[MP-Ryan]

That was not an argument for inaction, but a call for context here. Where is the outrage for what happened last week in Egypt?

And this idea that the Russkies are being bad for not letting NATO solve this is naive at best. At best. You should be aware that the Russians are mostly the arms dealers of Assad right now, that his military is the most similar thing Russia has to an army inside the ME, that this is basically a proxy war between EUA/Israel and Russia / China right now for power in ME? To be enraged that they denied NATO to "invade" Syria (as if) is silly beyond belief.

No, Russia won't let go. Nor will the States. Both are commiting huge chunks of weapons to the proxy civil war.

It isn't in the slightest bit silly to denigrate a government that is more vested in its own geopolitical interests than a civilian death toll.  I think you're confusing my outrage at the games Russia and China in particular are playing for a lack of nuanced perspective and geopolitical naivete.

The fact of the matter is that Russia and China could BOTH end the carnage as well, but neither nation is willing to commit forces as peacekeepers, because that would mean they have to actually attempt to keep the peace instead of supporting the Syrian government.

Ironically, both Russia and NATO have a vested interest in keeping Islamists from taking power in Syria, yet the Russians' actions are forcing NATO to tacitly support some Islamist groups who are all that are standing between Assad and wholesale slaughter of a chunk of the Syrian population.  Don't forget that the Assad family is a political and religious minority in Syria; they have no love of the ordinary civilians that oppose their government either, the civilians whose outrage sparked the movement in the first place.

For that matter, the Arab league has actually shown some leadership on the issue of Syria and could probably be trusted to intervene in a peacekeeping role if Russia, China, and NATO would all step out of the way, but Luis is correct that that is unlikely.

So instead I'll continue to rant at the Russians, who are the primary obstructionists and protectors of Assad, and ordinary Syrians will keep dying.  Wonderful.

[Luis Dias]

Ok just so we all get clear here.

No one will step foot in Syria for the simplest of reasons: You don't commit your own troops, money, public trust and support into a slimepit of hell if you can just commit back ended support in the manner of weapons, bullets and war resources to the syrians themselves and let them solve by themselves the ****.

The States won't put their soldiers fighting people that are armed by the Russians. The Russians won't stop arming and supporting the only base of military operations they have in both the Middle East and in the Mediterranean besides Iran.

You all should stop playing the activist outrageous gag for a moment and think like Kissinger here. All the stakes are going up and there's ZERO incentive for any NATO country go there and burn itself (and then run with their hands covering their asses back). This **** goes on because the arms' market needs it; because Russia geopolitics needs it; because Isreal demands it; because Al Quaeda fights it; because Assad is fighting for his life; etc.

And while **** in Lybia was over quickly, that was because that moron had so little support. This has nothing to do with that skirmish.

The fact of the matter is that Russia and China could BOTH end the carnage as well, but neither nation is willing to commit forces as peacekeepers, because that would mean they have to actually attempt to keep the peace instead of supporting the Syrian government.

They could and they would lose all their influence in Syria by doing so. They have zero to lose here (Putin isn't really interested at what the world thinks of him) in this war and everything to lose if Assad loses the war.

So instead I'll continue to rant at the Russians, who are the primary obstructionists and protectors of Assad, and ordinary Syrians will keep dying.  Wonderful.

Quite mysanthropic I am feeling tonight. Let's all have a drink and forget all this ****.

[Scotty]

Well yes, the chemical weapons certainly change it if it happened

Chemical weapons use has been documented on at least four occasions - at least one of which points to the Syrian government as the culprit besides this one.

It has.

[NGTM-1R]

They could and they would lose all their influence in Syria by doing so.

Their saving Assad from his continuing loss of power and wrecking his entire country's infrastructure and population for the next thirty years would do this why?

You're assuming peacekeeping means that the government falls. Having seen Russian peacekeeping in action, even in its less-terrible guises in, say, former Yugoslavia, this doesn't remotely follow.

[Nakura]

Both sides are bad, in fact, Assad is almost certainly the lesser of two evils. Besides, why should we get involved in this conflict?

How is it in America/Israel/freedom's best interest to support al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria?

[NGTM-1R]

How is it in America/Israel/freedom's best interest to support al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria?

How is it in their interest to not underline that any use of such weapons has severe consequences?

Who benefits is kind of irrelevant; the Weapons of Mass Destruction line has been crossed. Swift and decisive retribution from the international community is the only reason people don't do so more often, and thus its use here is appropriate.

[Nakura]

How is it in America/Israel/freedom's best interest to support al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria?

How is it in their interest to not underline that any use of such weapons has severe consequences?

Who benefits is kind of irrelevant; the Weapons of Mass Destruction line has been crossed. Swift and decisive retribution from the international community is the only reason people don't do so more often, and thus its use here is appropriate.

