Support NeoGAF

[dabig2]

Might wanna read a bit on afghanistan's 2014 presidential election, chief.

Yeah, what we call it doesn't mean shit to the local populace. Have we not learned anything from the imperialism the Western world wrought in the 19th and 20th centuries?

 

[Zyae]

Anyone who thinks ground troops is a good idea is misinformed.

 

[Antiwhippy]

Well aware of that election. I am talking down to local levels, you know where authorities could get away with heinous crimes because U.S troops couldn't deal with them for example. It basically wasn't done the way it should have been. Who knows, maybe the way I am talking about would be too liberal for them.

So you basically want to colonise Afghanistan?

 

[JackBauer24]

This is a really stupid idea imo. Inaction is what causes more issues, as it only kicks the can down the road.

Everyone here is too busy citing Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of bad occupation, forgetting that U.S was half-assing both of them. No where near the number of troops that was required was sent to occupy either country and U.S did both of them at the same time. The allied nations there, put in some troops, but it was mainly token forces.

Then the 2nd issue was U.S wanted those countries to govern themselves, instead of taking a strong hold of the politics there. Even with all of these issues, U.S kept the country as stable as they were. U.S only has 10K force in Afghanistan right now, you guys call that an "occupation"?

To be fair, al-Maliki had a lot to do with the current state of Iraq.

 

[BluePigGanon]

Maybe this is out there and I've just missed it, but: does ISIS/ISIL/Daesh have a power hierarchy we know much about/have made any sense of? i.e., Do we have a list of 5 or 10 or 100 names we can point to and say "these are the dudes in charge"?

But more on topic: I can't envision any good outcome to sending ground troops to f-ing Syria. And I can't believe anyone else can. I can't think of a bigger clusterf' anywhere in my lifetime.

 

[KingSnake]

So basically the idea is do nothing and hope they continue to blow up european people instead of americans?

This is pretty much the attitude. Which in the end will drive Europe towards the extreme right or Putin. Or both seeing how a lot of extreme right parties in Europe are very friendly towards Kremlin.

 

[Zips]

Don't occupy a country you don't intend to keep.

Let the groups that are from there and actually want control of that area fight for it. If the Western nations waltz in, blow everything up, and then walk/limp back out after x years, there will just be groups formed from locals who don't want us there. A local group needs to gain control to reduce the insurgencies that arise, and a local group won't be looking to leave regardless.

 

[davepoobond]

Maybe this is out there and I've just missed it, but: does ISIS/ISIL/Daesh have a power hierarchy we know much about/have made any sense of? i.e., Do we have a list of 5 or 10 or 100 names we can point to and say "these are the dudes in charge"?

they have lots of people "on a list" -- whether or not its public is up in the air.

their governing structure is something that's been revealing lately with lots of top-level people being Saddam-era ex-military

 

[TarNaru33]

So you basically want to colonise Afghanistan?

If that is the way you want to word it.

It'Staying out of it isn't a stupid idea if the alternative is even more stupid. Believe you me, I'm definitely not an isolationist in any way, but you need to recognise that sometimes military intervention can be such a bad option that it's even worse than doing nothing.

The fact that Russia has directly allied with and is fighting alongside Assad is what makes the kind of grand intervention you're talking about impossible. If everyone involved - NATO, Russia, China, Iran, the Arab nations - were in agreement that Syria is FUBAR and needs a UN intervention then that could probably work. All of the factions could be subdued and the country rebuilt in a UN effort. The problem is that because Russia have already sided with Assad any grand intervention would have to do the same, which is unthinkable, or fight Russia, which is even more unthinkable. We've been dealt a bad hand. The entire region is using Syria for a proxy war and that makes intervention impossible.

So if a proper UN intervention is "impossible" and inaction is "stupid" in your words, what do you suggest we do?

Talking about making a safe zone by taking out ISIS. It don't have to be a "take out Assad or fight the rebels" decision. I am aware that, that will not happen due to the complexity of the conflict.

I don't want U.S to touch the Assad/Rebel issue directly, giving weapons seems to be good enough. I want the international community (which unfortunately is U.S) to deal with ISIS.

Again, our options are either to assist Assad in his genocidal campaign or start killing Russians and risk something truly unthinkable. Neither is an option for obvious reasons.

Currently we are all talking about fighting ISIS, not the rebels or Assad.

 

[Nivash]

Maybe this is out there and I've just missed it, but: does ISIS/ISIL/Daesh have a power hierarchy we know much about/have made any sense of? i.e., Do we have a list of 5 or 10 or 100 names we can point to and say "these are the dudes in charge"?

