BS?: "US Marines Are Locked In Battle With Syrian Troops"

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

I agree with your disagreement because I didn't disagree with it before you disagreed

As far as I am concerned the insurgency is not only against foreign occupation, but equally against any Iraqi institution they set up. So Iranian aid in attacking Sunnis in the center might be their prime goal, but as part of that the Americans are going to get hit too. They aren't going to disuade the insurgents from attacking Americans because attacking them is the same as attacking the Iraqi government. In other words, they want both gone.

Now, as to how much direct control Iran has over things in Iraq... I don't know. Probably more indirect than direct. They help train, fund, and advise, but in the end it is up to local commanders to make local decisions with the greater goal in mind. That's just a hunch.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

You can defeat an insurgency two ways. Way number one is uncontrolled brutality plus massive force, plus time. The Soviet repression of Ukrainian partisans in the 1943-53 period springs to mind as a textbook example. In this case time was needed to settle the region with pro-Moscow inhabitants, and to penetrate partisan ranks with informers.

Way number two is by outlasting the insurgency and bringing the insurgent's base - the population - over to the side of the government with increased socio-economic opportunity, in other words the probability of a much better standard of living if the insurgents are marginalized. Time is still needed to penetrate the insurgent ranks with informers. I would say the textbook case here is, of course, Northern Ireland. Other examples might be the Basque separatists and the Muslim insurgencies in Mindinao and south Thailand - all pretty much cornered in their bit of the country and marginalized.

The U.S. effort in Iraq is so hog-tied by U.S. limitations, as I see it, so as to reduce chances of supressing the insurgency to a practical zero.

I see Iran as a minor player in Iraq, bigger than Turkey and less than the U.S., but in any case without dramatic influence over the course of events. I think it is a big mistake to assume that the U.S. "awesome" military somehow is in a position to shape events in Iraq. They're good at destroying armored vehicles, sure. Coordinating air strikes at even company and platoon level, yeah, they're the best in the world. But at repressing an insurgency and imposing law and order in a Muslim country?

Let's not hold our breath on that one.

The important, decisive players in Iraq are the sections of the Iraqi society competing for control, and just about all of them offering different approaches and definitions towards that control.There are a lot of them.

Small town and rural Shia lean towards an ulema-based legality, urban Sunni and Shia and even some Kurds think the westerners can bring Iraq forward from the dark ages, rural Sunni think they are fighting for their and their childrens' very existence, Kurds mostly want their own state, a certain proportion of young men in all the groups just think war is a duty, the mobsters (Think they're unimportant? Look at Russia.) just want to steal where possible and are quite happy to use violence at whomever to get their way.

The assorted religious leaders are doing their durndest to extend the sway of their church into the moral vacuum left by the Sadaam regime, and usually they are willing to call for blood rather than let a competing religion get an upper hand. Then there are average Iraqis everywhere who see any foreign occupation a recipe for the shocking unwedded pregnancy of their daughters, the loss of respect of their sons, and the outrageous unveiling and even independence of their wives. U.S. occupation and the government it is trying to establish threatens the very fabric of a society with traditions running back, sometimes, millenia. That kind of threat is not exactly helpful in separating the insurgents from the population.

Then of course the Sadaam operatives trained by the KGB, and out to settle scores. And for heaven's sake don't forget all the businessmen of all stripes making fortunes selling oil illegally, or stealing property from the U.S. administration, and who would lose everything if an honest goverment ever got going in Iraq.

You can add in as minor players the greater Arab world somehow trying to help the insurgency because it's against infidels after all, the Turks undermining Kurdish autonomy, the Iranians probably doing their bit to keep things unstable and the Shia religion predominant,

Call me lacking in imagination, brand me defeatist, color me pinko liberal; but in cold rational analysis I fail to see how the U.S. military can impose a democratic civic society on that kind of mess, ever. Heck, at this point I can't see anything down the road but civil war.

