US Strikes Airbases in Syria

[bigbird 60,580]

24 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

That's like asking the casual observer who just watch a clown kick a beehive, what should we do now?

Okay...so you don't have any opinions on what you think we should do next?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 hours ago, bigbird said:

So, those asking, "what's next", what do You think is the appropriate next step?  I'm not sure and am genuinely wondering what y'all think should be done.  

I think we should wait and see the responses of Russia and Assad in particular before any further action. See if they got the message. I'msure the Pentagon and intelligence people have gamed every possible response they can think of and how to respond.No one here is close to having the info they have and will have, although some may think they do.

[Strychnine 1,803]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

While I have heard that theory and, understand the logic, there is some speculation that the Russians actually played a part in the attack.

 

That would be illogical and counterproductive for the Russians.  Participating in, or sanctioning, a chemical attack brings far more international heat than the Russians would be interested in bringing on themselves.  Very high risk, very low reward.

[autigeremt 6,668]

What if the Russians are helping Trump shore up his ability to lead? To be president? Wag the dog after the failed healthcare law redo? 

As you can see....I don't really trust our government anymore. No matter who is in power. They (both parties) systematically eroded the Republic. 

[Strychnine 1,803]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

Okay...so you don't have any opinions on what you think we should do next?

 

The best thing to do, which is not likely to happen, is the United States and Russia sit down and agree to a plan that removes Assad yet secures Russia's interests in Syria.  Both countries then cooperate to eliminate Islamist threats to stability in a post-Assad Syria.  That is what I would consider to be the least terrible on a list of terrible options.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

24 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

The best thing to do, which is not likely to happen, is the United States and Russia sit down and agree to a plan that removes Assad yet secures Russia's interests in Syria.  Both countries then cooperate to eliminate Islamist threats to stability in a post-Assad Syria.  That is what I would consider to be the least terrible on a list of terrible options.

Not likely to happen because Russia supports the Assad regime. According to reports Russia is their biggest weapon supplier. And who replace Assad? Without a strong replacement there is just more chaos and instability in the region that potentially creates even more terrorism. Remember that vacuum Trump said Obama and Hillary caused? He has just placed himself in a situation to do the very thing he was so quick to accuse others of doing.

[Strychnine 1,803]

2 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Not likely to happen because Russia supports the Assad regime. According to reports Russia is their biggest weapon supplier. And who replace Assad? Without a strong replacement there is just more chaos and instability in the region that potentially creates even more terrorism. Remember that vacuum Trump said Obama and Hillary caused? He has just placed himself in a situation to do the very thing he was so quick to accuse others of doing.

 

Russia's interest in Assad and Syria is strategic, specifically naval and air facilities.  Russia's long-term plan is to dredge and increase the capacity of their port in Tartus, so that it can service their main surface combatants, including the Kuznetsov.  Force projection is the goal; think of that naval base in the same way as we think of our forward-deployed aircraft carrier in Yokosuka, Japan.  Assad, like his father, has been committed to a Russian presence in Syria.  Of course, Russia likes selling weapons, but that is secondary at best.

The main reason what I said is not likely to happen is that we would never suggest something that solves a problem and secures Russian strategic interests, and the Russians would probably not trust us even if we did.  I did also state that I consider it the least terrible on a list of terrible options.  Personally, I have no problem with it, as the Russian Navy is no threat to us regardless of where they have a naval base.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

9 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

That would be illogical and counterproductive for the Russians.  Participating in, or sanctioning, a chemical attack brings far more international heat than the Russians would be interested in bringing on themselves.  Very high risk, very low reward.

Probably but, I think Putin's interests come before any Russian interests.  Logic may not apply so logically.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

6 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

Russia's interest in Assad and Syria is strategic, specifically naval and air facilities.  Russia's long-term plan is to dredge and increase the capacity of their port in Tartus, so that it can service their main surface combatants, including the Kuznetsov.  Force projection is the goal; think of that naval base in the same way as we think of our forward-deployed aircraft carrier in Yokosuka, Japan.  Assad, like his father, has been committed to a Russian presence in Syria.  Of course, Russia likes selling weapons, but that is secondary at best.

