will tip the scales, like in Libya, go for it.

 

Of course it is a kind of a slippery slope argument, but if cruise missiles/air strikes fail to shake Assad (say Russia gives him good anti-air equipment) there are those in Congress who even after Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq would fully support a land-based option/occupation and a nation-building plan. I think the "surgical" operations like Desert Shield and recently Libya won't work in Syria because of the fact that there is a nation (Russia) that has said they will get involved if we get involved. Add in Iran which is saying that they will get involved as well and you now have Assad/Russia/Hezbollah/Iran vs US/France/UK/Rebels (many who are extremists). Personally, the choice between bad guy Assad and Sharia/extremist guy is easy: Assad. At least he has kept Syria out of the terrorist recruiting/support network which cannot be said of Saudi Arabia the dear frenemy of the US. AND Assad is not a religious extremist and has a secular mindset towards governing (albeit with strong influence from the country's strong Islamic clergy).

 

This is going to end up like the Soviet War in Afghanistan did if we intervene directly.

It's bad enough that we're funneling arms to the rebels, but an actual direct intervention means ousting Assad and replacing him with an Islamist government.

We aided the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and eventually, the Taliban developed there.

If we aid the rebels, groups like Al Nusra will eventually take power in Syria, which means we'll probably end up fighting them and occupying Syria years later.

 

I agree. Sadly, this is not a choice between democratic reform and dictatorship, it is the choice between the lesser of two evils (dictatorship and Islamists). Also, if getting involved in a messy situation weren't enough, Russia has announced that they will bomb Saudi Arabia in retaliation for US intervention. Meaning global economic crisis since oil prices will skyrocket.

 

There are too many unknown factors involving the Syrian situation for many American Right Wingers to feel comfortable supporting our military involvement there.

However, it looks like with Chemical weapons having been used on civilians that any reluctance or bad feelings we might have about getting involved there will be assuaged away and we'll likely punish Assad for his regime's use of those weapons.

Wouldn't it be something if Obama orchestrated all of this in order to help spread radical Islam's control over the entire M.E.?

 

No it is not in our interests to go to war in Syria. Nor is it the decision of the President to go to war in Syria. He needs Congress to decide it.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think we should be going to war in Syria?

 

Oh I think in the end we're not going to. Too many obstacles right now. The fact the UN inspection can't determine who used the Chemical weapons, Russia, Bassad starting to gain the upper hand against the rebels, it would be tough to justify going there.

 

I am suggesting that this bolded part is not an accurate statement

 

http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2013/06/25/17953.shtml
http://www.defence.pk/forums/arab-defence/261194-russia-threatens-bomb-qatar-saudi-arabia.html
http://riyadhconnect.com/moscow-web...-russia-plans-to-bomb-qatar-and-saudi-arabia/

Does this help?

In other news, Russia has been offered (supposedly) OPEC membership and terror immunity for their Olympics next year? Question, if Saudi Arabia can guarantee terror immunity why not just do so for the whole world?
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreen...opec-membership-terror-immunity-for-olympics/

 

I apologize for the double post but in light of the recent information about the rebels using chemical weapons, since the "red line" was to deter the use of chemical weapons, shouldn't Obama then militarily support Assad? After all, it was the rebels who used the chemicals weapons (potentially) so they crossed the red line... Just a stab at the unintended implications at making an arbitrary statement and then finding out that your own friends are breaking the rules.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...syrian-rebels-not-assad-used-chemical-weapons
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/syria-chemical-weapons_n_3820586.html

 

Sure a couple megatons of nuclear strikes will be fine by me. Scare our enemies.

 

NO. the president needs to say that he was wrong about a red line.
Wanting to help the people is admirable but you have to be certain about the leadership you're helping. When deciding this, politics, personalities and egos need to get out of the equation and of course ideally money.

It's not clear enough who fired what, who wants us to be involved and if we would want to support them.
There are people that will do anything to get us in there with endless local and international special interest $ that can finance it which includes encouraging media coverage to put on the pressure to act.

If we do this, things are going to get a lot worse.
There is no little bit of military intervention. Anyone saying so is either naive or seeking a way of making intervention/endless commitment to war in the Middle East sound more acceptable to the public.
(personally, I think this attack is a trap specifically for the U.S.)

Western leadership needs to be looking at the bigger picture that which does not include jumping at symbolic actions that tell the world how righteous their outrage over people being gassed is.
It's not help if the kind of help being asked for is going to make the situation worse/grow for everyone really so they need to get off their high horse and not do what I think they're going to do.

Whatever was used to poison the people needs to be contained but it won't happen without getting Russia, China and Iran on board. Our stance on this with them currently is a quagmire which only pride suffers in changing it. A much easier win/way to protect the people than an intervention.

