- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'm not saying the SAA can do it alone, but I think if we ran a campaign with Allied Air Power backing up the SAA. with Special Forces embedded to call in close air support to keep the front lines moving, just like we did in Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance. Combine this with a Joint Operations Command based out of Doha, we could create a makeshift alliance between Iraq, Syria, US and other allied powers to form a joint strategy with a coordinated invasion. If this was done, we could have ISIS mopped up within a matter of weeks. There's no power on this planet that can stand up to a war on two fronts, (three if we got the Turks involved, but they want Assad out even more than the US does...)
Its going to be a huge adjustment "working" with the Syrians-Obama demonized Assad (who is actually who I prefer in power in Syria-he's been a moderating influence) and wont lose face further by taking substantive action-and all of this would depend on Assads agreement-what does he get and are the strings attached to our presence acceptable to him? There has also never been a US presence in Syria (even historically, we have had very little contact) and cooperation would be difficult-but fine by all means I'd be open to trying it.
Beyond that-this would be more than Obama is even willing to do in Iraq-he'd need boots on the ground and wont do that until political winds demand so (leading from behind yet again). Now, arab armies are notorious for being poor fighters-even from the Kurds its relative-so what happens when and if they fail?
Obama will drag this out forever, because he has no desire to fight let alone win. Recent airstrikes have only been symbolic-if they hadn't been would we really need to have this discussion now?