Syrian Intervention?

SGT James Elphick — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:19:26 -0400

Lately many Republicans in Congress have been pushing for a "more robust" strategy for dealing with the humanitarian crisis in Syria and are making claims that the current administration has no "Syrian strategy". Is this a political ploy to try to make the Obama Administration look weak on Foreign Policy or are they actually suggesting that just as we are finally winding down our wars that we get more involved in that mess?

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Apr 10 at 2014 10:50 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:50:28 -0400

This is robust:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=093_ [login to see]

LiveLeak.com - Firing of BGM-71 TOW Missile by AlQaeda in Syria Donated Kindly by the USA

Footage published on the fifth of April 2014 shows a new type of weapon in the rebel's arsenal; The BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missile.

Apparently shot near Heesh, Idlib Governorate.

There is only one

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2014 10:55 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:55:31 -0400

I have read several books by Sec. Rice and Gates and Syria is nothing new, it's just "newer" to report on. Syria is a legit threat. To us and especially to our Israeli allies - although our relations with them have gone slightly south since Pres. Obama took office.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2014 11:13 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 23:13:48 -0400

I have done a lot of study on this area, especially since my MOS is geared toward this area. There are a couple of things that make tho difficult. First, by striking against Assad, we would be "forcing" Russia's hand to become involved. Russia and the Syrian government have very strong ties, and Putin had warned about becoming involved if others did. Also, Russia has a military base in Syria. It considers this base strategic for its access in the Mediterranean.

Secondly, it is not an easy task to aid the Free Army. The Free Army is full of very extremists groups who, when not fighting against the government, fight against each other. This inner struggle has become so violent, that the leader for Al-Qaeda actually commanded them to stop after one of his top leaders was killed in Syria. These groups include the ISIL, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, etc. Some of these groups have also been reported to be fighting against the Kurds and even threatening Turkey. I cannot see anyway we could get involved with either side at this juncture.

I have seen videos of violence being carried out by the government where civilians are targeted because they live in a city or area that is controlled by the rebels. However, the violence shown by the Free Army and their loyalties would prevent any President, I believe, to become involved on a wide- scale. Also, sanctions probably would not help. The people are struggling as it is. The refugee numbers are growing daily. Jordan's economy is being wrecked by the added population. It is a very sad situation.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Feb 11 at 2015 2:50 PM

COL Ted Mc — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:50:24 -0500

From "The Guardian"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/10/guardian-view-bashar-al-assad-bbc-interview-lies-tyrant

The Guardian view on Bashar al-Assad’s BBC interview: the lies of a tyrant

Bashar al-Assad’s BBC interview may not have broken any new ground regarding what the Syrian leader thinks about the tragic situation in his country or in the wider region. But it did portray a man of utter cynicism and terrifying self-confidence.

The crisis in Syria is approaching its fourth anniversary. It started in March 2011 with a popular peaceful uprising against Mr Assad, which six months later morphed into a civil war after the regime began using snipers, machine guns and tanks against the crowds. The death toll now stands at over 210,000. There are around 3 million refugees in neighbouring states and a third of the 22-million-strong Syrian population, trying to flee the fighting, is internally displaced.

Watching Mr Assad smugly commenting in an almost casual way about this ongoing calamity sounded like an exercise in denial. There were no words of empathy for a population that his troops have massacred, leaving whole cities, including Homs and Aleppo, in a state of ruin reminiscent of such 20th-century horrors as Guernica or Dresden. Thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of Syrians have been detained and tortured, some to death, in Mr Assad’s dungeons. Behind the slick images of an interview in a presidential palace, a whole country is being methodically and ruthlessly sacrificed to the interests of the Assad dynasty. This is a leader who feels, or wants to appear to feel, able to discuss regional politics like any other regional leader. This is an impression that is both flawed and problematic.

It is flawed because ...

[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- It's always difficult for a free and democratic country with a (reasonably) honest government to chose whether to support the corrupt, venal, murderous dictator who supports terrorism or the venal murderous terrorists who support corrupt dictatorships.]

The Guardian view on Bashar al-Assad’s BBC interview: the lies of a tyrant | Editorial

Editorial: The Syrian dictator is profiting from the west’s lack of strategy, while the bloodshed he unleashes leads a country to ruin