"Iraq on Steroids"/ The Military Case Against Syria Strikes

[G_j]

"Iraq on steroids" is what I heard a spokesperson for Votevets.org say today on the Ed Shultz radio show.

Here is a piece from their website:

The Military Case Against Syria Strikes
Jon SoltzSep 04, 2013


http://www.votevets.org/news?id=0610

<snip>

If, as the administration says, our goal is to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again, strikes won't achieve that, either. This was also the stated goal several months back of why Syrian insurgents were armed, another action VoteVets.org opposed. And yet, here we are again. There is a reason why sending arms to the rebels wasn't a deterrent, and why strikes will not be a deterrent, either. Because neither action truly threatens Assad's grip on power.

In Syria, Assad has selected certain units most loyal to him that protect the regime (much like Saddam Hussein did). This is his operational center of gravity; his regime's defense. High percentages of these units are from the Allawite Sect, and are commanded by his personal relatives. They will fight until the end. Until these units are destroyed, the Syrian civil war will remain an asymmetrical stalemate. And so, even if we strike, Assad will continue to hold to power, and the civil war in Syria will continue.

We must not ignore the warning of our senior military leaders, like we did in the lead up to the Iraq War. In a letter to Congress several weeks ago Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey's words speak for themselves.

"We can destroy the Syrian air force," he said. "The loss of Assad's air force would negate his ability to attack opposition forces from the air, but it would also escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict. Stated another way, it would not be militarily decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the conflict.... The use of U.S. military force can change the military balance. But it cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict."

In short, any military action without a decisive end, like strikes, further obligates the United States military to another war, either because the regime will continue to kill in large numbers, use chemical weapons again, or because we feel we must tip the balance of the war. Then, in the aftermath, we must deal with the post-Assad Syria, only without many of our allies. In Syria, where many of the rebels have ties to terrorist groups, the enemy of our enemy also happens to be our enemy. Both sides fought US troops in Iraq, and both sides would fight US troops in Syria.

I fully understand that President Obama has painted himself into a political corner, but VoteVets.org cannot support this rush to conflict. At this point, if we want to help without committing the United States to another war, humanitarian assistance to bolster a moderate opposition still represents our best course of action in Syria.

[G_j]

1. K

[KoKo]

2. The Generals are balking at this Attack. The troops are weary and streched to

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)

their limits from multiple tours of duty.

I don't watch the MSM but on Saturday because of Obama's upcoming speech I tuned in MSNBC. Two of the "Paid Generals" (LT Du'ers remember the scandal about the Generals being paid to be on media) were on a panel with PJ Clark (who resigned from Obama Administration) waiting for Obama's speech which was late so they had time to get into a lengthy discussion with three of the young reporters who are on MSNBC now (I don't know their names).

Anyway it was Colonel Jack Jacobs and General Barry McCaffery that many of you might remember. They were really trying to warn about the Military going in because of the long term consequences of "unintended consequences" coming from a strike in Syria and how strung out our military is at this point. They were quite relieved after the speech when Obama said he would go to Congress. McCaffery said he'd spent years teaching Government Classes to young aspiring service men and women and that the most important thing he tried to teach was that Congress is the body that must be consulted before a President starts military action.

These two "Paid Military" are old enough that even they as (on the take as they've been) thought that this attack by Obama without support of GB and other high power allies along with not consulting congress or getting a UN Resolution was a terrible idea.
I think they are hearing it from other Military Brass and concerned about the welfare of the troops who are so worn down.

So...that one positive in this whole mess. It's the Military that has to stop this...because no one else can.

[G_j]

3. Unfortunately,

they won't be able to stop it either.
It looks like nothing will. What is frightening is that the situation is actually potentially more dangerous than Iraq, and look at that country today. Just for starters Saddam had no allies, Syria has quite a few.

[KoKo]

4. Agree...I think we are in for some really bad "unintended consequences"

if we go in on this one. A weary, strung out military isn't going to help, either. Along with a weary, tired US Population.

[G_j]

5. Maybe the MIC really does have the final word

other than that, one can only figure Obama has some truly ignorant advisors.
It's hard to imagine anyone can be that clueless, so I venture to guess the all powerful MIC and their Neo-Con friends are doing all they can to prevent any policy moves outside of the box. I'm sure Obama upset them by going to Congress. If he wasn't pushing this very hard, I might have hope. But hope is an endangered species these says.