Posted on 09/13/2018 5:30:45 AM PDT by Nextrush
On September 12th, in an interview with Fox News, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley claimed that US and its allies, most members of the UN Security Council, would "address" an attack on civilians in Syria's Idlib province, not just a chemical attack.
She said that any attack that hits civilians in Idlib would be "dealt with" by the US and allies, as Washington seeks to stop Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces, backed by Russia, from retaking Idlib, which is the last remaining militant stronghold in the country....
(Excerpt) Read more at southfront.org ...
What's wrong with attack a place called IdLIB. I didn't think we were friendly here to stuff with 'LIB' in it.
NOT our biz at all:
BUILD THE WALL
Trump is surrounded by neocons. They have his ear at present. This is not what he campaigned on. I am praying that he will see the light.
This is why I would not choose Pence as President. I think he is another W, fully on board with the neocons, and very comfortable with Haley and Bolton. His vice-Presidential debate with Kaine was revealing (not that I support Kaine).
We need a wall for sure and we need some protection down at the border right now like military till the wall is built.
There should at least be some impartial fact finding, with the people we want to attack being allowed to state their case, before we attack a nation that is attacking neither us nor its neighbors. It’s called “due process.”
Turkey is also joining in on this mess.
Turkey sent in military reinforcements Thursday to beef up its positions inside Syria’s last rebel bastion Idlib, activists reported, even as the Turkish defense minister said Ankara is still trying with Russia and Iran to prevent a humanitarian tragedy in the case of a threatened Syrian government offensive.
Hulusi Akar, the Turkish defense minister, said a military operation in the densely populated rebel enclave would drag the already problematic region toward disaster. He spoke during a meeting with foreign ambassadors late Wednesday, according to the state-run Turkish Anadolu Agency.
I certainly wish we never would have gotten involved in Syria, at least until we knew who was going to win. But Obama got us involved. So we are involved.
Here is the problem that it creates. If Assad wins (which seems likely), we have a more rabid enemy when it is over. And that enemy is a friend of Russia and Iran with good backing. Syria becomes the next regional power. This is the next breeding ground for high tech terrorism down the road. You have to think 10 years down the road sometimes.
Unfortunately, whether we pull out now or keep “supporting” the terrorists, we are in a no-win situation. In a best case scenario (at this point), Assad is overthrown, the government crumbles, Russia and Iran are thrown out. After that, we have to INSTALL a government, help them re-build and then eradicate the terrorists we have been supporting to get to that result.
FRiends, that is a long and expensive WAR with a bunch of nation building attached.
The cheap and easy strategy is to pull out, let Assad alone (Puts Israel at higher risk) and plan to fight that fight down the road when the players and sides are clearer.
In short, I am saying, I don’t know what the better strategy is at this point. There are no “good” options. Obama pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan because he didn’t agree with those wars. That was bad. Then he got us into Syria, also bad. The clean up is worse than the party. The bigger issue in the big picture is the influence by Russia and Iran. What strategy neutralizes their influence?
The whole post 9/11 strategy was to get us to Syria.
You might recall Iraq was invaded for WMD’s which didn’t seem to be around once we got there.
The stories put out when the WMD’s were not found is that they were taken to Syria.
Iran was the end game in W’s time except the GOP got booted out of the WH in 2008 and Obama was not as willing to go the route George W. laid out to Syria to eventually get Iran.
McCain was always gung ho about Syria, he would have got us there if he had won in 2008.
It was George W.’s intention, McCain’s intention but Obama inherited the plan so to speak.
I’d be interested to understand more details about that. On it’s face, if we wanted to truly clean up the ME and attack the radical Muslim enclaves, the strategy you lay out seems plausible. It would be expensive in both treasure and blood. But I don’t see how it could have ever been executed without the likes of Russia getting involved. No way would America have the stomach for that in this day and age.
The rules of engagement allowed terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq to prolong our efforts for WAY to long. Had Iraq and Afghanistan gone cleaner and quicker, in the aftermath of the original offensive, Bush may have been more effective in tuning up the neighbors. But we would have had to have taken a different approach to end it quicker. We would have had to simply take out whole cities from stand off positions whenever terrorist elements entrenched there. Faluja would have been a strategy of encircling the city and systematically destroying every structure (including mosques and cemetaries) in the city and then capturing everyone fleeing). It would have meant accepting mass civilian collateral casualties to demonstrate our intent with regards to terrorist. It would have been a WWII strategy. Again, as a nation, we don’t have the stomach for that (not to mention our pansy allies).
Consequently, the invasion of Iraq strengthened and emboldened Iran. I do not think that was anticipated when we brought down Hussein. I would think our Pentagon planners would have expected Iran to take notice and follow in the footsteps of Lebanon. Roll over in an effort to “not be next.”
Why is this even our business?
Further, why are the USA and Israel supporting terrorist groups in Syria?
Abstract thought about fighting terrorism in general:
Until civilians in terrorist inhabited areas fear the USA more than they fear the terrorists, no strategy will “defeat Radical Islamists”.
When a man with a gun and like minded friends, who intends to cut your head off and rape your 10 year old daughter, tells you to support and defend him or else, you offer him dinner. When a village realizes that this man and his friends being there is going to cause the whole village to be fire-bombed in the next few minutes, they tend to either fight back or abandon their village.
She better be talking out of turn.
If this is the Trump admin policy, he has lost my support.
Assad supports terrorism. He is sponsored by Iran and Russia. Iran is the #1 sponsor of terrorism in the world. There are terrorist element fighting against Assad. They are fighting Assad so THEY can be in control of the terrorist nation of Syria. Iran and Russia want the terrorist they can control in charge, not the rogue and reckless terrorists. The USA used to take this approach as well. It is not a popular approach. But it is necessary in some elements of foreign policy. Hell, we sided with Russia in WWII. We sided with Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war.
If I were Israel, I would be hoping for the Syria conflict to last 100 years. It keeps them all busy and they can focus on defending themselves from the "other" terrorists that keep trying to kill them. And maybe that IS a strategy that is being implemented. Drain all the bad guys of their resources by keeping them fighting each other. It is an understandably confusing bewildered conflict. We seem to be throwing buckets at a drowning man and yelling for him to bail water.
If that’s what Israel wants to do, then let Israel fight in Syria, not the USA.
Assad is a secular ruler, despite his other faults. Assad allows religious freedom to Christians and other religious minorities in his country. The people that the USA and Israel are supporting would behead or forcible convert all Christians in Syria if they were given the opportunity.
It’s questionable that Assad is really a “terrorism supporter,” versus that simply being a nonsense charge thrown out by the US media and the neocons to justify our endless engagement in the region.
The original neo-con plan was first Iraq, then Syria, then Iran. But because of the mess that evolved in Iraq, that plan went into abeyance for a while. Now, it’s back.
Full steam ahead.
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.