Monday, June 17, 2013

Forum: Do You Think The Obama Administration's decision to Get Actively Involved in The Syrian Civil War Is A Good Idea?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day. This week's question: Do You Think The Obama Administration's decision to Get Actively Involved in The Syrian Civil War Is A Good Idea?

 Simply Jews: The WH need to respond to the Syria Civil war makes me commiserate with the lose-lose situation WH is in regarding this conundrum.

To provide arms to the people that will almost certainly turn the weapons against the people who provided them in the first place is not an appetizing choice. It has already happened during the so called "Arab Spring", the best example being Libya,as it happened in Afghanistan and in other places.

To do nothing and to watch the numbers of dead and wounded mounting, as do the numbers of fugitives all around Syria, is also not a pleasant alternative.

Many good people call for the military assistance to be provided immediately, and of course there is no good explanation why not to do it. Many other good people warn about the dire consequences of providing the military assistance to raving Al Qaeda and other fundies, and there is no good answer for these too.

So there.

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD: Syriavention? Too little too late. All indications indicate an upcoming blitz on Aleppo is like in the last bit of planning and a Gotterdammerung battle will last perhaps two or maybe even 3 weeks.

Unless 44 plans on using American troops on station in Jordan to split Syrian forces (either by crossing the border or just by making tons of noise to distract forces needed for Aleppo), by the time Great Satan is all crunk up for intervention it will only be like an honor guard for the rebels trek to annihilation.

For now - right now - looks like 44"s posse wants both sides to lose - including civilians - and will most likely not go much further than maintaining a bloody stand off stalemate.

What is also evident is that ebberdobby else involved in the conflict—and the cats that are sponsoring them—is still waiting on 44. On Assad's side, Russia, Iran, HizBAllah, and Iraq have helped to somersault the tide of conflict against Syrian Free Army and Rebellious rebels, and they've sweetly enjoyed prett much free rein in light of 44"s tardiness and limited response (only civilian and medical stuff so far). NATO like France and Great Britain - are holding back for 44 to lead.

The real quiz is: Can 44 continue a neither-in-nor-out approach to ye olde Suriya al Kubra since it's like a real live humanitarian and regional disaster that could threaten the unstable stability of the entire Middle East?

See, the influx of foreign weaponry- Iranian drones, HizBAllah brigades, and more better and more effective Russian style tactics have allowed the Syrian military to isolate the rebels into urban pockets before handing them their assets and defeating them in detail. Supplying hot up to date anti-panzer and anti-aircraft weaponry might give the rebels a chance to counter attack heavy duty forces constricting their areas. Yet the fear that MANPADS and Kornet rockets might end up in Western nations are carnage creators for terrorists is a real threat

It looks like Bashar's cats and allies have compromised the rebels' communications networks, so secure communication abilities might help conduct surprise ops without giving away their plots and advertising it to their enemies.

This stuff alone is prob not near enough to turn the tide though. Syria (on paper anywrought) has an armed to the teeth military of ginormous size and appears to have learned some dang hard lessons in the last 6 months.

The best option would most likely be for Great Satan to give up unconventional warfare advice and training from Special Ops.

 JoshuaPundit: America has never had a dog in the Syrian civil war. But an intervention in Syria has several benefits for President Obama, if not for America.

First, from a political standpoint it provides an important  distraction from the myriad scandals now confronting the administration.The Obama Administration has known about what was going on in Syria for a long time, but only now has it suddenly become imperative that we intervene there.

From standpoint of this president's agenda, an American intervention accomplishes several things.

The aim of President Obama and his cronies from day one has been the idea that  ending  America's problems with the Muslim world involves  promoting Islamism at home and abroad and creating 'daylight' between America and Israel by destroying the alliance between the two countries.

We have already seen President Obama do his part to create and fund Islamist regimes in Libya and Egypt as well as funding  the Hamas regime in Gaza. He wants to do the same in Syria, even if it means arming and financing al-Qaeda jihadis.

The chief financial backers of both the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists worldwide and the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda dominated rebels in Syria have been Saudi Arabia and  Qatar, while logistical support for the Syrian rebels has come from the Islamist regime of Turkey. What's evolved in Syria is a Sunni vs. Shi'ite  proxy war somewhat similar to the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's. The Syrian Sunni rebels have been augmented by Sunni jihadis from various places while the Assad regime has drawn on Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as well as Russian support. The rebels are losing because they're running short on manpower, and the Saudis and Qataris want someone else to do the fighting.

