Non-Interventionist President Launches Intervention

[red_elk]

I don't know what more he would need to feel backed into a corner

"Assad must go" repeated in 2783 time by Western politicians unlikely will impress him. A really damaging military action (like the one without warning) would do, but it would be dangerous with all Russian troops and equipment around.

Edit: I agree that the strikes weren't necessary and just another screwup in the Middle East, I just don't think they will change much at this point.

 

[Colon]

Raqqa is not far from their border. Dislodging ISIS from there is critical for ongoing Iraqi security. I don't believe that the bulk of Iraqi security forces will be joining the assault, but surely their special forces will, along with U.S. air and ground support. That has been the plan all along as far as I know.

Raqqa isn't close to the border at all. Plus there's a good deal of IS-territory in between, even within Iraq. This is a fairly current map of the situation in Syria and Iraq:



Also given how close the Syrian Kurds already are to Raqqa, it's hard to see how Iraqi forces could participate in the assault in a meaningful way.

 

[red_elk]

Raqqa operation is conducted by Kurdish troops with support of US special forces.

 

[metalhead]

Right, but that swathe of territory between Mosul and Raqqa needs to be retaken as part of the effort to remove ISIS from Raqqa. As far as I understand it, the plan is for the Iraqi and U.S. special forces currently engaged in Mosul to press west if/when they liberate western Mosul as part of the final assault. I don't believe they are going to stop at the Iraqi border. I may be wrong, but that's how I interpret the things I've read about how they expect the last phases to play out.

 

[red_elk]

ISIS suffered major blow last few months, by the way. It lost important populated territories in North Aleppo, was kicked out of Palmyra again and their situation in Mosul is quite grim. The only major stronghold they still control is Raqqa, which is getting slowly encircled by the Kurds.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What is the white on that map? Stuff no one wants?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Flat featureless terrain with the occasional cactus?

 

[Lexicus]

What is the white on that map? Stuff no one wants?

Mostly empty desert, probably.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I live in an empty desert. Why would that be unwanted?

 

[red_elk]

Red areas, controlled by ISIS, are also mostly sparsely populated desert.
Government controls about 1/3 of territory with 2/3 of population.

 

[Lexicus]

I live in an empty desert. Why would that be unwanted?

Because you live in it?

 

[Broken_Erika]

I live in an empty desert. Why would that be unwanted?

Those area's are more or less devoid of anything. Maybe a house or two but that's about it. No real utilities, no towns, no military or industrial stuff, it's the middle section of nowhere.

 

[red_elk]

Map is wrong, red should be good guys.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Map is wrong, red should be good guys.

Better Red than Dead!

 

[EnglishEdward]

For the record, I also have the same chain-of-skepticism that Assad actually used chemical weapons. It seems a high-risk/no-reward action. But I also don't know how plausible I find it that rebels had such large quantities of chemical weapons themselves. I don't find CNN's witness testimonies very useful. I do think that proportionate counter-violence for such things is fine idea; the world could absolutely use more violence performed on those who willfully commit atrocities (insert a bunch of tired caveats here).

Sadly, I'll never know. Who's going to inform me that the evidence is credible?

This is my opinion. And I am with Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn (rather than Tim Farron) on this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39525952

Wouldn't surprise me if a muddle with nerve gas label or whatever previously peeled off the bomb.
Now I have no evidence of that, but if it is at all possible to load the wrong type of ammunition, fuel
or bombs; then sooner or later some hard pressed porter or squaddie will inevitatly do just that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because you live in it?

I might be the best thing to ever come outta this place.

Unless you need a strategic bomber or a space shuttle, of course, but those aren't really high demand items with broad appeal.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I knew Trump would be an interventionist all along.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I knew Trump would be an interventionist all along.

He's not an interventionist... By "bomb" he meant "surveillance".

 

[Commodore]

What is the white on that map? Stuff no one wants?

Either that or just areas where no faction has any significant force.

 

[Bootstoots]

I'm going to adopt a wait-and-see approach on this one.

As long as he stops here - with a single strike against a specific target suspected of carrying out the sarin attack, in the dead of night to minimize even Syrian casualties, with an hour's notice to the Russians to get out of the way - then it might be part of a fairly reasonable carrot-and-stick approach against specific war crimes. In retrospect, Obama would have been well-served by doing the same sort of thing in 2013.

If, on the other hand, he continuously (past Tillerson's meeting with Putin) presses for Assad's ouster in a continuation of Obama-Clinton policies, launches more airstrikes, attempts to impose a 'no-fly zone', channels arms support to 'moderate Syrian rebels', or anything like that, then the neocons/liberal interventionists (same goals, different justifications and party labels) have taken control of him, and the new boss will be the same as the other candidate for new boss, and worse than the old boss.