But more on topic: I can't envision any good outcome to sending ground troops to f-ing Syria. And I can't believe anyone else can. I can't think of a bigger clusterf' anywhere in my lifetime.

Sure, the intelligence services seem to have a decent enough grasp or the ISIS chain of command. It's generally accepted that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is at the top and his lieutenants appear to be known (and occasionally killed off). There are some flow charts floating around (not claiming they're accurate or updated, just consider them visual aids):

 

[ISOM]

For someone lauded as a master orator, President Obama has sure managed to sound like an apolitical idiot these past months/years.
How about "...at this time", etc. On paper you're supposed to be the leader of the free world, and on paper you should be willing to do anything to defend that. Of course, it's beyond established that this president is a house of cards and ISIS is holding a jet engine, but at least project an air of defiance. I mean, really, it's up to the French to lead?

Again, I'm pertaining to the choice of language, not to whether there should actually be ground troops.

edit:



before you can compare first you must read

So what should he have said o great thinker? And how does a projection of military force actually effect ISIS? You sound naive and delusional.

 

[BluePigGanon]

Currently we are all talking about fighting ISIS, not the rebels or Assad.

My impression is that it would be hard or impossible to distinguish any one of the variety of rebels from ISIS. And all of the above are mixed in with civilians, in an urban environment.

I'm sure the people who aren't enthusiastic about wading into that envision our troops being relentlessly and steadily picked off by snipers, IEDs and hit and run tactics, while occasionally accidentally (or on purpose) killing friendlies, civilians, Syrian forces, or - god fucking forbid - Russians.

 

[orochi91]

i think a problem is people are expecting instant gratification, go in, kill them, get out, everything is happy. people who suggest this are delusional.

- it wont "only" take 10,000 troops, it'll be more like 75,000 or more. especially if you implement a no fly zone or a "safe zone" (which is essentially a no fly zone) in Syria.

- ISIS may hold territory but they are a cultural movement in the area AND abroad. There are citizens in every country who are turned into ISIS ideological supporters through social media. they never need to have traveled to the middle east for this to happen. How will 75,000 troops in Syria stop this? It doesn't.

- any reclaimed ISIS territory has to be held by someone. Local fighters are being touted here because they have a stake in keeping their cities safe. Sending in Americans to do their job, guess what happens if we leave? Guess what happens if we stay forever? We've seen both of these things already.

- I consider ISIS losing Sinjar an important stepping stone here -- there is a strategy in removing their grip on the portion of Syria/Iraq they've carved out for themselves and the only way this is going to work is if people who live in the area care about excising radicals.

davepoobond dropping truth bombs.

 

[Antiwhippy]

If that is the way you want to word it.

Because really, it's the only realistic way to achieve what you want here. Which doesn't take into account the amount of push back of having a major western power controlling territory in that region, nor a major push back from the local populace who might not be pro extremist Islam but aren't exactly pro-West either.

 

[Abounder]

Large scale occupying forces won't be a thing, but I'm all for sending spec ops like when Obama ordered 50 troops to Syria in early November. So the headline seems misleading, we've already got ground troops there.

Anyway bombs away. People keep saying these are just half measures and there's another daeshbag to replace a dead one...but I gotta say that's mostly bullshit - kill their leadership and resources and they will no longer be a worldwide threat

 

[KingSnake]

kill their leadership and resources

That didn't really work until now via bombing, didn't it? It has only been like what? 2 years of bombing? In which they become more resourceful as ever in financing and organizing terrorist attacks.

 

[TarNaru33]

My impression is that it would be hard or impossible to distinguish any one of the variety of rebels from ISIS. And all of the above are mixed in with civilians, in an urban environment.

I'm sure the people who aren't enthusiastic about wading into that envision our troops being relentlessly and steadily picked off by snipers, IEDs and hit and run tactics, while occasionally accidentally (or on purpose) killing friendlies, civilians, Syrian forces, or - god fucking forbid - Russians.

You mean like the terrorist of Iraq post-2003 and the Taliban? It won't be easy, but it isn't too difficult to keep friendlies or the Russians from accidentally engaging U.S/Allied forces.

Syria wouldn't either, because that would spell their doom. The civil war do not work with all territory meshed in, some factions control parts of the country. It is there you start to distinguish hostile from friendly/neutral forces.

At any rate, Syria seriously needs a safe zone.. where allied forces will protect those in it, this will aide in slowing the refugee crisis.

Because really, it's the only realistic way to achieve what you want here. Which doesn't take into account the amount of push back of having a major western power controlling territory in that region, nor a major push back from the local populace who might not be pro extremist Islam but aren't exactly pro-West either.

