Getting Syria after Saddam

probably this will push the usa over the belligrance level. causing the coalition to say f u and out rage the muslem world.

milataryly the usa would win.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
US would gwt rid of the Baathists, but have a third crisis country do administer, which means even more unrest, and an even worse US economy. Also relations with former allies in the Arab world would be disastrous.
 
I am reminded of Cambodia in the Vietnam War...

Syria doesn't strike me as able to withstand the force of the United States alone. But there is going to be Colossal problem of "What the hell do we do with Syria" after we're done with it.

The USA can probably bring in a few nations from Eastern Europe if it throws more aid into their economies, but I'd count on the UK and other nations bailing out. Of course Islamic Wackitude can't be killed by the sword--and certainly by giving people in Syria a grievance to kill Americans.

In a cold blooded Sense, Bush's War in Iraq is not really that intense on the US Army--the death toll has been very low. But after all justifications have failed, the loss of five thousand lives for no gains is unacceptable to the American Public, myself included.

Expanding this war to Syria is going to result in American control over the region within three months. But transferring that control to a responsible state--five years? There might be an outside chance of John Kerry winning in 2004 if Syria is invaded in 2003 and it looks really bad on Bush--but otherwise everything would be squarely on W's hands until the present day.

We can count on W. having no better plan for Syria than Iraq. Indeed, the whole situation is likely to suck up politically--and then there is the whole point that Syria would be "Doubling up on Iraq"--and we all know that this is a losing proposal.

If this had happened, we'd be looking at a 60-40 election day split, and the Democrats might win so hard that they'd be able to amend the US Constitution without the support of Republicans. That might be a slight exaggeration, but not by much--We'd be looking at an all out rout in the 2008 elections.
 

King Thomas

Banned
Taking over Syria would not be a problem. Turning it into a functional state, rather then one infested with terroists, resistance people who just want the US out, and outrright criminals, would be the hard bit and most likely the US army would be stuck sitting on two Middle Eastern countries instead of one.
 

Mujahid786

Banned
what u guys dont undertand is that syria will not be another pushover like iraq, iran will probably aid syria by sending its own soldiers to syria in syrian uniforms, hezbollah will wreak havoc on northern israel (rememeber 06') and insurgents in iraq will get active again, means more fallujahs and suicide bombings, last year has been pretty quiet. also russia has stationed a nuclear fleet in a syrian port, not that they will intervene, but still a pretty big threat, syria has not come under sanctions and embargos like pre-war iraq, they have upgraded their army massively.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
what u guys dont undertand is that syria will not be another pushover like iraq, iran will probably aid syria by sending its own soldiers to syria in syrian uniforms, hezbollah will wreak havoc on northern israel (rememeber 06') and insurgents in iraq will get active again, means more fallujahs and suicide bombings, last year has been pretty quiet. also russia has stationed a nuclear fleet in a syrian port, not that they will intervene, but still a pretty big threat, syria has not come under sanctions and embargos like pre-war iraq, they have upgraded their army massively.

Not as bad as you say, but yeah, Syria is much more united behind their government than Iraq ever was. The actual battle with the Syrian military would probably have been more intense than with the Iraqi. And when the occupation begin US would have a third country occupied with significant resistance movements towards the occupation, could even be hard for the Yanks to find any serious people to work with in Syria. Hezbollah might see this as a chance to bully Israel, but afterwards they'd face the problem with surviving without Syrian backing. Bushn would be in deep trouble now, the invasion took more lives than his strategists thought, and with a third country to occupy infested with insurgence, and pretty quickly an active local Al- Qaeda wing, his approval ratings would sink like a huge rock.
 
According to Wikipedia, it seems to be equiped with ex-Soviet weapons, maybe as big as a half a million man and doing some rearmament. It looks like the first Gulf War all over and the US was able to win that more then fifteen years ago and have modernized their army. So Syria should be afraid.

On the other hand, they have learnt that occupying is a whole other thing. So the US should be afraid.
 

Mujahid786

Banned
Not as bad as you say, but yeah, Syria is much more united behind their government than Iraq ever was. The actual battle with the Syrian military would probably have been more intense than with the Iraqi. And when the occupation begin US would have a third country occupied with significant resistance movements towards the occupation, could even be hard for the Yanks to find any serious people to work with in Syria. Hezbollah might see this as a chance to bully Israel, but afterwards they'd face the problem with surviving without Syrian backing. Bushn would be in deep trouble now, the invasion took more lives than his strategists thought, and with a third country to occupy infested with insurgence, and pretty quickly an active local Al- Qaeda wing, his approval ratings would sink like a huge rock.

hezbollah actually has iran backing, it is just a brigade of the IRGC in Lebanon, highly trained and well equiped with the best iranian and russian equipment, they handed israel's ass to israel on a silver platter. Iran-Syria friendship pact wont go un-followed during a hypothetical war, iran will send troops to syria under syrian uniform, weapons, and maybe be as bold enough as to start a second front for the americans. lets no forget what arab oil can do to the world, arab countries may have hated iraq, but syria is a top player in the arab leaque. i smell another embargo, and with the economical turmoil it would be suicide for USA, remmebr some months ago 13 US marines were shot dead by Syrian navy gaurds? nothing escalated, this is just a small thing,
 
I think this would ruin all chances of American Progress in the Middle East.

I feel that the Syrian Military would hold up a good fight. Yet be taken down without much of a problem.

There would be protests throughout Pakistan and the rest of the Middle East.

Increasing numbers of Militants willing to die in the name of kicking the United States out.

This would also most likely lead Iran to aid Syria with Soldiers and weapons.
 

Mujahid786

Banned
this could lead to a major war. iran would attack iraq from the east (if it was willing enough to help out its ally to such a level) attack american positions in the gulf, and close the straits of hormuz, making oil prices everywhere rise. hezbollah would start a massive campaign in northern israel. israel would retaliate by attacking syria and lebanon. Hamas and fatah and other factions would probably unite and start attacking israel from within. America would probably take syria after a bloody fight with probably more casualties than the iraq war altogether. elements of the syrian army and hezbollah would begin to resist, liek iraq on a bigger scale. Iraq would be a major battle ground for iranian and american forces. with iran making massive invasions, and being repulsed each time. oil tankers in the gulf would be attacked regardless of nationality. iranian swarm tacitcs in the gulf would take out many us ships. small gulf states would probably join the war on american side. the insuergency in iraq will escalate ten- fold. islamic organizations everywhere would escalate attacks, ICU in somalia, Taliban in Afganistan, Pakistan, Kashmir. Pakistani taleban will make massive attacks in major cities of pakistan, americans will start making more and more incursions into pakistan to stop the militants, and that one angry soldier that fires at a chopper and downs it will escalate a massive mar. americans will reinforce their position and try to take out the outpost, pakistanis will hold it, and more and more battles will continue from there. most islamic nations will cut off ties with USA and UK.

likely?
 
I think this would ruin all chances of American Progress in the Middle East.

I feel that the Syrian Military would hold up a good fight. Yet be taken down without much of a problem.

There would be protests throughout Pakistan and the rest of the Middle East.

Increasing numbers of Militants willing to die in the name of kicking the United States out.

This would also most likely lead Iran to aid Syria with Soldiers and weapons.

I agree fully. I think with the United States being in Afghanistan, Iraq AND Syria, it would be a logistical (manning and equipment) nightmare for the military to maintain occupation. This would also be a political nightmare both domestically and internationally. We'll look like imperialists to the Middle East, bullies to Europe and W. will look more incompetent.
 
Top