That’s why they've dragged the United States into this.

If the rebels win, not only has President Obama gained some points with the Saudis, Turks and Qataris by putting together yet another hardline Islamist regime, but this one, like Egypt, will be on Israel's borders. Jordan, where the Brotherhood is also quite strong will also be destabilized and may very well be the next piece of the Caliphate that is forming.

   President Obama and his Secretary of State are already making demands of Israel that even Israel's most  die hard  Leftists can't support.  When push comes to shove and if  the inevitable war starts, don't be surprised if President Obama cuts Israel off from armaments and supplies.

The Noisy Room: Emphatically, no. Not for us, any way -- it's a good idea for the Obama Administration as it creates more confusion for Americans and supports Islam. It depletes our military resources; it guts our Treasury (by 50 million a day), it creates illusions of security, while creating anxieties about security... in summary, if you are in the chaos business, this is a good thing.

We have just aligned ourselves with Turkey, al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. We are now at war, not only with Syria, but also -- by proxy -- Russia and Iran. There are bad guys on both sides, but by siding with the Muslim Brotherhood, we are actively pushing forth a worldwide Caliphate and Obama knows this. The CIA just announced that they are going to arm the rebels, which gives cover to the whole Benghazi atrocity and gives plausibility to Ambassador Stevens and the CIA running guns for the rebels. So, helping the rebels will provide cover for Obama and Clinton to a certain extent to justify their monstrous misdeeds. Glenn Beck predicted this and was right on the money. President Obama also signed a secret order giving support to Syrian rebels and John "we-have-nothing-to-fear-from-an-Obama-presidency" McCain visited them and gave them credibility as well. See a picture forming here? I do.

I firmly believe we have entered WW III and don't even know it yet. Thanks to Obama, not only has this Administration destroyed America financially with the Cloward and Piven strategy and Alinsky tactics, he has discredited our military and defense agencies and now is ushering in the mother of all wars. Hell, he's not reshaping America, he's melting her down and helping to beat her into servile plowshares on the radical Islamic forge.

You are seeing radical Islam align with Marxists to accomplish 'change' globally into a hellish worldwide dictatorship. Under cover of this war, the Jihadists will attempt the destruction of Israel to further solidify the Caliphate. And I predict, either directly or indirectly, the US will help them. We have chosen the wrong side and are heading down a very dark path. Syria is the gate to global hell.

Liberty's Spirit: There are almost 100,000 dead and millions of refugees, but the redline for Obama was 150 killed with chemical weapons? What even happened to the “responsibility to protect” that was touted so much when he illegally intervened in Libya? Apparently that theory only works if your country has oil reserves that the Europeans want to protect and if Russia is not their “sugar daddy,” nor Iran their ally. Quite frankly this move at this time is insulting to the world’s intelligence. He is two years too late.

Interesting how when Obama could have intervened and perhaps influenced in some manner any democratically aligned members of the opposition he refused. Instead, those that helped the opposition were Sunni Islamists, mostly Wahhabis. So we are now going to help Islamists in Syria who think that after they destroy Assad their next goal is to destroy Israel and then United States. The opposition has also been shown to commit many war crimes. They have butchered non-Sunnis and have slaughtered Christians. Their goal is to drive out any non-Moslem from Syria. These are not Jeffersonian democrats, but another group of mass murderers.

In truth, Obama allowed Syria to become the new juxtaposition of the old “cold war,” with Putin asserting his influence in the Middle East through Assad and the west trying to catch up by influencing the Islamists on the opposition. (As if the Islamist have respect for the United States. Use the US yes they will, and then they will turn us in no time, just like in Libya.) If the west had not waited Russia would not be as strong as it is today in the region and neither would Iran. But the problem is that the Obama administration has no idea what it is doing vis-à-vis foreign policy and especially in the Middle East. It has spent the last four years blaming every Middle East issue on Israel and specifically the settlements in Judea and Samaria. These foreign policy clowns allowed the Arab world to fall into chaos, they supported Islamist take overs in major American allies, have threatened the few pro-American Arab regimes that still exist, and created a much more dangerous world for everyone.