There are ways to deal with that, it won't stop resistance completely, but it lowers it significantly. An example is what U.S did in Iraq and does in Afghanistan, paying off enemies and giving them some form of authority. That tends to appease most in the region as it gives them some belief of being in control.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

But Al-Sisi reigned in on the theocratic Morsi
Egypt is not ready for democracy

Egypt was ready to do that itself in a 100% democratic way when people were peacefully partaking in civil disobedience. It didn't need Al-Sisi, he ruined it. When he saw the opportunity to rule he took it.

 

[Nivash]

If that is the way you want to word it.



Talking about making a safe zone by taking out ISIS. It don't have to be a "take out Assad or fight the rebels" decision. I am aware that, that will not happen due to the complexity of the conflict.

I don't want U.S to touch the Assad/Rebel issue directly, giving weapons seems to be good enough. I want the international community (which unfortunately is U.S) to deal with ISIS.

You're not going to be able to somehow insert a large ground contingent into Syria and expect them to never run into either the Syrian Army or the other rebels. Not to mention that Assad would (correctly) consider something like that an invasion and be forced to respond directly anyway.

All realistic ways of getting to ISIS go through the northwest where there are NATO bases and supply lines. That goes straight through Assadi territory. Running airstrikes that bypass Assad is one thing, running entire armored divisions through his lines is something different.

 

[BluePigGanon]

You mean like the terrorist of Iraq post-2003 and the Taliban?

That, times 10. And for lots of people, that was enough - the bigger and more horrific sequel in Syria isn't interesting at all.

You also mention an important part of this - this is in the midst of a civil war, one we're trying to toe the line on. I can't wrap my brain around putting a bunch of 18 year olds on the ground there, telling them to kill ISIS when they see them but uh, hey there's going to be a war going on all around you, try to ignore that.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

At some point idealism has to end and everyone's hands have to get dirty. If nothing is done they thrive; if we do something in half measure like previous conflicts they thrive. So what's the solution? Whatever it is, it's going to cost innocent blood.

 

[TarNaru33]

You're not going to be able to somehow insert a large ground contingent into Syria and expect them to never run into either the Syrian Army or the other rebels. Not to mention that Assad would (correctly) consider something like that an invasion and be forced to respond directly anyway.

All realistic ways of getting to ISIS go through the northwest where there are NATO bases and supply lines. That goes straight through Assadi territory. Running airstrikes that bypass Assad is one thing, running entire armored divisions through his lines is something different.

Except Assad wouldn't directly respond at all to the force, it would be nothing short of suicide to do so. Also those aren't the only ways to get a force into Syria (not to mention ISIS is also in Iraq). Temporary bases are able to be done, U.S do it all the time.

The only thing that would complicate it is an unwilling Iraq or Turkey. We are talking about U.S here, the logistics it can achieve is pretty amazing. Like I said, any U.N intervention would likely be spearheaded by U.S since it has the assets to do so.

The only issue with such a safe zone, is I am sure the west will use it as a safe zone for rebels, but it isn't like they don't already do that through Turkey.

Everything I am saying can be done and yes there are risks to it, but no one wants to do it. I am just tired of people trying to use bad arguments against it. It isn't a "bad idea" it just is not politically feasible to do so do to the public opinion of Iraq and Afghanistan. For right reasons... it cant be half-assed like those countries.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Good. We don't need another US occupied disaster on our hands.

 

[uncelestial]

God this election cycle is going to suuuuuuck. Republicans are really going to have a field day with the ISIS issue. They might actually win over it, if IS keeps pulling stunts like this against Western allies. Not kidding.

 

[KorrZ]

Because really, it's the only realistic way to achieve what you want here. Which doesn't take into account the amount of push back of having a major western power controlling territory in that region, nor a major push back from the local populace who might not be pro extremist Islam but aren't exactly pro-West either.

I'm curious if honestly that might be the best option for a stable region in the future. It would take a huge commitment from Western powers, but if we've seen that governments formed in this region can't maintain stability on their own, perhaps its better off for an outside power to govern.

People are right, sending troops in to wipe out ISIS and then leaving won't accomplish anything, but just leaving the region in the state that it's in now....I just don't see how anything will be different 10 years from now.

 

[dabig2]

At some point idealism has to end and everyone's hands have to get dirty. If nothing is done they thrive; if we do something in half measure like previous conflicts they thrive. So what's the solution? Whatever it is, it's going to cost innocent blood.

But you're perpetrating a cycle. Terrorist groups thrive when innocent blood is spilled. You're advocating feeding the engine.

Can you describe in detail your "full measure" by the way?

