Ars Regendi Simulation Forum

Full Version: United States military disaster in Syria
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

yangusbeef

The United States planned, in response to the withdrawal of troops, to train nearly 15 thousand Syrian troops and to deploy them against Isis. Well, they are nowhere near that goal. As it currently stands, only 4-5 of these 'specialist' troops are in combat, only 200-300 are currently in training. This catastrophe has given Isis the time nessesary to overwhelm the Syrian fighters. Meanwhile, Russia seems to be spearheading into Syria. It is sending more troops and battle supplies than it has since the Cold War.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...-fire.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-ru...cts-2015-9
The Scandinavian and Baltic countries are creating counter alliances and militarizing in response to aggressive redeployment of troops by Russia.
When will the West learn that funding religious extremists, to fight secular nationalists who want to be independent of Western geopolitics, is NOT the best way to project hegemony? Enemies are destroyed when you make friends of them. And no, don't give me any of that "oh, these countries violate human rights" - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel violate human rights too. You don't see the West eager to fund coups in those countries do you? Anyone trying to argue that geopolitics is about or ever was about human rights is living in a parallel world to our own.

yangusbeef

If things went to plan, it may have worked. Although, at this point of time, it appears they are most definitely on the wrong side. Russia will quickly push Isis out and gain a permanent ally in the Middle East. It seems like a case of ignorance by the west.

I have a distaste of Israel, but they are a powerful ally for the U.S. They project power onto the Arabs AND give the U.S. a permanent foothold. The fact that some suggest abandoning Israel is ignorance itself. What they should give up on is supporting 'freedom fighters' who will later, in the long term, be a pain for them.

yangusbeef Wrote:
If things went to plan, it may have worked. Although, at this point of time, it appears they are most definitely on the wrong side. Russia will quickly push Isis out and gain a permanent ally in the Middle East. It seems like a case of ignorance by the west.

I have a distaste of Israel, but they are a powerful ally for the U.S. They project power onto the Arabs AND give the U.S. a permanent foothold. The fact that some suggest abandoning Israel is ignorance itself. What they should give up on is supporting 'freedom fighters' who will later, in the long term, be a pain for them.

Yes, I agree with you. Israel, even in the extremely unlikely scenario that it somehow loses all Western support - it's still not going away. Israel is a freakin' nuclear power. You can't invade it without triggering (nuclear) WW3. The only rational strategy in my opinion is for Israel & Western powers to fund secular movements which they can control and fund - but they will actually have to IMPROVE the lives of their neighbors, instead of turning them to shit like they've done in the past and like they're doing now - if they want to have peace and order.

yangusbeef

American politicians will never let that happen. "You are either with us or you're with them!" Is one of their most popular slogan. They will continue this 'divide and conquer' strategy until the Arabs comply to their demands for a few decades. Russia and eastern nations, of course, have done well in inhibiting this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/four...492d63ed49
As it turns out, the CIA has trained nearly 10k Syrian Rebels. Perhaps this wasn't a debacle but just misinformation. Though, it does not disprove the fact that the non CIA program was very inefficient in producing fighters of any kind.

Helsworth Wrote:
When will the West learn that funding religious extremists, to fight secular nationalists who want to be independent of Western geopolitics, is NOT the best way to project hegemony? Enemies are destroyed when you make friends of them. And no, don't give me any of that "oh, these countries violate human rights" - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel violate human rights too. You don't see the West eager to fund coups in those countries do you? Anyone trying to argue that geopolitics is about or ever was about human rights is living in a parallel world to our own.


Military power in this day and age accomplishes nothing to change a state's domestic behaviours, bar an expensive and drawn-out occupation. Even then, cultural change must take place.

The exercising of soft power is the only way to sustainably influence the behaviour of another state domestically. I agree with you there.

yangusbeef

Unless you carpet nuke them and harvest their dead carcasses as oil. Little expenses, high reward.

yangusbeef Wrote:
Unless you carpet nuke them and harvest their dead carcasses as oil. Little expenses, high reward.


Bombs are quite expensive.

yangusbeef

VineFynn Wrote:

yangusbeef Wrote:
Unless you carpet nuke them and harvest their dead carcasses as oil. Little expenses, high reward.


Bombs are quite expensive.


Only if you replace them. The United States of America has enough nukes to where they can kill everyone on the peninsula and still have enough nukes left over that replacing the used nukes is not necessary.


VineFynn Wrote:

yangusbeef Wrote:
Unless you carpet nuke them and harvest their dead carcasses as oil. Little expenses, high reward.


Bombs are quite expensive.


Also, do you play crusader kings 2?

Yeah, I do.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's