My question of course is why a bunch of U.S. decision-makers came to a different conclusion, and decided to send troops.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

As ever once we've clarified a few points we're actually pretty close.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

My question of course is why a bunch of U.S. decision-makers came to a different conclusion, and decided to send troops.

A combo of wishful thinking, brash nationalism, cutting off debate before it began.

The problem is that if Iraq slides into civil war and coallition forces bail out, then one has to wonder what conditions will be placed on future military interventions. The Bush Admin, rightly or wrongly, tossed aside the Powell Doctrine and introduced preemptive intervention. It would appear that this new formula doesn't work, even if the situation in Iraq steadily improves through sheer determination. So what will this do for future planners?

The primary thing I see is taking into consideration the nation's homogeneity of culture, political concepts, religion, and race. The more homogeneity the easier it will be to manage during occupation. This cuts down the chances of getting involved in someone else's fight (or in Iraq's case, lots of other people's fights). Another element is how close to the "Western" political model the country's existing traditions are. The closer the better. These factors, along with the others I mentioned, would be, I think, fairly good indicators of how an occupation might go.

Relating to Syria, things look much better than they do for Iraq. 90% of the population is Arab, 75% are Sunni and 10% Christian, with the remainder other Muslim faiths. Neighbors are Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and Iraq. All of these nations, other than Iraq (a special case), are generally pro-Western and allied militarily with Western forces. The government, though repressive, appears to be more accountable than that of Iraq.

It would appear, therefore, that an occupation would be easier to pull off than in Iraq and Afghanistan. Provided, of course, that the local population sees the defeat and repalcment of their current government as being a positive thing. This would depend entirely on circumstances, of course, but just saying inherently I think it would be more possible to acheive success within reasonable bounds than compared to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The problem is that if Iraq slides into civil war and coallition forces bail out, then one has to wonder what conditions will be placed on future military interventions.

You raise a very important point - the impact a "failed" Iraqi adventure will have on future US foreign policy.

There are growing parallels with the Vietnam War, it seems to me. The feeling that there is no end in sight; the steady, morale-sapping loss of US lives; the growing unpopularity of the war at home, etc.

I can see the same sort of thing happening in Iraq as happened in Vietnam. It will take a long time before the decision to pull out is eventually taken, costing more lives in the process. The pull out will leave behind a shattered and lawless Iraq until some country such as Iran or Syria steps in to sort out the mess. Then, for years after, America will very likely become isolationist, resulting in other conflicts around the world flaring up whilst the US quietly looks the other way. This will be a tragedy for the world as a whole, not just the US.

Perhaps instead of trying to install democracy in Iraq, the US should have taken a leaf out of the old British Empire's book and gone for "Divide and Rule". This would have meant propping up the minority Sunni population against the majority Shia. The resultant Sunni government would have been intensely loyal to the US out of necessity, and would have made sure the Shia were kept under control. Brutal, undemocratic, but probably more likely to succeed than the current policy.

[yuvuphys]

First, a thought on why the admin decided to go in. A few months before we invaded, I had a convo with my roommates at the time, and we concluded that we were going in to open up a new front on the terror war. The primary concern with going in is how effective you're going to be at setting up this new front; how the new government in Iraq comes out is important, but of secondary concern. The best advice I've heard on interpreting what the admin is doing is to look at their decisions as if they were playing poker, what you hear is never quite what you get. There's a logic to the madness, but it's not always apparent. There's a whole debate about whether what happened is correct or not, but gets into PC and political junk, so I'd like to avoid it...but I think for better or worse that's what has happened. WMD's was simply the legal pretense for the war, though I've always felt the admin made a huge mistake basing the case for war on only that issue.

