Boots on the ground in Syria?

[Tristan Scott]

To be clear, we never invaded Libya. We, along with our allies, supported rebel forces with air operations. I believe Obama is following the advice of the military over the advice of the State department. I believe Clinton will basically do the same thing as CinC.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

To be clear, we never invaded Libya. We, along with our allies, supported rebel forces with air operations. I believe Obama is following the advice of the military over the advice of the State department. I believe Clinton will basically do the same thing as CinC.

I read that Clinton was listening to non-military people who were not experts. Could be untrue.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It was a tough choice between sending in the hippies and whether to aid Assad who is the least of the evils in the region. In the end I though that aiding Assad back may be the only choice. I'm not sure if he would fulfill any pledges to step down.

 

[Tristan Scott]

To be clear, we never invaded Libya. We, along with our allies, supported rebel forces with air operations. I believe Obama is following the advice of the military over the advice of the State department. I believe Clinton will basically do the same thing as CinC.

I read that Clinton was listening to non-military people who were not experts. Could be untrue.

Probably true. I think when you work in one department, you tend to be advised and take advice from the people in that department and then it's only natural that your bias will be leaning towards those views. As president she will have the responsibility of Commander in Chief as well as overseeing all departments, including state. One would hope that when it comes to military ops she will give more weight to advice from her military over that of the state department.

 

[fromderinside]

I live where hippies went when they dropped out in the sixties. What appears to be hippies here are most likely to be for Donald Trump. I conclude from those two observations that hippies are extinct.

 

[J842P]

Well, to me the issue is that I don't think there is any solution. We've tried everything, and it has failed. The west cannot fix a Muslim civil war. And we are crazy for thinking that we can.

You haven't tried everything: you've tried a very small of things and executed them poorly.

Here's an idea. Why doesn't Australia commit, let's say, 100,000 boots on the ground, if you feel so strongly about it?

 

[whichphilosophy]

To be clear, we never invaded Libya. We, along with our allies, supported rebel forces with air operations. I believe Obama is following the advice of the military over the advice of the State department. I believe Clinton will basically do the same thing as CinC.

Since Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi was killed in 2011 thanks to Western interference, the rebels then squabbled among themselves and are still doing so today
There are two self proclaimed governments and several private armies, ISIS established a presence there after the removal of al-Qaddafi. This is a sort of mini-Syria
Libya had the highest earnings per capita in Africa, plus healthcare and highest life expectancy on the continent. Thanks the revolution it changed from Africa’s most successful state to a failed state.

 

[fromderinside]

To be clear, we never invaded Libya. We, along with our allies, supported rebel forces with air operations. I believe Obama is following the advice of the military over the advice of the State department. I believe Clinton will basically do the same thing as CinC.

Since Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi was killed in 2011 thanks to Western interference, the rebels then squabbled among themselves and are still doing so today
There are two self proclaimed governments and several private armies, ISIS established a presence there after the removal of al-Qaddafi. This is a sort of mini-Syria
Libya had the highest earnings per capita in Africa, plus healthcare and highest life expectancy on the continent. Thanks the revolution it changed from Africa’s most successful state to a failed state.

I'm not sure one can call a nation with no legislature, no judiciary, no political system at all either prosperous or successful. Libya is an amalgam of tribes each holding sway in territories while competing with others on the boundaries. Those factors are why there is no government there today. Yes we knew that and we let it happen because we had no other way to go.

Nations must construct themselves. Its usually messy and long term. Qaddafi is gone. That's one. Negotiations are ongoing behind the sound of militias clashing. Maybe in a couple decades we'll see a Libya or several Libya's appear.

The ME is a stew of Libya's which must also work it's way into modernity.

As the 70's burger commercial prophetically intoned: "Step aside, Please step aside."

 

[Colonel Sanders]

You haven't tried everything: you've tried a very small of things and executed them poorly.

Here's an idea. Why doesn't Australia commit, let's say, 100,000 boots on the ground, if you feel so strongly about it?

