Posted on 06/15/2007 6:49:40 AM PDT by Santiago de la Vega
Is there any doubt that the US failure to pursue an aggressive, offensive push against Syria has caused problems in the Middle East?
Following a successful defeat of Iraq's military forces, the US failed to follow up victory with an aggressive push against opposition forces in neighboring countries.
Had Pitt the elder been in charge as war czar, US armored forces would have driven Assad from power, cleaned out the Bekaa Valley, liberated Lebanon, and gone home.
If the President wants to do something audacious, he should find a cause for war with Syria, invade, and get 'er done.
How about we just order all our boys in Iraq to shoot themselves in the head?
Well, I sure don’t object to the thought. But won’t that kind of military activity require a heckuva lot more troops?
Where would the troops needed to do this come from?
I think it makes more sense than comprehensive immigration reform, or the law of the sea treaty. If we could fight on two fronts, Syria and Iran, pacification of Iraq might take of itself. Besides, I see merit in the argument: break it - you don’t own it. Topple two more anti-American governments. Then go home if you want.
two..fronts?
same..face
85%..insurgent..vs..Iraqi..problems..eliminated
Through Iran to Waziristan would yield a higher return.
Not really. If the intent was to just knock off the current Syrian Government and get the bad guys in Lebanon and then leave, they could easily accomplish that with five or six combat brigades and tactical air support.
Yes, I see what you mean.
That would be great to see, but what about the aftermath? Thoughts on that?
After blood bath in Syria, Sunni’s would most likely prevail with some kind of military dictatorship. Alliance with Iran will be over as they will move closer to Saudi Arabia. In Lebanon, their will continue to be infighting between the various factions, but if Western countries provide aid and training the current government could survive (50 -50 Shot).
“What do you think?”
_____________________
Since you asked (and here is where I risk getting banned):
Our problems in Iraq cannot be solved militarily because they are not military they are social, cultural, religious and political.
Face it, when it comes to military, there is no other on earth that can stand up to the US. We can and do kill who we want, when we want (on a large scale, not so much with individuals). We are the biggest dog on the block and the next biggest is the size of a squirrel.
The problems in Iraq have nothing to do with an inability to effectively fight, it is in how we are unable to manage the peace. Finding someone different or somewhere different to kill is not the answer.
When we tried to cobble together a system that we could call a democracy, a huge number of backroom deals had to be made to appease different groups. The Sunnis had to be promised this many seats and these administrative posts, same with the Shia and Kurds. Instead of trying to put together a unified nation, each special interest cut out its own fiefdom. There is no real unity in the country or government. This is further troubled by some of the parties gaining power by their ties to outside interests such as Syria or Iran, so these parties allow outsiders to meddle.
The next and biggest hurdle for the future of the country is brain drain. As the war grinds on, the best and brightest in the country flee. The most educated have left and are setting up lives away from Iraq. Engineers, doctors, lawyers, teachers and most importatntly religious moderates have fled (mostly to Jordan and Syria) and are setting up lives with no plans to return. This trend is increased with prolonged fighting and no end in sight.
Our pledge to fight until the last terrorist is kiled does nothing to solve any of these problems. Moderates and professionals hear the pledge, see nothing but violence in the immeidate and distant future so they flee. The crooked and self-absorbed “politicians” are strengthened by a bunker mentality that increases their power with their constituents so they have no interest in seeing a peaceful resoultion. And terrorists love to kill and cause mayhem so they are happy to have the battle. And al Queada thrives where their is chaos so they also are happy to continue conflict.
The answer is not military because the problem is not military. The problem is that the bad guys masquerade as good guys and claim to want peace while profitting and enjoying the benefits of conflict.
Get the troops out of Iraq!! is what the left says.
I say through Syria or Iran? Pick one.
I think theOnion nailed it here:
Bush Announces Iraq Exit Strategy: 'We'll Go Through Iran'
Thank you for the link.
Matter of fact, I am not an american citizen. So I am only indirectly concerned with the strategies and tactics used by the US administration for its “way out”.
My opinion of a way out through Iran to Waziristan is purely a fictitious one, militarily speaking. I realise the dimensions and extents of the theater of operations and the threats involved to know that it is not as simple as that.
My intention is to draw the attention to the two very different fundamentalisms of Islam that advocate a real will of expansion by the sword. For the first time since the battle of Poitier (732 AD) and the siege of Vienna (1529 AD), the western Christian civilization is at stake. No errors are allowed, since a careless mistake is a deadly one. The enemy is within the walls, not at the gates, and the clash is not restricted to a military confrontation.
I didn't realize that, but your post was concise and right on the money. Iran is a puppet master in most of the "violence" in the ME today, along with developing its own nuclear WMD program. Removing puppet master will take care of most command and control and supplies to puppet regimes and groups and effectively remove them as major threat. We are now in business of putting out the "fires" with limited "water supply", we need to concentrate on putting out important, major "fires" that spread and ignite smaller ones, lest we stretch ourselves too thin. Iran will simply have to be dealt with, sooner or later, though Iran will not be the only or the last one. Here is an interesting thread regarding this with a link to a serious study that was done before Operation Iraqi Freedom -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821840/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821840/posts?page=34#34
My opinion of a way out through Iran to Waziristan is purely a fictitious one, militarily speaking.
So is the one in the link. I don't know if you are familiar with theOnion, but it's an American humor/parody publication, tilting to the Left politically, but often very funny and sparing nobody, on either side. For a conservative counter-site check out the Web-only scrappleface.com, it's hilarious.
While your opinion is "ficticious" (so is mine and everyone else's), it is very well reasoned and historically well founded. This is why it's so painful to see a lot of people in the West either ignorant of that history or discounting it and directly or indirectly joining the avowed enemies of Western civilization for their own base political purposes, on the principle of "enemy of my political enemy is my friend." - not unlike during Cold War (WWIII) with Soviet block.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.