 

[antonz]

This is the right thing to do. If we go in again we will simply continue to perpetuate the cycle of violence. It is up to the arab/ME countries to take care of this mess themselves. We should support them, particularly in terms of providing resources for infrastructure/education along with the air strikes. However, boots on the ground is a knee-jerk response; a military solution is not a long-term one.

How exactly does the ME take care of it when the reality on the ground is what we are seeing is basically a religious civil war. We already fucked up in the first place taking a side. If anything it has the potential to get far worse and go from proxy war to an actual war of nations

 

[Antiwhippy]

There are ways to deal with that, it won't stop resistance completely, but it lowers it significantly. An example is what U.S did in Iraq and does in Afghanistan, paying off enemies and giving them some form of authority. That tends to appease most in the region as it gives them some belief of being in control.

You might need to elaborate on that for me. Which enemy is the US paying and giving authority to?

 

[TarNaru33]

You might need to elaborate on that for me. Which enemy is the US paying and giving authority to?

In Afghanistan, U.S pays off war lords. In Iraq U.S did the same for Suunis, to combat them joining forces that resisted U.S occupation One such group was called Sons of Iraq

 

[Antiwhippy]

Ah alright, by region I thought you meant the middle East in general.

Still though, the US occupation is still considered temporary and isn't meant to assert any territoral power in that region. Do you think paying off warlords would work when the US presence is considerably more permanent?

 

[dabig2]

In Afghanistan, U.S pays off war lords. In Iraq U.S did the same for Suunis, to combat them joining forces that resisted U.S occupation One such group was called Sons of Iraq

I regard that as kind of a failure of a strategy. We just fueled more conflict between the Shia forces and Sunni rebels that we both supported. Par for the course of misunderstanding the region and its internal conflicts that will erupt over time. The region these warlords occupy would still be highly unstable and far more susceptible to failure. As seen already in Iraq and eventually enough Afghanistan might succumb to the same terrors as Iraq. I have no faith in that government.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

But you're perpetrating a cycle. Terrorist groups thrive when innocent blood is spilled. You're advocating feeding the engine.

Can you describe in detail your "full measure" by the way?

Full measure means throwing WW2 level of forces towards them. Including a long rebuilding process equal to the marshal plan. Finally rooting all corruption out with severe consequences by military tribunal and firing squad. So all of these failed programs that run over budget and millions disappear results end.

 

[sprsk]

Fuck sending ground troops. I'm surprised so many here on gaf want to.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Fuck sending ground troops. I'm surprised so many here on gaf want to.

Seems like the alternative is hoping someone else sends in ground troops.

I'm against it personally but I really don't see any ideas from the "ground troops are stupid!" camp.

 

[TarNaru33]

Ah alright, by region I thought you meant the middle East in general.

Still though, the US occupation is still considered temporary and isn't meant to assert any territoral power in that region. Do you think paying off warlords would work when the US presence is considerably more permanent?

Yes, in fact it would work better if it was more permanent. The militants in those countries, just got the money as they knew it was just a matter of time before U.S left.

I regard that as kind of a failure of a strategy. We just fueled more conflict between the Shia forces and Sunni rebels that we both supported. Par for the course of misunderstanding the region and its internal conflicts that will erupt over time. The region these warlords occupy would still be highly unstable and far more susceptible to failure. As seen already in Iraq and eventually enough Afghanistan might succumb to the same terrors as Iraq. I have no faith in that government.

Nah, Iraq is far worse than Afghanistan. Also, I am not sure how that is a failure of the strategy. Do you prefer to fight a bigger resistant force?

 

[ryseing]

God this election cycle is going to suuuuuuck. Republicans are really going to have a field day with the ISIS issue. They might actually win over it, if IS keeps pulling stunts like this against Western allies. Not kidding.

Yeah, certain parts of the Right are chomping at the bit to go to war with someone.

Remember pre 2012 and the idiocy about going to war with Iran if Romney won? Now there's an actual justifiable target, and the Republicans are going to hammer Clinton about that the entire cycle.

If ISIS somehow hits the States? Might be game over for the Democrats as war fever takes over.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

AM radio is hawking like a motherfucker. Hannity's ready to re-declare war on terror.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

You could do ground troops in Syria, but once you actually succeeded in driving ISIS away/underground the conventional forces would be in a very awkward situation. The Russians/Syrian Gov wouldn't deliberately engage the Americans/Europeans/Other Syrians and vice versa, but that would imply territory being held by multiple factions. It could very well lead to a partition of the country because of mutual occupying forces being unwilling to let either side take full control, but also being unwilling to start a major war to take the other's territory by force. I'd liken it to an East/West Germany or a North/South Korea, only with the added wrinkle of constant guerrilla strikes from remaining ISIS forces that fled underground. And of course while nobody would deliberately engage the other, accidents happen while the conflict is raging.

