Credit goes to Twenty-Twenty for this line of thinking...
Watching the news this morning it's fair to say that this has gone from a thought exercise to almost a done deal.
I wonder what the blowback or rather what the anticipated blowback will be from a strike.
Here's my list...
1. Gas prices spike. The economy is sputtering this could send us into a world wide recession...all because a President lacks the courage to say no to an ill advised adventure.
2. Hezbollah gets activated by Iran. Israel better strap on tight because you can bet that missiles will rain and suicide bombers will roam.
3. Al Qaeda will attempt to attack US interests.
4. Egypt will probably experience even more violence and the Arab Winter will probably accelerate. We might see Saudi Arabia and the other moderate Gulf States rocked by violence.
5. Relations with Russia and China will turn even more sour. I have no problem with bad China relations, but the relationship with Russia could have been salvaged and they would have been a great ally against Muslim extremist.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Might have missed some so fill in the blanks.
Watching the news this morning it's fair to say that this has gone from a thought exercise to almost a done deal.
I wonder what the blowback or rather what the anticipated blowback will be from a strike.
Here's my list...
1. Gas prices spike. The economy is sputtering this could send us into a world wide recession...all because a President lacks the courage to say no to an ill advised adventure.
2. Hezbollah gets activated by Iran. Israel better strap on tight because you can bet that missiles will rain and suicide bombers will roam.
3. Al Qaeda will attempt to attack US interests.
4. Egypt will probably experience even more violence and the Arab Winter will probably accelerate. We might see Saudi Arabia and the other moderate Gulf States rocked by violence.
5. Relations with Russia and China will turn even more sour. I have no problem with bad China relations, but the relationship with Russia could have been salvaged and they would have been a great ally against Muslim extremist.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Might have missed some so fill in the blanks.
"Blanks" indeed !
ReplyDeleteGood example for maximum feasible misunderstanding by Sol.
The point of the note on TD Blog on Syria Thread was that isolationist "hands-off !!" dreams are as serious as the inherent (pious) assumptions that one would cut back on one's personal consumption life-style that drives much such engagements to secure global energy-flow, global energy-prices, global free-trade routes etc. all unavoidably necessary with the habits casually assumed to be a personal 'entitlement' - 'it's who we are and what we do !'
In that case, no hope for any 'hands-off' policies of any degree of sustainability.
And, of course, even if coherently full-tilt 'pious' as a freshly-minted Super-Isolationist, you'd still be subject to unavoidable blow-back in uncountable ways.
Even if you lock yourself up in a bunker, pull up all national drawbridges, and grab that totem-collection for belts-&-suspenders, certain realities will find you.
In them meantime, you live in frantic paranoia, with progressively diminishing options, as reality outpaces personal stagnation.
you're misusing the term isolationist in this case. an argument could have been made for action earlier but now it can't.
Deleteadditionally where you say isolationist, i counter with the imperial president issue. when was the last time the US actually declared war on something or someone? if you drop bombs, launch uav strikes or send in SOCOM you're declaring war on that country. if you did it here in the US then we'd be ready to nuke someone.
interesting that it doesn't quite match your rhetoric huh?
another point that annoys me with these uber liberals, like yourself is the so called humanitarian angle.
at what point will we complain when we have international forces inside the US delivering aid to the dirt poor and underserved in the Appalachain mountains? in the inner cities? we're quick to send forces halfway around the world on humanitarian missions but ignore the issues here at home that better deserve our hard earned money.
and last but not least this is a freaking civil war. we witnessed one guy that we're about to support by bombing his enemy, cut out the heart of an enemy soldier and take a bite. that film should run everytime this president is mentioned with nobel peace prize.
I'm not at all convinced a strike on Syria by the Western Powers is going to have significant blowback, one way or another. In my mind, the Civil War has been going on too long already for a relatively meaningless show of force, in whatever form it takes, to suddently destabilize the Middle East even more than it already is. And if the West attack is half-hearted affair with only cruise missiles, why would Iran or AQ or whomever immediately escalate things with reprisals?
ReplyDeleteMost of the threatened blowback is bluster.
ReplyDeleteI think if O decides to pull the trigger or more likely he follows our allies who fall to support position after the decision to go is made, backwards I know. I think the attack will be against three main target classes 1.air force, 2.anti air defense, and chem/bio stockpiles/production facilities. Maybe a 4th option of chem/bio approved units. Limited and expressly declared not a intervention on either side and no regime change like Libya.
Bottom line either way I think our strikes will neuter Assad as far as the region is concerned but will leave him in a position to continue without much change in his defense against the rebels, (hold the balance and let the meat grinder turn). This will make the Alawite elders realize that its time to cut a deal and join the western push or face a very pissed vengeful Sunni after they are ground down.
Blowback-
-Assad will not attack the US or Israel because he is barely holding on now and he doesn't seek martyrdom and even if he did the Alawites as a whole do not.
