Boots on the ground in Syria?

[Tigers!]

How about putting Syrian boots on the ground? Looks like an awful lot of young Syrian men on way to Europe or already there. Why not send them in with training and weapons?

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

He happened to be the least terrible. It's not certain how long the various factions will be at war with each other.
It is of course not advisable to invade Syria using Western troops. Russian may also step in to support Assad if the West support some of the rebels.

 

[bigfield]

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.

Sure.

 

[whichphilosophy]

How about putting Syrian boots on the ground? Looks like an awful lot of young Syrian men on way to Europe or already there. Why not send them in with training and weapons?

If that were the case it would depend on which sides they would support. The Russians would look for pro Assad Syrians and the West would look for those willing to support the rebels, but which rebels?

 

[J842P]

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.

If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you support committing all of Australia's current force now, and implement a draft to reach whatever number is required to maintain peace? Australia has 23 million people plenty of money. Surely you have enough young men to commit to this! Have the courage of your convictions.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

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.

If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you support committing all of Australia's current force now, and implement a draft to reach whatever number is required to maintain peace. Australia has 23 million people. Surely you have enough young men to commit to this! Have the courage of your convictions.

To be fair to Bigfield, he did say he'd be willing for Australia to commit 25% of its current forces to the fight and that's no small number. The U.S. never committed all of its forces to Iraq at any time. It committed more than 25%, but not a lot more. No nation can commit 100% of its armed forces to any fight. Even when Germany was falling at the end of WW2, it still had forces dispersed in other parts of the world. Not many, but some.

Still though, it remains that the idea of insisting that the U.S. just go in and handle it without regard to the lives and welfare of American troops as well as the cost in taxpayer funding and subsequent costs of assisting soldiers when they return home is fucking obnoxious.

 

[fromderinside]

Just for comparison's sake America has more than 15,000 boots on the ground right now fighting forest fires in the western US.

More importantly how about number of rubles and dollars and euros and pounds on the ground. As it turns out Russia pulled back its ground forces because they couldn't afford to pay them.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm still torn on the issue. On one hand interventionism just doesn't seem like it will actually do anything, and I have no reason to trust the U.S. military. On the other doing nothing doesn't seem like a good option either.

 

[bigfield]

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.

If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you support committing all of Australia's current force now, and implement a draft to reach whatever number is required to maintain peace? Australia has 23 million people plenty of money. Surely you have enough young men to commit to this! Have the courage of your convictions.

That is a spectacularly stupid course of action. Pull your head out of your ass.

 

[fromderinside]

That is a spectacularly stupid course of action. Pull your head out of your ass.

Now you're getting it. The ME has to resolve their conflicted beliefs themselves.

 

[bigfield]

That is a spectacularly stupid course of action. Pull your head out of your ass.

Now you're getting it. The ME has to resolve their conflicted beliefs themselves.

I don't see why the UN should let Iran and Saudi Arabia play with the lives of Syrians.

 

[J842P]

If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you support committing all of Australia's current force now, and implement a draft to reach whatever number is required to maintain peace? Australia has 23 million people plenty of money. Surely you have enough young men to commit to this! Have the courage of your convictions.

That is a spectacularly stupid course of action. Pull your head out of your ass.

I agree it's stupid. I wouldn't do it, and I don't support it.

 

[Will Wiley]

If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you support committing all of Australia's current force now, and implement a draft to reach whatever number is required to maintain peace. Australia has 23 million people. Surely you have enough young men to commit to this! Have the courage of your convictions.

To be fair to Bigfield, he did say he'd be willing for Australia to commit 25% of its current forces to the fight and that's no small number.

Bigfield wants the Australian army to invade Syria and overthrow a democratically elected government????

 

[TSwizzle]

How about putting Syrian boots on the ground? Looks like an awful lot of young Syrian men on way to Europe or already there. Why not send them in with training and weapons?

They can't be trusted.