Help support TMP


"US in Syria 2018 - how likely?" Topic


11 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2006-present) Message Board



312 hits since 27 Jul 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Queen Catherine27 Jul 2017 6:53 a.m. PST

There's already lots of bleed-over. It's just west of Iraq. It's a puppet state for an aggressive large power [no longer a super power], it destabilizes the region…

How long until we have boots on the ground there aiding…someone?

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP27 Jul 2017 9:01 a.m. PST

My favorite instructional tool for dealing with that area is Runciman's History of the Crusades.
Open any book at random.
The last time I tried that exercise, I found three Christian factions, not counting Armenians or Byzantine. Then there were 3 flavors of Turk, a Jewish state somehow clinging on, two Shiite factions at odds with each other, and one or two Sunni regimes not yet mentioned. Oh yes. Druze. Are they Yazidis? And of course Kurds.
It made no sense then, it makes none now.

But never fear! Every American president since Rutherford Hayes has picked a faction to back, sometimes more than one who were at odds with each other.

I remember reading a Persian quip once. "When the Shah goes mad, he invaded Dagestan."

Why are we there? Cynics in 2002 said it was to seize oil. How did that work out?
But we are now energy independent, thanks to fracking, in essence thumbing our nose at OPEC. So what are our actual concerns there? Keeping the Czar from getting a warm water port? Let Disraeli and Gladstone worry about that.
I'm done wasting American lives and treasure there.

Having said that, I would say that the odds are about even.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP27 Jul 2017 9:03 a.m. PST

He whose name must be mentioned won't need a "Wag the Dog" scenario. Reasons to get involved will always miraculously pop up.

SouthernPhantom27 Jul 2017 9:34 a.m. PST

75th Ranger Regiment has been there for some time, "deconflicting" the Kurds and the Turks. Mostly preventing them from killing each other.

Queen Catherine27 Jul 2017 10:18 a.m. PST

@ Winston
Must "not" be mentioned, you mean?

I think it's a bit superficial to assume that just b/c Obama and Trump [hey, and most of their predecessors] inherited a US involvement, that they have to either continue it, reinforce it, or anything else.

But certainly the "deconflicting" issue is a scenario ripe to expand upon, because, after all, "we are sending additional troops to reinforce the 75th b/c we need to expand our deconfliction role, helping to prevent additional conflict"

Seems like an easy explanation.

Don't know that the big T and Mad Dog would actually do that, however.

Lion in the Stars27 Jul 2017 5:56 p.m. PST

@Queen Catherine: Yeah, that sounds like the wedge for expansion. But I sure as hell hope not.

I'm all for letting the lunatics kill each other, with the occasional smackdown administered when they expand their killing outside their sandbox.

Personal logo Florida Tory Supporting Member of TMP28 Jul 2017 6:08 a.m. PST

I also favor using Runciman. One of the miscellaneous factoids that I remember from reading it is that almost every truce or coalition (i.e., what our diplomats call "permanent" solution today) collapsed within 15 years, most within 10 years.

Rick

Personal logo Great War Ace Supporting Member of TMP28 Jul 2017 8:42 a.m. PST

Runciman is almost like a "Distant Mirror" (a la Tuchman). The Mideast then is essentially as the Mideast now.

What that means is that we should stay far away from involvement. Too late for that! We can always pull out, of course, with the resulting flack aimed at the POTUS. That is probably the single reason why the current POTUS (whenever) does not simply decamp from existing wars when he takes office: fear of the press.

If we stay in Syria and increase the presence there, it will be to finish the job. The Russians won't stop us. Once the job is finished, whatever that means, we will leave a strong military presence in Syria or close by.

ITALWARS Supporting Member of TMP28 Jul 2017 9:25 a.m. PST

now that the Russia had entered the game…and, contrary to US and others , have clear ideas about who are the good boys and who are the bad ones…US presence with their shy support to the supposed to be syrian patriots which in fact are a proxy of ISIS..has become totaly useless if not obstructive for those who are making the job..Russia

shirleylyn Supporting Member of TMP28 Jul 2017 9:52 a.m. PST

No need for westerners to go there. Deleted by Moderator

Personal logo Great War Ace Supporting Member of TMP28 Jul 2017 11:29 a.m. PST

I've been advocating for a "line in the sand" policy vis-a-vis any foreign threats for years. Interventionist policy should be as simple as "a clear and present danger". Beyond that is imperialism or to use the euphemism, "nation building".

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.