So let's get involved in another pointless war, destabilizing the region even further, hurt America's reputation in the developing world and make the situation even worse? How is that going to save lives and restore stability to the region?

Also, why should we help the very terrorists and Islamists that we have spent the last 12 years fighting?

[NGTM-1R]

How is that going to save lives and restore stability to the region?

People won't be gassed.

Also more seriously, because the threat of this sort of weapon is contained by the promise of massive retaliation by even uninvolved parties. Letting any use pass weakens that threat.

Also, why should we help the very terrorists and Islamists that we have spent the last 12 years fighting?

Why do you truly believe that toppling Assad will help them? It'll hurt some, Hezbollah for example, perhaps help others, hurt Iran too; they've poured a lot of money and effort into Assad since this all started.

But there are over 50 rebel groups active in Syria. The war is no longer so simplistic or so easy to end as you want it to be. Or perhaps you don't understand that I'm not advocating the solution you think I am.

[666maslo666]

One utilitarian alternative is for NATO to stop supporting the rebels and start supporting the Assad instead. With both Russia and NATO behind him, the war will be over much sooner. In exchange they can even pressure Assad to try to respect some of them human rights. Its far from ideal solution, but better than letting the civil war go on for years.

[Scotty]

One utilitarian alternative is for NATO to stop supporting the rebels and start supporting the Assad instead. With both Russia and NATO behind him, the war will be over much sooner. In exchange they can even pressure Assad to try to respect some of them human rights. Its far from ideal solution, but better than letting the civil war go on for years.

So, you'd send the message that if a despot uses chemical weapons on his own soil, then he'll get help from the international community in removing the things he wants to gas?

[Luis Dias]

Yeah that wouldn't work too well I guess.

However this idea that NATO would invade just "to make a point" is something I cannot take seriously viz a viz everything that happened in that region in the last 100 years.

[NGTM-1R]

However this idea that NATO would invade

The only people advocating an invasion are the people on the side that things should not be done. Has anyone noticed that yet?

[Luis Dias]

Ah so you are kind of proposing a war solution without any war effort. That's convenient.

Anyways what you noticed is not anything particularly obscure. Everyone knows that anyone who proposes an invasion as a solution never uses that word and rather substitutes it for some other particular euphemism like "intervention". You OTOH were braver and used "retribution" and more or less advocated punishment. How would that work without getting one's hands dirty in Syria is beyond me. Even if you just use bombers and so on you are practically admitting your own partiality and probably making things a lot worse in the field.

[NGTM-1R]

Ah so you are kind of proposing a war solution without any war effort. That's convenient.

You seem to forget that a successful non-invasion is something we've proved quite good at; early Afghanistan and more recently Libya were successful collapses of governments without an invasion.

Or we could do Clinton-era cruise missile diplomacy.

Or the Tanker War and Preying Mantis mode.

Or Libya back in the '80s mode.

I know you really, really want us to be arguing for an invasion, because that's easy to argue against, but unfortunately that's not the only military option we have or have ever exercised. Destroying the Syrian Air Force and Navy, knocking out every hard-surface airstrip in the country, that's not terribly hard for us. We've considered doing it before during Syrian interventions in Lebanon.

[Luis Dias]

Ok then. So let us be clear on this one. You are hereby proposing that NATO declares war on Syria. Do you think Russia would not take the bait exactly why? This is the same kind of situation that led to WW 1, although perhaps everyone is way less naive and more aware of the nasty consequences of these things. This is why Russians would probably fail to do their alliance part and declare war on NATO, but it is also why NATO will not declare war on Syria in the first place.

That's one thing. Another is that declaring Afghan war a success in its early stage, precisely when the americans ****ed up their Bin Laden catch is not a good argument. Afghanistan was not in a state of civil war and bombing the palaces and so on was an easy target. Arguably we can say that bombing Assad directly would be feasible, but this direct killing of head of states is something of a taboo in every single military power (it creates a nasty precedent that every leader is afraid of for obvious reasons, and it usually results in absolute chaos in the field).

As I also said earlier, getting Lybia's leader was easy. The guy didn't have Russians on his back. He had no one covering him and everyone wanted to look righteous.

Preying Mantis was not the greatest example of all time...

[MP-Ryan]

So let's get involved in another pointless war, destabilizing the region even further, hurt America's reputation in the developing world and make the situation even worse? How is that going to save lives and restore stability to the region?

Also, why should we help the very terrorists and Islamists that we have spent the last 12 years fighting?

NGTM-1R already addressed this, but it bears repeating and elaboration:  the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable (truthfully, the use of any CBRNE weapon is unacceptable).  This is why there are international agreements like the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Notwithstanding the proliferation argument that NGTM-1R already quite pointedly made, I would like you to pull up a map of the Middle East and note which country is 100 km (60 miles) southwest of Damascus, Syria.