The main reason what I said is not likely to happen is that we would never suggest something that solves a problem and secures Russian strategic interests, and the Russians would probably not trust us even if we did.  I did also state that I consider it the least terrible on a list of terrible options.  Personally, I have no problem with it, as the Russian Navy is no threat to us regardless of where they have a naval base.

There really isn't a best option here. This entire scenario is insane- a POTUS who in the past was highly critical of any U.S. Involvement in Syria but whose approval rating is at an all time low, a Russian President, highly praised by POTUS, and his government backing a regime for their own political reasons, and Assad a chemical weapon wielding tyrant who will kill as many of his country's citizens as it takes to retain his power. Wag the dog, perhaps? 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

24 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

There really isn't a best option here. This entire scenario is insane- a POTUS who in the past was highly critical of any U.S. Involvement in Syria but whose approval rating is at an all time low, a Russian President, highly praised by POTUS, and his government backing a regime for their own political reasons, and Assad a chemical weapon wielding tyrant who will kill as many of his country's citizens as it takes to retain his power. Wag the dog, perhaps? 

Watch those numbers go up.  We love to feel powerful.

[AUUSN 823]

This ages well...

[homersapien 11,431]

Wagging the Dog?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/why-did-trump-bomb-syria-215001

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

10 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Watch those numbers go up.  We love to feel powerful.

Of course they'll go up. Innocent children killed in a chemical attack then the airbase that launched said attack is hit by missile strikes in retaliation, who can be against that?

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Wagging the Dog?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/why-did-trump-bomb-syria-215001

 

When a policy shifts in the opposite direction, that becomes a very valid question.

[RunInRed 16,475]

On 4/7/2017 at 5:25 PM, RunInRed said:

Well, that certainly showed them …

 

 

Just like he planned it

 

[TexasTiger 13,005]

47 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

Just like he planned it

 

Wasted 80 million or so...

[icanthearyou 4,463]

22 hours ago, AUUSN said:

This ages well...

Hilarious.  Speaks volumes to the hypocrisy of being more partisan than principled or patriotic.  Without objectivity, pundits are nothing but disingenuous windbags.

[AU64 10,122]

On 4/7/2017 at 0:43 PM, homersapien said:

So, if removing troops was a mistake, is the proper action sending more troops in? 

Nope...can't un-make a train wreck just because you see it was a bad thing...though after pulling troops out of Iraq  BO eventually sent almost 5000 back.   

And of course our troops are all over the middle east and have been for years.  I do recall that the previous president increased the number of troops to help deal with ISIS (as he should have IMO)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

[RunInRed 16,475]

Of course he is ...

 

[homersapien 11,431]

On 4/7/2017 at 11:17 PM, Strychnine said:

 

The best thing to do, which is not likely to happen, is the United States and Russia sit down and agree to a plan that removes Assad yet secures Russia's interests in Syria.  Both countries then cooperate to eliminate Islamist threats to stability in a post-Assad Syria.  That is what I would consider to be the least terrible on a list of terrible options.

Correct, that's not likely to happen.  The Russians want to exert power through a proxy and could care less if that proxy is a liberal democrat (small d).  In fact, they would probably prefer an authoritarian if not a tyrant just like Assad.  They might support removing Assad but only if they could replace him with a more or less equivalent.

[homersapien 11,431]

4 hours ago, AU64 said:

Nope...can't un-make a train wreck just because you see it was a bad thing...though after pulling troops out of Iraq  BO eventually sent almost 5000 back.   

And of course our troops are all over the middle east and have been for years.  I do recall that the previous president increased the number of troops to help deal with ISIS (as he should have IMO)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

Unfortunately, once you are there, the pressure is always to increase your troop presence.  

[Strychnine 1,803]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Correct, that's not likely to happen.  The Russians want to exert power through a proxy and could care less if that proxy is a liberal democrat (small d).  In fact, they would probably prefer and authoritarian if not a tyrant just like Assad.  They might support removing Assad but only if they could replace him with a more or less equivalent.

