Originally Posted by
CrowBat
Yes, there certainly was. Whether '10 bombs or cruise missiles', or at least an aerial blockade of Syria, back in September 2013 could've stopped this mass slaughter, and made US foreign policy a credible factor on the international scene again.
Of course, back then nobody could even dream about such repercussions of doing nothing like emergence of the Daesh. Instead, everybody would've complained about 'supporting al-Qaida' and similar rubbish. But...sigh... anything would've been better than the mess that came into being ever since (including the emergence of the Daesh).
Actually, intel on Assadist air defences was not only hopelessly outdated (approx of same quality like that about Qaddaffi's air defences in 2011, which resulted in several hundred of million of taxpayer's money being squandered to demolish rusty SA-2, SA-3, and SA-5 sites), but also massively exaggerated by the US military, because Pentagon was of the opinion that it does not want to go 'supporting al-Qaida' in Syria.
In fact, Assadist air defences were in a bigger disarray back in 2013 than they are nowadays, and would've been no problem to overrun.
Nowadays they're better concentrated, have two years of experience on their new tools, and are Russian supported too. I.e. a 'no go' case.
An aerial blockade, for example. It would not even need any kind of authorization from the UN for countries like Turkey, Iraq (back then still quasi-US-controlled), Jordan to run one - especially not if supported by Saudis and CO.
Neither the USA nor anybody else in the West is seriously interested in getting involved in Syria any more. Therefore, there's no 'coalition of willing'.
Again: using the NATO-led intervention in Libya as some sort of excuse ala 'but if we do that in Syria it's gonna turn Libya all over again' is gross ignorance of facts.
Fact is that Libyan intervention was (despite all of its mistakes and flaws) a major military success. Fact is that it enabled Libyans to start making decisions on their own. Fact is that in first local elections there, Islamists were so heavily defeated, that they were on a brink of disappearance.
Sad fact is, however, that subsequently the West did nothing (and this is where provisional Libyan authorities are to blame, then it was them who turned down a UN offer for deployment of a stabilisation force, [thanks for a reminder, Rex!]) to prevent Qatar and (to a lesser degree) Turkey from screwing up everything they only could screw up in Libya. Fact is that especially Qatar imposed Islamists upon locals de-facto on gun-point.
Fact is that then a US citizen appeared to launch a military coup and was supported in this action by the military regime that coupped itself to power in Egypt - in turn provoking a civil war before locals ever had an opportunity to sort out things on their own (and peacefully).
All of that has absolutely nothing to do with NATO intervention. And especially: it means anything else but that whenever some f...g dictator in the Middle East is removed, it's 'automatically so' that extremists are taking over.
I'm very sorry to express it that way, David, but can't hold myself back because it's making me so mad: no matter how widespread, such thinking...this sort of urban legends... is actually primitivism based on ignorance of facts.
