U.S Draws up plans for fucking up Syria if diplomacy fails
114 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Diplomacy remains the favored option as the U.S. grapples with how best to deal with Syria, but the U.S. military has drawn up plans to use if diplomacy fails.Officials issued fresh reminders of its military alternatives this week as world outrage mounted over last week's massacre that left more than 100 people dead in the town of Houla.
U.N. to investigate Syrian massacre
"As you know, my job is to provide the commander-in-chief with options," said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I think the military option should be considered."
Actions under discussion include sending in troops to protect Syria's chemical and biological weapons and providing massive humanitarian assistance, according to a U.S. official and other officials in the region.
U.S., British, Jordanian and Israeli military officials have been discussing what to do if Syria falls apart, the sources say.
Opinion: Is Syria unsolvable?
Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said the United States has the resources for robust action against President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
"There are certain things and capabilities that the United States has that can, in conjunction with our Arab League partners, could provide a tipping point so it would provide certain capabilities to units that we know who are trying to overthrow the Assad regime that we can vet, that we can test, that we can understand who completely that they are," the Michigan Republican said Wednesday.
Thousands have died since March 2011, when Syrian regime forces cracked down on peaceful protesters, prompting greater protest and inspiring an anti-government uprising as the regime clampdown persisted.
Thousands have died, and many fear a civil war if the country continues to deteriorate.
The United States and other world powers have been focused on diplomacy, not military options, for now. They have imposed economic sanctions on al-Assad's regime and pressed Russia to embrace an internationally accepted transition plan.
Washington is supporting U.N. and Arab League envoy Kofi Annan's peace initiative, which calls for a cease-fire and a political solution. It also backs the U.N. monitoring mission to ensure that the peace plan, accepted by the government and opposition groups, is being followed.
Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough said the diplomatic push, informally called Plan A by government officials, is still the only game plan for Syria. The specter of military action, called Plan B, remains on the shelf -- but only for now.
"As it relates to what Plan B is for Syria, we're still on Plan A," McDonough said Wednesday at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, an event sponsored by the Brookings Institution. "The Annan Plan is part of Plan A, but we're not betting the farm on the Annan plan."
Conservatives in the U.S. Congress and some voices in the Arab world have called for arming the opposition.
In March, Sens. John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham not only called for military aid to the Free Syrian Army, but urged, if requested by the opposition, a U.S.-led effort to protect civilian population centers with airstrikes.
Persian Gulf nations, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have talked of arming fledgling rebel forces against the much stronger Syrian military.
"The Syrian opposition are not going to be in a position to take and hold ground against the Syrian armed forces. What they can do is stage raids, provocations," said James Dobbins, head of international and security policy for the Rand Corp.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice told CNN on Wednesday that diplomats hope the Syrian government adheres to the Annan plan or the U.N. Security Council unifies in efforts to impose more pressure on al-Assad's regime.
"In either of those scenarios, there's still a potential for there to be a peaceful political resolution to this, which is what we seek," Rice said. "But if neither of those scenarios are possible, we're really facing the third scenario, which is the worst case, which is that the civil conflict intensifies, it engulfs the neighbors in the region, it takes on sectarian forms; it, effectively, becomes a proxy conflict between Syrian parties, but supported on the outside aggressively by others."[/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/31/world/meast/syria-military-option/index.html?c=middleeast&page=0[/url]
Well it [I]is[/I] that bloke's job to come up with these sorts of plans. It's a completely different matter as to whether or not the government chooses to act on them.
[b]PLEASE[/b].
The idea that this can be solved diplomatically is absolute folly. Assad knows that there's no way he's getting out of this in one piece, and he knows that the opposition will never stop fighting, save in the removal of him from power.
The U.N. will do nothing because of the fact that the U.N. Security Council is [b] fundamentally flawed[/b] and that it is rendered useless by the one-vote veto system.
The title made me think of the US making crayon drawings of Assad being blown up by bombs.
