Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

eridani

(51,907 posts)
Mon May 4, 2015, 06:29 AM May 2015

The Day After Damascus Falls

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/29913-focus-the-day-after-damascus-falls

A favorite myth of Official Washington is that Syrian “moderates” would have prevailed if only Obama had bombed the Syrian military and provided sophisticated weapons to the rebels.

Though no such “moderate” rebel movement ever existed – at least not in any significant numbers – that reality is ignored by all the “smart people” of Washington. It is simply too good a talking point to surrender. The truth is that Obama was right when he told New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman in August 2014 that the notion of a “moderate” rebel force that could achieve much was “always … a fantasy.”

As much fun as the “who lost Syria” finger-pointing would be, it would soon give way to the horror of what would likely unfold in Syria with either Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front or the spin-off Islamic State in charge – or possibly a coalition of the two with Al-Qaeda using its new base to plot terror attacks on the West while the Islamic State engaged in its favorite pastime, those YouTube decapitations of infidels – Alawites, Shiites, Christians, even some descendants of the survivors from Turkey’s Armenian genocide a century ago who fled to Syria for safety.

Such a spectacle would be hard for the world to watch and there would be demands on President Obama or his successor to “do something.” But realistic options would be few, with a shattered and scattered Syrian army no longer a viable force capable of driving the terrorists from power.

The remaining option would be to send in the American military, perhaps with some European allies, to try to dislodge Al-Qaeda and/or the Islamic State. But the prospects for success would be slim. The goal of conquering Syria – and possibly re-conquering much of Iraq as well – would be costly, bloody and almost certainly futile.

The further diversion of resources and manpower from America’s domestic needs also would fuel the growing social discontent in major U.S. cities, like what is now playing out in Baltimore where disaffected African-American communities are rising up in anger against poverty and the police brutality that goes with it. A new war in the Middle East would accelerate America’s descent into bankruptcy and a dystopian police state.
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Day After Damascus Falls (Original Post) eridani May 2015 OP
The reasoning is ridiculous. DetlefK May 2015 #1
actually, there is one option that dares not speak it's name DonCoquixote May 2015 #2

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
1. The reasoning is ridiculous.
Mon May 4, 2015, 06:55 AM
May 2015

"If Damascus falls, the US will have no choice but to invade and this invasion will lead to so much tension inside the US that it collapses."

Ha ha. Very funny.




How about this:
Iraq and the Kurds, with significant from the West bombarding ISIS, push ISIS into Syria. And once ISIS relocates completely to Syria... nothing much will change.
The IS will cease to exist, costing ISIS lots of valuable reputation and reducing the influx of recruits. ISIS will have to compromise and forge an alliance with Al-Nusra or risk a war of attrition.
The syrian rebels will keep on fighting a hopeless war. The humanitarian catastrophe will get even worse.
Syria will be isolated: The sea to the west, a hostile Turkey to the north, a hostile Iraq to the east, a hostile Lebanon (supported by american and saudi-arabian money) to the south.
The bombing-campaign of the West will shift from ISIS-territory in Iraq to Syria.
A trade-embargo prevents Syria from exporting oil.
At the same time, the Kurds try to become independent from Iraq. Iraq doesn't want to give up the oil of Kurdistan.

If Iraq and the Kurds settle kurdish autonomy peacefully, then the islamic extremists will slowly be ground to death in a war of attrition lasting 10-20 years, producing a new disillusioned generation that has never known peace and tolerance.
If Iraq and the Kurds decide to fight, ISIS will swoop back into western Iraq and it all begins anew.

And for the US it will be same-old same-old.

DonCoquixote

(13,616 posts)
2. actually, there is one option that dares not speak it's name
Mon May 4, 2015, 08:31 AM
May 2015

Putin has a vested interest is Assad. This would be a lovely chance for the bear to show his claws are just as sharp as when they were Soviet Red. Let's face it, he would be a hero, and it would weaken both Nato and the Ukraine.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Day After Damascus Fa...