Quote Originally Posted by Wyatt View Post
A couple thoughts. Its doubtful that many if anyone on this board knows the full extent of any support being given indirectly. If someone does it isn't being discussed with reason. So we are all working with partial information.

Second, I think its entirely predictable that after iraq and afghanistan we wouldn't touch this situation with a ten foot pole. The "moderates" may not have the ability to win simply because they are moderate. In a civil war when the participants view the struggle as an existential one, the force with the highest propensity to violence may have an advantage. Additionally, the unifying force of the desire for good government, inclusiveness and restraint is hard to turn into a stirring call to battle especially in a situation plagued by old religious and ethnic strife. Easy to turn those tensions into blind hate once you begin losing friends and family.

If we end up in a situation where we have Salafi Sunnis and the gulf states vs Assad, Hez and Iran in a war of attrition we will have a good opportunity to gather intelligence on all the above. This may not be the case but I imagine that when forces are employed in warfare they become exposed to exploitation. Im thinking along the lines of getting a better idea of existing relationships and the capabilities that hez, quds, and the saudis can bring to bear. The more active the network the more risk to make mistakes and be exposed.

My final thought is somewhat jaded. Isn't it a positive for us that we have Hezbollah, Assad forces, Quds force and Salafis all killing each other in one big party? They are mowing the grass for us. Of course the risk is that it spreads and endangers allies like the Jordanians and the Israelis.

Im new to UW and small wars so I could have made many poor assumptions.
I agree it is a positive in some regards that AQ related and Iran sponsored groups are killing each other. If the Iran groups win it will return to the former we're back to where we were, and if the AQ groups win Christians, Alawites, etc. will be displaced and slaughtered. We never could separate the so called moderate Sunnis from the radicals, and as you stated once family and friends start dying the character of the conflict changes at a personal level. John McCain was nave enough to pose with AQ linked extremists during his visit to Syria, if our intelligence organizations couldn't steer him straight I think that is an indicator we have no business pumping arms into the country that will (not may) go into the hands of our enemy.

Iran is a threat to the region, but Iran is a rational actor despite their rhetoric. Sunni Extremists are a threat to the region and the U.S., and they're not rational actors. Assad and his father kept the extremists at bay. Saddam did the same, and Saddam balanced Iranian influence. I'm having a hard time rationalizing the world is a safer place without strong (suppressive) Sunni leadership in Iraq. Like most I'm gland Saddam and his sons are dead, but I think we erred strategically when we pushed for democracy as soon as we did. I think the AQ threat coming out Iraq combined with the increased Iranian influence in the region threatens our interests at least as much as Saddam did.

If the purpose of committing to a war is a better peace, I'm not sure what the end state in Syria would be if we decided to intervene that would result in a better peace? Just offering to give assistance that we may or may not be giving the resistance has simply prolonged the conflict and may have resulted in a chronic conflict that will continue for decades. I would like to know how the strategic thinkers in Israel view this, do they think it would be to their advantage if the West supported the moderates? Are do they think leaving Assad in place with the best of the bad options?

Posted by Carl

What does our various trials and errors in Iraq have to do with Syria? Not much I think except as an excuse not to confront things when they appear.
Quite frankly it has quite a bit to do with it, just as the results of the Vietnam War limited our willingness to engage in other conflicts for years which in some cases was probably best, in others not so much. We don't do a good job of thinking in time, and the so called human domain at home is more important than the human domain in the conflict zone. We're a democracy, wars have to be justified and ends met, or we will lose our political will (time after time). When we know this is true then I think we have to consider the moral consequences of getting involved when victory or a better peace appears elusive unless it is a direct threat to our country. Never say always, never say never, but we do need to think this through. Our political will is already damaged by a badly run war in Iraq, adding another one to our list could paralyze us further.

I'm not opposed to covert aid to someone we consider an alley, but anymore covert aid tends to be reported on a regular basis on Fox and CNN news, so that option is only viable if people in the know can keep their mouths shut. If covert was happening we wouldn't be debating it because we wouldn't know about it. If we know we are or aren't, then we're talking about something else.