What would be the most likely consequences of U.S. Military Strikes in Syrian?

[Douglas Carpenter]

9 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	It would tip the balance in favor of the rebels enough so that they could topple the Assad regime and establish a better government
	0 (0%)
	It would have very little actual long term impact one way or the other
	0 (0%)
	It would only strengthen the resolve of both the government forces and the rebel forces thus leading to even more bloodletting.
	0 (0%)
	It would tip the balance enough to topple the Assad regime – but a long term and protracted civil war will continue.
	0 (0%)
	It wouldn’t change the final outcome but it would created a deterrence against any future use of chemical weapons.
	0 (0%)
	It would tip the balance enough to topple the Assad government – but a fundamentalist Islamist government or another totalitarian state will replace it.
	1 (11%)
	It would be an enormous gamble and there is no telling what the result would be
	8 (89%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Scootaloo]

1. A concerted effort could knock off Assad's government

That's the thing with the Baath party - power is very concentrated, in a very few hands. That makes it pretty fragile if targeted.

However...

That would lead to the disintegration of a nation. we would crown one faction or another as the "new government," but like the Karzai government of Afghanistan, it's unlikely the new regime would control anything past the capital. The rest of Syria will become.. .well, Afghanistan or Somalia.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. it would not be easy to knock off the Assad regime. But if the U.S. commits itself to airstrikes

they may find themselves in the situation where they have to keep it up and keep up until the regime collapses. That alone would mean an awful lot of bloodletting. The Baathist regime is simply not gong to collapse that easy. But if it did - I cannot imagine the various minorities including the Christians, Shiites and Alawites just submitting themselves to a new government that they are absolutely terrified of.

[Iggo]

2. Dead innocents.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. That, and terrorist recruits. n/t

[leveymg]

3. It will accelerate the process of igniting a wider regional war, with the US a target from multiple

groups intent upon reprisals.

This will not be without American casualties in places, and that will occur in places and times they aren't expected.

If you liked the 9/11 era, you're going to love what comes after we bomb Damascus.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Regional war, or worse....

Russia to create Mediterranean fleet to protect Syria

During the Cold War, the Mediterranean was the most important area of strategic struggle between the West and the USSR. Many years have passed, a lot has happened, but the importance of the Mediterranean Sea has remained the same. Russia, a successor of the USSR, has lost some of its influence in the region over the years. It appears, though, that the country is not going to sit on its hands watching others taking its place under the Mediterranean sun.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking in front of the military, announced plans to restore the permanent presence of the Russian Federation Fleet in the Mediterranean. Putin believes that such a move is not an act of "saber rattling." The president said that Russia had its own interests in the Mediterranean that are related to the national security of the country. The region is strategically important to Russia, and the country plans to deploy its warships in the Mediterranean Sea on a permanent basis.

According to the press service of the Defense Ministry of Russia, the Russian naval task force in the Mediterranean will include about ten ships of various classes of the North, Baltic and Black Sea fleets on a rotational basis. Depending on tasks, the number of warships in the compound can be increased.

….

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/12-06-2013/124816-russia_mediterranean_fleet-0/

Possible naval showdown: U.S. 6th Fleet vs. Russian Mediterranean Task Force

With the possibility of chemical weapons being used in the ongoing Syrian Civil War, the Obama Administration has upped the ante by ordering a fourth ballistic missile armed warship into the Eastern Mediterranean area, as reported by both the news portal IsraelHayom.com and the Associated Press via ABC News on Aug. 25, 2013.

The USS Mahan has joined her sister ships, the USS Gravely, the USS Barry and the USS Rampage, in the waters off Syria if Barack Obama orders a cruise missile strike against presumably the forces of Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad due to accusations by Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda-allied rebels against Assad of allegedly using chemical weapons against 1,000 Syrian civilians.

For his part, Assad denies the accusations and blames the rebel forces of fabricating the claim in hopes of garnering Western military support.

To date, there has been no independent or objective verification if any chemical attack by either side has been launched and/or civilians have been killed or wounded.

http://www.examiner.com/article/possible-naval-showdown-u-s-6th-fleet-vs-russian-mediterranean-task-force

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1002&thread=3535402

[LongTomH]

14. No "Best Case Scenario"......Worst Case: Dubya Dubya Three

Duck and Cover, kids!

[RC]

4. More profit for the MIC.

Would this even be happening if the US wasn't such a meddler and war monger?

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. No option for "other"

3 combined outcomes:

1. It will finally complete the check list of ME countries to overthrow that Cheney et al planned when they created PNAC
(Progress for a New American Century) .

2. It will create another Iraq, where the US will install, or try to, another puppet government, but which will not prevent Sunni/Shite fighting.
This will be to the US advantage, as they can label one side " Al-Quaida" and the other side "militants" or whatever
and play and pay both sides, ensuring that the country will remain too destabilzed to resist the takeover of pipelines, gas and oil the Corpocracy has been coveting.

3. It blocks Russia from using the port of Tartous/Tartus, from where Russia has supplied Syria with arms.
Russia is now having to use Beirut ports. ( Blocking Russia and China from the ME is a key part of Brzezinski's
Grand Chessboard, a recommned book.)

further reading for those interested:
Map of a potential Syria:




PNAC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Russian Port information:
http://www.rferl.org/content/explainer-why-is-access-/24619441.html
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/2013/03/21/Russian-ships-divert-to-Beirut-abandon-Syrian-port.html

[moondust]

15. Partitioning may be necessary.

These days Iraq is looking more and more like it should have been partitioned the way Joe Biden proposed in 2006. They can't stop killing each other.

Same deal with Syria: dominant groups with old tribal hostilities probably need to be physically separated or the killing will never stop.

[KG]

7. dead Syrians, MIC profits

[Coyotl]

8. Higher profits for petroleum corporations as gasoline climbs past $5.00 a gallon

and the possible consequential total collapse of the Western economies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. See our glorious victories in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan for clues.

[cpwm17]

11. A lot of dead people,

more enemies for the US, and more potential terrorist revenge-attacks against the US. This will then lead to more wars and more profits for the MIC and tighter surveillance against American citizens. This cycle will then continue.

[NuclearDem]

12. Power vacuum.

See: Afghanistan post-Soviet invasion.

[NightWatcher]

13. Throwing more oily rags and matches into a conflicted region of the planet???

No telling how bad it'd blow up.

[Myrina]

17. $6/gallon gas.

I'm sure they'd find some way to link the two.

[kenny blankenship]

18. Once the US and other powers take a hand, they will escalate if they don't get the result they want

that's the prediction I'm making. It's pretty safe to say, because they are in fact already escalating their involvement - the principle is well proven. The question - or threshold - before us now is direct participation in hostilities by the US and its henches.

What will they do next if they cross that threshold and they still haven't got the regime change they obviously desire? The most likely consequence of a "limited strike" will be deeper and deeper US involvement. The "logic" of sunk costs takes hold, and suddenly US prestige is on the line...

How long before we hear "You broke it, you bought it" again?

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. I agree. Limited strikes will not change anything. Which means ever increasing intervention is

almost certain to follow.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. one more

[Democracyinkind]

21. It would open up Iran for attack.

But I believe that the owners are waiting for the next pres to pull that one off.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. another kick for another day

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. One more step towards Iran

It could get a regional proxy war going