Are we invading Syria like we did Iraq?

[cynatnite]

Just checking.

[dionysus]

1. highly doubt it.. but to some here its set in stone we are.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. No.

That's why comparisons between Iraq and Syria are silly.

But saying 'Iraq' will get an emotional response out of people and that's why folks do it.

[cynatnite]

3. For a second I thought it was 2003 and bush was in office. n/t

[davidn3600]

4. So what happens after we strike?

Knocking down a couple buildings is not going to do anything to stop Assad. He may even become emboldened and think that if that's all the US will do, he'll just continue using the chemical weapons. And then what do we do? The next step would be full war and regime change. Iraq 2.0.

[HooptieWagon]

5. Obama says no, for what his word is worth.

Which makes a missle strike a futile gesture. It will not affect Assad's ability to fight the rebels. It will not damage any military infrastructure the Russians can't replace in a few days. It will not eliminate chemical weapons or prevent their future use. In short, there is no military strategic or tactical purpose to be accomplished by a missle strike alone. It is merely a face-saving political statement, one that will result in civilian deaths and likely escalate the war and extend it outside Syria's borders.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. Just remove Assad

easy peasy

[HooptieWagon]

11. "easy peasy"? Really?

Do you have a clue? Do you realize the Russians are all in with Assad? We'd have to wage war against the Russians....who are determined to keep a Syrian pipeline from delivering ME gas to Europe, where Russia has a monopoly. I think they'd also like to hang on to their Mediteranean naval base in Syria.
And suppose we do wage a war against Russia in Syria and win...then what? Start fighting the AQ supported rebels, who are backed by Saudi Arabia?
The Syrian situation is a clusterfuck. Involving ourselves in that mess would be a quagmire that would dwarf Iraq and Afghanistan.
"easy peasy"...NOT!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. Just because the Russians are dependent on Syria's pipelines

Involving ourselves in a military way is not the answer. Stealing Assad is easy.

[HooptieWagon]

19. Russia doesn't want a Syrian pipeline.

They already have a monopoly on Europes gas and dont want competition. Saudis are backing the rebels b/c they hope to build a pipeline to bring middle east gas supplies to Europe. That the rebels are AQ-backed is of no matter to them. Neither side represents a "win" for US interests. And nabbing Assad wont be easy, nor can the consequences be predicted....except it violates intl treaty and would lead to ICC trial for Obama.

[neverforget]

16. Who replaces Assad?

[delrem]

7. Obama says no boots on ground. Just drones and missiles.

He doesn't want to start a war, you see.

[woo me with science]

9. Just a few missiles to calm things down.

You know how that works.

[delrem]

10. It's like when some country X fires a few missiles at the US.

It's not "war", y'know -- since none of Xs blood was shed. So not only is X's act supremely moral, no retaliation of any kind is likely.

[woo me with science]

18. Yeah, who would call a few missile strikes an act of war?

This whole thing will be over quickly. I'm sure of it.

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
--Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months"
-- Donald Rumsfeld, February 7, 2003

"I think it will go relatively quickly. Weeks rather than months."
-- Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003

"No one is talking about occupying Iraq for five to ten years."
-- Richard Perle, March 9, 2003

Source: The War in Quotes, by G.B. Trudeau, p. 40-41 Oct 1, 2008
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Doonesbury_Quotes_Donald_Rumsfeld.htm

[delrem]

20. Here's how it looks to me.

Pres. Obama doesn't mind war, but doesn't think "boots on the ground" are the way to wage it. "Boots on the ground"="American deaths". He is in fact directing a followup to GWB w.r.t. PNAC planning, but with tactical differences. The Libya "adventure" (perfectly consistent with the PNAC plan) hasn't hurt the US admin much, even though only Satan himself would say that the situation in Libya is "better". There were no US casualties. However, there was a bit of a mistake in strategic terms, since NATO went far beyond the parameters of any international agreement and in fact bombed the "rag tag army of rebel freedom fighters" a fast track into Tripoli. Of course this was wholly unnatural, if one thinks in terms of civil wars of liberation. It was no such thing. This didn't bother the corporate MSM, which hardly mentioned it, but it bothered other world powers.

This causes Obama problems w.r.t. Syria. He's itching to re-do Libya in Syria, but the international community has caught on. After all, it's a very obvious pattern that's been delivered in writing for over a decade.

[Autumn]

8. I don't think we will invade Syria. Just waste several million dollars

worth of our fantastic top of the line superb high dollar fireworks, kill some innocent people (civilians will get in the way) and give the rebels a hand, and from everything I have read they are no better than Assad. Make a mess and later wonder why the hell people hate us.

[delrem]

12. al-Qaeda is worse than Assad.

The fundamentalist regimes they impose on their "liberated" territories are just what you'd expect from the most extreme and most bloodthirsty of terrorists.

[Autumn]

15. It makes one wonder why the hell we want to knock out the other guy

and give al-Qaeda a hand up in winning that civil war. I don't get it.

[delrem]

17. I don't get it either. In general I don't get the US strategy.

But it does seem to me that the US strategy hasn't changed an iota since GWB ushered in the new PNAC century. Some tactics changed, but not strategy.
I don't think the PNAC strategy, and aim, will win out. I don't think it *can* win out. But I think it can do a whole hell of a lot of damage before self-destruction is complete.

[rug]

14. Not yet.

[backscatter712]

21. Not this year.

What we're looking at this week and next is a quick slugging with cruise missiles.

No boots on the ground.

At least not this year.

Though if our politicians continue to act like douchebags, an invasion could be down the road, maybe 5-10 years from now...