Posted on 11/23/2016 4:59:23 AM PST by RoosterRedux
On Monday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan renewed his call to create a safe zone in northern Syria. With American air cover (and, yes, “boots on the ground,” in the form of US special forces), such a zone could serve as a haven for besieged Syrian civilians.
It could also lead to a more strategic, American-led future reorganization of Syria as a loose confederation of separate Sunni, Alawite and Kurdish statelets.
Yes, it’s complicated. Turkey is more interested in fighting against our Kurdish allies than against ISIS or Hezbollah. But we won’t be able to lean on Turkey (or on our Arab allies) to do the right thing in their neighborhood unless we’re present in their neighborhood.
It’s also true that Russia already controls much of Syria’s airspace. Were US planes to intervene, it could lead to actual US-Russia conflict. But Israel has proved it’s possible to avoid the danger zone. Jerusalem has long been hitting Russian-allied Hezbollah targets in Syria since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu struck agreements with President Vladimir Putin on how to conduct those strikes without baiting the Russian air force.
So there’s no reason Trump couldn’t negotiate similar understandings.
But none of that can happen if we mistake lecturing everyone about the horrors of war for “action.” Or announce in advance that we’re leaving the war against ISIS in Syria for Russia and Iran to deal with.
On the campaign trail, Trump events often played the Rolling Stones classic “You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” off the album “Let It Bleed.” But bloodletting shouldn’t be our policy in Syria, because eventually we’re likely to be drawn into the war anyway — and when it’s costlier to do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
As an aside, I've been out of commission recently. Lost my reading glasses and could only see and post from my tablet. Difficult for typing.
Well, my new reading glasses have arrived and I'm back.
Stay out!!!!!
Tell Assad he has 12 months to kill every ISIS sympathizer or he gets a Tomahawk through his bedroom window and leave him to it.
For that matter, why would anyone give us any credibility to do such a thing?
I’m with you. We have no right to intervene in another nations civil war. This is a Turkish/regional problem...let them create a safe zone. Why is it we must get involved in every damn skirmish around the world?
Syria is such a mess right now, that I’m not sure there are any good resolutions for us. For right now, our main focus should be to kick ISIS out of Iraq and help the Iraqi government coalesce it’s power and influence it to become a more secular government while recognizing the rights of all of it’s citizens (Shia, Sunni, Kurds).
I still think we need to negotiate some type of new troop level agreement with Iraq. Have about 10,000 troops strategically placed on bases in Baghdad, the Sunni province and the Kurdish region. They stay on base and train the Iraqi army and act as a tripwire to respond to any type of uprisings. Just having our presence in the area will tamp down the sectarian violence in Iraq.
Just think...if only Britian and France had gotten involved to force Lincoln out of power and help to portion off the USA.
BTW, if/when Mosul falls Isis will have almost no foothold in Iraq. I think the only major city they may have after that will be Fallujah. I don’t think they can sustain being there because just about all of their supply lines will be cut off.
After Mosul falls, it will be a mopping up operation. An offensive to take Fallujah can be launched from Ramadi.
The Syria problem will be solved when the US and the Gulf states quit funding the terrorists.
If we pull out, they will be close to bringing back law and order.
SOMEBODY has to win, and somebody has to lose.
It’s the only sane solution.
Lybia, Egypt, Iraq, and our other great successes in promoting Arab spring?
Absolutely correct!
That’s pretty damned stupid.
Because all Trump needs to do is stop arming them.
Since he isn’t Obama it’s a given that ISIS and all the whack-a-mole Muslim armies will be out of supply.
Partner with Putin to kill ISIS and destroy the rebels.
Apologize for going along with the Euroweenies in their attempt drive a NG pipeline though Syria.
Here are the options in the Middle East:
1) Lots of small, weak “countries” organized into mutually hostile ethnic and/or religious affinities. These will constantly fight among themselves, and attempt to pull in foreign support for their side.
2) Larger conglomerations of ethnic and religious groups forced together under a strong central government. Either the central government will rule with a heavy hand or the groups will fight each other constantly. The larger conglomerations will try to focus hostilities onto an external enemy.
3) The US or some other outside force tries to prevent civil or interstate wars by standing between the groups, thus becoming the outside enemy everyone can hate. Enormous costs; impossible to judge results; endless.
If there is an Option 4, please advise.
Of 1 through 3, which is least bad for the US?
It could also lead to a more strategic, American-led future reorganization of Syria as a loose confederation of separate Sunni, Alawite and Kurdish statelets.
Uh huh, the same group that have not been able to get along for over 1000 years? They are going to be harmonious in "statelets"? Only if we stand over them with a whip for centuries ... maybe. Why is this our job?
Plus where are the Shiites in that list? Did they just vaporize? That's convenient.
No boots on the ground. There is no reason why one American soldier should die so that various sects of Islam might get along for 5 minutes.
Just as long as no New York Post personnel have to be the US Troops that go there to "not invade" and wind up casualties.
The war in Syria is a Turkish/Saudi/State Department operation. It could end tomorrow.
There were probably lots of good reasons to take out Assad, but the moment they decided to use jihadists to do it, and the moment those jihadists started massacring ethnic Christians, there was no way the American people could support it. Its done.
ISIS is Obama’s Frankenstein. We probably owe it to the world to put them down like a mad dog. After that, we don’t really owe anyone anything over there.
Worst idea ever. This is just more of the same old psychotic desire to break up syria and to impose a no-fly zone.
Funny article. It mentions our “Arab allies”.
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.