Serious question on arms to Syria

[Horn6721]

I have posted several times before I agreed with BO's previous decision to do nothing material to support the rebels in Syria.

Now BO announces We will support the rebels, by sending them small arms and ammo
because apparently BO is now convinced Assad crossed some red line?

He didn't care before when approx. 93,000 were killed .


So how does sending small arms help? Really? Russia has supplied all form of weaponry including Scuds and newer anti ship cruise missiles ( Yakhonts) , not to mention MiGs.


and we are sending ' small arms and ammo but apparently not any armor piercing ammo..
The rebels have said they have all the small arms they need. What they say they need is big boy stuff.

I was all for BO keeping us out of it and I am definitely not in favor of this . All this does it make the rebels angry with us. Certainly doesn't concern Assad, Russia or Iran.

 

[Third Coast]

If Putin is correct and the rebels are eating their enemies, perhaps a nice set of steak knives would be more practical.

 

[Uninformed]

We've probably been supplying arms to the rebels for quite awhile. Remember, Syria to some extent is an Iranian state, and a weak Assad is a weak Iran.The Link . Because of this dynamic, it would make sense for the US to destabilize Syria. My wild-*** guess is that the program probably started under Bush and was continued under Obama. Another wild guess is that the outcome will further destabilize the region and cause just as many problems as Assad and Iran have caused. And for those of you wondering why Russia supports Syria, the reason is Iran and Russia are allies.

 

[Bevo Incognito]

Ideally, we get Iran involved in a quagmire that continues to drain them, their own private Vietnam, without us getting dragged in. Killing fields for everybody from Al Qaeda to Hezbollah.

 

[Horn6721]

BI
What an excellent plan
I agree 1000%

Now we need to make sure Putin and iran stay out of it OR at least don't get into it any further

 

[Bevo Incognito]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mojo17]

Can we just sit this one out please and get out of Afghanistan. We have played enough in that sandbox. No more American lives wasted on those crazy mothers

 

[Bevo Incognito]

Mojo17, Nobody is talking about sending American troops in.

The new Iranian president is going to have to get some things done to placate an increasingly restless youth population. Their economy is a train wreck, they are being severely hurt by sanctions, it's hard for them to travel overseas etc.... This is just another way of putting pressure on the Iranians because, make no mistake about it, they are allied with Assad.

 

[Horn6721]

Bi
Optimism is good but reality trumps it
Every so called expert I have read, including 2 on NPR call this new president the "least bad outcome"
and all point to Khamenei selecting him.
Khamenei will still wield the real power and he is in good health.
it would be nice to think the ' young people" actually have any power..
We need only look at the outcomes in the other countreis in that region where ' young people' rioted and a new moderate stable government resulted. Egypt may be the poster child
and don't forget ( even though Bo ignored them)the Iranian youth rioted before.
what happened?

The changes Rowhani may make will all be what ever Khamenei wants to see.
Islamists certainly seem able to keep hold on governemtns

 

[Monahorns]

The new Iranian president is a protege of another ayatollah who is a rival to khomeini. They aren't adversaries but there is some possibility of internal competition. However the president's real chance of governing strongly is to build trust with khomeini and straddle of few fences to build cooperation, both internally and externally.

 

[huisache]

the us is playing a game it does not understand the rules for, with other players who always cheat, on a board that changes all the time in ways that cannot be anticipated, and with the anticipation that the various sides will bleed each other until they have to reach an agreement and that that agreement will be favorable to whatever our purported interests are.

That is a lot of moving parts and what if they just bleed each other and their civilian populations ad infinitum? What a bummer for them, huh?

What if neither side gives in and the Iranians send in troops and maybe the Saudis or Turks get involved and this turns into a regional war with lots of parties shooting at each other and/or arming the ethnic minorities in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, et al?

Wont that be sweet?

One thing Americans typically get wrong is the idea that there is a solution to every problemj. In fact, especially over there, lots of times there is no good solution and if there was it is unattainable anyway.

Like Woodrow Wilson in 1917 Obama has run out of viable alternatives and is caving in to the armchair von Clausewitzes who advise him he has to do something.

LIke Wilson, he is making a bad decision to get involved and is going to lead to a bad result.

This is what I call jailhouse chess; you make one move at a time based on what seems your only alternative at the time. In the end you lose.

The Chinese have got to be enjoying this immensely.