If the US does go in, I bet they won't do it until after November 6
I'm not so sure about this, as bad as it is, I don't think intervention will solve anything. It seems every time we try, we either get stuck there for 10 years and everyone hates us, or things don't work out as we expected.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;36161889]
The U.N. will do nothing because of the fact that the U.N. Security Council is [b] fundamentally flawed[/b] and that it is rendered useless by the one-vote veto system.[/QUOTE]
That's not a fundamental flaw, a fundamental flaw would be not preventing the US or other major powers from doing whatever the fuck they wanted. The UN is supposed to represent and consider the interests of all the world's countries, not just the west's. The security council needs to have a one-vote veto because it is intended to be a collaboration of the world's most powerful states, which is concentrated in so few they could be counted on your hand, resolving world issues in a way that satisfies all interests.
This kind of attitude will be the UN's undoing.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;36162008]I'm not so sure about this, as bad as it is, I don't think intervention will solve anything. It seems every time we try, we either get stuck there for 10 years and everyone hates us, or things don't work out as we expected.[/QUOTE]
Weren't we out of Libya pretty fast? Or am I uninformed
[QUOTE=Conscript;36162025]That's not a fatal flaw, a fatal flaw would be not preventing the US or other major powers from doing whatever the fuck they wanted. The UN is supposed to represent and consider the interests of all the world's countries, not just the west's. The security council needs to have a one-vote veto because it is intended to be a collaboration of the world's most powerful states, which is concentrated in so few they could be counted on your hand, resolving world issues in a way that satisfies all interests.
This kind of attitude will be the UN's undoing.[/QUOTE]
It didn't say 'fatal flaw' bad reading
[QUOTE=wari65;36162128]Weren't we out of Libya pretty fast? Or am I uninformed[/QUOTE]
We packed up and left as soon as they shot Gadaffi's head off. Some Conservatives still think it was a full fledged war however.
[QUOTE=smurfy;36162176]It didn't say 'fatal flaw' bad reading[/QUOTE]
There, have I made your day now?
[QUOTE=wari65;36162128]Weren't we out of Libya pretty fast? Or am I uninformed[/QUOTE]
We never put boots on the ground, unlike what the article is saying would happen in regards to Syria. Libya just had a few air strikes and a few drone strikes, I believe. But definitely did not land troops.
[editline]1st June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;36162186]We packed up and left as soon as they shot Gadaffi's head off. Some Conservatives still think it was a full fledged war however.[/QUOTE]
We do as the article is saying we will do, it [I]will[/I] be a full fledged war.
[QUOTE=wari65;36162128]Weren't we out of Libya pretty fast? Or am I uninformed[/QUOTE]
Didn't Libya end up electing an Islamic extremists?
If NATO or the US do go to war, I hope its quick and clean.
Perfect. We really need another war.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;36162286]If NATO or the US do go to war, I hope its quick and clean.[/QUOTE]
There really isn't much difference anymore between "NATO going to war" and "US going to war"
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;36162280]Didn't Libya end up electing an Islamic extremists?[/QUOTE]
Elections are on June 19 so unless you are posting from across the majestic gulf of time and space I don't think so
[editline]2nd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36162255]We never put boots on the ground, unlike what the article is saying would happen in regards to Syria. Libya just had a few air strikes and a few drone strikes, I believe. But definitely did not land troops.[/QUOTE]
Cool story: Pretty early on in the war, the EU [url=http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eufor-libya?lang=en]approved[/url] sending a few thousand troops into Libya to evacuate people and give humanitarian aid, but it was never activated by the UN
[QUOTE=TheSporeGA;36162296]Perfect. We really need another war.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, totally need another Iraq kind of war.
More sons and daughters, moms and dads, ripped from their families.
Really what our countries need.
Why doesn't anyone over there help them? Why must the US, Europe, or Canada have to be world police?
Doesn't anyone else in that Middle East area help? Or are they just looking out for themselves?
