US Involvement in Syria - Iran

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Chop, Feb 25, 2021.

  1. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    It's exactly what happened. The US government gave weapons to Al Qaeda in northern Iraq after they were beaten back by US/Iraq forces and directed them to go attack Assad. It is super messy because the US flip flops who our allies and enemies are in the region.
     
  2. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    Him too. But Khashoggi was part of the Muslim Brotherhood.
     
  3. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Nation building doesn't work. If you can push change via things like "Arab Spring" without military involvement go ahead. If it takes our troops on the ground to keep the peace then walk away. I was supportive of the first Gulf War. The second was one of choice. Sadam was contained by all measures until the trumped up evidence by the Cheney cabal. If anything it forced us to take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan which mired us in multi-theater wars for decades. I strongly believe that had we not toppled Sadam we'd be out of Afghanistan by now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • WTF? WTF? x 1
  4. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    If we want to take China down, convince them to take over the job of policing Afghanistan.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    That's a brilliant idea. China shares a 47M border with Afghanistan. Entice them to try to tame it.

    Alas, not sure Afghanistan has many natural resources for China to care about.
     
  6. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    The broader question—

    So when should we intervene in a foreign war?
     
  7. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Better question: when should we intervene when the the Deep State intervenes in a foreign country?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    I’m using “we” for the US.
     
  9. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    So am I.
     
  10. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    Please explain yourself. Not following you here. Regards.
     
  11. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    I was being clever.

    Better question: when should [US citizens] intervene when the the Deep State intervenes in a foreign country?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Also, the Deep state has used other countries to interfere in foreign conflicts. Even Reagan did it with Iran-Contra. Thus, the following works as well:

    Better question: when should [US government oversight] intervene when the the Deep State intervenes in a foreign country?
     
  13. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    I see a huge difference between the CIA helping out foreign friendlies on the one hand, and our military bombing and invading a foreign land on the other hand.

    IMHO, Chile was masterfully played by our covert actors—no US troops on the ground, not even any bombing by the USN or USAF, but still achieving the desired outcome.

    Contrast that with cluster&$@!s like Benghazi, Somalia, the Balkans, etc.
     
  14. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    I’m drawing a distinction between covert actions by our spies and other actors, versus the involvement of our military forces.

    The former is not military intervention. It’s war without going to war. The latter is military intervention.
     
  15. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    Banking actions can also be pushing weight around without going to war. See Deutsche Bank versus Greece. The Germans didn’t have to roll panzers down the streets of Athens to get their way.
     
  16. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    What was Libya and/or Syria? Seems like your line is being blurred by the Deep State.
     
  17. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    In Syria, our military has clearly intervened. The USAF just bombed the crap out of some base. That’s military intervention.

    And you can bet that there are those within our government and there are (some) flag officers that are itching for us to get into a larger war.
     
  18. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    Yeah, what if the Saudis attained sole superpower status in the future and came over here figuring that if they just installed the right monarch and the right religious clerics, we would naturally come to emulate them.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. nashhorn

    nashhorn 5,000+ Posts

    Absolutely the truth. Was privileged to hear Margaret Thatcher discuss this very thing in my youth and I absolutely believe this. Hence my abhorrence for us starting wars. Defense, absolutely. Regime change - NO.
     
  20. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

  21. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    Is this SMU v. Houston or more like OSU v. Tech? Lesser rivals that deserve each other.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  22. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    I'd say many of the states in that part of the world "deserve each other."

    The Turks are historically strong--very, very strong (and very, very brutal). But this ain't history, this is 2021. A larger conflict between the two would call into question whether the old Cold War NATO commitments are worth it anymore. I can't see us getting into a war to save Turkey's bacon. But (absent major Russian intervention), Turkey's bacon won't need savin'. Assad is good at beating down his own people (with Vlad's help). Defeating a foreign nation at least as big and powerful as Syria is a different story entirely. I don't think Vlad will risk starting a bigger war with us over Turkey. But he (Putin) is currently by far the smartest diplomat in the world. So you can almost bank on us getting played by Putin.

    A possible scenario would be Putin helping Assad beat back the Turks from the sliver of Syria that they've already occupied, and getting to test some Russian planes, equipment, and troops in real battle. Maybe Syria ends up occupying some small portion of "disputed territory." Syria invading Turkey--very, very unlikely.
     
  23. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    In the region, Biden is now weighing a troop extension in Afghanistan. The place where empires go to die.
     
    • poop poop x 1
  24. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Our intelligence/military community are the ones calling the shots. They can't let go of the control they think they have over the area. We really need someone to come in force them to reverse course. They won't do it on their own. It will be a fight. They will use the news media to smear and slander. But it's costing American blood and treasure for no benefit.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. mb227

    mb227 2,500+ Posts

    It certainly helped to kill off the USSR.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  26. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Isn't Russian General Gromov the one who told US to not go into Afghanistan, just send money. Cheaper and just as productive.
     
    • Hot Hot x 1
  27. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

  28. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    Our military kicks a$$ in the field, in the air, and on (and under) the seas. Long-term occupation and policing of a hostile nation, however, is an entirely different matter. It's almost impossible. That's the quagmire the often drags us down.

    Look at the 2nd Gulf War. A total and complete a$$ whoopin by our men and women in the field. Great job at the war fighting part. But occupying and policing such a place after the war, with many competing groups where many like us and many hate us, isn't really something the military is designed to do. Contrast that with the 1st Gulf War. Another total and complete a$$ whoopin by our men and women in the field--but without the occupation and long-term policing of a hostile country after the war fighting. That ended up a lot better.

    A civil war, like Afghanistan or Syria -- even worse. Modern militaries are designed to fight and defeat an opposing military, not to police them in perpetuity, and not to get Tribe A to accept the hated Tribe B and vice versa.

    Post WW2 Japan -- not hostile. Same with Germany, but with some lingering hostile nazi party types running around. So. Korea -- not hostile.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts


    Bing is spot-on right about this part:

    "...Bing correctly points out that our military could never transform Afghanistan..."

    There are places on Earth with civilizations over 2,000 years old. Debating and educating them on our versions of political theory won't transform them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    But what you call policing is really lasting victory. It is why we lose because we can't get the political goal we want at the end. Part of it is due to not knowing how to deal with tribal, decentralized societies. The other problem is that we are trying to force another country to live as we live. We can apply pressure while we are there but the second we leave they are going to live like they want.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page