Right. How about France or Germany throw in the huge bulk of forces it would take to stop it? Say, 250,000 or so that would wage a total war on the region. Lump all the good, bad, and in-between forces together and roll over the entire lot. That's what it would take. And then they could deal with the backlash from it.

"America needs to take care of Syria!"

Well, fuck anyone saying that. Syrian refugees aren't flocking to U.S. shores. It's not a short flight across the Mediterranean from the U.S. east coast to Libya.

So how about if the EU puts boots on the ground in Syria?

 

[funinspace]

To be clear, we never invaded Libya. We, along with our allies, supported rebel forces with air operations. I believe Obama is following the advice of the military over the advice of the State department. I believe Clinton will basically do the same thing as CinC.

Since Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi was killed in 2011 thanks to Western interference, the rebels then squabbled among themselves and are still doing so today
There are two self proclaimed governments and several private armies, ISIS established a presence there after the removal of al-Qaddafi. This is a sort of mini-Syria
Libya had the highest earnings per capita in Africa, plus healthcare and highest life expectancy on the continent. Thanks the revolution it changed from Africa’s most successful state to a failed state.

Except that we (the US) seemed to already know prior to 2011, that there were radical al-Qa'ida affiliated jihadists percolating in the Benghazi/Darnah area per a 2007 West Point study.

http://tarpley.net/2011/03/24/the-c...ts-who-killed-us-nato-troops-in-iraq/#f11-ref

The West Point study also offers another, more sinister perspective. Felter and Fishman hint that it might be possible to use the former LIFG components of Al Qaeda against the government of Colonel Qaddafi in Libya, in essence creating a de facto alliance between the United States and a segment of the terrorist organization. The West Point report notes: “The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s unification with al-Qa’ida and its apparent decision to prioritize providing logistical support to the Islamic State of Iraq is likely controversial within the organization. It is likely that some LIFG factions still want to prioritize the fight against the Libyan regime, rather than the fight in Iraq. It may be possible to exacerbate schisms within LIFG, and between LIFG’s leaders and al-Qa’ida’s traditional Egyptian and Saudi power-base.”13 This suggests the US policy we see today, that of allying with the obscurantist and reactionary al Qaeda fanatics in Libya against the Nasserist modernizer Qaddafi.

 

[Tristan Scott]

To be clear, we never invaded Libya. We, along with our allies, supported rebel forces with air operations. I believe Obama is following the advice of the military over the advice of the State department. I believe Clinton will basically do the same thing as CinC.

Since Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi was killed in 2011 thanks to Western interference, the rebels then squabbled among themselves and are still doing so today
There are two self proclaimed governments and several private armies, ISIS established a presence there after the removal of al-Qaddafi. This is a sort of mini-Syria
Libya had the highest earnings per capita in Africa, plus healthcare and highest life expectancy on the continent. Thanks the revolution it changed from Africa’s most successful state to a failed state.

OK, so you were in love with al-Qaddafi. That doesn't change the fact that we didn't invade Libya, which was the point of my post. This thread is about "boots on the ground" in Syria. I don't believe it would be militarily advisable.

 

[laughing dog]

It's as if your idea of a 'good solution' is based on not being told off, as opposed to doing what you think will produce the best outcome for the people in danger.

Well, to me the issue is that I don't think there is any solution. We've tried everything, and it has failed. The west cannot fix a Muslim civil war. And we are crazy for thinking that we can.

This is not about fixing a civil war. It is about the best method to reduce the incredible destruction and damage to civilian life in the region.

Having said that, I think any external effort to end the civil war and defeat ISIS will require a long-term commitment and a coherent strategy based on the facts on the ground not ideology. I am not sanguine about the West's ability to make such an effort a success (or even not a debacle).

 

[TSwizzle]

Maybe if the male population stopped running away and did something things would be different.

 

[Juma]

Maybe if the male population stopped running away and did something things would be different.

Hmm. I thought the problem was what some of the male population was doing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Maybe if the male population stopped running away and did something things would be different.

Yes, how dare those untrained civilians not fight back against aerial bombardment campaigns. Fucking pansies.

