Give asylum to female and child refugees.
Arm male refugees. Send said males back to Syria and Iraq.
Arm male refugees. Send said males back to Syria and Iraq.
Syrian Refugees
- Thread starter chris snell
- Start date
That's very similar to how I would handle it.
I'd aim for about a year to embed our own assets and passively gather intelligence. Half the resources would be allocated to those specific missions. Another twenty five percent or so would be directed toward active intelligence gathering and creating new assets. Beyond that, half again would bring in regional cooperation and information sharing/manipulation.
Then, and only then, would the task force be created with the remaining resources. This would have to happen quickly, so a number of operations would have to be available ahead of time to give provide options for whatever can be assembled.
As you suggest, this point would indeed require current SOF units, trustworthy local and regional forces, and "other". The embedded assets will have created enough under the table infrastructure to help move forces into place, and will have, over time, provided propaganda (I've always been a big fan) for the uprising and after-party.
The answer then is a coordinated, single strike from within occupied territories, supported by active intelligence gathering and, as you suggested, air power; but I'd lean on high altitude surveillance, precision strikes, and the navy's ability to pop up and deliver very special gifts from very low altitudes.
This would be a very short-lived action, to eliminate entrenched leadership and communications across the territories as quickly as possible, as well as their own infrastructure; disable it all. Electricity, communications by other means, roads, water, fuel points and ammunition stores; the lot of it, but only at a tactical level, and again very quickly. We'll need to rebuild it later. Temporary disablement is enough.
People don't need to know how or why it's happened at that point. That's a key factor in lasting success.
A patently obvious stabilizing force can then be mobilized to neutralize further aggression, secure the territories, and react to the propaganda illustrating the methods in which ISIL operations resulted in the upsetting of life in the area, such as that temporary destruction of infrastructure, which we are perfectly happy to rebuild and improve.
Once the flags roll in (complete with a Presidential condemnation of violence in the area), the initial missions will have concluded. The effect would be a brief terror and outside forces rolling in to clean up the mess. By the time people figure out what happened, they've already adjusted to their new life.
I'm nasty that way.
Of course, there are steps missing in the middle here of which I'm sure you are aware. I believe, with those included, this would result in a success that can be maintained and handed eventually to other leadership with oversight.
Cheers,
Kennith
what if we stopped giving all these fucking assholes money & weapons?
what if our armed services were utilized in the defense of our own borders?
what does ISIS make that they can sell to buy food & weapons?
not a damned thing.
sure, they took over some existing infrastructure, & that'll work for a while, but those things require regular maintenance, you think the raving retards are going to do it?
perhaps allah will intercede on their behalf & send them 72 technicians to keep things running.
fuck 'em.
step the fuck away & let the region self-destruct.
what if our armed services were utilized in the defense of our own borders?
what does ISIS make that they can sell to buy food & weapons?
not a damned thing.
sure, they took over some existing infrastructure, & that'll work for a while, but those things require regular maintenance, you think the raving retards are going to do it?
perhaps allah will intercede on their behalf & send them 72 technicians to keep things running.
fuck 'em.
step the fuck away & let the region self-destruct.
It's not just about Allah. That's a perpetual excuse for territorial conflict.
Wearing the banner of a god is enough to incite violence in any area with chaotic political behavior at local levels.
What we have is a miniature "Warring States Period" playing out through continuous temporary land-grabs and tribal disagreements, enthusiastically promoted by differing religious interpretations. It's a misconception that these various "Holy Wars" aren't anything more or less.
Treating them as such ignores the real threats surfacing from the turmoil. Our armed services exist for more than border protection. Power projection within the Middle East is very important, and on the surface it appears that we are losing that asset.
That projection is about more than military assets; it's also about appearances and the future. If we control of those territories, it places us in a very powerful diplomatic and economic position, and also positions our forces closer to other world powers than we could otherwise manage without raising international eyebrows.
We enhance the security and productivity of our allies, gain productivity and resources from controlled territories, and fortify ourselves at the walls of our enemies and potential trade rivals.
We gain a lot with that control. It's a calculated move to enhance our future position without risking an immediate diplomatic crisis or great loss of valuable assets.
