Donald Trump manages to be more sensible on Syria than Hilary

[The Grand Nudger]

See, I don't think that all the radicals will hate America for allowing Russia in (if they don't already!). I think that if it's Russian attack bombers doing the dirty work, that's where the mud's gonna stick, mostly. Yes, these radicals may be the world's problem, but so long as they're in Syria shooting at Russians, are they ours? Should we hunt them up and invite them to a duel? No. As Sun-Tzu wrote, never interrupt an enemy in the act of making a mistake. They are digging int a war that's been running for five years and shows little sign of ending.

They arent in russia shooting at russians...they've been shooting at isis.  The russians are overhead.  These people will have a narrative of being attacked from the air by foreign powers - which is a sticking point for isis, lol.  Makes them really salty.  If they ever get tired of that shit, isis is literally just outside the city, and won't mind the help. 

No doubt it's a humanitarian crisis. But Syians are concerned enough to flee, at mortal consequence in too many occasions, for their own concerns. I don't think it's a "stretch" at all to say they're concerned. Indeed, that sort of drain from their own country spells worse for its future, and buttresses your own point. But -- what decisive action can we take that you'd recommend? What can we do, in our opinion?

I think that nothing we can do will change anything, unless we are willing to engage in another ten-year deployment and throw another 5,000 lives and a couple of trillion dollars down the drain.

How'd that work out in Iraq?

........exactly......

Oh, I'm not fantasizing. What I'm doing is arguing to stay out of a fight that is not ours to begin with. We are getting something out of Russian involvement there (see above for tie-down etc); not much, admittedly, but we are letting two adversaries have at each other. It's a shame that civilians are dying in the crossfire, but you're a retired infantryman, right? You know better than most that that is part and parcel in the bargain.

Unfortunately it is, because we not only directly contributed to isis, we drew a line in the sand against assad and then abandoned people when he crossed it.  

If the Russians deem that opprobrium acceptable, more power to 'em. Military power is not the only lever, and while other levers might work slower, cut pretty sharp all the same.

-and you ask me above and again below what we could do to keep russia from bombing civilians?  

Yes, actually if you want to stop the bombing of civilians, you're going to have to fix Syria ... because that's pretty much what the problem is, if you haven't noticed already. They are bombing civilians because the country is broken. Air Force propaganda aside, you cannot bomb someone to the negotiating table -- if people want to fight, it's going to happen.

WTF are you talking about?  Civilians are being bombed because russia seeks continued strategic access, and sees opportunity in this chaos.  Not because syria is fucked up.

Now, how would you propose dissuading Russia in their course of action? Be realistic. As awful as what they are doing is, the ony real alternative is to send in our own ground troops, and either put them on a tight leash to serve as targets, or open up the possibility of open war with a nation possessing nuclear arms. Is it worth that? I will refer again to the Trolley Problem. I'm not saying you must "offer a plan" ... but I am saying that there may not be any plan at all that can fix this.

Military power is not the only lever.

How would you prevent "others" -- in this case, Russia -- from making things worse, without provoking a wider war with a nuclear power?

Again, fantasy, and an endorsement of appeasing belligerents.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm speaking from a strategic and not emotional viewpoint. I share your distress at the suffering Syrians are enduring; I know a couple here with family back there and wish I could give more than kind words. But I'm talking in terms of American strategy. In this case, we cannot stop the dirtbag from being a dirtbag. But what we can do is make sure the blood sticks to his hands.

You want justice? Get thee to a courtroom. I'll happily testify to the shittiness of your accused in this case. But I doubt it will do much. And bombs won't either, because all you'll do is widen the conflict.

Trolley Problem.

Your right, it's really hard, so lets do nothing, and count the deaths of civilians as currency for some later punishment that will not matter to the dead.

I think you're imposing your own thinking onto the issue. Putin's gauging is very close to the mark. He knows we suffer imperial overstretch; he knows we can't even afford to replace a 30-year-old tank. Could we beat them in a short Syrian war? No doubt, no doubt at all -- my high-flyin' Air Force will make sure of that.  

The real question is -- is such a war in our national interest?

I don't think it is.

Nor is it in theirs.  It's in no ones interests, so why are we discussing it?  

The problem with this reasoning is that the only thing that can stop Russia is ... wait for it ... an act of war. That's kinda why the spectre of war arises in this conversation. You ain't gonna stop them with chocolates and gift bags.

Perhaps if you floated your preferred solution, this conversation could be clarified? What do you think we should do to fix the situation in Aleppo?

Remind me, is military power the only lever or isn't it?

I'm impressed with the level of opposition I'm finding here, at the suggestion that we do something to stop warcrimes in progress. At the notion that it somehow serves a non-existent interest of ours. At the notion that threats of war are a reason to let warcrimes occur. I get that decades of misadventure in the middle east have made us timid......but this is a bit much. I'm perpetually amazed at how eager we are, as a nation, to do questionable shit... and how reluctant we become when the right thing is staring us smack in the face.