Until recently, one of the arguments employed by those who oppose a greater American role in stopping the slaughter in Syria has been that Bashar al-Assad’s forces were closely intermixed with the population and that it would be hard to hit the regime’s thugs without also hurting innocent people.
But news that Assad is relying more on helicopter gunships—which, according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he continues to receive from Russia–actually creates a vulnerability that could be exploited at relatively low cost by sophisticated Western air forces.
Helicopter gunships are formidable when deployed against civilians; but they are sitting ducks if they have to face fixed-wing fighters such as the F-15 or F-18. If the U.S. and its allies were to declare a no-fly zone over Syria, it would hardly end the violence. But if NATO aircraft were thereby authorized to, at a minimum, ground Assad’s helicopters, that would certainly strike a blow against his campaign of terror and help put the rebels on a more equal footing with the government.
"…and help put the rebels on a more equal footing with the government." n nExcuse me? Why would we want to accomplish this goal? A large number of these rebels are Muslim extremists. The odds are they will have the power at the end of the day. We best bet on the lesser of evils—Assad. n
I sympathize with your sentiment, but disagree with you David. We have a more pressing Islamic extremist problem facing us than what might come post-Assad in Syria. That being the mullahs in Iran. It'd be a serious blow to Iran (and Hezbollah) if Assad was overthrown. And right now we need to do everything we can to kneecap the mullahs in Iran and do so before they get the bomb. It might ultimately be a bad idea to take Assad out if/when Muslim extremists take over afterwards. But it's probably a worse idea to leave him in there. Also, is not Assad a Muslim extremist himself??
Assad is a secular leader. This is a Muslim who takes his religion with a huge grain of salt. He may form a close relationship with Iran to protect his power—but he is not a suicidal Islamist. Our odds are still a bit better with him instead of the rebels.
Give the rebels just enough to keep them alive and fighting, killing and dying. n nMake it Iran's Vietnam. n
It's encouraging to the US navy moving her new fleet into the Pacific. We have to rid ourselves of the entire region and it's dangerous entanglements.
Better we examine their performance and tactics. Never know when that intel will come in handy. Win lose or draw eventually someone in Syria is going to use the weapons they have to kill Israelis
We also know that should the Muslim Brotherhood Fascists defeat the Assad Fascists the so-called pragmatists at Foggy Bottom will soon be pressuring Israel once more to surrender the strategic Golan Heights (land historically part of Israel and the Palestinian Mandate until handed over by the colonialist British to the colonialist French) as a sign of "good faith" in the new "democratic" Muslim Brotherhood government of Syria. Maybe foggy bottom bound Boot (remember he is a Romney advisor) and his buddies should start answering those of us who say that an all-out blood-letting between Alawites/Sunnis/Shiites is highly preferable to any fantasy of the American foreign policy elite and provides the greatest security to us infidels.
The situation in Syria is the next bext thing to the Iran/Iraq war. Let them kill each ad infinitum