An Invasion in Syria Is Off the Table

[tabatha]

If you were worried about the U.S. invading another Muslim country, you can breathe easy for now. On Thursday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the U.S. would not send troops to Syria or launch a unilateral intervention.

"At this point in time, congressman, a decision is that we will not have any boots on the ground and that that we will not act unilaterally in that part of the world," said Gen. Martin Dempsey. If you've been looking for clarity from the Obama administration on the parameters of its commitment in Syria, like we have, it was a helpful testimony. Since the beginning of the month, the U.S. had steadily-increased its involvement in the country, sending $25 million in humanitarian aid to the rebels, giving them satellite communications equipment and night-vision goggles. With the Friends of Syria coalition growing increasingly aggressive in its support of the Syrian opposition, it wasn't clear where the U.S. stood

The sad reality of Dempsey's statements is that everything is resting on the U.N.'s peace plan now. While Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Moallem pledged today in Beijing that his country would implement the six-point plan with special envoy Kofi Annan, Syria has given no sign that that's the case. The Associated Press' Bassem Mroue reports that troops "fired bullets and tear gas to disperse thousands of protesters Friday," according to activist reports throughout Syria. In video published this morning, The Daily Telegraph shows Syrian security forces continue to pound the opposition stronghold of Homs.

The situation is distressing but in yesterday's testimony, it appears the generals understand that with Syria's sizable military capabilities, diplomacy remains the best option. "This is not Libya," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, appearing beside Dempsey. "In Libya, there was widespread international support in the Arab world and elsewhere, and a clear Security Council authorization for military intervention, and NATO was authorized to act on that. No such consensus currently exists regarding Syria."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/04/invasion-syria-table/51386/

[brooklynite]

1. I suspect an "invasion" of Syria was never -on- the Table...

While the military certainly plans for any contingency, I don't think anyone in the Administration or the Pentagon has given any serious consideration into sending troops in.

[backscatter712]

2. Good. An invasion would only throw gasoline on the fire.

Don't get me wrong - I want to see Bashar Assad hung from a meathook as much as anyone, but a U.S. intervention would cause far more problems than it would solve.

[tabatha]

6. That is exactly why it is not happening.

Obama is not a fool.

[RZM]

3. I predict this thread will end up with over 100 replies

Filled with statements of contrition from those who said that the US/West were gearing up for a invasion.

Or maybe not

I agree with the poster above that it was never really 'on the table' to begin with.

[On the Road]

4. The Revolt Seems to Have Been Too Limited

for NATO to restrict itself to providing air support. You would have ended up with a stalemate like Iraq under Clinton during which the government would still have been strong enough to continue committing atrocities without heavy weapons or aircraft. Would have been ugly, gone on for years, and left the situation worse than when it started.

And by comparison the revolt in Syria was much more limited. It's not completely clear that it was supported by a majority.

[tabatha]

5. Do you have any data to back up your contention that the "revolt seems to have been too limited"?

I would be interested in any links.

Btw, I follow the uprising daily.

[On the Road]

10. I am Making a Comparison with Libya

in which the government quickly lost of control of the east and there were large protest and insurgent movements in the west. The Libyan air campaign had some difficulty creating the conditions for the revolutionaries to succeed, and that was with much more organization on the ground and a large portion of the military having defected.

The Kosovo air campaign eventually succeeded, but the goal was allowing Kosovo to secede. If the goal had been changing the Serbian government, it is much less likely to have worked.

A large-scale land invasion would probably succeed if enough resources were devoted to it, but it would likely be similar to an Iraq invasion. Russia and Iran would be likely to provide military assistance to Syria, complicating matter further.

Only very select places like Homs have been controlled by the uprising, and that only temporarily. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing on the scale of the TNR in Libya. Conducting an air campaign in Syria would be almost like the air campaign in Libya if the country were all like Tripoli, Sirt, and Zuwarah. It might allow Homs to be held by the uprising. But my impression is that Assad is not as dependent on aircraft and heavy weaponry, and in most places the military is large enough to control the population on its own.

Under these conditions, I personally think air support is likely to leave the country under Assad's control with increased atrocities, and a large land invasion is likely to resemble an Iraq invasion with the complication of Russia and Iran.

I think Assad has violated human rights, that he should step down, and a large portion of the country opposes him. But the first rule is to do no harm.

[tabatha]

11. The FSA controls a portion of the north.

They controlled more, but lost those areas, because they have not been able to get their hands on as many weapons as the Libyans eventually did. The US and others are terrified of the consequences of military escalation because of Syria's neighbors and supporters. Russia and Iran had no vested interest in Libya as they do in Syria.

Also the geopolitical makeup is such that there is no independent enclave like Benghazi.

However, the defectors in Syria do not need training as they did in Libya.

[Odin2005]

7. That won't dent the paranoia of the "West is Evil" posters.

[Dokkie]

8. Ofc it wont

Remember how the Obama administration assured us all that regime change wasn't in the plan for Libya and how the NFZ was a way to protect civilians? Ofc we all know how the story ended. It was indeed used as tool for regime change and everyone who believed their words ended up looking like suckers

[Odin2005]

9. Well look who popped up!

[tabatha]

12. Regime change happened in Libya because of "traitors" in Gadaffi's regime

that allowed Tripoli to fall fast.

NATO was not responsible for the fall of Tripoli -although their bombing of equipment that could harm civilians, enabled the rebels to reach Tripoli. But "Mermaid Dawn" was planned in the Nafusa Mtns, not NATO HQ.