Official Syrian Conflict Thread

[Birnin Zana]

So honestly, what available options are there at this point?

Seems to me that we’ve reached somewhat of a circular, never-ending arguement that is reaching a stalemate, or an outcome that is not going to be liked by a lot of folks.

-Assad is a brutal dictator that committed war crimes on many occasions. That is clear and quite obvious. But he has the backing of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, so he isn’t going anywhere, for now.

-Trump can do the one-off attack again, but that won’t do much (See last year). Or he does a much more comprehensive attack unilaterally or with allies (France, UK, Saudi?) and risk an armed conflict with Russia and Iran, which turns the situation into something much more dangerous on a regional and global scale.

-U.S. can’t boost up the Kurds, or else Turkey will excalate its military campaign. Turkey’s presence in Syria and Assad’s continued advances in the country mean that—barring a new development—the Kurds may have to make a deal with Assad sooner or later.

-Jihadist opposition is losing momentum and losing ground. Assad is winning that particular fight and momentum is on his side.

-Non-Jihadist opposition appears to be a non-factor at this point (correct me if I’m wrong). Are there enough of them to influence the nation? If Assad were to be toppled by some miracle, are there enough of them to control the Assad territories and pushback against the large Jihadist opposition?

-Concerning toppling Assad, is the United States willing to enter an armed conflict against Russia to do so? The answer so far, it appears, is a clear no.

With all factors involved, what should be done?

Originally, I suspected that the conflict would end with Syria being split in 2 or 3 parts. However, Assad would never tolerate this result. On top of that, Turkey will prevent any establishment of a Kurdish state. Assad, Russia, and Iran aren’t fans of it either.

From the looks of it, unfortunately, it’s either Assad wins the war somehow, or the war continues.

 

[newarkhiphop]

Russia prepares for nuclear war with U.S.

 

[thatrapsfan]

Targeted but sustained strikes that take out Assad's airforce, and key command and control centers, would be a defined and achievable objective that would not lead to nuclear war.

It also would not lead to regime collapse. There aren't any frontlines outside of Idlib and the rebels that remain do not have the capability to take over the country, even if Assad's air power is degraded. But it would weaken Assad's political position, and possibly even lead to the Russians/Iranians consider engaging in a genuine political process. Why not ?

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

Targeted but sustained strikes that take out Assad's airforce, and key command and control centers, would be a defined and achievable objective that would not lead to nuclear war.

It also would not lead to regime collapse. There aren't any frontlines outside of Idlib and the rebels that remain do not have the capability to take over the country, even if Assad's air power is degraded. But it would weaken Assad's political position, and possibly even lead to the Russians/Iranians consider engaging in a genuine political process. Why not ?

This is a viable outcome. Any situation that would cause the Russians and Iranians to commit to more of a presence in Syria due to Assad have less capability to defend the land he currently holds might win some concessions. The question then becomes what exactly would the goal of negotiations be?

 

[FAH1223]

Targeted but sustained strikes that take out Assad's airforce, and key command and control centers, would be a defined and achievable objective that would not lead to nuclear war.

It also would not lead to regime collapse. There aren't any frontlines outside of Idlib and the rebels that remain do not have the capability to take over the country, even if Assad's air power is degraded. But it would weaken Assad's political position, and possibly even lead to the Russians/Iranians consider engaging in a genuine political process. Why not ?

This is a viable outcome. Any situation that would cause the Russians and Iranians to commit to more of a presence in Syria due to Assad have less capability to defend the land he currently holds might win some concessions. The question then becomes what exactly would the goal of negotiations be?

Trump's tweet got the Syrians to move most of their aircraft to the Russian bases

Maybe they damage the airfields at T4, Shayrat (again), and another location is my guess.

 

[Arithmetic]

 

[Cole Cash]

fukk this dude but.....when he say its foot on neck season, he mean it,

I_Got_The_Drones

 

[Arithmetic]

 

[Arithmetic]

After this Mattis hearing I have no doubt they are pissed at that Trump tweet ("get ready!")

 

[thatrapsfan]

Russians using private contractors to do the dirty work and avoid combat casualties to official troops.

 

[thatrapsfan]

Le président de la République a assuré que « nous avons la preuve que la semaine dernière des armes chimiques ont été utilisées par le régime de Bachar Al-Assad » sur la ville de la Douma, dans la banlieue de Damas, qui est retombée entièrement aux mains de l’armée syrienne jeudi 12 avril.

France says it has proof of the chemical weapons. It’s interesting the reflexive WMD retort the Assadists will scream, disregards the fact that France passed on the Iraq war

 

[Birnin Zana]

Targeted but sustained strikes that take out Assad's airforce, and key command and control centers, would be a defined and achievable objective that would not lead to nuclear war.

It also would not lead to regime collapse. There aren't any frontlines outside of Idlib and the rebels that remain do not have the capability to take over the country, even if Assad's air power is degraded. But it would weaken Assad's political position, and possibly even lead to the Russians/Iranians consider engaging in a genuine political process. Why not ?

Should said strikes be launched and be successful, is the West willing to engage in a political process that may result in Assad remaining in power?

I ask this because it appears that the sticking point of the political process is Assad’s political fate. The U.S. and its allies want him out, while Russia and Iran (especially Iran) want him to stay.

The success of said strikes also relies on Russia and Iran not retaliating much, if at all.

Not saying it has no way of working, but I’m not sure how said strikes would significantly change the calculus of a potential political solution (a political solution is my preferred goal btw).

 

[Arithmetic]

 

[Arithmetic]

 

[Arithmetic]