Saudi-coalition vows to remove Assad by force 'if necessary' while the US demands the immediate cess
43 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49744671]An interesting idea of "stable." Being terrified of having secret police come to your home and murder everyone because your equally terrified neighbor reported on you isn't exactly what I think of when looking for a stable society.[/QUOTE]
By stable he means not being a problem to us, not the Syrian people.
out of sight out of mind lol
[QUOTE=Govna;49743968]A new government that's friendly to the West needs to be introduced by us to curb Russian influence and ensure we've got a foothold in the region.[/QUOTE]
Man I'd agree with you but the west, America in particular, has a REALLY shit track record of instituting west-friendly governments that remain that way.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;49744735]Does anyone have any good reference on Saudi Arabia's military? I was always under the impression they had a lot of money to buy expensive things but their actual personnel are inexperienced and don't have training to the degree of most other 1st world nations.
Like, I thought their military was mostly for show.
All I ever see are pictures of soldiers standing in rows awkwardly with their battle rattle flopping all over the place with big expensive toys in the background all posed nicely.[/QUOTE]
Incompentent and politicised army, both ground forces and air-force is a joke. Just awful overall performance during the gulf-war and not getting much better during their yemen adventure.
[URL="https://books.google.com.br/books?id=sSHYdGR_xvoC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA432#v=onepage&q&f=false"]Arabs at war - Saudi performance in the gulf war[/URL]
-
Have they said anything about what they're gonna do with Russia? That's kinda of a big problem in the way of their grandiose idea of deposing Assad.
What if the point of isis is to create a zone of of the map that they could control in an intervention.
[QUOTE=phygon;49745125]Man I'd agree with you but the west, America in particular, has a REALLY shit track record of instituting west-friendly governments that remain that way.[/QUOTE]
Our problem is we don't stick around and finish the job. We're great at winning wars, second to none, but we suck at winning the peace that follows. Lessons have been learned from Iraq and Afghanistan (which, in the latter's case, contrary to what people might spin it as was not a failure), and we've got more experience at conducting counter-insurgency operations and initiating/supporting regime changes than anyone else in the world. Not to mention we have all the economic resources a country could ever ask for to contribute to reconstruction efforts.
Basically, what it's going to take is for the entire country to collapse. The old elite order will have to be swept out, Assad hopefully can be captured and made an example of like Hussein was, and the military will have to be devastated on the field to the point where it will be like Iraq and hordes of troops will just surrender without even putting up a fight (remember what happened with the First Gulf War?). The refugees that are flooding Europe will have to be sent back, by force if necessary. The whole idea behind being a refugee to begin with is that your displacement from home is temporary, and you'll go back once things cool down there; I'm afraid however that a lot of those people are nothing but economic migrants, like the Iraqi ones we just heard about a few days ago that went to Finland and have now suddenly decided to back home because the Finns are "hostile" and the weather is "too cold". We send them back to rebuild their country, and we give them the aid they need in order to do so as well as put ourselves on the ground there to help them through that process.
As far as actually setting up the new government goes, that's a bit more difficult. Our government of course keeps tabs on important people around the world, and Syria is no exception. The key would be to find qualified people outside the present Ba'athist framework that dominates the country, and that's difficult for those of us who aren't in the know to talk about. I'm sure they have a list of potential candidates lined up. You need people that are sensible enough to create a secular state and want to preserve that element in their society, but you also need them to be corrupt enough that they'll acquiesce to influence by the United States and Western powers.
Physical reconstruction of the country in the aftermath isn't a problem; we have more experience than anybody else at sending in contractors to these kinds of third-world hellholes and giving them all the tools, physical resources, and manpower they need in order to do things like build roads, hospitals, schools, new housing projects, etc. We also have more experience at conducting counter-insurgency operations and working with swapping out governments. The government issue is the most difficult part, because it's a matter of dealing with people, and people are complicated. The officials in power have their own games they're playing, for themselves as individuals and collectively as national figures (on both a national and international level at that), the people have their own desires and emotional components that resonate with certain officials more than others.
So the question is then, how do we setup this new government we want, and who do we put in it to ensure the country will play along with us and our side but at the same time will keep the natives happy to the point of relative complacency? There's no simple answer here unfortunately, and it's a living issue (as in moment to moment, circumstances are changing that must continually be accounted for in the assessment process).
[QUOTE=dreukrag;49746219]Incompentent and politicised army, both ground forces and air-force is a joke. Just awful overall performance during the gulf-war and not getting much better during their yemen adventure.
[URL="https://books.google.com.br/books?id=sSHYdGR_xvoC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA432#v=onepage&q&f=false"]Arabs at war - Saudi performance in the gulf war[/URL]
-
Have they said anything about what they're gonna do with Russia? That's kinda of a big problem in the way of their grandiose idea of deposing Assad.[/QUOTE]
This might have been true decades ago, but times have changed. The Saudis have the best-funded military in the Middle East today. Hell 25 years ago during the First Gulf War, they made major contributions to help out the coalition; their air forces flew more than 7,000 sorties against the Iraqis. They've got one of the largest militaries of any Middle Eastern nation as well, and they've been partially equipped by the United States. [url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/15/middleeast/saudi-arabia-military-exercises/]Here lately as well, they've been training with others in the region in massive exercises[/url]. As far as Russia goes, who knows how that's going to turn out. We support the Saudis, we support this coalition of theirs, we want rid of Assad, and we moreover want the Russians out of Syria.
