Article

2017-04-11 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

U.S. Options in Syria Don't Include Ground Troops

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2017-04-11 05:39|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 You don't think we've already had Special Forces on the ground for well over a year?

Posted by Procopius2k 2017-04-11 08:17|| 2017-04-11 08:17|| Front Page Top

#2 The Trump administration should create a special task force for regime change in Iran and recruit PJ Media's Michael Ledeen to run it. Iran is vulnerable to subversion.

'Regime Change'... yea, that's the ticket. Worked well in Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, Libya, The DRC, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Nicaragua, etc.

[sarc tag added for g(r)om]

Posted by Besoeker 2017-04-11 08:26|| 2017-04-11 08:26|| Front Page Top

#3 But I don't know if that will work Besoeker

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2017-04-11 08:57|| 2017-04-11 08:57|| Front Page Top

#4 The second is to cut a deal with Russia and China: We muzzle the Sunni jihadists whom we (or our allies like Saudi Arabia) supported, and Russia and China cut Iran off at the knees.

Rather: they drop Iran, you drop Saudia

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2017-04-11 08:58|| 2017-04-11 08:58|| Front Page Top

#5 Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum thinks America should let Sunnis and Shi'ites exhaust each other.

Yeah, put me down for that one.

Posted by DepotGuy 2017-04-11 10:59|| 2017-04-11 10:59|| Front Page Top

#6 neo-conservatives Reuel Gerecht and Ray Takeyh

Neo-conservatives as in students in the McCain-Graham School of Warmongering? If these idiots want a war so badly they should feel free to go over there and get their own butts blown off. But leave the American military and taxpayers out of it.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2017-04-11 13:25|| 2017-04-11 13:25|| Front Page Top

#7 Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum thinks America should let Sunnis and Shi'ites exhaust each other.

That's right - work smarter, not harder!

Posted by Raj 2017-04-11 13:30|| 2017-04-11 13:30|| Front Page Top

#8 ...and when is the word 'neo-conservative' and its derivatives gonna go out of style? That word has annoyed the ever living shit out of me since I first saw it.

Posted by Raj 2017-04-11 13:45|| 2017-04-11 13:45|| Front Page Top

#9 That's right - work smarter, not harder!

Yep. Besides, all our regime-changers are busy working on regime-changing America at the moment.

Posted by SteveS 2017-04-11 13:55|| 2017-04-11 13:55|| Front Page Top

#10 We don't need ground troops in Syria to topple Assad. Air support will do it. We're not doing it because we don't want to topple him. The strongest rebel forces in Syria are jihadists of various flavors. We don't need them in power.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2017-04-11 15:50|| 2017-04-11 15:50|| Front Page Top

#11 Neo-conservatives as in students in the McCain-Graham School of Warmongering? If these idiots want a war so badly they should feel free to go over there and get their own butts blown off. But leave the American military and taxpayers out of it.

The chickenhawk argument is BS. We pay and equip soldiers to fight our wars for us, whatever we decide are appropriate. They don't get to choose any more than Chicago cops get to decide whether they want to out on foot patrol, or firefighters get to decide if they want to fight a given fire. If they're not happy with their assignments, they can quit once their contracts are up - it's not like someone forced them to sign on the dotted line. Soldiers are instruments, not drafters, of policy.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2017-04-11 15:55|| 2017-04-11 15:55|| Front Page Top

#12 Chickenhawk is not the word I'd use. How about frivolous? We send our troops into these little wars for reasons that have nothing to do with our national security. Our guys get killed and wounded. It cost taxpayers a fortune. The results are disastrous.

We want a strong military so we can be secure, not so we can meddle in the affairs of piss ant countries like Syria.

You call Iraq a success? Afghanistan? Libya?

Syria will be no better. Exactly what is to be gained there? Stay the fuck out of it. If you really want a war, how about going after the real threat which is Iran?

Posted by Abu Uluque 2017-04-11 16:32|| 2017-04-11 16:32|| Front Page Top

#13 Success in the middle east means a semi-brutal occupation/colonization lasting decades. The voters in the West will no longer tolerate that kind of stuff. So knowing that, the government should plan accordingly.

Posted by rjschwarz 2017-04-11 18:03|| 2017-04-11 18:03|| Front Page Top

#14 I'd like Trump's bandwidth to be refocused on national renewal.

I'm more than fine with action that advances and safeguards national interest -- and I know enough to loathe the Assads -- but I'm not seeing the concrete benefit to us here.

It's not as if we have limitless resources to spend on "wars of choice".

And if we collapse under the weight of debt and the Deep State, what good are we to anyone, anyway?

Posted by charger 2017-04-11 18:29|| 2017-04-11 18:29|| Front Page Top

23:48 Zenobia Floger6220
23:02 rjschwarz
21:52 rammer
21:45 rammer
21:37 Besoeker
21:34 rammer
21:34 Sock Puppet of Doom
21:32 Besoeker
21:27 Sock Puppet of Doom
21:25 rammer
21:20 Frank G
21:14 rammer
21:04 Zenobia Floger6220
21:03 rammer
21:02 Nero White 3083
20:39 Frank G
20:10 Crusader
20:05 rammer
19:50 rammer
19:41 CrazyFool
19:00 phil_b
18:54 Rob Crawford
18:50 Regular joe
18:44 swksvolFF