General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo what is the end game in Syria? What is that the admin hopes to accomplish?
As they haven't said (at least I can't find that they've having articulated an end game), I'm curious what people here think; both those supporting intervention it and those against it.
End game? Anyone?'
This is an interesting piece on what could happen. It was written a month ago. None of the scenarios are exactly rosy.
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12967/strategic-horizons-endgame-scenarios-for-the-syrian-conflict
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)are you suggesting that the President is doing this to ensure a political victory in the U.S.?
Did you know that there's virtually NO support in this country for intervention or arming the rebels?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)as for Syria, whatever Joe Biden, John Kerry, the legendary icon President Bill Clinton, Susan Rice and his staff say, is fine by me.
I am sure they know more and care about my belief more, than those who harsly hyperole style go against him day in day out.
SO I am fine with Joe,John,Susan,and Bill Clinton.
What would FDR do? He waited way too long to get into WW2.
But btw, nice spin above. I give it a 2.5
cali
(114,904 posts)I asked what people here thought the Obama admin end game for Syria is.
Gadfuckingzooks.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Its just warp speed hyperdrive hyperbole
cali
(114,904 posts)what warp speed, is them utter nonsense you generate in post after post after fucking post.
kentuck
(111,079 posts)The meds are just kicking in..
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Whether and how the Iranians and Chinese retaliate is the question. It could get very ugly, but, at the moment, we have the military and cyberwarfare advantage. That might explain why we are pressing for conflict now, rather than later. The fear is that the Chinese are catching up to us.
Hard to say. Pure speculation on my part.
-Laelth
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)are when a declining #1 Empire sees an ascendant #2 about to become King of the Hill and decides "Now or Never".
See also WW I
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)sometimes the current #1 negotiates a smooth transition of power.
Perhaps that was what Obama and Xi Jinping were discussing???
treestar
(82,383 posts)without considering what the administration has to say first. You're asking for the administration's intent. Wouldn't the first place to look be the administrations statements? I bet you will deem that is "all lies" right? And then draw the worst possible conclusion you can think up.
cali
(114,904 posts)to intervene, that they would have made clear both why and what they hope to achieve. This isn't exactly new. It's been discussed for over 2 years. I have looked at statements by the admin and there is nothing I can find that explains what their end game is. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that question.
this isn't about me, so why not stop trying to make it about me and my motives. For the record, I feel sorry for President Obama re Syria. I don't think he wanted to get involved. I do think that the forces that pushed him to do so, are proving too strong to resist. And yeah, that's a scary thought.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...and one that is a favorite of the corporate media and here on DU. Every event in the world is viewed as "how does this affect the U.S." and actions are viewed on American political levels rather than a bigger picture. This is especially the case in Syria. This is truly a civil and tribal war that's a reaction to the decades of suppression by the Assads. The U.S. didn't start this war...it'd been simmering for years and the "Arab Spring" emboldened the opposition to take a stand. As was the case in Libya there are as many "bad actors" here as there are good ones and the American myopia ignores this...only a global "Risk" game where our proxies are fighting their proxies in some simplified view of the world. If anything, the U.S. is late to this party as Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been heavily involved in the spread of the violence that's now killed 90,000 people.
The end game? The hopes are to provide arms and "tactical support" (which is already there) to tip the balance and finally drive Assad out of power...the first major step in ending the bloodshed. Since this is in the middle of the most turbulent region in the world anything can happen and the problem of any war is those who plan it never quite get the results they expect. Bottom line is this is a popular uprising against a very repressive regime and the only way it will be ousted is through force. Do we stand by and wait for another 90,000 to perish?
cali
(114,904 posts)and by the fucking way, we've stood by and let millions die in the Congo.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)What about that isn't myopic? What about that isn't going to swing back around and bite us in the butt? What about that WON'T just ensure that the "War on Terror" goes on indefinitely?
IDemo
(16,926 posts)That has worked out so well in Iraq, where rarely a day passes now without a dozen or so perishing in a suicide bomb attack. But at least we mission accomplished Hussein outta there.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)doesn't sound like a very good idea to me, and that's exactly what we'll be doing in Syria. If that isn't myopic and stupid, I don't know what is - unless the goal is to keep churning the pot so that the WOT never ends.
Arming AQ seems like it will do exactly that. To me, it looks like "Oh, look, there's a fire in Syria, somebody get the gasoline to put it out!"
kentuck
(111,079 posts)There is not going to be a "no-fly" zone, at least that is what we have said, because Russians are sending state of the art anti-aircraft technology to Syria. We really don't need one of our aircraft shot down. So, we have said we will supply small arms to the "rebels" (al Qaeda?)
There is a bigger picture about ally security. Assad is solidifying his power. Our effort to arm the rebels is going to have very little effect. Hopefully, it will slow him down and make him think twice about doing something that will get the US more involved. He doesn't want that.
That is the chess move that I see at the moment. It could change at any time.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Same as in Iraq. It's an excuse to give handouts to military profiteers. Obama is being dragged kicking and screaming, a pleasant surprise, really.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)I guess ANYTHING beats that.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)Doesn't matter much which party is in office.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)Monkie
(1,301 posts)doh
leveymg
(36,418 posts)"A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Defense of the Realm" is the neocon agenda laid out during the previous Netanyahu regime by a group of American neocons who invented the cassus belli for War with Iraq. Check. Next, regime change in Damascus, install a puppet in Lebanon, then onward to the ultimate prize on the PNAC list, Iran. The point of the whole thing, the "Clean Break" is to create a Right-wing Greater Israel that feeds off its regional alliances and is no longer constrained by Washington. Just read the document, it's all there, just as was written by American neocons for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1997. A remarkably prescient document: http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
The marriage of interest between the Israeli Right-wing and the Saudi Oil Sheiks, and their cooperation in influencing Washington to intervene militarily in regional conflicts to the detriment of US interests and influence -- it's happening again -- is a subject that needs a lot more attention, not less.
