Exactly my point. There is no reasonable outcome that is good for the US so why not sit this one out?
I heard Chris Christie saying we're leading from behind in Syria and losing. Idiot.
Wouldn't it be cool if like... we stayed out of it and let Assad/ISIS/Putin all have at it by themselves.
I don't understand US strategy in Syria. Seems like wishful thinking that some nice "moderate" guys will show up and those nice guys are going to be tough enough to beat both Assad and ISIS. Seems like we didn't learn anything from Iraq, that removing a mean dictator hoping someone nicer will emerge is a dumb move. Nice guys finish dead in that region, and whoever survives the chaos is going to be worse than where you started. Russia at least has a strategy based in reality. Whether it actually needs Syria, and what it's geopolitical interest in the Middle East is another question.
Whether it actually needs Syria, and what it's geopolitical interest in the Middle East is another question.
I don't understand US strategy in Syria. Seems like wishful thinking that some nice "moderate" guys will show up and those nice guys are going to be tough enough to beat both Assad and ISIS. Seems like we didn't learn anything from Iraq, that removing a mean dictator hoping someone nicer will emerge is a dumb move. Nice guys finish dead in that region, and whoever survives the chaos is going to be worse than where you started. Russia at least has a strategy based in reality. Whether it actually needs Syria, and what it's geopolitical interest in the Middle East is another question.
Don't kid yourself. If Iraq was in any real danger of being overtaken by ISIS Obama would have boots on the ground in a second.US strategy lately seems to be stop putting "boots on the ground" in idiotic situations.
"Thanks Obama"
()
If Putin thinks he can prop up the Assad regime, he's more delusional than I thought. All the Russians will do is adding more bodies to the carnage and prolonging the conflict. The Russian military will buy Assad some reprieve, just like the Hezbollah militia, at first. But I'm suspecting Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Arabs won't be standing by. More weapons will be going into the area to supply the Sunni rebels, not less. The longer the war lasts, the moderates who want peace will be gone, only the most ardent, radicalized madmen will remain.
Don't kid yourself. If Iraq was in any real danger of being overtaken by ISIS Obama would have boots on the ground in a second.
Syria is Russia's baby and Russia has a vested interest in keeping Syria whole. They don't want boots on the ground to stop ISIS any more than the US does in Iraq, but they will put them there if necessary, and it has now become necessary.
You can also be sure that, though neither country would ever admit it, there are backdoor negotiations currently ongoing between the US and Russia to put the squeeze ISIS since both have a vested interest in their respective investments in the ME.
In 5 years, ISIS/ISIL will have been a blip on the ME radar.
Don't kid yourself. If Iraq was in any real danger of being overtaken by ISIS Obama would have boots on the ground in a second.
No one understands US strategy in the Middle East, least of all those actually running it. Even when it nominally works, such as making a democracy in Iraq, it soons goes so horribly and predictably wrong that one can't help but wonder what was the real strategy. One would have to go back at least before Carter to find any sensible US strategy in the Middle East.I don't understand US strategy in Syria. Seems like wishful thinking that some nice "moderate" guys will show up and those nice guys are going to be tough enough to beat both Assad and ISIS. Seems like we didn't learn anything from Iraq, that removing a mean dictator hoping someone nicer will emerge is a dumb move. Nice guys finish dead in that region, and whoever survives the chaos is going to be worse than where you started. Russia at least has a strategy based in reality. Whether it actually needs Syria, and what it's geopolitical interest in the Middle East is another question.
I agree 100%. And the best thing is, Putin can do more in fighting ISIS than could any Western nation.Russia does indeed need Syria. Russia's only naval base outside former USSR territory is in Syria, and they are building a base there right now. Historically Syria has been an important partner to Russia, and has bought a lot of military hardware over the decades from them.
The increasing Russian military build up all but insures Assad's dictatorship remains intact. There is no way the U.S. opposes the Russian presence in any form other than diplomatically, and if Russia is the key to the defeat of ISIS, world opinion will support the status quo as well.
Time to gtfo more than ever. Have fun Putin.
Agreed. I really hope Obama is secretly aiding Assad, with intel at the least. He is one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism and while I agree his regime is the least shitty practical alternative for us, I'd prefer we at least not volunteer to be his juiciest target.Propping up the Assad regime is the least shitty outcome in this conflict. Our idea that collapsing the regime and anybody but ISIS comes to power is some serious delusion. Air Force One has to be making daily runs to CO for tons of weeds for this policy to make any sense.
But we are too effing stubborn or stupid to back off and let Syrias regime take care of their own problem.
They are primarily advisors, trainers, and support personnel. Afaik there are no US troops actively participating in battles on the ground. There are airmen flying bombing missions but even that will change eventually since we are currently training Iraqis to fly F-16s an they have begun to fly their own missions.We already have boots on the ground in Iraq. First it was just a few spotters\advisors. Now it is numbering into a few thousand.
Will do.Stay on the fairway...
Yeah... I read about this bull shit. Personally I would take a few B2's over their and bomb the air strips. Or threaten to move missiles back into Poland. :twisted:
What would it accomplish? Assuming you don't want ISIS to take over Syria
For one, all Russia is doing is propping up the Assad regime by air power.
Obozo cowered when Russia apparently brokered a deal when that so-called "red line" was drawn. Now Russia has their dirty mitts over there.
I personally don't want to see anymore of our blood spilled in Iraq. The opportunity to nip them in the bud with limited casualties has long passed.
Personally, if I were President I would consult with my advisers, Pentagon, CIA, etc and build a coalition with countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and quit a few others. I would terminate Assad and let people who want peace create a new government. Unlike Iraq, troop presence must precisest. I would also build a military base in Iraq. We need a foot hold in the middle east this post 9/11. This shit isn't improving folks and we can't afford to have a lazy faire attitude with the threat of a caliphate.
In order to be a good leader some toes have to be stepped on and I know many here just got their toes stepped on and will be quoting me by saying, "look at Iraq" and crap. Iraq was a failure because Obozo made it a damn failure. Once you commit to something you stay the course. Now the vacuum was filled with ISIS. Same for Afghanistan.
I really don't have all the Intel. etc that a Commander In Chief has. But based on Obozo's past and now with the altering Intel reports from some 50 annalist's my money is on the fact this guy (The President) has very little appetite for war and lacks leadership on the global stage.
"The bottom line is: Our allies can't trust us, our enemies don't fear us- and you can't blame that on Bush." - Lt Col. Ralph Peters