We need to do more to oppose them; that's the endgame here. We needed to in the Ukraine years ago (we had a perfect opportunity after MH17 was shot down by their rebel pals), we need to in Syria now. It's a tricky situation, but not one that's impossible to solve. We first off need to get some backbone and realize that we're going to have to become more aggressive. That's actually why McCain's statements that were originally posted are so relevant: they're absolutely right. We can't keep playing this game of passivity against the Russians, because it simply isn't a long-term working solution. The Crimea and Ukraine, now Syria... and then back in 2008, there was their invasion of Georgia (which was drifting towards NATO and the European Union at the time). They're testing us. They've been testing us for years now. It's a game of, "How much can we get away with before the West will put their foot down?" And right now, this passivity of ours is sending the wrong message. It says we're not going to do anything at all against them, and they can get away with whatever they want. It's a lot like when Hitler and Germany were going around against Czechoslovakia after the Anschluss of Austria; there again, that was nothing but a game testing to see how much could be gotten away with before the British and the French intervened. The Cold War never ended. It just took a really brief hiatus.
This Saudi coalition is honestly the best thing that could happen for us, because it means their forces doing most of the work. Fewer lives and materials will be lost by us then. Their problems will be their problems, their losses are not our issue... nevertheless, we'll have to support them as well as we can-- as allies and as useful pawns to us.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;49744988]By stable he means not being a problem to us, not the Syrian people.
out of sight out of mind lol[/QUOTE]
By stable he means not gridlocked in an unending war between government forces, radical Islamists, the Kurdish people, a smaller number of rebels, and various outside military and intelligence agencies.
Sure, keep wanting Assad to stay even though he's the one that ordered firing upon protesters!
There's no way in hell the Syrians will accept Assad staying in power, and they are completely in the right, fucker gassed his own people and started this whole thing.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49747142]By stable he means not gridlocked in an unending war between government forces, radical Islamists, the Kurdish people, a smaller number of rebels, and various outside military and intelligence agencies.[/QUOTE]
Right, gridlocked instead in a death camp dictatorship where the whole population is imprisoned and used for the purposes and pleasures of a single family.
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49747317]Right, gridlocked instead in a death camp dictatorship where the whole population is imprisoned and used for the purposes and pleasures of a single family.[/QUOTE]
It's more like a fight for survival for the Alawites now. If Assad and the SAA falls, they will probably be on the receiving end of a genocide, given how they are a politically and military rather powerful minority group in the Middle East right now, and are pissing off more radical Islamic groups. But in numbers in the Middle East, the Alawites are outnumbered by a big margin. In total, they only are a few million people. Syria is about the only country they live in where they aren't oppressed. It would also explain why the SAA is still going after five years of constant war. It's either fight or die for the Alawites at this point. They don't exactly expect the ''moderate'' rebels to take mercy on them at this point.
We've left it too late to intervene properly at this point. Continue the bombing of ISIS and aid to the Kurds, but take this as a lesson for what happens if you sit on your hands and do nothing: A mass slaughter which bolsters the interests of your enemies who assert their power (Russia, Iran) in the face of inaction. Even more importantly, accept that inaction is also a course of action. The options when considering intervention aren't stasis where nobody dies against every death (including those which weren't actually caused by your troops) is your fault, but instead have to take into consideration what would happen without Western intervention ie. thoroughly nasty people slaughtering tens of thousands.
I think the situation was unfixable from the start, the US couldn't possibly make up a proper plan to intervene. I have no doubt about it that if the US somehow removed Assad all rebel groups would've just started fighting each other, which they're kind of doing right now, but even worse.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49747801]We've left it too late to intervene properly at this point. Continue the bombing of ISIS and aid to the Kurds, but take this as a lesson for what happens if you sit on your hands and do nothing: A mass slaughter which bolsters the interests of your enemies who assert their power (Russia, Iran) in the face of inaction. Even more importantly, accept that inaction is also a course of action. The options when considering intervention aren't stasis where nobody dies against every death (including those which weren't actually caused by your troops) is your fault, but instead have to take into consideration what would happen without Western intervention ie. thoroughly nasty people slaughtering tens of thousands.[/QUOTE]
Sure but you can say the exact same thing about every instance where a power doesn't intervene to help people. Are we responsible for the thousands of people who starve to death in sub-Saharan Africa? We could do something about it. In many cases it would be necessary to depose regimes which have engineered the starvation. Many people would die, it would take decades, it would cost trillions, etc. But using your line of reasoning it's our fault that all these Africans are dying/will die. You can apply this to any scenario you wish.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.