Damascus specifically and Syria generally are quite literally the LAST places in the world that we want to see people get away with using any form of CBRNE weapon in uncontrolled conflict.  The potential for a powderkeg scenario is quite real.

Furthermore, 'invasion' like Iraq and Afghanistan is not only unnecessary, it's a bad tactical position and I think NATO generally has been well-reminded of that fact since 2001.  I realize for some of you younger fellows that Afghanistan and Iraq are the most recent conflicts in memory and you default to them as examples of the way NATO will respond to conflict and have the [correct] perception that they have been politically [though not militarily] disastrous, but in point of fact the way those two conflicts were dealt with are significant outliers in NATO countries' policies.  Most major nations now a part of NATO learned their lessons about ground-war invasions and hearts-and-minds in the late 50s and early 60s in various southeast Asian countries, and the majority of their 'hot war' responses between 1960 and 2000 were heavily influenced by that reality.  The fact is that NATO nations have not militarily lost a conflict (Vietnam included) following the Second World War, but they all have developed political and social cultures that do not tolerate anything other than clear victory in a short period of time.  It is the political and social reality at home that has made military intervention in both Afghanistan and Iraq a failure, not military capability in the invaded nation.  In this new reality, NATO nations would and should not be looking at full-scale invasions and occupation as they are no longer capable (both politically and logistically) of fielding a large enough occupying force.

NATO has several options that are much better than invasion and occupation to deal with the situation in Syria, but they are being blocked by Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.  Given a free hand, NATO could successfully establish refugee safe-zones in parts of Syria, keeping both conflicting sides away, and eliminate the majority of the chemical weapons supply in relatively short order.  The obstacle to that - and the inspiration for the thread title - is Russia.

[MP-Ryan]

Ok then. So let us be clear on this one. You are hereby proposing that NATO declares war on Syria. Do you think Russia would not take the bait exactly why? This is the same kind of situation that led to WW 1, although perhaps everyone is way less naive and more aware of the nasty consequences of these things. This is why Russians would probably fail to do their alliance part and declare war on NATO, but it is also why NATO will not declare war on Syria in the first place.

Luis, the point of the goddamn thread is that Russia is the obstacle to NATO intervention.  Of course these options are not available as long as Russia continues in their current position.

That's one thing. Another is that declaring Afghan war a success in its early stage, precisely when the americans ****ed up their Bin Laden catch is not a good argument. Afghanistan was not in a state of civil war and bombing the palaces and so on was an easy target. Arguably we can say that bombing Assad directly would be feasible, but this direct killing of head of states is something of a taboo in every single military power (it creates a nasty precedent that every leader is afraid of for obvious reasons, and it usually results in absolute chaos in the field).

That may have used to be true, to some extent, but that is no longer the case for major powers.  The main reason Hussein never took a bullet or bomb during Desert Storm was two-fold:  (1) the UN didn't authorize it (not that that would stop the Israelis most days) and (2) his successors were worse than he was.

The same holds true of Assad.  In terms of the Syrian leadership in his family and party, he's a moderate.  To eliminate Assad would require eliminating the majority of the Syrian political leadership.  And the problem with that is it opens the door to the Islamists.

What is required in Syria - from a humanist perspective - is the elimination of chemical weapons, the elimination of government firepower supremacy that allows them to prey on the civilian population, and the establishment and enforcement of safe zones for refugees well away from the powers fighting each other.  Getting any more involved than that is a recipe for a geopolitical disaster at this juncture.

[Lorric]

The fact is that NATO nations have not militarily lost a conflict (Vietnam included)

How do you define this? North Vietnam wanted to take South Vietnam. They did. They won.

If you're going to say America would have won in the end if they kept going, yes I think they would, but the fact is they didn't.

[MP-Ryan]

The fact is that NATO nations have not militarily lost a conflict (Vietnam included)

How do you define this? North Vietnam wanted to take South Vietnam. They did. They won.

If you're going to say America would have won in the end if they kept going, yes I think they would, but the fact is they didn't.

Never studied military history in the 20th century, have you?  The Vietnam conflict was lost in the continental United States, not the country of Vietnam.  The departure of American forces was not due to military defeat, but politics in the US.  So no, no NATO nation has militarily lost a conflict since 1945.

[Lorric]

The fact is that NATO nations have not militarily lost a conflict (Vietnam included)

How do you define this? North Vietnam wanted to take South Vietnam. They did. They won.

If you're going to say America would have won in the end if they kept going, yes I think they would, but the fact is they didn't.

Never studied military history in the 20th century, have you?  The Vietnam conflict was lost in the continental United States, not the country of Vietnam.  The departure of American forces was not due to military defeat, but politics in the US.

I'm just going to have to disagree on that. Vietnam won on attrition. America lost it's will to fight. Vietnam didn't. North Vietnam achieved their objectives. America failed theirs.