Syria Crisis: Obama Rejects US Military Intervention

Syria Crisis: Obama Rejects US Military Intervention

www.bbc.co.uk

President Barack Obama has described the situation in Syria as "heartbreaking" but said that unilateral US military intervention there would be a mistake.

Mr Obama said President Bashar al-Assad would fall, as other dictators had fallen, but the US would try to achieve this by working to isolate Syria.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So Obama rejects US military intervention in Syria. This quote is the one that stands out to and interests me;

He rejected a comparison to Libya, saying Syria was more complicated.

In Libya, where rebels backed by Nato air strikes ousted longtime leader Col Muammar Gaddafi after an uprising lasting several months, the US had "the full co-operation of the region," the president said.

Is this based off peoples reactions around the globe to the American war machine and part of a PR strategy or, is it legit?

Who does he mean when he says they had 'the full co-operation of the region' ? Certainly Gaddafi loyalists were not co-operating...and there was quite a number of them.

How does Mr. Obama plan on further isolating Syria? How much more isolated can they be? (serious question, not too sure on exactly what isolation methods have been implemented and what success they've had).

Does he see Iran as the primary target and perhaps does not think the American people will continue supporting military intervention there?

It's a lot easier to fund the rebels and supply them with weapons, intel and equipment. It's what the U.S has been good at for years.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

He may not deliver the point right, and gets interrupted offtern, but he has a VERY valid point, and now with Russia and China involved, i think they're a bit worried about the consequences.





For those who just want a quick flick through the video, i recommend the first few minutes, followed by the last 2 minutes. So round 4min instead of 8.

Knowing what I do know, and applying that to what Obama is saying, I would have to say that he's been briefed in a more complete manner on the unfolding events in Libya than the average American. This has led him to the conclusion that humans simply abuse the gifts of liberty he affords them, and the privilege should have a much better system of controls applied to it in the future.

Thus, military action in Syria (in the spirit of the type of action taken in Libya) has been deemed unlikely to generate the desired response from the region. Political fallout would also be considerable, and likely do damage that would be difficult to recover from within an election year.

Obama has three basic options, here. He can re-enact Libya. He can Re-enact Afghanistan. Or he can do nothing.

The first two will cost him the election. The last will sacrifice the fewest votes (if any at all). Thus, it is the logical option.

Obama is going to speak and behave as though he is a moderate this year, as much as possible. At least when he's getting prime media coverage.

Wow... A lot of talk and positions seem to have shifted since Obama and Netanyahu sat down and had a little chat. I don't know who schooled who and how but there sure does seem to have been some changes in attitudes. It's interesting to watch. All the better though if Obama means this and it's sincere. I really have no desire to hear of U.S. troops in Damascus. ...and he's right. It's FAR more complicated. We can't give Syria a drive-by spanking. They will fight back.

reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics

Is this based off peoples reactions around the globe to the American war machine and part of a PR strategy or, is it legit?

Actually it's old news, sort of:Link

post by Boncho
So yes, the Pentagon meeting was leaked. One detail AJ didn't cover is that NATO does not want war with Syria

reply to post by boncho


Reva Bhalla relaying information from her meeting with USAF strategic studies group at the pentagon.

I kept pressing on the question of what these SOF teams would be working toward, and whether this would lead to an eventual air camapign to give a Syrian rebel group cover...

...There wouldn't be a need for air
cover, and they wouldn't expect these Syrian rebels to be marching in
columns anyway.

They emphasized how the air campaign in Syria makes Libya look like a piece of cake. Syrian air defenses are a lot more robust and are much denser, esp around Damascus and on the borders with Israel, Turkey. THey are most worried about mobile air defenses, particularly the SA-17s that they've been getting recently.

There still seems to be a lot of confusion over what a military intervention involving an air campaign would be designed to achieve. It isn't clear cut for them geographically like in Libya, and you can't just create an NFZ over Homs, Hama region. This would entail a countrywide SEAD campaign lasting the duration of the war. They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn't reach that very public stage. Theyre also questiioning the skills of the Syrian forces that are operating the country's air defenses currently and how signfiicant the Iranian presence is there. Air Force Intel guy is most obsessed with the challenge of taking out Syria's ballistic missile capabilities and chem weapons. With Israel rgiht there and the regime facing an existential crisis, he sees that as a major complication to any military intervention.