-Iran pffttt not seeking martyrdom and their intervention would give US quasi belle to hit them. They would be left at best like Saddam post 91' or worse left fighting a insurgency of their own with a gutted conventional force and infrastructure. Their actual conventional power is very limited. Terrorism is scary and bloody but it doesn't change the facts on the ground or sway outcomes.
-AQ when did they stop trying?
-Hezbollah they want the US cutting their forces to pieces supporting a Lebanon gov against them? Israel hmmm I have a feeling old Bibi would be very happy to show Hezbos what happens when Israel has men not pansies in charge (keep in mind the Hezbos would have no rear to fall back to, flank, or reinforce from like 06' and no conventional threat to the Israeli flank if they ran for the jugular of Bekka.
-Russia if there is a paper tiger its Russia. They will not do any more than what they have been doing just being the monkey wrench. They value Assad and their access to the Med but I doubt they are ready to toe to toe with the west over it, after all look to Iraq/Libya after the war they will negotiate with the new guys to.
-China They have no dog in the fight Assad has nothing to offer (no oil) and they don't buy Chicom weapons. I think China playing blocker has more to do with forcing US into having to use the hammer and spend resources. If China and the world worked together like the dream of the UN war could be avoided but we don't live in dream utopia we live here in reality on a dirt ball called earth with human nature thrown in as THE wild card.
Likely Blowback
-Oil spike OH yeah but I don't know about you but when did the fuel prices go down I missed it. Diesel is right at $4 a gal and gas is 20cent less, not to long ago diesel was 20cent less and gas was just over a BUCK a gal. Iraq/Afghan ended but the fuel never dropped more than a few dimes after going up a few dollars WTF. Oil being high is not about the ME its about the stars lining up. The libs like high fuel because it makes the eco power look realistic, big oil likes it well obvious 5% of $3.8 is better than 5% of a $1.3. We are the poor saps caught in the middle. Not that much difference.
What could Iran/Assad/Hezbo do?
-Assad try to stay alive and escape to Russia
-Iran try to go tit for tat and stir up MORE (been trying already) revolution in the gulf states Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc..
-Hezbo they are really caught in a catch 22. They are looking at going hell mary and getting wiped out now or drawing back and trying to grind their way into a truce. Their leadership is not looking for martyrdom so my guess is they will go for draw back and try to grind their way into a compromise with the Sunni and Christians playing to their political side and agreeing to (in the long long run if ever) ceding their military side into the Lebanese regular army.
lets all hope that the riposte from Vlad catches all our esteemed politician's in DC. Not wishing harm on no one but those responsible.
DeleteIt's really the best hope then we can at least start over with term limits and lock solid laws against what we have seen so far.
Our enemy is not Syria, it's the ones about to bomb Syria.
This has been going on for 3 years now so my initial thought is that there shouldn't be a lot of blow-back, at least initially. Putin will veto any UN resolution, China probably will abstain. Then ball will be in Obama court, does he put together something like the Libya campaign but with no UN approval and against Putin? Not sure how much Putin wants to fight for Syria, he has no problem making life difficult for Obama but if we enact a no fly zone, does he help out Assad? Just supplying weapons isn't going to be enough, he would have to supply troops to man the SAMs and pilot to fly the MIGs because I doubt that Syrian military could put up much of a fight to stop coalition, Assad needs manpower to operate all this stuff supplied by Putin. So does Putin really want to be engaged in military action against US/European forces?
ReplyDeleteHezbollah would probably strike Israel but it's not like Israelis aren't used to that.... Iran probably would launch some terrorists attacks around the world on embassies and soft targets but they wont do toe to toe with Western powers, they would get crushed....China isn't doing to do anything, at best abstain or worse veto UN resolution, they have no skin in the game.
#3 is stupid, if anything Al Qaeda would welcome a strike against Assad. They're fighting him for control of the country after all.
ReplyDeleteSyria is fucking poison.
ReplyDeleteIt's a civil war. Leave it that way. Any aggressive action will likely only come back and bite us in the ass, whether it be in international relations, or creating future western-hating terrorists.
Stay out of it, or leave it to the spooks to let both sides go at each other. Offer humanitarian aid, sure, and make sure those offering it are protected, but that's it.
Hippies?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, an anti war movement similar to the one during Vietnam Iraq one and two and Afgansitan would sink Obama like a tub of cement.
ReplyDeletehell no we won't go and Hey, Hey JFK how many kids did you kill today.
Where is Cindy Sheehan?
This can't be just a western nation (US, UK, France, Germany, etc.) military action. Middle Eastern nation needs to be involved or all bets are off. Imagine the propaganda treasure Assad & Iran will get with the absence of any middle eastern participation.
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about "basing" rights, ground/air fueling or ISR. I mean (middle eastern air force) MEAF to participate in bombing, CAS or even CAP.
