Thoughts on what happens in Syria after the Shock Force 2008 hypothetical war.

[Sequoia]

I think its a foregone conclusion that in Battlefront's hypothetical 2008 war in Syria, Syrian is defeated and occupied by NATO forces. I was thinking what happens then? The unfortunate "mission accomplished" sign on the US Carrier when President George W Bush visited after the Coalition overrun of Iraq come to mind. 

I'm no expert on Syria but some thoughts come to mind (which are probably overly simplistic). Syria is 90% Sunni Moslem, 10% Christian and 3% Druze  (I'll let you look up who the Druze are yourself if you don't know) . Of the Sunni however, 10% are of the Alawite branch. The Assad family is Alawite and Alawites dominate the Syrian government and hold key military positions according to Wikipedia. I'm thinking given the less diverse composition of the Syrian population, and given a minority ruling class is replaced by a more diverse democratic government installed by NATO, the likelihood of the post occupation violence that occurred in Iraq would be much less. The later real world civil war in Syria was largely led by non-Alawite Sunnis. Your thoughts?

 

 

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

IMHO.....Iran. 

By this I mean that after ticking Iraq off the list in 2003 and Syria in 2008, the US & NATO then go into Iran in around 2012.

At this point the Shia explode into violence across Iraq, Syria & Lebanon (with covert support from Russia who are still smarting after the loss of their Syrian ally).....The resistance organisation OSIRIS (Organisation for the Shia Islamic Resistance in Iraq & Syria) leads the fight against 'The Crusaders'.  

The sectarian fighting soon spreads to Saudia Arabia & Bahrain, both of which are subjected to heavy bombardment by Iran's unexpectedly large & capable SRBM, IRBM & cruise missile force.  Saudia Arabia is rendered uninhabitable overnight by a concentrated strike on the kingdom's desalination facilities.

Once NATO and the Americans are well & properly tangled up in the middle east, the Russians invade the Ukraine in 2016! 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Sequoia]

I thought it was a fair question, but never mind.

[Ithikial_AU]

Hehehe. Forget the Marvel Cinematic Universe, we need the BF Wargaming Universe.  

Remember the Syrian War as depicted occurred following a series of nuclear dirty bombs going off across a number of unnamed western countries, so I'm sure most of NATO would be bogged down worrying about their domestic situation, clean up and containment. Plus their militaries are embedded in Afghanistan and Iraq so already stretched. The dirty bomb terrorist attack across numerous Western cities is also far more impactful than September 11 was, and would of crashed economic markets with the shock and disruption to trade and commerce; coupled with the GFC that was right around the corner at this time. (The US housing debt time bomb was already ticking). So the western world galivanting off to Iran unless seriously provoked is probably a hell of a stretch for their Governments and militaries.

My guess is all efforts are are made to draw down in these three countries a bit quicker than we saw in reality and demonstrate stability in an effort to calm markets. But just in time to deal with the Black Sea Crisis a decade later.  

Edited October 28, 2021 by Ithikial_AU

[Bozowans]

I am wondering what role the Islamic State would play in this timeline. They had their origins back in 1999 with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Their goal of establishing a Sunni caliphate had been established for years prior to the CMSF2 timeline. They were quick to take advantage of the chaos of the real Syrian Civil War, eventually building up the al-Nusra Front, although these were anti-Assad fighters intending to establish an Islamic Emirate under sharia law. If Islamic State or Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists were the ones who did the dirty bomb attacks in the CMSF2 timeline, you have to wonder why the Assad regime would be protecting them.

Under Battlefront's timeline, Syria is assumed to have learned lessons from watching the annihilation of Iraq's military in Desert Storm and again in the 2003 invasion. It even says as much in some of the mission briefings. I remember the Task Force Thunder briefing mentioning that the Syrians were not the incompetent, militarily inept pushovers the blowhards rant about.

At the time this game was made, Iran was a constant target for American threats and saber-rattling. Even though BFC picked Syria for the setting, I feel like BFC was trying to make a bit of a statement with this game, to push back against those "blowhards" who thought the US military was invincible and an invasion of Iran would be a cakewalk. Some of the scenarios if CMSF2 are really quite difficult. While the coalition forces would certainly win the initial invasion, occupy the country and oust Assad, it would have been a much bloodier fight than Iraq and Afghanistan.

I doubt the coalition forces would be able to successfully occupy and pacify Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. I also doubt that Syria would have a peaceful transition to democracy after such a bloody invasion, somehow avoiding all the corruption, mismanagement, and factional in-fighting of Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps the CMSF2 invasion would merely kickstart the rise of the Islamic State years ahead of schedule, leading to a whole other intensely bloody phase of war.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On 10/28/2021 at 5:40 AM, Ithikial_AU said:

Hehehe. Forget the Marvel Cinematic Universe, we need the BF Wargaming Universe.  

Agreed! 