On the currect situation...if a civil war happened right now, it'd be very ugly and it'd be over pretty quick. The Sunni might want one to try to get back into power, but they also know increasingly know that they'd come out on the losing side if the gloves came off...which is why I'm not all that worried about a civil war. One will only start if both sides think they can win, and most Sunni don't think they can win. Their best bet is to sew unrest, but not allow the situation to deteriorate into civil war, and bide their time until they have enough strength to fight. Well, in the meantime the Iraqi gov't can slowly win over tribe after tribe, and slowly they are gaining control of the situation. It might take another decade, but well before then the Iraqi army will be able to handle things. But in the past few years the focus of the insurgents (and the focus of the fighting) has moved from the sunni triangle and into western Iraq, and that indicated some good progress has been made in that part of the country. Sure, it'd be nice if it'd happened faster...but some things take time.

Well, that's my take at least. About 6 months ago I made a number of bets that US troop levels would be below ~80K this coming summer, and I still fully expect to win that bet

[FAI]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It would appear, therefore, that an occupation (of Syria) would be easier to pull off than in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Steve

Interesting, as most (if not all) people here agrees that Syria's resistance to a possible US invasion and occupation will make Iraq looks pale in comparison. Rebuilding-wise, a homogenous country is preferable, but it also means a unified enemy.

[FAI]

I was watching a program in the UK recently about American casualties, and a guy fitting artificial limbs to wounded soldiers boasted that they were so good you could return to duty with one. Some soldiers have apparently already been sent back into action with artificial limbs.

Well, you might be able to get around, but would you really be able to cope psychologically? This sounds pretty crazy to me. The guy said the army was hoping that eventually they would be able to return as many as 40% of amputees to their units. This sounds utterly bizarre to me. [/QB]

Talking about a silver lining for a very ugly looking cloud....

The unprecedented number of troops who are returning from Iraq with missing limbs has given the US Paralympic Team an unexpected recruitment boost and the chance to become “unbeatable” at the next Games in Beijing in 2008.

[Battlefront.com]

Yuvuphys, I'm not sure the extremists are thinking so clear headed. When one is convinced that God is on your side, and your side alone, things get rather messy. I think that a full blown civil war would be "brutish and short", but that a low level insurgency (like experienced today) would go on for a long time after. If the Shia split, which is entirely possible, then things will be a total cluster fudge. I think there is more to be concerned about with the Shia block divided between secular and religious forms of government, with the others just making a terrible situation worse.

FAI,

Interesting, as most (if not all) people here agrees that Syria's resistance to a possible US invasion and occupation will make Iraq looks pale in comparison. Rebuilding-wise, a homogenous country is preferable, but it also means a unified enemy.

If the West went into Syria today, just like it went into Iraq (false reason, no international support, no support from neighbors, no plan for occupation, horribly mismanaged rebuilding effort, etc.) then I would agree completely. At least for a time. The difference between Iraq and Syria is that I think the question of "victory" would be easier to answer.

In Iraq there are so many variables out there that it is difficult to figure out what might happen to a given action. Will this help or will this hurt? How much in either direction? Will it last or can it be undone the next day? I think Syria would be less chaotic in terms of what needs to be done and how best to do it. This means there is a greater chance of coming up with a formula to start with, and increases the chance that it will work in a sustainable way.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the unity of Syria would work against the occupation in a way that is worse than in Iraq. But I guess I find it hard to imagine that being the case. Remember, it is easier to knock down a single large guy than it is a gaggle of smaller guys. The fight with the large guy might be tough and challenging, but you can focus all energy on defeatingn that one guy. You knock him down and you're done. Witht he gaggle of smaller guys, while you're hitting one there is another one going for your balls. Kick that one and find another jumps on your back. Toss that guy off your back and another one is biting your ankle. Maybe each guy is easier to put down than the big guy, but there are so many of them that you don't think you have a chance of knocking them all out of the fight before one of them gets a critical hit (bottle over the head) or the net effect makes you look for the exit.

Crude analogy, I know, but at least it didn't involve automotives

Steve

[Drusus]

I think maybe even more important is that in Iraq if you do something against the Sunni insurgency, then it is very much possible that the thing is considered anti-Sunni and not anti-Insurgency. If you do something to help the Sunni population, it might be considered pro-Sunni and anti-Shia (for example more Sunni security forces). If you have a country with unified population, then a) if you do something to help them, there is nobody who thinks that it was against them and democracy has much more hope of actually working.

