US bombs assad in September 2013

Magical123

Banned
What if the US bombed the syrian regime in September 2013? How would that have effected the course of the syrian civil war over the past two years, how would it have effected the us with regards to Iran and Russia would tensions be even higher, would Al-Nusra and the rebels have overpowered the regime if the US went in all Libya 2011 in syria 2013? What would the consequences have been for the region?
 
Assad would most likely fall though it might take a number of months. At the minimum he would be pushed from everything short of Damascus and the coastal regions.
 

Magical123

Banned
If he fell say around the beginning of 2014 how would that effect that outlook of the war and the regional situation?
 
If he fell say around the beginning of 2014 how would that effect that outlook of the war and the regional situation?

Major spillover into Lebanon, Sunnis will be taking the fight to Hezbollah. Turkey and to a lesser extent Jordan will gain influence over Syria. Iran to make up for Assad's fall will probably redouble its efforts in Iraq, Bahrain and Yemen. Russia will be screwed the most having lost their only Arab ally.

If your interested I wrote an ATL about Turkey invading Syria: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=356133
 
The thing is when President Obama planned to bomb Syria, it was going to be a "shot across the bow" which would punish Syria and hopefully deter Assad from using chem. weapons again. The goal of the proposed bombing campaign "wasn't to change the situation on the ground" or to initiate regime change.

So the most likely result for the bombing campaign is for the US to destroy some of the chemical weapons, and ultimately failing to prevent future chemical massacres. Ultimately, Assad would be strengthened for "fending off the United States." The result would be no different than Reagan's airstrikes on Libya or Clinton's on Iraq.
 
A regional war with the US is very likely. This would actually probably empower the rise of ISIS faster. A bombing campaign brought by the United States would destroy much of Syria's military infrastructure and elsewhere. A war like this would escalate with consequences that would spin the situation out of control. Their ability to fight against the rebels or Islamic State drops considerably.

Syria might also try to retaliate in ways it sees possible. Missile and air strikes come from the Syrian government against US bases and ships in the area such as in Jordan, Iraq, Omar, the Mediterranean, etc. The US in turn would retaliate against those types of sites on the ground Syria's air force and makeshift navy could be obliterated in this conflict. Syria and Iran break off any cooperation with one another with a coalition to go after ISIS. They also booster Hezbollah in a massive way against Israel. The conflict may spread there as well.

ISIS becomes more powerful over time because the Syrian government is more significantly damaged.
 
The thing is when President Obama planned to bomb Syria, it was going to be a "shot across the bow" which would punish Syria and hopefully deter Assad from using chem. weapons again. The goal of the proposed bombing campaign "wasn't to change the situation on the ground" or to initiate regime change.

So the most likely result for the bombing campaign is for the US to destroy some of the chemical weapons, and ultimately failing to prevent future chemical massacres. Ultimately, Assad would be strengthened for "fending off the United States." The result would be no different than Reagan's airstrikes on Libya or Clinton's on Iraq.

That comes down to the real question are they strikes to say you are doing something because your red line was crossed or is this Obama at least downing Assad's air power and putting up an air power containment of the ISIS situation so it doesn't pour into Iraq. Obama really had four options... do nothing. Do a few half ass strikes and declare victory. Put up a containment strategy and hurt Assad's ability to bomb civilians and ISIS to cross on mass into Iraq. And, finally a full on air power against Assad and ISIS to wipe them out. The final one was never really in the cards given it might require boots on the ground when the regime implodes and by that point probably would. The other three were politically viable potential options.

If this is a few days of bombing while avoiding Assad's air power and then saying Mission Accomplished then nothing changes other then the WH has a bit more credibility when Putin is thinking on invading Ukraine.

A full on containment strategy using air power and the return of more then 100 advisers to Iraq (the number we sent in mid 2013) being put up though when the ISIS and Assad problem was contained to Syria would have huge ramifications though most of them good for the US.

America will be leery about the whole thing politically until bombs start dropping on not just Assad, but IS as well which ups the date American heads start coming off and then again suddenly the public will be 2/1 in favor of it.
 
Last edited:
We'd face mutinies. Seriously. There were dozens of military people posting pictures saying "I don't want to die for Al-Quaida in Syria's Civil War."
Plus, Syria has better air defenses than Iraq. There would certainly be PoWs.
 
Top