Given Wesley Clark's well publiced utterings on the thinking of the time, many of the possibilities above are viable:

 

[burning_phoneix]

On 10/28/2021 at 11:11 AM, Bozowans said:

I am wondering what role the Islamic State would play in this timeline. They had their origins back in 1999 with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Their goal of establishing a Sunni caliphate had been established for years prior to the CMSF2 timeline. They were quick to take advantage of the chaos of the real Syrian Civil War, eventually building up the al-Nusra Front, although these were anti-Assad fighters intending to establish an Islamic Emirate under sharia law. If Islamic State or Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists were the ones who did the dirty bomb attacks in the CMSF2 timeline, you have to wonder why the Assad regime would be protecting them.

Islamic State in Iraq existed even before the Syrian Civil War. They just took advantage of it to expand into the northern Syrian hinterlands.. Al Nusra Front is a separate indigenous Syrian Jihadist organization.  I don't know if these organizations would exist in a Combat Mission SF2 aftermath, even the uncon forces are more similar to fedayeen Saddam nationalist forces rather than Religious or Sectarian organizations.

 

On 10/27/2021 at 9:42 PM, Sequoia said:

 Of the Sunni however, 10% are of the Alawite branch.

Alawites are Shia Muslims, which is why Iran supports Assad.

 

In real life, Syria was one of the major arteries of Jihadists to the Iraqi theater, and the Syrian government had little incentive to stop their flow into Iraq. Now that that corridor has been blocked. Where will it spread? Possibly Lebanon? Turkey's borders are quite porous and many fighters of all stripes flowed through there (Turkey missing from SF2 is a big oversight IMO. It's a NATO force and has no involvement in a full scale war right across its border?)

[The_Capt]

On 10/28/2021 at 12:40 AM, Ithikial_AU said:

Hehehe. Forget the Marvel Cinematic Universe, we need the BF Wargaming Universe.

Brilliant.  So the aftermath of the events of CMCW linked directly to CMSF in 2008 which then lead to CMBS and ultimately to a 2030-2040 great power war...I am in.  Like we did in the alt-history for CMCW, the trick is to shape the narrative around shifts, disruptions and dynamics of power both internally and externally.  So spit balling:

- The loss of the war in CMCW has broad follow-on effects across the globe.  The Soviet Union collapses 5-10 years earlier, as a start point.  Historically the 90s were incredibly disrupted with respect to intrastate conflict, pull that 5-10 years earlier.

- The rise of non-state actors and regional powers is an easy step to make.  But we would need to take 9/11 off the board, it was too galvanizing.  Instead a mechanism that see the US draw back earlier is required that allows regional powers like Syria to emerge dominant enough to even try to resist a US/NATO intervention.  Economic is probably the way to go, perhaps back-date the 08-09 financial crisis.   This sees the US draw back initiallty but then is forced to intervene and keep intervening.

- US/NATO have to win and keep winning.  Intervention strategy (Team America) has to work earlier and longer in order for CMBS to happen.

- The emergence of other great powers (i.e. BRIC) as a response as pressure starts to build.  Climate change as an accelerant. 

- Boom.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The Soviet Union collapses 5-10 years earlier, as a start point.

Can't do that or it would break CM:A.....However I suppose the chaos from Afghanistan could have spilled over into the Soviet stans, destabilising the Union (the Soviets clearly feared precisely this.....I played with the concept to some extent with my 'Fragmentistan' experiments for CM:A).

Edited November 19, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[The_Capt]

25 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Can't do that or it would break CM:A.....However I suppose the chaos from Afghanistan could have spilled over into the Soviet stans, destabilising the Union (the Soviets clearly feared precisely this.....I played with the concept to some extent with my 'Fragmentistan' experiments for CM:A).

Answer to that is pretty simple actually, CMA occurs in the background of CMCW...in fact we could "re-imagine" it.  In the background story in CMCW we basically spell that out.  CMA would have to end earlier but it also starts earlier and more intensely.  Likely 5 years for Soviet collapse, so say in 1985 (now there is a module idea a la "The Ten Thousand")

[Sgt.Squarehead]

CM:A actually allows you to play up until 1992 (14 year calendar!).

It features some odd techno-tanks, (T-55AD & T-62D) with active defence systems (that didn't actually serve in Afghanistan) and by far the best Uncons in any of the CM games.

Lot of potential for WHIFs there IMHO.

Of course you seem to be assuming that the Soviet Union loses.....In my own playthroughs, they've generally been doing just fine! 

[Halmbarte]

Post WWII attempts at foreign occupation fail, with a few exceptions. My belief is this is because of two major factors:

1) The proliferation of cheap, reliable, small arms and, to a lesser extent, AT weapons. 

2) The proliferation of the user manual for guerrilla warfare, Mao's writings. 

 

Post WWII any group that wants to resist an occupying power has the means and know how to bleed the occupiers dry. The occupying power gets tired of the constant drain on resources and eventually gives up and goes home. This process has been repeated multiple times since the end of WWII. The only exception I can think of to this is the Chinese occupation of Tibet. 