[Bigduke6]

With friendly forum respect, and I am saying this in the nicest way I can, you guys talking about democracy following a U.S. invasion of Syria are, ermh, uh, you know, ah, how do I say this, *clears throat*, the thing is, you see, *pregnant pause*, that is...way off base. In my humble opinion, of course.

Syria is the Sunnia heatland and a frontline state against Israel. Battle against the unbeliever infidel is taught in grade schools, is basic to middle school education, and in a lot of ways the very basis of Syrian society.

The overwhelming majority of the Syrian population would view any U.S. intervention as a direct attack on Islam. Imans from Casablanca to Bali would issue fatwa within weeks of the invasion making fighting and killing Americans in Syria a jihad as important to the Molsem faith, as resisting the Crusades was 800 years ago. And the imans would put the fight in precisely those terms.

The reaction inside the country would be wholesale resistance by the best means possible, across the population, with for practical purposes no exceptions. The resistance would be homogeneous, and most likely impenetrable to U.S. intelligence (which sucks at human intelligence operations anyway). Unlike Iraq, Syria is a monoethnic society where some one from even Lebanon or Iraq is going to stick out usually. The Syrian Diaphora is negligible, so when you take over you are going to have a real problem finding stooges, uh, appointees to built democracy, to replace the Assad government.

The country is certainly smaller than Iraq, but in terms of built-up areas it is more densely covered, and what's worse for a high-tech invader the northern frontier of the country is mountainous.

Want safe havens? They don't come much better than Lebanon, which has had a low level civil war on for something like 30 years, is deeply penetrated by Syrian intelligence, and where everything but everything is for sale. You could probably hide a division of insurgents in Beruit for a couple of hundred thousand dollars, and bring them into Syria by bus.

Besides Lebanon there is Turkish Cappodochia, where in the first place the Turkish provincial government is riddled with corruption, in the second place a low-intensity war is on against the Kurds, and in the third place government sway on the border only holds at road check points, and probably only there.

Then there is the Assad factor. Unlike Saddam in Iraq, the Assad regime is for better or worse considered more or less legitimate by most Syrians, and a foreign attempt to stick a puppet governor in his place - and that's how any forced Assad replacement would be seen, be it Mother Theresa or Saladin himself, as precisely that. It is true the U.S. general public might, even after Iraq, be convinced an invasion of Syria was in Syria's own good. The idea that the Syrian public would sign up to that proposition is ludicrous.

Then there is the intensity of the resistance. One of the sad facts about Iraq is that the resistance there frankly is not that effective, only capable of organizing bombings and ambushes on a regular basis, but forced to live mostly underground and only able to control some villages. Some foreign fighters aside (and probably not too many of those) it is receiving next to no visible foreign support, and whatever resistance you have will necessarily in Iraq have to aim not just at the Americans but the various other factions competing for power.

In Syria, you have a population united against the invader, and just the invader. Cooperation would be next to nil and if you think it's dangerous working for the Americans in Iraq, it would be a walk in the park compared to the life expectancy of a "locally-grown coalition supporter" in Syria. People like that would be seen as collaborators of the worst sort, and it is quite likely other people would compete for the opportunity to murder them.

The Syrians have been on a vague war footing for the last half-century, their secret police knows where every one is, and it would remain intact until the Americans dismantled it, if they could.

Then there is the international reaction. It almost boggles the mind to consider the Muslim world reaction to a U.S. invasion of Syria, in the wake of the debacle in Iraq (in terms of U.S. policy seeming justified to others), and in the absense of something really evil like a sarin gas attack at a NFL football game directly organized by the Syrian government.

For starters, the U.N. would condemn the U.S. invasion. Sure, blow the U.N. off if you want. It's fun!

But what does it mean for the U.S. economy if OPEC, Russia, Europe, and China all get on the same sheet of music, and impose trade sanctions on the U.S.? Cut off oil? Name me a petroleum-producing country that would not sign up to such an embargo, that would not love to see the U.S. hit with economic sanctions but good. Australia? Bermuda? Israel?

