09-03-2014, 03:39 PM
I hear ya.
Here's my thinking:
-If we airstrike IS in Syria and kill a bunch of civilians and legitimate freedom fighters and Syrian military soldiers in the process, we've got a whole new group of enemies on our hands; the next generation of terrorists with an Anti-American and Anti-West set of objectives. I think we'd have to invest in Syria long-term to try to keep it stabilized.
-If we swallow pride and align with Assad's military, I think IS would be in major effin' trouble. That's a lot of collective force and the Syrian govt has the required intel. We'd need to live with Assad in power in the immediate future and be open to him re-establishing a secular (albeit dictatorial-like) government. But, in the process, we'd likely be ruffling the feathers of some of our ME allies like Turkey and Qatar for strengthening their enemy Assad and (by-default) aligning with Russia, China, and Iran. Netanyahu in Israel hates Assad (and everyone else, IMO), but does he hate IS more? That, I don't know, but I can already hear him crying.
-If we do nothing and contend that the people of Syria have to do it themselves, the people continue to be slaughtered. There are tons more innocent Syrians dying than there are western journalists. The Syrian civilians are sitting ducks for terrorists -- join us, flee, or be killed are their options. They are without defensive forces and just have to lay low or immigrate; waiting to see if it's Assad or IS that comes out on top. The war's been on for 3 years + now with no clear end in sight. But, letting it ride in Syria, increasing our homeland security, and hoping for the best is an option.
-If we stay out, but try to determine which of the militants are really truly "good guys" and which are "terrorists" and then arm the "good guys", we'd better arm them hard and heavy to compete with IS and hope like hell that they can win. I don't think it would be easy to differentiate between them at this point, and don't know how many good guys there are left. If the good guys don't stand a chance and we arm them anyways, we should expect another Message to America from IS; this time thanking us for all of the additional weapons, new recruits, and propaganda opportunities.
Iraq is much easier (by comparison) in that we have intel and partners on the ground in the country and can isolate IS targets for airstrikes. But, eradicating IS in Iraq doesn't eradicate them in Syria -- just a hop, skip, and a jump away. So...
It's depressing to ponder it. I hope the global military strategists have much more optimistic ideas and options in their bags of tricks than my mind can conjure.
Here's my thinking:
-If we airstrike IS in Syria and kill a bunch of civilians and legitimate freedom fighters and Syrian military soldiers in the process, we've got a whole new group of enemies on our hands; the next generation of terrorists with an Anti-American and Anti-West set of objectives. I think we'd have to invest in Syria long-term to try to keep it stabilized.
-If we swallow pride and align with Assad's military, I think IS would be in major effin' trouble. That's a lot of collective force and the Syrian govt has the required intel. We'd need to live with Assad in power in the immediate future and be open to him re-establishing a secular (albeit dictatorial-like) government. But, in the process, we'd likely be ruffling the feathers of some of our ME allies like Turkey and Qatar for strengthening their enemy Assad and (by-default) aligning with Russia, China, and Iran. Netanyahu in Israel hates Assad (and everyone else, IMO), but does he hate IS more? That, I don't know, but I can already hear him crying.
-If we do nothing and contend that the people of Syria have to do it themselves, the people continue to be slaughtered. There are tons more innocent Syrians dying than there are western journalists. The Syrian civilians are sitting ducks for terrorists -- join us, flee, or be killed are their options. They are without defensive forces and just have to lay low or immigrate; waiting to see if it's Assad or IS that comes out on top. The war's been on for 3 years + now with no clear end in sight. But, letting it ride in Syria, increasing our homeland security, and hoping for the best is an option.
-If we stay out, but try to determine which of the militants are really truly "good guys" and which are "terrorists" and then arm the "good guys", we'd better arm them hard and heavy to compete with IS and hope like hell that they can win. I don't think it would be easy to differentiate between them at this point, and don't know how many good guys there are left. If the good guys don't stand a chance and we arm them anyways, we should expect another Message to America from IS; this time thanking us for all of the additional weapons, new recruits, and propaganda opportunities.
Iraq is much easier (by comparison) in that we have intel and partners on the ground in the country and can isolate IS targets for airstrikes. But, eradicating IS in Iraq doesn't eradicate them in Syria -- just a hop, skip, and a jump away. So...
It's depressing to ponder it. I hope the global military strategists have much more optimistic ideas and options in their bags of tricks than my mind can conjure.