 

I don't see a NATO occupation of Syria going much differently than Indonesia, the various African colonies, Afghanistan (OG or Afghan II Electric Boogaloo) or Iraq. The best you can hope for is: 1) capture and/or kill the people responsible for the attack, 2) hand the country over to a representative government, and 3) GTFO. Oh, yeah, and provide aid to repair/replace all the infrastructure that you wrecked doing item #1. 

 

H

 

 

[civdiv]

On 10/28/2021 at 9:11 AM, Bozowans said:

I am wondering what role the Islamic State would play in this timeline. They had their origins back in 1999 with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Their goal of establishing a Sunni caliphate had been established for years prior to the CMSF2 timeline. They were quick to take advantage of the chaos of the real Syrian Civil War, eventually building up the al-Nusra Front, although these were anti-Assad fighters intending to establish an Islamic Emirate under sharia law. If Islamic State or Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists were the ones who did the dirty bomb attacks in the CMSF2 timeline, you have to wonder why the Assad regime would be protecting them.

Under Battlefront's timeline, Syria is assumed to have learned lessons from watching the annihilation of Iraq's military in Desert Storm and again in the 2003 invasion. It even says as much in some of the mission briefings. I remember the Task Force Thunder briefing mentioning that the Syrians were not the incompetent, militarily inept pushovers the blowhards rant about.

At the time this game was made, Iran was a constant target for American threats and saber-rattling. Even though BFC picked Syria for the setting, I feel like BFC was trying to make a bit of a statement with this game, to push back against those "blowhards" who thought the US military was invincible and an invasion of Iran would be a cakewalk. Some of the scenarios if CMSF2 are really quite difficult. While the coalition forces would certainly win the initial invasion, occupy the country and oust Assad, it would have been a much bloodier fight than Iraq and Afghanistan.

I doubt the coalition forces would be able to successfully occupy and pacify Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. I also doubt that Syria would have a peaceful transition to democracy after such a bloody invasion, somehow avoiding all the corruption, mismanagement, and factional in-fighting of Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps the CMSF2 invasion would merely kickstart the rise of the Islamic State years ahead of schedule, leading to a whole other intensely bloody phase of war.

I agree with many of your points. I do not think an invasion of Syria would have been that hard, but the ‘peace’ that followed would have been just as hard as it was in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our military is great at killing people and lighting stuff on fire, but the various organs of the US Federal Government and the International Coalition suck at achieving peace. Then throw in meddling by Turkey, Russia and Iran, toss in the Kurds, throw in AQ and the inevitability of the rise of ISIS, which already existed, and you have a dumpster fire.

[Halmbarte]

39 minutes ago, civdiv said:

I agree with many of your points. I do not think an invasion of Syria would have been that hard, but the ‘peace’ that followed would have been just as hard as it was in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our military is great at killing people and lighting stuff on fire, but the various organs of the US Federal Government and the International Coalition suck at achieving peace. Then throw in meddling by Turkey, Russia and Iran, toss in the Kurds, throw in AQ and the inevitability of the rise of ISIS, which already existed, and you have a dumpster fire.

That's what militaries do and that's why they shouldn't be used when you're not trying to kill people and blow stuff up. 

 

155mm tube artillery is not a good way to build infrastructure or manage a election. 

 

H

[civdiv]

49 minutes ago, Halmbarte said:

That's what militaries do and that's why they shouldn't be used when you're not trying to kill people and blow stuff up. 

 

155mm tube artillery is not a good way to build infrastructure or manage a election. 

 

H

Who else is going to do it, the State Department? Keep in mind the military doesn’t make foreign policy, they simply carry it out. We have to have faith in our civilian leadership, and the electorate, to make good decisions. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were military failures, they were political and foreign policy failures.

[Halmbarte]

48 minutes ago, civdiv said:

Who else is going to do it, the State Department? Keep in mind the military doesn’t make foreign policy, they simply carry it out. We have to have faith in our civilian leadership, and the electorate, to make good decisions. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were military failures, they were political and foreign policy failures.

Yes, exactly. 

 

We shouldn't have entered into either w/o clearly defined goals and a plan to GTFO. 

 

H

[MikeyD]

The obvious answer is 'hypothetical Syria' absorbs the initial blow and emerges victorious. Governments fall across Europe as a result of the disgraceful defeat. The US finds itself in a hopeless static war trapped on the wrong side of fortress Damascus with its extended supply lines under constant attack in Iraq and eastern Syria. Desperate plans are formulated to create a new supply (or exit) route across the nearby Israeli border but the Israeli government is not cooperative.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Nah.....NATO definitely got into Damascus, I had Brits running around there the other day.

An abortive invasion of Iran is the obvious sequel.....IMHO it would make a decent game too, we could expand & extend the TOE by a couple of years and some serious thought could be given to extending the Uncon options.  Bigger formations based on the CM:A Mujahideen Battalion & Tribal Group could be the basis for various militias (& tribal groups).

Your work on the Turks could be integrated, as I'm sure they'd get themselves involved, as might Azerbaijan.

IMHO it would make a stonking game.