Source


You're welcome.

This smells more like lobbying for future political backing globally and ratings increase in the public eye for re-election to further his puppeteers agenda. His change in stance recently on some issues throws a red flag for me. Which side of the fence he leans to seems to have changed frequently as of recent. Politics as usual I suppose.

Could it be that he realizes that Syria is Irans ally and a attack on them, by theory, could be construed as a attack on Iran?

A scenario no one is totally prepared for at the moment?

Plus Russia is still backing Syria...for now. But still seem to be crawling up on the fence to see how this all plays out?

China is still the wild card.

reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics

How does Mr. Obama plan on further isolating Syria? How much more isolated can they be? (serious question, not too sure on exactly what isolation methods have been implemented and what success they've had).

I imagine a bit more of this, but I could be wrong:

They pretty quickly distanced themselves from that idea, saying that the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within.

Source

reply to post by TDawgRex

Could it be that he realizes that Syria is Irans ally and a attack on them, by theory, could be construed as a attack on Iran?

Doubtful, as I think they know Iran wants to overthrow Syria just as much as them:

The Iranians are weighing in the situation in Syria very carefully. One must read beyond the public statements of the Iranians, especially ayatollah Khamenei. Both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad have concluded that Asad's regime cannot be rescued. It is perfectly understood that the regime in Damascus will fall along lines similar to the Libyan model. There will have to be a coup in Damascus, be it a military or political one.

One must not dismiss the pragmatism of Khamenei. Iran appears to be willing to use its influence in Syria to stage a coup, provided that it is able to ensure that the new leadership will continue to pursue excellent relations with Tehran.

The Iranians feel they need to act on Syria soon because the Turks have their own plans for Syria and are not coordinating with the Iranians. He says the Turks are moving slowly but systematically. Iran does not want to allow Turkey to take over Syria. Whereas the Turks are coordinating with the Brotherhood and the FSA, the Iranians prefer a palace coup in damascus in order to maintain their ties with Asad's successors.

Source

reply to post by TDawgRex

I'd call it about friggen time if it finally dawned on the people in power that Syria and Iran aren't isolated and independent nations, acting separate from each other. IF that is what we're seeing, I have to say I'm deeply grateful it was realized BEFORE we wound up in a war with at least 2 nations and I believe at least 2 others (not counting Russia or China).

Better late than never in this case...Although I'll stay very skeptical until a lot of time has passed with cooler heads prevailing as I'm sure you will. I have this feeling Obama just found the timing to be the problem and things are starting to move totally out of his control and spin. Perhaps this is just moving it to the backburner until closer to the election when Obama may be more favorable to war.

Here is hoping for the long term cooling option as the more likely.

reply to post by boncho


It seems that The Iranian government are playing out all the options available.

Just like everybody else.

As far as I'm concerned, when individuals do this, it can come out as amicable to both sides. But when Nations do this...it almost always leads to war.

Ill take Obama's stance with a grain of salt. One thing I learned from my years in service is that what is said in public isn't always what the real, behind the scenes plan is. Personally I chalk this up as nothing more than political posturing in an attempt to save Obama from looking bad to the citizens of America and the world.

There will be military intervention in Syria, but there are many options on the table. I would say that we will have continued covert operations on the ground in the form of supply and logistical aid and eventually it may very well be stepped up to include open military intervention.

If a regime change takes place in Syria it could become an increasingly worse scenario for Isreal especially given the ties Syria has with Iran. Seeing as how we are "bound" to support Israel we will eventually see something take place.

reply to post by Nucleardiver


I agree with you completely.

If they fail at taking out Assad subversively, I do think there will be a war it's just a matter of who's going to be the face of it. But I think every option is going to be exhausted before that. The public probably wont hear much about it unless the current campaigns fail and war is inevitable.

The KEY word is....tadadadam : UNILATERAL.

In other words the US will not go in alone.

Breaking : NATO is USA and USA is NATO.

A NATO intervention it is not a unilateral US intervention...even tho NATO=USA.