[QUOTE=SatansSin;36162504]
Doesn't anyone else in that Middle East area help? Or are they just looking out for themselves?[/QUOTE]
Nope. Most of the people in Afghanistan don't give two fucks about each other because a lot of settlements and cities are far apart, which I'm sure a lot of the other countries are like that to. Oh, and then the rest of them are controlled by dictators.
[QUOTE=smurfy;36162398]
Cool story: Pretty early on in the war, the EU [url=http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eufor-libya?lang=en]approved[/url] sending a few thousand troops into Libya to evacuate people and give humanitarian aid, but it was never activated by the UN[/QUOTE]
The EU putting soldiers on the ground is not the US putting soldiers on the ground.
[editline]1st June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=SatansSin;36162504]Yeah, totally need another Iraq kind of war.
More sons and daughters, moms and dads, ripped from their families.
Really what our countries need.
Why doesn't anyone over there help them? Why must the US, Europe, or Canada have to be world police?
Doesn't anyone else in that Middle East area help? Or are they just looking out for themselves?[/QUOTE]
Most of the Middle East JUST got finished their own revolutions. Though I do recall Libya sending support to the Syrian resistance, but I don't know how much or by what means (soldiers or just simply supplies).
Why does America NEED to take this big brother to the world stance?
What ever happened to non-interventionism. You can't (and shouldn't) save every person on Earth.
No.
We shouldn't intervene.
There's nothing the US, let alone a joint group, can do.
All we can do is close our eyes and hope.
We don't need another war.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36162757]Why does America NEED to take this big brother to the world stance?
What ever happened to non-interventionism. You can't (and shouldn't) save every person on Earth.[/QUOTE]
If they can't save themselves, and none of the selfish countries around them will, who will then?
[QUOTE=MightyMax;36162792]If they can't save themselves, and none of the selfish countries around them will, who will then?[/QUOTE]
answer: nobody
and then syria becomes the new somalia, warring between the government and the vengeful parents of the slaughtered children being mortar'd and shot there currently
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36162781]No.
We shouldn't intervene.
There's nothing the US, let alone a joint group, can do.
All we can do is close our eyes and hope.
We don't need another war.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit there is nothing the US can do, people are getting massacred and your response is We don't need another war, it's too great a burden on my wallet.
[QUOTE=MightyMax;36162792]If they can't save themselves, and none of the selfish countries around them will, who will then?[/QUOTE]
Why should I care? It isn't my country, it isn't my problem, it shouldn't be my concern.
Of ALL the countries currently that shouldn't be wasting money on humanitarian interventions the US is at the top.
[QUOTE=MightyMax;36162792]If they can't save themselves, and none of the selfish countries around them will, who will then?[/QUOTE]
Europe. Turkey even, maybe.
There are nearly 200 countries on this planet, surely the US is not the only one in the world capable of helping the Syrian people.
[QUOTE=Thlis;36162831]Bullshit there is nothing the US can do, people are getting massacred and your response is We don't need another war, it's too great a burden on my wallet.[/QUOTE]
People die daily, it's a fact of life. So what?
As I said before you can't just go around trying to save everyone especially when it's generally none of your business in the first place.
[QUOTE=Moose;36162829]answer: nobody
and then syria becomes the new somalia, warring between the government and the vengeful parents of the slaughtered children being mortar'd and shot there currently[/QUOTE]
I have a feeling neither Iran or Israel will let Syria become a new Somali.
[editline]1st June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36162854]People die daily, it's a fact of life. So what?
As I said before you can't just go around trying to save everyone especially when it's generally none of your business in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
It's terrible and disheartening to read, but it's a fact that you cannot possibly save everyone.
I think the smartest way to handle this is to trade off attacks on Syria and Iran with the relevant powers in the region. Something like: Russia gets to attack some country that they've been dying to kick ass on and we(NATO) don't say anything. Meanwhile, NATO kicks ass on Syrian and/or Iran and the Russians back off their alliances with at least Syria. What could go wrong?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
