Posted on 04/27/2013 6:20:01 PM PDT by haffast
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite President Barack Obama's pledge that Syria's use of chemical weapons is a "game changer" for the United States, he is unlikely to turn to military options quickly and would want allies joining him in any intervention.
Possible military choices range from limited one-off missile strikes from ships - one of the less complicated scenarios - to bolder operations like carving out no-fly safe zones.
One of the most politically unpalatable possibilities envisions sending tens of thousands of U.S. forces to help secure Syrian chemical weapons.
Obama has so far opposed limited steps, like arming anti-government rebels, but pressure to deepen U.S. involvement in Syria's civil war has grown since Thursday's White House announcement that President Bashar al-Assad likely used chemical weapons.
After fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon is wary of U.S. involvement in Syria. The president's top uniformed military adviser, General Martin Dempsey, said last month he could not see a U.S. military option with an "understandable outcome" there.
"There's a lot of analysis to be done before reaching any major decisions that would push U.S. policy more in the direction of military options," a senior U.S. official told Reuters.
That caution is understandable, given the experience of Iraq where the United States went to war based on bad intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. The Pentagon has made repeated warnings of the enormous risks and limitations of using American military might in Syria's civil war.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at uk.news.yahoo.com ...
Syria Could Crash The U.S. Dollar (UUP)
July 9th, 2012
excerpts:
"One or both of these doomsday catalysts for a U.S. lock down took a giant leap forward in France, Friday. Cold War-like comments made at the “Friends of Syria” conference in Paris by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton toward Russia and China strongly suggest that a showdown between the former Cold War rivals, now to include China, is on. The prize: oil—and by implications the future of the U.S. petrodollar standard and the American way of life.
“I don’t think Russia and China believe they are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime,” Clinton told an audience comprised of delegations from more than 60 nations. “The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price . . .”
Auspiciously, delegations from Moscow and Beijing did not attend the meeting.
The U.S. Secretary of State went on to accuse Russia, China and Iran of supporting Syria’s Assad regime economically and militarily, and called upon other nations to comply with UN sanctions levied upon Syria—sanctions which would also include refusing oil shipments from Syria’s vital economic support and trusted ally, Iran.
snip
"Though, Russia and China have already agreed to a peaceful resolution to the Syrian civil war, signing off on the Security Council plan drafted by former-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, it’s more likely that Moscow and Beijing are playing politics of cooperation to buy more time for the Assad regime. Russia and China do not want regime change in yet another Middle Eastern country for a host of economic and political reasons, of which, the primary one is to stop the U.S. from controlling the region’s oil supplies to Russia’s ally and co-founding member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), China."
Authors John Barry and Dan Ephron of a Sept. 2004 Newsweek article, titled, War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike explain that Syria and Iran have been targets of interest of the U.S. for quite some time, as Washington under the George W. Bush Administration had known that a day would come when the U.S. and China would bang heads for precious crude supplies in the Middle East. Whether it’s the Obama Administration or another neocon U.S. president in control of the executive branch, the petrodollar standard must be defended in the Middle East. The Iranian/Syrian alliance has stood in the way of total U.S. dominance in the region, but now the matter has become urgent following Iran’s announcement in Feb. 2012, that it has broken ranks in the petrodollar scheme. It now will not accept the dollar as payment for Persian oil.
http://etfdailynews.com/2012/07/09/syria-could-crash-the-u-s-dollar-uup/
No worries. Obama will just re-draw that red line!
Yes there is a good military option, keep our military out of Syria.
And cut off the funds and arms we’re sending as well.
I agree, stay the hell out, let them fight their own battles
That being said, the media has been telling me for about a year that Assad is about to fall --
He's about to fall! Well, he's rallying and may not fall this week.
He's about to fall! Well, he's rallying and may not fall this week.
He's about to fall! Well, he's rallying and may not fall this week.
In such a situation, exactly how much involvement from the US would really be needed to turn the tide? Now, if we wanted to pacify the entire country and then rebuild the entire country, that would take some serious effort -- but I never understand why we think we should be in that particular business.
The U.S. has been doing arms deals with other arab countries. I don’t see any of them trying to lead a charge into Syria to stop Assad. Where did those 20,000 M16s stolen in Kuwait go? I suspect Israel’s greatest fear is that chemical weapons will fall into rebel hands. If they haven’t already.
The actual primary one is that the rebels are worse than the Assad regime - a fact recognized by everybody in the world except the head-in-the-clouds US Government.
Duh.
I could have told them that without spending money.
Access is limited (though not as badly as Afghanistan). It is a client state to rival powers who will take a dim view of our intervention. It is a heck of drive from the coast to Damascus. We don’t have any allies in the country and there is no side on whose behalf it is worth intervening.
So when can I get check?
Good thing we didn’t do something stupid like declaring a “Red Line.”
Hello Bigheadfred.....I agree...BO won’t do more than maybe give more Armor etc. However, he’ll wait til the UN or some other country takes the lead...Like France did in Libya....he will not soil his hands otherwise on this.
Israels border could get hotter though...already warming up.
There is one good option
Nuke Mecca and end that religion once & for all
obama will jump in if the saudi’s tell him he has to but in the meantime obama is afraid of Putin.
I agree 100 percent! If we give it to the rebels, they will turn Syria into a training grounds for terrorism against the West. There is no question that Syria has a nuclear capability, or is working in that direction. What happens if the rebels get a hold of Syria’s nuclear technology?
If Syria falls to the rebels, this will be one more stake in the ground against Israel. Soon that stake will go to Israel’s heart.
Obama’s word is about as good as his golf game. He lies.
Just leave it alone. Why must more of our young die or be mutilated for a politicians purse. If the Syrians want to kill themselves, let them.
Notice how close Syria is to Israel Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Maybe this is Iran's ticket to the Mediterranean through northern Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.