Oh wait, none of those countries have oil. Hmmm...

Ok, maybe the Canadians would keep the fuel coming to the Americans. But maybe they wouldn't.

What would happen if the entire world, for practical purposes, decided to gang up on the U.S. economically? If even the British, French, and German media - all of whom are no slouches and in some ways superior to U.S. media - is on the scene in Syria and reporting the war not from a pro-U.S. point of view? Forget Al Jazeera; what do you do if the BBC is beaming satellite images of Damascus schools getting whacked by laser-guided bombs? I

Sure no one can stop the U.S. militarily. But if there is one thing Iraq teaches, it is that wars are not just fought on battlefields. Never mind oil. Can some one, any one, just explain to me how the U.S. could make its way through a holiday season, without access to China-manufactured toys?

I'll tell you what an invasio of Syria means: regime change. Just not in Damascus, but in Washington. The world's most awesome military in history of course is nice, and it is pleasant to think of sending it and all its smart munitions to Syria to beat up on a visible target.

But the U.S. electorate would IMO put up with gas lines and similar war shortages for about three months, before tossing the U.S. government responsible for such a goofy idea out on its ear. It's one thing to have a steady stream of caskets coming home, the U.S. public clearly is willing to put up with that.

But screw with that U.S. standard of living, the right to buy what you want when you want, and you are undermining the very fabric of U.S. society. Do that, and tens of millions of apolitical Americans suddenly become interested in foreign affairs. Not exactly a recipe for a "robust response" to some Syrian transgression.

That's what I think, anyway. Fire away, I've got my pot on and I'm as deep in my hole as I can go.

[ December 04, 2005, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe... an economic embargo against the US is less likely than an imposition of a regime change in Syria to a democracy. Nobody would f their own economies over Syria, no matter what the reason for the invasion might be. Simple fact of life... money is what makes the world go round. The US might not be as strong as it once was, and in some ways on the decline, but for many years to come it is a critical player in economics. Europeans would no more tollerate the disruption to their economies than the US population would. Lots of hot air only, just like over Iraq.

I do agree, however, that the conditions necessary for a successful invasion of Syria are quite narrow and specific. No repeat of Iraq. In fact, I doubt the US will be able to wage an ill defined war like this again for many years because of absent domestic support. The American public is quite slow on the uptake sometimes, and these days has a hard time agreeing about much of anything, but it has a pretty good memory (at least 10 years) and is largely in agreement that things aren't going well.

The above is not meant to be political, though of course it is impossible to discuss the outcome of political decisions without discussing the decisions themselves. I'm just getting back to my point that Iraq, and the handling of it from both military and political perspectives, is going to have long lasting ramifications on US foreign policy for many years to come. And it is certainly not the sort of lasting effect the architects of the war had in mind, I am sure.

Steve

[Grimthane]

Please excuse a brief diversion on a technicality.

BigDuke, Australia does indeed produce and export oil. About half a million barrels/day, according to the CIA!:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html

And I don't think Mr Howard would quibble about bringing our economy to a grinding halt to help out his pal Dubya

[Michael Emrys]

Another factor is that the US armed forces, and especially the Army, seem to be over-extended already. IMO one reason that we are being diplomatically cautious with NKorea is that we can't handle a serious war on the Korean Penninsula while the situation in Iraq is still hanging in the balance. With recruitment on the decline and no draft in sight, that could very well get worse before it gets better. Only madmen would commit us to another military venture now. Which is not to say that there aren't any madmen around...

Michael

[Bigduke6]

Grimthane,

Well live and learn. The Aussies are net oil exporters. Color me ignorant, I never would have thunk.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Another factor is that the US armed forces, and especially the Army, seem to be over-extended already. IMO one reason that we are being diplomatically cautious with NKorea is that we can't handle a serious war on the Korean Penninsula while the situation in Iraq is still hanging in the balance. With recruitment on the decline and no draft in sight, that could very well get worse before it gets better. Only madmen would commit us to another military venture now. Which is not to say that there aren't any madmen around...

