Syria

[TGHusker]

Another view . . .

 

http://drezner.forei..._realism_stupid

 

Quite the theory.

Carl, you have to sign up to read this. What did it say in a nutshell?

[TGHusker]

Cold war part 2 developing over Middle East sand oil.

agree - it was implied

[carlfense]

Another view . . .

 

http://drezner.forei..._realism_stupid

 

Quite the theory.

Carl, you have to sign up to read this. What did it say in a nutshell?

That US interests might be (brutally) served by prolonging the conflict in Syria. The goal being the decimation of Hezbollah (on Assad's side) and the al-Queda affiliated jihadists (on the rebel side). Also, an outside shot of drawing the Iranian regime into the conflict and thereby further straining them.

 

The idea is basically that "for the low, low, cost of arming rebels" we are advancing our own agenda without risking American lives. In theory.

 

. . . To recap, the goal of that policy is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible.

 

This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished.... at an appalling toll in lives lost.

This policy doesn't require any course correction... so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. A faltering Assad simply forces Iran et al into doubling down and committing even more resources. A faltering rebel movement, on the other hand, does require some external support, lest the Iranians actually win the conflict. In a related matter, arming the rebels also prevents relations with U.S. allies in the region from fraying any further.

So is this the first step towards another U.S.-led war in the region? No. Everything in that Timesstory, and everything this administration has said and done for the past two years, screams deep reluctance over intervention. Arming the rebels is not the same thing as a no-fly zone or any kind of ground intervention. This is simply the United States engaging in its own form of asymmetric warfare. For the low, low price of aiding and arming the rebels, the U.S. preoccupies all of its adversaries in the Middle East.

 

. . .

[TGHusker]

Another view . . .

 

http://drezner.forei..._realism_stupid

 

Quite the theory.

Carl, you have to sign up to read this. What did it say in a nutshell?

That US interests might be (brutally) served by prolonging the conflict in Syria. The goal being the decimation of Hezbollah (on Assad's side) and the al-Queda affiliated jihadists (on the rebel side). Also, an outside shot of drawing the Iranian regime into the conflict and thereby further straining them.

 

The idea is basically that "for the low, low, cost of arming rebels" we are advancing our own agenda without risking American lives. In theory.

 

. . . To recap, the goal of that policy is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible.

 

This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished.... at an appalling toll in lives lost.

This policy doesn't require any course correction... so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. A faltering Assad simply forces Iran et al into doubling down and committing even more resources. A faltering rebel movement, on the other hand, does require some external support, lest the Iranians actually win the conflict. In a related matter, arming the rebels also prevents relations with U.S. allies in the region from fraying any further.

 

So is this the first step towards another U.S.-led war in the region? No. Everything in that Timesstory, and everything this administration has said and done for the past two years, screams deep reluctance over intervention. Arming the rebels is not the same thing as a no-fly zone or any kind of ground intervention. This is simply the United States engaging in its own form of asymmetric warfare. For the low, low price of aiding and arming the rebels, the U.S. preoccupies all of its adversaries in the Middle East.

 

. . .

Interesting - as long it doesn't get us dancing with Russia - who may want to keep supporting Syria to 'save face' so to speak. I would agree, it is better for the radical elements to be killing each other off vs us sending our own men into harms way.

[carlfense]

Interesting - as long it doesn't get us dancing with Russia - who may want to keep supporting Syria to 'save face' so to speak.

Yeah . . . I'm reminded of von Moltke's wise words about battle plans . . .

[TGHusker]

Interesting - as long it doesn't get us dancing with Russia - who may want to keep supporting Syria to 'save face' so to speak.

Yeah . . . I'm reminded of von Moltke's wise words about battle plans . . .

Good one and oh so true: “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.” – Helmuth von Moltke

[walksalone]

Interesting - as long it doesn't get us dancing with Russia - who may want to keep supporting Syria to 'save face' so to speak.

Yeah . . . I'm reminded of murphy's laws of combat

 

FIFY

[lo country]

Here is a good article that shows the no-win that we are now in. Historical info as well.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-aid-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html

[husker_99]

Us backing Syrian rebels makes you wonder if we ever have a civil war again in our own country who would the other nations ally themselves with?

[walksalone]

Us backing Syrian rebels makes you wonder if we ever have a civil war again in our own country who would the other nations ally themselves with?

 

[StPaulHusker]

Us backing Syrian rebels makes you wonder if we ever have a civil war again in our own country who would the other nations ally themselves with?

I can honestly say I have never wondered that.

[husker_99]

Us backing Syrian rebels makes you wonder if we ever have a civil war again in our own country who would the other nations ally themselves with?

I can honestly say I have never wondered that.

Civil War happened once it can happen again.

[walksalone]

Us backing Syrian rebels makes you wonder if we ever have a civil war again in our own country who would the other nations ally themselves with?

I can honestly say I have never wondered that.

Civil War happened once it can happen again.

 

[husker_99]

Us backing Syrian rebels makes you wonder if we ever have a civil war again in our own country who would the other nations ally themselves with?

I can honestly say I have never wondered that.

Civil War happened once it can happen again.

 

I knew you wouldn't be too far behind walks you like to follow me around.

[walksalone]

I knew you wouldn't be too far behind walks you like to follow me around.