We could be in Syria well before 2007

[Battlefront.com]

I don't think an invasion is likely at this point, nor do I think military action is likely in the near future. At least not if Syria doesn't do a major screwup of some sort. In any case, no... the US military is in no position to do a unilateral military action of any significant size. The current force structure is stretched, budgets are a big problem, and public opinion is already not happy about current military comittments.

That being said, a UN sponsored NATO lead military action is certainly possible if there was a serious, very straight forward and immediate reason for it. Although the US and British would be on the hook for a great deal of the logistics necessary for an action like that, the amount of troops necessary to defeat Syria is not so large that a coalition of forces couldn't get in there and settle the matter decisively. Occupation, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. For that other forces would be necessary because the US and Brits aren't in a position to do it.

Hmmm you know what? That sounds a lot like something else... wonder what?

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

That being said, a UN sponsored NATO lead military action is certainly possible if there was a serious, very straight forward and immediate reason for it. Although the US and British would be on the hook for a great deal of the logistics necessary for an action like that, the amount of troops necessary to defeat Syria is not so large that a coalition of forces couldn't get in there and settle the matter decisively. Occupation, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. For that other forces would be necessary because the US and Brits aren't in a position to do it.

Hmmm you know what? That sounds a lot like something else... wonder what?

Steve

Syria has WMD's? :eek:

Originally posted by lucero1148:

"Already there have been skirmishes between US and Syrian troops on the Iraqi /Syria border with Syriuan troops KIA."

Does anyone have a link. I would like to find out more about these skirmishes.

[Kurtz]

Originally posted by JC_Hare:

Syria has WMD's? :eek:

Yes, they have been toying with chemical weapons for the last 30 years. Unlike certain other countroes they are allowed to do so, but it's of course frowned upon.

[Philippe]

I wasn't aware that chemical weapons were WMD's.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Philippe:

I wasn't aware that chemical weapons were WMD's.

Well, you would be amazed what they call WMD these days. Like a 20 yr old Arty shell with traces of chemical gas on it.

But I think chemical weapons, along with nuclear and biological weapons are classified as WMD.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Philippe:

I wasn't aware that chemical weapons were WMD's.

The whole meaning of WMD is very hazy at best, it's been recently used to describe Airliners, Dirty Bombs etc...

Like panzer76 said, the classic definition includes all NBC weapons.

[Kurtz]

In addition to that, there is also the Weapons of Mass Distraction and Weapons of Mass Disappearance.

Panzer76 is correct on "normal" the use of the term WMD. But we should use the term NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). After all, a 2000 lb bomb could cause more "mass destruction" then an artillery shell with mustard gas.

[Robear]

As to the question about how many troops the US has "left" to deal with new conflicts, here's a good site to start with.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm

I'd assume another brigade or two was deployed to Iraq around the time of the recent elections.

Just a data point.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Kurtz:

In addition to that, there is also the Weapons of Mass Distraction and Weapons of Mass Disappearance.

Panzer76 is correct on "normal" the use of the term WMD. But we should use the term NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). After all, a 2000 lb bomb could cause more "mass destruction" then an artillery shell with mustard gas.

The "Daisy Cutter" comes to mind. Does the US still use this 15,000lb beast?

[Edit - A quick Google search says yes - anyone have first hand knowledge of it being used in Iraq or Afghanistan?]

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by V:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lucero1148:

Sec of Stayte C. Rice wouldn't say how far the US would go to punishing Syria (using force wasn't out of the question).

I didn't know Lebanon was a US protectorate? </font>

[mazex]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mazex:

Well, 20 years ago the CIA helped train him and arm him...

UBL? IIRC, the CIA funded the Afghani local or homegrown fighters through the Pakistan version of the CIA. They bought weapons and supplies in vast quanity for the mujahedeen. The mujahedeen had different leadership, not Usama bin Laden.

While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray.

-- CNN

In short, it's likely at least some small amount of material support from CIA through the Pakistanis got to UBL it would be a great exaggeration to say he was trained by or a creature of CIA.

</font>

[Tagwyn]

Steve: Dont throw open the door to the kool-aid addicts! US is quite capable of destroying Syria in a couple of weeks, and they know it.Any government that is not our friend is our enemy!! It is past time to move all our troops out of Europe into the middle-east!! Euros can defend themselves now. Saddam will have to watch his trial from another room on closed circuit TV if he keeps up the ridiculous antics. Tag

[GSX]

Originally posted by Tagwyn:

Steve: Dont throw open the door to the kool-aid addicts! US is quite capable of destroying Syria in a couple of weeks, and they know it.Any government that is not our friend is our enemy!! It is past time to move all our troops out of Europe into the middle-east!! Euros can defend themselves now. Saddam will have to watch his trial from another room on closed circuit TV if he keeps up the ridiculous antics. Tag

Any government that is not your friend is your enemy. Do you go by that statement in real life?

Europe my friend has had nothing to defend itself from for at least ten years, there are other reasons that the US, and the UK for that matter still have bases in the area.

And it is the US that has allowed Mr Saddam to have his ridiculous antics. The best thing that should have happened when they found him was to say he was killed in a gun battle and just dissapeared him. Now he has his day in court he can tell all about how we in the West supported him and gave him his WMD. All that will happen now is that he gets to be an Islamic martyr that will do our cuase no good at all.