The best part will be when this "Arab Winter" is all "over" the Obama administration is going to demand a "Peace Conference" where Israel is to give up Judea, Samaria, part of Jerusalem to the Islamist supporting and aligned PA ( to appease the Saudis and all Obama's Islamists friends)and then give back the Golan Heights to the murderers that will be governing Syria, whoever that will be. It's already started with the US Secretary of State saying how the world blames Israel for all the Islamo-terrorism. This is the next phase in Obama's foreign policy plan: sacrifice the Jews of Israel to appease the Islamists, as the world once sacrificed the Sudetenland to appease Hitler. Israel will sanely refuse. The war that will come between Israel and the Islamists, will finally at least decide the region's stability for a decade. And Israel will survive as she always has, because she relied only on herself and did not ask the world's permission to survive. Meanwhile, Obama , because the inadequate can never take any blame themselves, will blame any and all devastation in the Middle East and its repercussions throughout the world, on the Jews and undercut Israel as much as he can. In their true nature as well, the leftist-Jewish-American-Obama-sycophants in the US will join in the Obama-blame-Israel-chorus. It's coming you mark my words.

 The Razor:  As a superpower we’re involved whether we want to be or not. Obama failed to realize this two years ago, but now evidently recognizes that saying “Assad’s days are numbered,” is meaningless unless you actually do something to make that statement true. Back then the Syrian opposition was much more secular and broad; today it’s devolved into a Sunni vs Shiite brawl with al Qaeda leading the most effective elements of the opposition. If al Qaeda suddenly renounced terror and promised to rescue kittens and give presents to dying children I’d still want to see them at the business end of a hellfire missile. The only thing we should help al Qaeda do is kill themselves.

When the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy, there isn’t much you can do except support both sides. So far we have supported the Iranians and Hezbollah by doing nothing, so in a sense that’s not a bad thing considering lots of jihadis have been sent to Paradise without us firing a shot – proof that inaction is an action of sorts. Now that they are losing, it is time to alter the balance in favor of the jihadis so that body bags get sent back to Teheran and south Lebanon. The easiest and safest way to do this is through a no-fly zone that would prevent Assad from using air attacks against the jihadis and resupplying his regime’s, Iran’s and Hezbollah’s troops.

With the addition of Susan Rice to the National Security Advisor, and Samantha Powers to UN ambassador, two liberal interventionists to posts of power, I’m not surprised to see Obama end his Hamlet imitation. They are probably fretting about the dead Syrian civilians, and although the humanitarian impulse in me exists, there is no reason I would risk my stepson’s life, or anyone else’s son or daughter, to fulfill this impulse. But the Machiavellian in me appreciates a good opportunity to bash America’s enemies on both sides of the dispute, and a no-fly zone allows this to happen without very much risk to American life or property.

I doubt you anyone else would support intervening in Syria for this reason, and it’s a shame. It’s exactly what our politicians should be doing: thinking about what is best for America first, and letting the world sort itself out on its own.

Rhymes With Right: The problem here is that Obama's commitment to the war is so vague that it can mean anything.  Today it is weapons -- how long until it is troops?  And how will he ensure that the weapons given to fight in Syria will end up in the hands of non-terrorist, non-Islamist forces?  II don't see how he can.

Of course, maybe he can put each rebel through the same background check he wants for American citizens before they get guns -- and then limit the number of rounds of ammo each gets to the same number he and other gun grabbers want to impose on American

 Bookworm Room: No.  It might have been a good thing two years ago, when a little American oomph could have knocked Assad out of power and allowed room for reform.  Two years and eighty-thousands dead bodies later, it's too late.  Syria is now mired in a proxy war between Iran and al Qaeda, with us now siding with al Qaeda -- and we know how well that alliance will turn out based upon our experiences in Libya. 

I predicted this in 2008.  Not precisely this, of course, but I predicted that, with an obviously weak horse in the White House, all Hell would break loose somewhere or everywhere.

  Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?


Geoffrey Britain said...

Let me come out in favor of Assad. Yes, he's a monster. But aside from providing Hezbollah with refuge, he's a force for stability and restraint. Let the rebels win and American, European and possibly Israeli jetliners are going to be blown out of the sky.

Assad's bad, the 'rebels' (al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood) are much worse.

Anonymous said...

Yes. We should arm both sides until they finish each other off. Then We can move on to Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and all the other America-hating terrorist nations.