General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre we heading for a ground war in Syria?
IS can't be destroyed without a ground war in Syria (stated objective). Nor could Assad be taken down without a ground war (stated objective). Who in our newly minted coalition of the willing (US, Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland! and Denmark) will be providing the ground troops? Even if the Iraqi army and the Peshmerga could drive IS out of Iraq without ground help, which they can't, they aren't going to follow them into Syria, where they are based. Only one county has promised to chase them to the gates of hell. Don't count on us training a moderate Syrian army from the rebels. While we have a great deal of recent experience in attempting to start armies, they are not reliable or very successful and take years to become operational.
This has the hallmarks of Iraq 2.0. An open-ended, ill-defined preemptive military action in a country that we cannot control. We are gearing up to fighting at least two sides of a brutal and lengthy civil war. This military action is being described in terms of months. Already we are entering the second month of the Iraq air war, which was billed as lasting "weeks." And at $7.5 million a day, that becomes real money at some point.
Either we are being lied to or we are being lied to. Either we aren't actually going to try to destroy IS and remove Assad or we are heading for a Syrian ground war.
RoverSuswade
(641 posts)In 2021 it will probably be Africa we are colonizing.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I think it will be more containment. The whole thing is too much of a mess for anyone to get involved and neither Assad or ISIS are to be trusted. While there are some moderate "rebels", I think backing them would be a terrible idea.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)While I agree we should get rid of ISIS, the problem remains how. Considering they are spread out over several countries that will be difficult. Even if we got rid of them in Iraq, they'll just run to Syria and other places. It does no good really. Syria and Iraq really need to deal with the problem on their own, but neither are capable of it.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Can't start wars with lukewarm objectives and expect anyone to join in.
Can't let the Free Syrian Army win without tons of vetting and this takes time and testing them.
Can't have US troops on the ground. Just no.
Can possibly get support from Arab nations. If not then mere containment. If yes then strategic attempts to weaken over a long time horizon.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I sure as shit wouldn't want his job with all the crap going on these days. It just keeps getting worse.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)moondust
(19,993 posts)I would recommend watching this week's Charlie Rose. Robert Ford, the former ambassador to Syria who resigned earlier this year, has a lot of insight to offer on all these current issues in the region. He says the FSA is still pretty viable (for fighting ISIS on the ground there) and Assad's forces are getting tired. He seems to think a "third way" in Syria is possible with the cooperation of Russia and Iran, in this case meaning a new inclusive government rather than an either/or choice between Assad and the FSA. Much more.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)and full of those who could join Isis Nusra whatever. Isis pays better $400 a month.
moondust
(19,993 posts)Plus some oil wells in the areas they control.
Besides Sunni vs. Shia, loyalties in all those groups are beyond me.