The world is always at war, one way or another, and the boards are laid in territories occupying the space between the borders of world powers. These are games of Chess played within open regions of a Go grid that's been filling for many years.
Many of the most important lands on this planet appear to be completely worthless, and in a time before mass disillusion they were more actively contested.
Cheers,
Kennith
Homeland Security Chairman Warns U.S. Doesn't Have Proper Vetting System For 10,000 Syrian Refugees.
Regardless how one feels about the Syrian refugees or all the other shit going on this is a very legitimate and very serious reason not to let them in.
Regardless how one feels about the Syrian refugees or all the other shit going on this is a very legitimate and very serious reason not to let them in.
One overly-large assumption many are making here is this - That we DO have allies in the region. Well, we don't.
We have governments that exist latgely by our pleasure, through the purchase of their oil or by our monies and weaponry. These aren't allies. They are bought and paid for by the U.S. We simply "use" them either for oil - which we are less dependent upon - and as buffers ie Israel. Allies are trustworthy. The Middle East is a region of religious-warring nations/tribes.
We have governments that exist latgely by our pleasure, through the purchase of their oil or by our monies and weaponry. These aren't allies. They are bought and paid for by the U.S. We simply "use" them either for oil - which we are less dependent upon - and as buffers ie Israel. Allies are trustworthy. The Middle East is a region of religious-warring nations/tribes.
Solid. One of the debates I get into a lot is with folks that say 'well that country is our friend'
Countries don't have friends; they have allies and interests. Allies sign treaties to bind their allegiance (which works, sometimes).
In the Middle East we have some partner nations whose interests, at times and in places align, but no allies.
That said to reply to the earlier isolationist stance, being engaged forward keeps conflicts small. Hiding at home brought us WWII.
That's why I think it's best to move forward.
It's not just nations in the Middle East. It's nations everywhere. Those pockets of bullshit are valuable in many relations; some of which we don't even have yet, and some of which we've lost.
With no position, there are fewer interests to align.
I agree, but you may as well say that to a mirror. It'll never get much approval nowadays.
Cheers,
Kennith
Well, now that Russia's gotten into the fray, any thoughts on the stability/outcomes?
IMO, a Russia-Iran alliance just lowered the odds on a larger war breaking out (see: Russian aircraft in Turkish airspace).
And, BTW, so glad that Iran agreement worked to improve Iran's behavior.
IMO, a Russia-Iran alliance just lowered the odds on a larger war breaking out (see: Russian aircraft in Turkish airspace).
And, BTW, so glad that Iran agreement worked to improve Iran's behavior.
I'm tickled pink that Russia is ever closer to inheriting that hole of a country and hopefully a fair share of the Middle East.
For those that believe that Russia will somehow "partner" with Sunni and Alawhites to "spread" some kind of threat - Russia will soon know how trustworthy governments are in the great sand box that is the ME. Not to mention that Russia has now shaken the wasps nest that is tens-of-millions of Sunnis, some just looking for a reason to join IS. This is going to be a good show!
For those that believe that Russia will somehow "partner" with Sunni and Alawhites to "spread" some kind of threat - Russia will soon know how trustworthy governments are in the great sand box that is the ME. Not to mention that Russia has now shaken the wasps nest that is tens-of-millions of Sunnis, some just looking for a reason to join IS. This is going to be a good show!
I think its great, now not are both LH and the IRGC decisively engaged in an unwinnable morass, but the Russians have jumped in too.
At worst they can prop up Asad and keep a weakened regime in power; something we can't say that we really prefer to the alternatives anyway.
At worst they can prop up Asad and keep a weakened regime in power; something we can't say that we really prefer to the alternatives anyway.
The Russians wouldn't have intervened if they thought it was unwinnable.
And they have the luxury of real allies, unlike the moderate rebels we dreamed up.
We'll see I suppose.
What is winning here, keeping Asad in power? If so, then maybe. Beyond that they haven't deployed enough combat power to win. LH has been knee deep as shock troops for Asad and it has gotten the conflict where?
That's like saying Russia is winning in the Ukraine, while there has been some tactical success that does not a strategic victory make.