Maybe you should take a realism pill.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by GSX:

Maybe you should take a realism pill.

Is that the red or the blue pill? Nevermind, I'll just follow that nice rabbit down the .. err. spider hole?

[lucero1148]

Back to Lebanon. Does anyone know why Lebanon is important to Syria? Was it ever a province under Syrian rule or is it just a case of Syria wantig to extend it's sphere of influence in the region?

Regarding the CIA it never directly supported any Afghan guerilla group with cash or weapons. At least for most of the war. If I remeber correctly US spooks were in direct contact with the various factions as observer's/ spies covering the Afghan Soviet War they made their notes, recommendations and shared that to the ISI to do the shopping and distributions. A lot of the money that was funding the Afghan guerilla's came from the MiddleEast but the US encouraged the Saudi's , Kuwaiti's etc. to be generous (although in hindsight they were more than willing to fund the guerillas without US proding). What the US should have done is make sure the Middle East funds weren't going to extremists but that was something way beyond their control at that time.

Don't forget also that towards the end of the Soviet conflict the US did supply stinger missles to the rebel's and those stocks came directly from US stockpiles in Germany and the States. So one would have to consider who actually trained the guerilla's in the use of the missles. I doubt if the Pakistani's were doing the training. As for OBL none of those stinger's were ever given to his group.

GSX. That's a good point re. Saddam should have been executed on capture but that's the easy way out. At least for myelf bring him to trial may be arduous and a pain to suffer listening to Saddam defend himself, but it is necessary for the Iraqi's, the region and ultimately the world to realize that justice can be meted out to criminals like Saddam. To have had him killed out of spite would have made him a martyr automatically to the Arab world. Now if he's prosecuted and sentanced by his own people no one can fault that as it would be the will of the nation doing the punishment. My thoughts only.

Patrick

[Battlefront.com]

I am still a student of Syrian history, but I would say the double strategic benefits of major access to the sea and a flanking position on Israel are fairly straight forward benefits.

On the topic of Saddam, I am pleased to have him go to trial just like Milosovich. That way people can see for themselves what small men they really are. Oh, and completely nuts too.

Steve

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GSX:

Maybe you should take a realism pill.

Is that the red or the blue pill? </font>

[Erik Springelkamp]

The division of Lebanon and Syria after the colonial times was artificial in a way. They were always closely connected culturally. Both have several Moslim and Christian communities with across the border.

There is still a large pro-Syrian minority in Lebanon. They almost won the last election.

[Hortlund]

Does every single thread have to turn into this stupid sniping at BFC and/or the US? Cant we just ban a couple of the most obvious trolls and enjoy the tranquility after that?

[Justice]

No person who was smart enough to pull off that massacre would do so in syria's interest - the finger of blame fell on them while the cars were still burning. Keep in mind that we just went through 'the year of revolutions' - the orange revolution in Ukraine, the rose revolution in Georgia, and finally Kyrgistan's 'tulip' revolution in '05. All these occurred with blatant foreign interference in natiosn with strategic relation to petrochemical supplies

Syria was obviously framed for the Hariri killing from the start. He was murdered a month before general elections in Beirut, which immediately got the sympathy vote; additionaly, Syria was already under pressure to withdraw & was in the process of doing so peacefuly. Assad has intelligently claimed that murdering Hariri would only play into the hands of Israel & those in Lebanon who support western intervention; put simply, Syria assassinating Hariri is the plan of a child. Almost nobody in Lebanon thinks Syria is behind the killing (if you watch al-arabiya), except for some misguided druze & western plants.

[PseudoSimonds]

This isn't a political forum, numbnut.

[GSX]

GSX. That's a good point re. Saddam should have been executed on capture but that's the easy way out. At least for myelf bring him to trial may be arduous and a pain to suffer listening to Saddam defend himself, but it is necessary for the Iraqi's, the region and ultimately the world to realize that justice can be meted out to criminals like Saddam. To have had him killed out of spite would have made him a martyr automatically to the Arab world. Now if he's prosecuted and sentanced by his own people no one can fault that as it would be the will of the nation doing the punishment. My thoughts only.

Yes I suppose you are right there. I just have a feeling that the trial will do more harm than good for our cause.

[V]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

Syrian intelligence knows exactly what is happening within their own borders and could break the Sunni insurgencies back from within it's own borders whenever it wants. Or should I say whenever it has too?

No. Less than 10% of insurgents in Iraq are foreign.

EDITED for clarity. </font>

[V]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

But it's a mistake to come to the conclusion that that justifies distinctly military action under international law, which the US still has to operate under.

Indeed, as well does Syria. If it can br proven that the Syrian government is supporting the insurgency, terrorist attacks or attacks on American troops in Iraq, that would be reason enough for the US to use military action.

The US has never surrendered it's right to defend herself or her allies.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes, foreign fighters are a problem. I can see the US possibly taking almost any military action short of invasion. Baring some very unlikely scenario, such as the one being used for CMSF, the US is in no position to be taking on another occupation and insurgency. And barring a blatant provocation I do not see much public support for one anyway.