The Third Hundred Years War Has 86 To Go

[Thumpalumpacus]

We do not have any alliance which compels our intervention in Syria. We do have one with Iraq and Afghanistan, of course, but absent those agreements, there's little of interest for us.

We do have alliances and business interests and trade with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, UAE who are at odds with the Bashar regime and its ally Iran. Could be that the U.S. and our mid east allies believe that it's in ours and theirs best interest to be there given Iran's and Syria's aggressive pursuit of nuclear and chemical weapons, not to mention Syria using those chemical weapons against its own people.

Syria ain't pursuing anything but survival now, and that's been the case for the last six years. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons (they already have chemical weapons, by the by) is not going to be slowed by engaging a regiment or two of the Revolutionary Guards in Syria; they have signalled recently that with our new sanctions Trump signed off on, they're going full-bore down that path.

Saudi is already too busy in Yemen to project force into Syria, rendering them irrelevant militarily. They do fund some rebels, to be sure, but clearly by their own operations they've shown that Syria is of lower priority. They, alongside the UAE, are also involved in a tense stand-off with Qatar as well. Our alliance with them is not worth much. We buy little oil from them any more and it is they who are on the hook to replace armaments stocks and combat losses.

Jordan we should continue to aid, no doubt. A semi-moderate Arab regime there is a toehold. We can do that without getting further into the Syrian conflict, though.

Israel can take care of itself.

As for the Assad regime using chemical weapons against its own people, of course that's awful. But how would the injection of a few American troops ameliorate that? Bear in mind, we can't really go in whole-hog; readiness levels, equipment standards, and other foreign commitments mean that a full-scale invasion of Syria is unrealistic. Is it sad he's a dick? Of course. But that is not what our political and military leaders are charged with. They are charged with advancing American interests.

---

I was referring to Iraq 1 and 2.  That we would end up going back in, if we left now, seems likely in light of the fact that we're already -on- that merry go round.  If we cut and never came back, and we could do that - then we'd simply be failing those people and shirking whatever responsibility we have for their situation anyway.  

Apologies for my misunderstanding, then. I see the two wars as pretty separate; the first fought to maintain a Kuwaiti presence in the oil markets (and ensuring low fuel prices here), the second being the tail wagging the dog. We've been at this second iteration for 14 years.

It's odd you'd say that "we'd be failing those people", though, when earlier in this thread you alluded to the fact -- and it is a fact -- that our country does not own all the blame for the shitstorm that is the Middle East.

It's a fair point you're making about shirking in one sense, but on the other hand, going back to your allusions regarding responsibility, at some point don't the people there have to decide to not kill each other over sectarianism and so on?

We have to help both parties reach a different solution.  

When folks don't want to listen, all the talking in the world won't do shit. You and I both know that they have to decide to stop killing each other over what group allegiance they hold, but the thing is, does our presence there advance that cause ... or does it simply give them a convenient target on which they can hone their skills so that when the fighting becomes infighting again -- as it surely will -- they will simply be more experienced?

LOL, pretty much...but with bullets and dead people all over the floor.

In that case, let the flyboys handle business, and let's keep you grunts safe. We can airdrop lots of shit ... MK84s, Snakeyes, MOABs, food parcels ...