Russia/Syria solution?

[Monkeyleg]

Trump's good pal Vlad is saying that US planes cannot fly west of the Euphrates River, or the Russians will shoot them down.

I only see two options, one being to cow to the Russians' demands, the other being to engage in a shooting war. Neither seems like a good option.

Any armchair generals have any solutions?

[Fitz]

or, how bout this. Here's a novel friggin idea:


How bout we not get involved in Syria at all? Or anywhere in the ME for that matter?

We already have proof from recent history that when they aren't fighting US troops, they're slaughtering each other.

LET

THEM

[grampster]

What Fitz said.  Time to leave Iraq and A'stan too.  16 years of blood and treasure for what?

[Scout26]

What Fitz said.

And tell the Syrian, Russians, and Iraqis good luck.  We'll post a lot of hashtags and change our profile pictures to the Iraqi or Syrian flags.

[TechMan]

What Fitz, grampster and Scout said.  Time to let them go at each other for a while.  We still support Israel, but *expletive deleted*ck the rest of them.

[Andiron]

What Fitz, grampster and Scout said.  Time to let them go at each other for a while.  We still support Israel, but *expletive deleted*ck the rest of them.

Can't add anything to that,  it's perfect.

[just Warren]

We're not leaving. Trump wants to destroy ISIS and you can't do that by withdrawing.

The absolute best thing right now would be to team up with them and Assad, clean out the rebel areas (not using our own troops) and get Syria back to some semblance of normality. And then pull out. Politically, however, that won't happen.

Therefore the only thing to do is to force the issue and see if they're bluffing.

The Russians have to know that despite their short supply lines and what counts as interior lines for them that they cannot win a protracted battle with US forces.

I mean maybe if we invaded them they could but they can't match our overseas force projection despite living in the neighborhood.

And the very second they cause US deaths the public won't let the war stop until the Russians are pushed back to their own borders. No ships allowed out of port, planes that venture out of Russian airspace shot down and so forth.

I don't know what the end point would be but there would be very few happy days for Vlad & Co. and they have to know that. Therefore they're bluffing (95% chance).  

[Parker Dean]

While I agree with the above sentiments the fact of the matter is that the US does has strategic interests in Syria since the Russians have decided to use energy supplies as a weapon against Europe. First problem was Assad granting the Russians a naval base in the Eastern Med where such a base could threaten oil coming from the other middle eastern countries and then managed to get him to deny a pipeline that would further secure energy supplies that were not dependent upon Russia. The implications are clear, Russia wants to control Europe by making it dependent on Russian energy supplies. This is why Assad had to go in the first place but a certain administration didn't put enough effort into the job and now we've got a real problem with a nuclear State. Note that I didn't say peer or even near-peer since the Russian economy is a tick smaller than Italy's so a conventional conflict wouldn't even be a contest. Not a good thing regardless.

Basically there is no good solution until either Vladie-boy is convinced to go elsewhere or Lockheed Martin coughs up with it's truck-sized fusion reactor that's due any day now...

[De Selby]

The US intervened to topple Assad, and has effectively supported ISIS through arming its allies and attacking its enemies.

There's no way to stay in Syria and cooperate. Strategic interests don't align.

[RoadKingLarry]

Syria is just another of Obama and company's *expletive deleted*it sammiches. Clinton and Kerry teed up that *expletive deleted*ing mess.  Appoint/conscript both of them as co-ambassadors and send them over there to straighten up their mess. Oh, and we'll be sure to give them at least as good of security and support that Stevens got in Lybia.

[bedlamite]

As much as I don't like Assad, he's probably the best option for Syria. In general, third world countries in that area cause fewer problems when some tin pot dictator has the country under his thumb. Saddam was a PITA, but we would have had fewer problems if we had left him there. Libya was much more stable with Qaddafi. At this point there's no good solution.

[just Warren]

It's almost like there was a whole plan to destabilize all these countries that front the Med to both cause a refugee crisis and create an unobstructed pathway for them to get to Europe.

Maybe the whole point was to invade Europe and the destabilization of these countries was a means to end and not the goal.

But man, that implies a competence that I don't believe the previous administration could muster. 

[Fly320s]

But man, that implies a competence that I don't believe the previous administration could muster. 

Our previous administration?  Why would Obama want that?  What is the goal?

[just Warren]

The downfall of western, white, Christian, civilization?

But it need not be him. He and his crew could have been doing the will, knowingly or not, of others.

[grampster]

If Russia got the opportunity to control the sale of energy to Europe, that would effectively put the Muslim Arabs out of business.  That would be a boon to the entire world.  Russia could certainly become content being the uncle to Europe as well as building up their economy.  That  would of course worry China and that would be a good thing.  Maybe make the Chinese a bit less expansionist into the Pacific.