In the end it is still Arabs killing Arabs, & Persians, & now Slavs...all while we sell GBUs as fast as we can make them. This is bad how?
That's where your wrong. Russia's history of military intervention is ripe with mis-judged and mis-informed decision. There is no "winning" here. That is the mistake many have made. Russia has opened up a Pandora's Box.
You're preaching to the choir my good man! Seems there are quite a few here who would like to think this region's many problems can be cured though "careful/artful" diplomacy. It can't and it won't. This part of the worlds citizenry is concerned with themselves individual and NOT as a citizenry of any nation or state. They live and die by struggle and are seemingly doomed to centuries more rule by an iron fist of some tyrant and his "scripture". I used to feel sorry for this region back in the day - not so much anymore. Any "threat" the ME may pose to the US is born by our constant meddling, policing, and blind allgeance to Israel. Let nature take its course - she rarely gets it wrong.
I don't think reducto ad Afghanistan is particularly useful - I assume that's your comparison point. Syria is a relatively modern country, and Assad is far more popular than the communist government in Kabul ever was. The terrain is also much kinder, and the rebels are fighting as conventional forces.
Besides, their Afghan War ended almost thirty years ago. The Russian experience in the Second Chechen War, in Georgia in 2008, and most recently in Ukraine - those are far more relevant examples of what the Russians can (and can't) do.
And to Ukraine - I don't think the Russians ever wanted to annex the east. A united Ukraine is a neutral Ukraine, the Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east keep it that way. Partition on the other hand? That would be a nightmare. You'd be dealing with a Western Ukraine that was by it's nature - deeply russophobic and highly confrontational. And, if Kiev had their way, an eventual NATO member.
If they went to war to stop NATO expansion, then union (preferably under a federal system) is the most desirable outcome.
Judging from their public statements, I think they have every intention of destroying the rebellion.
Have the deployments stopped? The 7th Guards, for example, were spotted in camouflage uniforms just a few days ago.
John McCreary made this point.
When they intervened, there was a rapid shift in power - the Syrian Army was able to resume offensive, and for a time it looked like the rebellion would fail.
Of course that provoked the subsequent Turkish intervention and the fall of Idlib province.
In this case, I don't think anyone can really trump the Russians. The Sauds may have declared a jihad, but I don't think additional lunatics on the ground will make a huge difference - not when they're facing a professional and largely modern air force that isn't particularly concerned with collateral damage. Jordan is also closing up the southern front, which should make life easier for Damascus. They appear to have abandon the Sunni coalition. The Lebanese border is also closed, thanks to Hezbollah's efforts. That leaves just the Turks to deal with.
I don't see why the Russians can't grind it out.
Pardon the bad quote cut & paste; operating off the ipad about 9000 mi from DC.
The Russian experience in the 2nd Chechen War illustrates that enough firepower can solve anything if you don't care what the world things. Georgia came and went quick enough b/c of proximity and tremendous power imbalance, and the Ukraine may be a limited objective as you speak but now they own it and it likely won't go away anytime soon. Covert action rarely does.
Destroying the rebellion is a very tall order; they are fighting conventionally now but these are the same folks that came out of a decade in Iraq-they are fighting that way now b/c they can against the current adversaries, if Asad & allies ratchet up operations they will just fade to guerrilla warfare and bleed them out. While the terrain is kinder, the demographics won't be. Nevermind that Syria was a modern country when this started, that has changed as people die or leave.
Your LH counterpoint actually illustrates mine; for a period of time they resumed the offensive and then what? Then the enemy adapted and here we are.
Air forces don't win conflicts, it will take boots on the ground and the further you get from Allowite strongholds the more you get into Sunni areas and I look forward to seeing how that works out for the Russians, all done gloriously in front of the disapproving world optic.
That said, I return to the reality that there is nothing bad about this for the U.S.; Syria as we knew it will not return for decades and the best case has always been a weakened Asad in power, a bloodied IRGC & LH a bit more circumspect about the actual limitations of their power, and now the Russians want to project power and show us their modern military? Awesome-good luck with logistics. On the upside there isn't nearly as much heroin for them to get addicted to-but booze will remain an issue if this goes protracted like it probably will.