If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

obvious Child said:

Because he's taking a calculated risk that the West won't actually do anything. Remember that Libya showed that European militaries are essentially paper tigers. Without US removal of air defense systems, the Europeans were basically helpless. Furthermore, Libya's campaign showed that European supply and resupply are incredibly shallow with European stockpiles running desperately thin early into the campaign, so faced with a defense net way more advanced then Libya and an America who frankly can't afford another round of regime change, he essentially has cover. And when faced with rebels moving into the main cities of Aleppo and Damascus, it's a risk he might just take. Make no mistake, we will likely suffer losses in the destruction of the Syrian air defense system. This isn't Serbia. Or Libya.

Click to expand...

Actually it seems that the US and Europe have a lot of firepower to spare. (U.S. Ships, Troops Off Syria's Coast Amid Warnings Over Chemical Weapons)

And has been in the past (Iran propping up Syria's dwindling cash reserves – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs)

Mr. Invisible said:

Actually it seems that the US and Europe have a lot of firepower to spare. (U.S. Ships, Troops Off Syria's Coast Amid Warnings Over Chemical Weapons)

And has been in the past (Iran propping up Syria's dwindling cash reserves – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs)

Click to expand...

The US does. Europe not so much. Remember, merely because you have the deliver systems on paper does not mean you can readily use them quickly or replenish munitions quickly. Japan has dozens of strike aircraft. Doesn't mean Japan is a threat to China largely because Japan has few refuelers. This is logistics. Libya showed that the Europeans were curtailing sorties simply because they ran out of munitions. And that was early on in the Libyan Adventure. European capacity to sustain even a medium term engagement is questionable. And without the US, they couldn't have done what they did in Libya. They needed us to destroy Libyan air defenses. Syria is far more defended. And the US is in the middle of a financial mess. There's a good chance that Assad could get away with it for a while. Europe's heading back into a recession and they already spend well below their NATO requirements on defense. The Europeans couldn't even do this by themselves prior to Libya. And Assad knows this.

specklebang said:

Yes, I suppose you are right and I also suppose that religious fanatics also have a calculating side and the ones who rule through the fist of religion have a lot to lose also. So, hopefully, nobody will misbehave.

Click to expand...

Those who want power themselves can be predicted. Those who are willing to die in the cause...that's another story.

Correct. We can't use nuclear weapons not for lack of them, but because it is the way things are. The same goes for an all out assault UNLESS they demonstrably attacked us in so blatant a manner that we could even attempt to justify it to ourselves, let alone the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

They'd need to be the source of a nuclear attack to justify that. But Iran and North Korea know that on paper, the West has the capacity to end their regimes.

Oil was of lesser relevance in Iraq than was creating a war for profit. We import very little Iraqi oil now even less than the past. But it provided a great opportunity for looting the spoils of war (some through the US treasury) and the issuance of poorly contained contracts and of course, sales of weaponry, an American staple. For oil, we need to protect Canada, eh?

Click to expand...

I think it was more of an attempt to break OPEC. I remember some of the Iraqi adventure people backing this. It's not a bad theory in general, but it requires that whoever ends up in charge goes against their own interests by breaking out of a system that benefits them. Like most Republican predictions on Iraq, it was wrong too.