 

I suspect the only Assad removal solution the Russians would get behind is replacing him with someone in Syria's current government that would be sure to continue the agreements and their plans for Tartus and Khmeimim.  Syrian internal politics could not concern them less, but that naval base is VERY important for their force projection goals.  It is difficult to conduct operations if the only Russian port Kuznetsov can access from the Mediterranean is Sevastopol or Novorossiysk on the Black Sea.

As an aside, it amuses me that United States has more capable carriers than the Russian or Chinese navies, that have been scrapped or serve as museum ships.

[AuburnNTexas 7,171]

This is a very complicated situation. It started years before any of this occurred in countries thate were created on artificial colonial boundaries. The Kurd's in parts of Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria were left out without a country. There should have been a true Kurdish nation years ago. Then you have Religious Issues Shiite, Sunni, Alawite, Christian, Yezdi and a few other smaller groups. Add to that Tribal/Clan differences this has been a powder keg for years. Bush probably shouldn't have gone into Iraq because as bad as Hussein was he was probably better than the aftermath. Obama especially after seeing what happened in Iraq with Regime change should not have pushed it in Libya  it is bad enough for Bush to screw up but to have Obama make speeches about how stupid it was for Bush to do that then turn around and do the same thing is hard to comprehend.

Obama should have found a way to keep some US military presence in Iraq to help keep it stabilized and not create the vacuum that occurred allowing ISIS to take over Sunni area of Iraq and Syria. If Obama didn't plan on doing anything in Syria he should never have drawn the line in the sand in the first place. By drawing the line and not acting he portrayed weakness.

Ideally Iraq will eventually have three nations a Kurdish nation, a basically Shiite Nation and a basically Sunni nation. This will help in some ways but creates other issues. There are more Kurds in Turkey and Iran then in Irag that would be contiguous with a Kurdish nation in Iraq plus another contiguous group of Kurds in Syria.  As soon as you have Kurdish nation the Kurds in the contiguous areas would also want to join. That is something neither Iran or Turkey would allow which could start new civil wars in those contiguous areas.

The Middle East is a powder keg we are haunted by the political decisions that were made in the early and middle 20th century by various European countries without any input from the local people. With the Dictatorships that eventually formed areas that were basically homogeneous were changed by Dictators moving people into regions to help them control those areas. Because of the artificial borders that were created and the movement of people from one part of the countries to other parts of these countries there are some areas that would have very large minority populations within new borders creating some of the same issues that creating new countries were planned to alleviate.

Donald Trump attacking the base probably will have little long range impact in the region. This single act by itself only shows the willingness to attack if the action is bad enough it is not a long range solution. The next question is what is the long term plan. Regime change without a viable alternative is just another Iraq /Libya, no resolution in this area is more refugees most of who are innocent victims but enough bad apples to make taking in the refugees becoming more and more unpalatable for many nations.

While I approve of the strike in this instance I really don't see any solid long term solution for this region. Even if by some miracle we could find a way to stop the violence Syria has been so devastated that they could not afford to rebuild and even though the majority of refugees might want to return to their country the infrastructure within the country could not support them.

At this point we can criticize Bush, Obama, and soon Trump but if we do we also have to realize at least for Trump at this point there is not much that he could do to fix Syria. I do hope to see a referendum in Iraq that carries enough weight to allow the Kurds to have a country in Iraq and I also would like to see the Sunni area of Iraq at lease become an autonomous area similar to what the Kurds currently have in Iraq this would ease some of the issues but would not be a panacea.  Hopefully once ISIS is beaten enough in Iraq so they don't control cities and villages Trump can put enough political pressure on Iraq's current leaders so they are open to a Kurdish nation and an autonomous Sunni region. That would be a beginning.

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I hope, one day, we will learn that limited warfare is almost always ineffective.  It is rarely an effective extension of "diplomacy".

If we truly wish to make the world a better place, IMHO we have to do it by way of economics.  We cannot do that and, do business with tyrants, dictators, and communists.

I do not see the world becoming more peaceful, safe, stable as long as this duality exists.  I think this represents the great failure of our foreign policy since WWII.