 

Seems to me like nobel's peace award winning Obama would like a war with Syria. I personally think it's a pretty stupid move because Assad is the better of the two sides, and because it will be bloody and costly, and because russia and iran won't like it. As if the ME isn't (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up already. On the other hand, following it in the news will be interesting. From a purely pragmatic point though, I understand why the US might want to attack.

 

I think the red line was put out there by Obama to provide cover to the rebels to bomb themselves and blame the Syrian government for it. If not, he was very stupid for mentioning it.

 

Obama should better distribute money to poor, homeless and seek persons instead of fighting for Islamic fundamentalism.It is a lie that Assad used toxic gas, there are not any no independent proofs.

 

Not just no. Hell no. Why do people suck this chemical weapon BS down like ice cream?
NO ONE is believable, no one.
And, I simply don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) if koranimals are killing koranimals.

 

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has been boasting about the military's "readiness" yet 4 destroyers vs Syria with is arsenal of newly acquired Russian anti-ship cruise missiles that cannot be shot down by current anti-missile tech aboard those ships. In other words, a US "intervention" would end with Syria very justifiably sinking a ship or two, humiliating the US and destroying what little credibility we have as a nation that can keep the "peace." The US has no real interests in Syria while Russia and Iran have vested interests in supporting Assad as he is either friendly or neutral towards them unlike the Saudis who are openly hostile to Iran and the Turks who house ADA units "against" Russia. Not to mention Russia's naval base in Syria which they lose (along with their strategic plan) if Assad goes down.

 

It's a civil war, not any business of UK, USA or anybody except Syria and surrounding countries.

 

What possible cause could the US have in going to war? How has Syria at all aggressed against them?

Of course, they mean an offensive war to force their desires on the Syrian people, as usual. I guess that answers your question?

I have an interest in what the US does because my puppet 'Australian' government will blindly follow Obama (cough*Bush*cough) into whatever war of aggression he feels like starting.

 

Obama opened his big mouth and now we're stuck with it. if we don't do something, no American President will ever be taken seriously again.

 

While I am no conspiracy theorist, I would like to point out the media silence about Snowden, NSA/spying, etc. While I highly doubt that any intervention in Syria is to distract the nation's HIGHLY short attention span away from domestic affairs/scandals, it is something to think about. Being realistic, if there is a war in Syria or (heaven forbid) Assad sinks a US ship killing some thousand sailors, do people/media talk about NSA or Snowden or on what to do to punish Syria.

It is not necessarily that Syria has threatened the US (it hasn't) but rather, at least initially, was done to bolster the Administration's embarrassing foreign policy "achievements" (Benghazi, Darfur, failure to rebuild relations with Russia). In the beginning of the civil war, it seemed like a pretty good way to rebuild confidence in his foreign policy for Obama to put up a "red line" because, let's be honest, few people actually thought that Assad would use chemical weapons after that. But to the surprise(?) of the Administration, Syria has seen chemical warfare. Now, Obama is caught in the embarrassing situation of either retracting his promise or fire missiles, killing thousands of civilians and combatants alike. Secretary Hagel is already boasting about the military's ability to fight (from what I've seen and heard, the military's non-armchair general echelon is not at all happy about going against Syria).

On another note, why is Syria's use of chemical weapons that bad? Let's speculate that Syria did in fact use chemical weapons upon rebel forces. Why is this such a bad thing? The US has chemical weapons (despite the fact that we cannot use them according to the Geneva Convention). Yet, we still have these deadly weapons. In the unlikely event that the US was being overrun and that any hope of victory was either gone or hanging by a thread, would we seriously not use them? Or our nukes? After all, if it's the end, who really cares about Conventions and treaties and human rights. We're not going to be there for the trial anyway! And if we were, I doubt anybody would put a nation that has just "done the dirty" to survive will be tried by state unengaged. These things become relative when its life or death. In this hypothetical situation, Assad is struggling to remain alive and in power. He has the chemical weapons, why not use them? I think it will make a lot of rebels think twice about going to battle if they know chemicals are on the table. Of course it will infuriate the US, UK, and France but let's face it, the UK is a hollow power. France is going to be bogged down in Africa and the US has 2 carriers and 4 destroyers in the region, near universal domestic DISAPPROVAL against intervention, a massive economic and budget crisis that will prevent it from funding even a limited intervention, and a war in Afghanistan. Syria has allies in Russia and Iran, not to mention the groups of Hezbollah which means Lebanon. Even China which is nearly always against any wars has come out in support for Assad (and the Chinese do NOT get along with religious extremists/enthusiasts).