Michael

Nov 14 2005

The Department of Defense has announced its recruiting and retention statistics by the active and reserve components for the month of October, the first month of the new Fiscal Year.

Active duty recruiting. All services exceeded their recruiting goals in October. The Navy’s recruiting goal was 2,244, and it enlisted 2,268 (101 percent). The Marine Corps’ goal was 2,700, and it recruited 2,760 (102 percent). The Air Force goal was 2,161, and it recruited 2,180 (101 percent). The Army's goal was 4,700, and it recruited 4,925 (105 percent).

Who says recruitment is on the decline?

[Lee]

I think many of you seem to be missing a key point here. If the U.S. were to need

to deal with Syria, or Iran for that matter (obviously there is absolutely no way that those

lunatic ayatollahs can *ever* be allowed to have nuclear weapons), due to their

aiding and/or allowing the terrorists to use Syria as a base from which to attack

the U.S. and Iraqi forces, then there is no way in the world we are going to

do a ground invasion. Firstly, because it's not necessary; secondly, we're

already busy helping the Iraqis and fixing their infrastructure that Saddam

left in a shambles while he built palaces for himself. We will simply bomb

them heavily, kill the Syrian leaders/commanders responsible for this, take out

any terrorist training camps in Syria, etc. Let the Syrians fix their own country,

get rid of the terrorists and so on, we're not coming there to baby sit them.

Naturally, for the sake of the back story and such of CMII, we will just assume

that we do for some reason or another invade Syria, but in reality there

is probably almost no chance of that happening. Not due to the typical whining

we hear from the socialists in the world (who cares what they say, they complain

about *anything* we do), but just because it's unnecessary to accomplish the

immediate objective of stopping the terrorists from freely staging attacks

on Iraq from Syria. Plenty of GP, laser-guided and cluster bombs will do

that just fine.

[juan_gigante]

Originally posted by Lee:

Plenty of GP, laser-guided and cluster bombs will do

that just fine.

If this were true, why wouldn't we have done that already? After, we've got lots of GP, laser-guided and cluster bombs. Perhaps it could be that we don't know exactly what to drop them on, and would not be able to know without boots on the ground or lots, lots more HumInt?

[Dogface]

But Nidan1, you have to remember that the Army (at least) cut the recruiting goal by acouple of thousand from last October. (+/- 6900 to +/- 4700). That is A big drop in numbers just to say you reached the goal. So it would seem that recruitment is going down.

[SgtMuhammed]

Recruitment goals are changed all the time because of projections of when guys will be getting out, training cycles, etc. Just pointing to a raw number can be very misleading.

I'm not saying who is right or wrong but just pointing out that numbers can be made to say anything.

[Lee]

juan_gigante: Personally, I wish we had by now, we have been more than patient

with Syria's very poor behavior, but apparently Bush is trying very hard on the

diplomatic front to get Syria to be reasonable on this matter before we are

forced to in effect go to war with them. They are being given every chance to

do the right thing, if it comes to blows it will be entirely their own fault.

You would think after getting caught having former Lebanese Prime Minister

Rafiq Hariri assassinated and being roundly condemned for it and forced

by the U.S., England and others to finally withdraw it's army from Lebanon

that Syria would be smart enough to stop being involved in aiding terrorists

to attack U.S. troops. They are skating on very thin ice as it is. And yet

they still refuse to stop. And Syria is a dictatorial police state, if

Assad really wanted to shut down these terrorist groups, or at least greatly

hamper their operations, he could do it if he wanted to.

And I assure you that U.S. and Brit military planners have long been drawing

up detailed target lists for strikes on Syria in the event they are needed.

There have been reports of rumored special operations units doing recon and

such in Syria for a long time now. One of their top priorities on missions

of this sort would be to get just such information on terrorist target locations

back to headquarters.

