Syria: a civil war (closed)

[Dayuhan]

So if a guardian angel starts to take out 1,000s of the bad guys (being from Assad's political and military hierarchy) is not the same as killings civilians (men, women, children) in Homs with artillery, mortars, armour and then by firing squad.

Now one wonders why a Marine officer can't connect the dots in order to protect civilians (regardless of their religious or political persuasion) from being butchered by Assad's thugs (can't call people who do that soldiers) it is clearly necessary to kill a lot of Assad's thugs. Now this killing of Assad's trigger men must be swift and extremely violent because (as reports state) if they refuse to kill civilians and oppositions groups they themselves will be killed by the regime's enforcers. So to tip the balance in favour or defection/flight/whatever one needs to send them a very serious message.

Since there is no guardian angel, how exactly do you propose to accomplish this? What specific steps would you recommend, what outcome do you expect those steps to achieve, and why do you expect that those steps would lead to that outcome?

If you, as a military expert, were to propose a course of action to civilian leadership, you would presumably be asked those questions or something very much like them. How would you convince them that your proposed course of action would work?

When you arrive at what you think will or won't work consider the basis on which you arrived at that decision. In appreciations the deductions and conclusions are not 'plucked' out of the air but are arrived at through your discussion of factors.

That's exactly what I've been asking you to do.

For example your man Wolfsberger states that if Assad is taken out it "would lead to complete chaos". Where did he pluck this from? Sadly he states this opinion (his opinion) as a fact. He gives no inkling as to how he is able to state this with such certainty. You should not fall into this trap as well.

He can speak for himself, but he would probably look at prior cases, recent and otherwise, where dictators have been removed by outside force (Iraq, Libya, etc). He'd likely listen to what people who study Syrian politics have to say. He'd probably at least consider the possibility that various factions would contend to fill the power vacuum left by Assad's removal, and the possibility that the contention would involve violence.

What do you think would happen if Assad were "taken out", and why do you think that?

You stated this opinion:

Two cruise missiles is all it will take

That opinion certainly looks like it's being stated as fact, as much as anything J. Wolfsberger said. You also give no inkling of how you are able to state this with such certainty. What's the basis on which you arrived at that conclusion?

The same might be asked of comments like this:

What will restrain any temptation to intervene is the opposition of Russia and China.

Again, stated as fact without any inkling of how you are able to state this with such certainty.

Why criticize others for doing what you do so readily yourself?