This is just cheap PR for Obama to be seen as doing something:
ReplyDeletettp://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/26/architect_of_syria_war_plan_doubts_surgical_strikes_will_work
Agree with Mark, the Arab states should be in also, sick and tired of them just watching....
no its worse than that. Mark is half right but to carry it to its logical conclusion the Arab states should be doing this all by themselves.
DeleteSaudi Arabia has a large National Guard that can supposedly hook and jab with the best in the region outside of the Israelis. their Air Force is suppose to be first rate. same with the other Gulf states.
they don't need western leadership. they just need some backbone. its past time for us to stop carrying a backwards region. they either grow up or kill each other. either way is fine by me.
Ummmm...If we bomb Syria, we will be going after Assad. Al Qaeda is on the other side of the war.
ReplyDeleteWe would be helping Al Qaeda.
Matthew, hear you brother, this is just what I posted a few moments ago on Facebook:" So we are going to help ALQ topple Assad so they can replace him with a hardcore Islamist regime, yeah, that makes a lot of sense....i don't see any future problems with that scenario."
ReplyDeleteWhat few people seem to know or realize is that in the last few months, almost all successful operations have been conducted by ALQ affiliated military groups, Free Syria army hasn't done much.....
Agree Sol, there really is no excuse, it is close by, Muslim killing Muslims, they have plenty of hardware, Syria isn't the hardest of targets,etc...Saudis, UAE, Bahrain,etc should be able to take care of this...tired of this crap.
Bush sided with the West against Al Q. Obama clearly the un Bush has to side with Bush's enemies even if those enemies are the United States enemies.
DeleteObama is allied with Al Q. Taliban and MusBros.
His real enemies are considered the U.S. citizens who oppose his ideals and ideas.
The Saudis and Gulf states I think will join in. By themselves I don't think so. It is allot more than just the balls they just don't have the skills. Like many of our european partners they have shiny nice aircraft with some capable pilots but we are not talking about bombing a few targets or air to air defense intercept escort. We are talking multiple near simultaneous strikes coordinated in the proper order to shock and collapse the SAM net THEN hit the money targets. Add to that tanking, EW, after action intelligence ect.... Very very few nations in the world can do this the US, Israel yes, on good days in limited size Russia, Britain, France, the rest would just throw it against the wall till it stuck.
ReplyDeleteWe kick the door just like Libya then follow up for the first few days and then roll to a support role.
The Sunni side is not all AQ, AQ is just the loudest best fighters. Moderates are new to fighting the islamist have been training dreaming such since birth. If we don't make sure we get a vote in the day after AQ will take over. If we play our cards right like say train a force of moderates into actual fighting units with skills while the islamist churn in the meat grinder with Assad then send them across just as Assad begins to collapse and everyone is tired maybe just maybe. The Kurds in the NE, US trained moderates up out of Jordan, the Christian, Druze, and whatever is left of the Alawites the day after wont be AQ.
Syria will be burning for the next decade even after Assad is gone just like Libya and Iraq. The Islamist problem is cultural and cultural problems never fix easy they are painful then once the societies decide to fix the problems it takes generatia to take effect. We are in the painful part. Enough of the majority saw it in Egypt recent, Iraq near past, Algeria far past, and hopefully we will see more.
The Radical Islamist strand is a evil disease that eats its own.
See, too many here are getting sucked into the x's and o' of "What if" might look like rather than answering the "why should we". Why is it so easy for us Americans to reach for the big stick as if it is a forgone conclusion or will fix all of our problems.
ReplyDeleteJust leave it be.
Problem is that the US has set itself up as the "World Police" the past few decades, especially on the cases of WMDs. After all that tough talk on the "red line", if the US doesn't do anything, it's going to be said that the Emperor has no clothes, and that would affect the global impression of the US. People won't take it seriously any more.
DeleteThis is in addition to opening the chemical/bio warfare Pandora's box. Right now, threatened reprisals is what is keeping terrorist countries from handing out chemical weapons by the ziplock bag full. If they see that reprisal is not coming due to military overstretch, there is less reason for them to restrain themselves. Do you really want a sarin or Ebola attack on the New York subway at rush hour?
That being said, I'm actually against intervention, but rhetoric might have painted the US into a corner on this one.
You mean, apart from post WW-1 international agreement against Chemical weapons ?!
DeleteWW-2 with 2x nukes but no chem-weapons !
This is not "US rhetoric" but long-standing international convention against very ugly proceedings.
Twenty, it is US rhetoric if you start talking about red lines, tough responses, military intervention.... and finally can't deliver or maneuvered yourself into an unpalatable COIN situation. With all the tough talk, the US can't back down now or even let another organization take the lead. Hell, they even rhetoriced themselves out of a black ops solution now that everyone is watching them for a visible military response.
DeleteInternational convention can be done with black ops, see Israel's strike on Syrian SAMs in the middle of their civil war, or the old UK's assault unit 30 during WWII where their job was to "invite" scientists to defect.