The main purpose of the US intervention is the destruction of the Syrian state. That's why they don't want to cooperate with Syria. That's why it would be impossible for the US to cooperate with Russia.
ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I understand that, but what can US do if Russia joins uninvited and start bombing ISIS and others, if US criticize Russia then the US will sound like a big hypocrite.
Re: 2014 ISIS attack in Iraq: News, Views, Photos, Videos
Hello, new member here.
I challenge the UK and Australia, or any of the other countries to go alone. Always siding with the strongest...who wouldn't.
I pity Syria, the most secular country in the ME until these bastards (the islamist fanatics under the veil of Free Syria) showed up, aided by Assad's stubbornness, supported by Saudis, Qataris and of course the US administration whose agenda is certainly unknown. We could try guesses. Human rights? gimme a break. Look at Israel and the US support. What is happening? Wasn't Iraq a lesson? We learned nothing because there was no plan besides bombing a country back to the stone age. Is it all about controlling Iran's influence? Probably.
I am for the destruction of ISIS, EI, Daesh whatever its name, but not Syria.
Tahiadidou
Hello, new member here.
I challenge the UK and Australia, or any of the other countries to go alone. Always siding with the strongest...who wouldn't.
I pity Syria, the most secular country in the ME until these bastards (the islamist fanatics under the veil of Free Syria) showed up, aided by Assad's stubbornness, supported by Saudis, Qataris and of course the US administration whose agenda is certainly unknown. We could try guesses. Human rights? gimme a break. Look at Israel and the US support. What is happening? Wasn't Iraq a lesson? We learned nothing because there was no plan besides bombing a country back to the stone age. Is it all about controlling Iran's influence? Probably.
I am for the destruction of ISIS, EI, Daesh whatever its name, but not Syria.
Tahiadidou
If given time, the Syrian army, with arms supply from its Russian ally, could destroy the terrorists but there is so much one can do when NATO is after you. The Syrian army is not the Libyan army but yet i also question what Russia is or is not doing. Right now, the Nobel Peace prize winner, Obama, scares me with his war-mongering 'tough' talk. Not voting for him was the best decision i made even if it did not help; it never helps anyway...
Tahiadidou
I agree whole-heartidfly.
All of the generals have been saying as much. Even the active duty ones are being pretty direct about it, which is not normal when you CINC is saying otherwise. And particularly the retired ones.
Heck, they need effective FAC (which means boots on the ground) to maximize the effectiveness of the air campaign.
But no matter how effective a convetional air campagn is, it cannot take and hold ground. somebody has to do that.
5,000 free Syrians will never do that against 30,000 ISIS fighters.
The Iraqi Army may make some progress, but they have already proven their mettle. They are years away form being effective enough to defeat and supress asymetric and wholly committed radicals like ISIS.
The Kurds? Maybe for their territory.
No, the US, Australia (who has already indicated that their special forces will be on the ground), the UK, and others will utlimately have to committ to taking and holding the ground. And they will have to do it in a manner like the US surge worked with special forces fighing with and alongside the tribes and convincing them we are better friend for the long term than the likes oif ISIS or Al Quaeda. One Tribe at a Time like Major Gant proposed and then made work. But then, if they trust us again, we have to ensure that after its done, we do not throw them under the bus with a sectarian Iraqi government like what happened when Obama pulled everything out. You can only go to that well just a few times before they fuigure you are not committed for the long haul.
Turkey could do it...and I will tell you, I believe Assad is going to make moves in that direction as the US aair campaign begins to degrade ISIS in Syria...and who could blame him?
However it happens, to truly defeat ISIS and reclaim that land, soldiers and their ground equipment will have to be involved.
Equation
Lieutenant General
I believe some significant ground troops will be involved only AFTER this coming November elections for state governors and congressional seats are done. There is just NO way President Obama will risk sending boots on the ground that could cause casualties and negative press that could result in putting his political party at risk.
Brumby
Major
With Obama it is always about politics and self image. He has about 2 years left into his presidency and that leaves him with a limited window to do something if he is serious about ISIL. Politically he needs to do something and hence the bombing campaign. He doesn't want boots on the ground which is driven ideologically and to protect his own legacy. I would suspect the optimal strategy for him personally is to maintain a holding pattern of bombing to degrade ISIL so that the threat is contained without having to escalate any military option. it then becomes his successor's problem. I call this a minimalist intervention policy.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Well I agreed with you there in some part, but to be fair one could also claim the same thing about the previous President George H. Bush.
Okay no more OT politics, you can have the final say.
Brumby
Major
I think this applies to every president as their legacy is important because it not only affects them but the nation as a whole. The issue in my mind is when key decisions are made, whether it is to preserve self or nation. In the case of George H. Bush, my personal view is regardless of whether you agree with his decisions I believe he had the interest of the nation at heart. I can't make the same conclusion with Obama.
I think it is very probable that SF teams are already on the ground in both Syria and Iraq, not the least to direct/guide airstrikes. What i worry about though is an encounter between those teams and Syrian forces. Would they shake hands and go their own ways? If yes, great but if not, all hell breaks loose.
It is also apparent that the Syrian air defense (those S300s if really delivered by Russia) is not interfering with airstrikes (after all not everyone has a Raptor) because it is in Assad's interest; for now...They may be intentionally 'shut down' under advice from Russia. Given the current armada involved the Syrians have no option. The administration can claim anything it wants but there must be some degree of 'coordination' via Russia.
It is also apparent that the Syrian air defense (those S300s if really delivered by Russia) is not interfering with airstrikes (after all not everyone has a Raptor) because it is in Assad's interest; for now...They may be intentionally 'shut down' under advice from Russia. Given the current armada involved the Syrians have no option. The administration can claim anything it wants but there must be some degree of 'coordination' via Russia.