[Peter Cairns]

Oh course regardless of what you think of Assad, his father, or Syria, you could argue that given the state the Lebanon had decended in to that the Syrians had at least as good reasons to go in to the Lebanon, as the US had to go in to Iraq.

Now if in twenty years time Iraq is as peaceful as the Lebanon had become but still had a major US presence, what would that make the US, as bad as the Syrians.

If at that time a Pro Bin Laden party had a charismatic leader who looked like he could win, do you think the freedom loving US would just sit back and let him become leader of Iraq.

The Syrians more than overstayed their welcome, and were in for their own reasons, but the ended a bloody civil war that had reduced Beruit to a ruin, maybe the parrallel, with removing the Talaban is better, but the Syrians were as worried about the chaos over their border spreading as the US was about terrorism.

As to them being able to stop it because they are a totalitarian state, well the Russians were ruthless in Afghanistan and that didn't stop it and they still are in Chetnya.

I think with many regemes their attitude if they aren't a threat to us and they can be of some use, then leave them alone.

Egypt took an opposite view with the threat from the Muslim brotherhood, and that has lead to twenty years plus of repression torture and bombings.

Syria may have found these groups usefull and may be regretting it now, but unless the US goes in heavy, I doubt that given current relations with Washington they are going to fall over themselves to stop infiltration, I mean why should they.

It's not as if the US will thank them or mend fences. The Syrians know they are effectively on a US hit list, so why risk a small scale civil war with militant islam in your country for someone who's planning to F**K you.

Peter.

[Lee]

Syria oppressed the Lebanese and gained financially by occupying Lebanon.

The U.S., on the other hand, has liberated the Iraqis from a particularly evil

and murderous leader who treated the people there terribly, has given them

freedom, and is in the process of leaving the country as soon as it is possible

for the Iraqis to handle their own security (U.S. troop reductions are expected

after the next election, just as has been planned all along). And it's also

costing us a bunch of money to do it, so there is no comparison whatsoever

between us and Syria. I would think this was terribly obvious...

[Tarquelne]

Who says recruitment is on the decline?

The Army?

Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Army for the first time since 1999 will miss its annual recruiting goal, Army Secretary Francis Harvey said today.

Link

According to the article the shortfall is expected to be less than 10% - and that may be before they lowered their goals - and only about 1,000 less than the annual average for the last 10 years.

That doesn't sound too bad.

OTOH, it's been said that they could use significantly more. I think this summer the Army was off by almost 50% one month.

There's anecdotal evidence that recruiters have become more motivated recently, though, and more willing to work with potential recurits who have some problems.

[Ardem]

Originally posted by Lee:

I think many of you seem to be missing a key point here. If the U.S. were to need

to deal with Syria, or Iran for that matter (obviously there is absolutely no way that those

lunatic ayatollahs can *ever* be allowed to have nuclear weapons),

We will simply bomb

them heavily, kill the Syrian leaders/commanders responsible for this, take out

any terrorist training camps in Syria, etc. Let the Syrians fix their own country,

get rid of the terrorists and so on, we're not coming there to baby sit them.

And you wonder why the US had 9/11 happen to them in the first place. One thing you got to understand, you think the war started with the US in 2001.

For the Arab, the war started when they were born, they have been brought up to hate their oppressors, which in this case has been western democracies since WW2.

The only difference is technology and the abundance of chemical ingedients have given these people the ability to fight back in the last couple of years.

They have been hating the west for a long long time, and for many good reasons. I partically don't blame them, cause if I was born in that culture I probably want to kill westerners as well, purely for revenge, not for some religious thinking.

Don't be niave to think that developed nations can screw the world through trade or military action political pressure or just greed of our society and think we can get away with it.

Why do we have terrorists instead of countries fighting? Easy blind freddy can see that a country will be destroyed 10 times over by use of superpowers forces, so they know their leaders are helpless, so instead they fight the battle for their country, on atleast a level playing ground, Westerners have the power and technology, but terroists have the initative and suprise.

[ December 05, 2005, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]