 

[Bronzeage]

So you have great confidence that all of a sudden the US can do something in the ME and then magically execute it perfectly?

Perhaps we've reached the point where humility might set in and USA quits being dicks?

Actually, we could do that. Since we fracked all our old oil fields we have cheap oil for another century. We could walk away from the Mid-east, since we don't need them as much as we once did. This would be an excellent opportunity for other countries to try their hand at it.

If the US were to actually send ground troops into Syria, I'm going to spend the rest of my life working to restore the draft and eliminate the college deferment. Every able bodied 18 year old in the country either enlists or gets called up for a minimum 3 year term. Conscientious objectors get to learn first aid.

It's the only way to get politicians to stop using our soldiers as if they were money.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Perhaps we've reached the point where humility might set in and USA quits being dicks?

Actually, we could do that. Since we fracked all our old oil fields we have cheap oil for another century. We could walk away from the Mid-east, since we don't need them as much as we once did. This would be an excellent opportunity for other countries to try their hand at it.

If the US were to actually send ground troops into Syria, I'm going to spend the rest of my life working to restore the draft and eliminate the college deferment. Every able bodied 18 year old in the country either enlists or gets called up for a minimum 3 year term. Conscientious objectors get to learn first aid.

It's the only way to get politicians to stop using our soldiers as if they were money.

I don't know how many times I've said the exact same thing. The all-volunteer army has in fact been a disaster for the U.S. The term "private army funded by the public" is a much more apt description of what it's become. But that's another matter entirely.

Anyway, all this talk about how the U.S. needs to do something is another excuse to say the U.S. should do something about X and then complain about how they do it.

Here's the reality. The U.S. could go into Syria and quell that motherfucker in about 6 months. The world wouldn't like what it saw, but it could be done. A WW2 total war campaign, ruthless in its execution, could bring that war to an end. The Imperial Army of Japan was a lot tougher, more dedicated, better trained, better organized, better supported, better armed, and in much greater numbers than ISIS. And if you could somehow bring a few Imperial Army divisions from Japan with the equipment they had then into Syria now, they'd still kick the shit out of ISIS.

At any rate, it can be done. The Western world just wants to see it done another way. One that's ineffective, wasteful, and allows the thing to drag on.

So what I suggest is to quit calling for the U.S. to do anything other than preserve Iraq unless you're also willing to give the military free reign to do what it did in WW2. Because that's the only way an outside power could solve that mess.

 

[Will Wiley]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36556261

So US diplomats are urging a military intervention in Syria.

I'm leaning toward it becoming the inevitable option. What do you think?

Whatever we chose to do it'll get messy, as is doing nothing.

the headline of the article is this.

Syria conflict: US diplomats press for strikes against Assad

What is astounding is that These American "diplomats" are their followers see nothing wrong with attacking a democratically elected government.

 

[bigfield]

You haven't tried everything: you've tried a very small of things and executed them poorly.

Here's an idea. Why doesn't Australia commit, let's say, 100,000 boots on the ground, if you feel so strongly about it?

The Australian Army has 28,568 personnel. If they all wear boots, that's 57,136 boots. So in order to commit 100,000 boots to the ground, not only would we need to commit our entire army--including those currently deployed in the ME and elsewhere--but JLC would also need to place an additional 42864 empty boots on the ground in Syria to make up the numbers.

So what I'm saying is that Australia does not have the resources to form a peacekeeping force on its own.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Here's an idea. Why doesn't Australia commit, let's say, 100,000 boots on the ground, if you feel so strongly about it?

The Australian Army has 28,568 personnel. If they all wear boots, that's 57,136 boots. So in order to commit 100,000 boots to the ground, not only would we need to commit our entire army--including those currently deployed in the ME and elsewhere--but JLC would also need to place an additional 42864 empty boots on the ground in Syria to make up the numbers.

So what I'm saying is that Australia does not have the resources to form a peacekeeping force on its own.

But you would be fine with say, 7,000 troops? That's a big commitment for a force of that size.