"DisplacedJim, I am just wondering... you once mentioned that one of the reasons the U.S. would not have too hard a time invading Syria is that Syria has some of its troops 'occupied' in Lebanon. Does the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and their likely purchases of several types of Russian weapon systems including some SAMs change your assesment or does it not make much difference?" -- Roman ---- Hmmm, I don't recall saying that exactly. It does appear Syria may pull its ~15,000 men out. Of course, it remains to be seen how many of its many hundreds of intelligence/secret police types it removes too. If I said something to this effect, I probably meant the presence of these forces makes it easier for the U.S. to invade because they could justify our involvement in the area in some fashion, e.g., to liberate Lebanon from Syrian occupation. Thus it would be easier politically speaking. You know how American administrations always try to form coalitions, foster international support as much as possible, and get the American public behind the idea before doing what they wanted to do all along. :-) The amount of Syrian troops in Lebanon is only a small percentage of the Syrian ground forces, and their presence/absence makes little difference from a purely military standpoint regarding sending U.S. troops overland up the Euphrates from Iraq and/or landing Marines on the Mediterranean coast. Picking up some new SA-18s doesn't pose much treat to a USAF/USN air campaign, as they are a low-level system; we'd be flying above them for the most part. I think the primary reason Syria wants them is to try to do something about those pesky Israeli UAVs, although they also provide some additional anti-cruise missile capability which they'd certainly need if/when we roll in. Overall, I don't think any recent activity does much to change the calculus of the military outcome, although withdrawal from Lebanon probably helps prevent an American attack in the first place. Displacedjim

Thank you DJ - I suspected that it would not make much difference militarily - I guess I must have misinterpreted your original comments.

since the Syrians are going to lose anyway, they probably fired all their tactical ballistic missiles(reportedly about 80 DF-15 and hundreds of Scud-D) into Israel (similiar to what happen in Gulf War I). there would be probably a "science fair project" to study the after effects of massive tactical missile strikes on population centers.

I'm new here and these are the first lines I write here. However I think the discussion here about Syria is very interesting. I'm not an expert on the capabilities of the American military. I do however know a lot about asymmetric warfare because that's what I have been trained for. If there are any Syrian military, which I believe there is, who are keen to take a fight and who have the basic knowledge about how to wear out an enemy army with with superior equipment and manpower my conclusion is that amercan tropps would have to leave the country within a 1-2 years at most. As far as I know the syrian army is built up in a Soviet-style with poor leadership. If that's true Syria would be a oiece of cake for USA. If the organisation is flat I would like to say the oposite. Remember..."Behind every corner there is another one"

"Maybe we need to honor that time-tested axiom, and "Follow the money."-Displacedjim GWOT has some similarities to the Island hopping campaign in the Pacific. Decisions are which to take and which to isolate and pass up. The "Home Islands" in GWOT are Iran and Saudis.

I completely agree, Sofa. All along I've assumed the strategy of "Pax Americana" was/is to hop in phases from Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria and/or Iran and ultimately if necessary to Saudi Arabia itself. Just like we didn't immediately invade Germany and Japan in 1942, we haven't immediately invaded Iran and Saudi Arabia. That's why I've always thought invading Iraq made perfect sense to the plan; it makes for one big firebase for further military and cultural invasion of follow-on countries. I'm sure the plan includes hoping that those invasions won't be necessary toward the end of the campaign plan as the remaining Islamists give up the fight while the people of these and surrounding countries spontaneously convert to some sort of democracy. One word for what seems to be the plan is "ambitious." Another would be "delusional." Displacedjim

Actually i am glad you stated this about Iraq. I believe i posted weeks and weeks ago about why we really took Iraq. I stated this when posting with Zero the Hero on the Iraq board. As i stated if you plan to occupy or enforce democracy in the Middle-East "Iraq is indeed the cornerstone of it all and from there any muslim nation can be struck down!!!". I dont know if we will have success,but i believe we understand Iraq's importance for the strategy!!!. Have A Great 7th Day DJ!!!

"One word for what seems to be the plan is "ambitious." Another would be "delusional.""-DJ alternatives?

"alternatives?" Let Muslims have their theocracies in their lands (except perhaps Pakistan due to nukes) and prevent their immigration into the West. Then, after 10 to 20 years watch the next generation of Muslims in the Middle East despise Islamic theocracy and look at the West as their model. For a working prototype of how this worked, see Iran. Problems: 1) Potential for these regimes to support terrorism on Western soil. The solution is to cut off immigration. 2) Possibility of acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, by the regines in question. There is no easy solution to this one. 3) Chance that these regimes will stop selling oil and gas to the West. Again, there is no easy solution. Alternative energies and sufficient build-up of nuclear power would take a long time to take effect. Clearly, there are problems with every potential policy you choose to take towards the Middle East. Displacedjim - has there been any change in Syria's capabilities since the thread started?

"One word for what seems to be the plan is "ambitious." Another would be "delusional.""-DJ we didn't choose it. it is being forced on us by an aggressive barbaric death cult. they directly threaten our destruction by constantly blowing $hit up and tryning to get techniology to blow more $hit up. all the options are bad. but one seems less bad than the others. it's really hard and there's no guarantee of anything like success. but I don't see any other alternatives other than the 'ambitous' plan. they keep blowing $hit up. delusional plan - wait 25 years for iran to moderate. let them take embassies, blow up barracks, sponsor and train regional and global terrorists, let them grow infrastructure to produce, develop and control barabarism, and exercise it regularly. let them blow $hit up and hope their success makes them more reasonable. ambitious plan - 'Island hopping' to get to 'the home islands' of Iran and SaudiArabia. like the pacific Islands, some were passed over, some invaded and left, and a few were invaded and became bases for 50 years. Which is Syria? ambitous? sure. But have you reasonable alternatives?