What's the situation in Iraq like at the moment? Are they doing well, and are they willing to host troops to drive them out of their territory at least?

 

[higemaru]

Election time will be fun.

Most of the candidates are hawkish so it's pretty much a guarantee that we're going to see a rise in pro-war sentiment especially if another attack like the Paris one happens in another ally country (or the United States). My hope is that we don't go to war but I think whichever candidate we elect will send the US into another war. Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[dabig2]

Full measure means throwing WW2 level of forces towards them. Including a long rebuilding process equal to the marshal plan. Finally rooting all corruption out with severe consequences by military tribunal and firing squad. So all of these failed programs that run over budget and millions disappear results end.

So, WW2 force into Syria or will this spread to other troublespots? I ask because is this a full measure on ISIS or a full measure done to win "the war on terror"? It really matters. Leveling only Syria, killing likely hundreds of thousands in the process and resetting the country, will be a tough operation by itself. Also really tricky once you consider alliances presently. Assad, Russia, China are extremely important to whatever plan you have in your mind. And if they don't play along?

Nah, Iraq is far worse than Afghanistan. Also, I am not sure how that is a failure of the strategy. Do you prefer to fight a bigger resistant force?

No, but I would anticipate the US government being fully aware of the actors on the board and their current positioning before forming a strategy. Look at what happened and tell me that the ultimate conclusion to that program wasn't impending failure. Paying off rebel factions who don't even like their central government - and the central government doesn't like them - is ineffective band-aid policy. Soon enough either one or both will see the other as an armed enemy rival. There's an explosive conflict existing in the fundamental structure of society, and it will always erupt (see: now).

What I'm saying is that it's not up to us. And if we want to intervene beyond being the good angel on the shoulder preaching integration, acceptance, and empathy; then we had better pick a side to back up and be prepared to fully support that side for a significant amount of time as we work on pacifying it.

Afghanistan survives for now because it's literally fundamentally different from Iraq on all levels. Also, its army and government are at least more ethnically balanced. It also finds itself involved in an even greater potential conflict in India and Pakistan, which adds a layer of complexity to its current geopolitical situation.

 

[Omega Kirby]

You don't want your own troops there when you nuke the place from orbit

 

[Boy Wander]

The best thing that Nato can do is to enable and assist those who lost territory to IS to take it back. IS is a caliphate, which by its very meaning relies on territory. Lose that territory and they will be severely weakened. IS believes the apocalypse coming and that it will involve fighting the west in Syria. So basically they want us to invade and would welcome it. They've killed more Muslims than anyone else so the best we can do is to help those people to fight back.

 

[goomba]

Bernie is right. Its the gulf countries that need to contain Islamic State , for their own benefit as they want to stretch their middle eastern borders.

 

[Rogan]

Pretty sure they will send Snake.

 

[Valhelm]

Bernie is right. Its the gulf countries that need to contain Islamic State , for their own benefit as they want to stretch their middle eastern borders.

The unfortunate truth is that many of the Gulf States' wealthiest citizens (with the exception of Oman) condone or financially support the actions of ISIS.

 

[Ominym]

You don't want your own troops there when you nuke the place from orbit

What a stupid suggestion. I'm sure you're joking given the "from orbit" bit but it's still fucking stupid.

Anyway, the problem is difficult and multifaceted. I'm skeptical that ISIS can ever be fully wiped out, or even effectively neutralized via strikes or ground forces.

 

[casablanca]

Coalition ground troops is the only answer.

 

[linkboy]

What a stupid suggestion. I'm sure you're joking given the "from orbit" bit but it's still fucking stupid.

Anyway, the problem is difficult and multifaceted. I'm skeptical that ISIS can ever be fully wiped out, or even effectively neutralized via strikes or ground forces.

It can't, you can't fight a group like ISIS with violence, it only creates more violence and continues the cycle.

However, as long as the military industrial complex guides US (and ultimately world) policies, nothing will change.

 

[noshten]

The unfortunate truth is that many of the Gulf States' wealthiest citizens (with the exception of Oman) condone or financially support the actions of ISIS.

The problem is also confounded by the fact that financial sanctions on the Saudies and other regimes(other than Iran/Syria), seem to be off the table. To really combat ISIS and organizations like this Middle Eastern Nations need to be the one leading the actions. By forcing them to actually tackle this problem or face sanctions we might start getting somewhere. At the moment ISIS financing is uncontrollable, they make mountains of money from variety of sources. Qatar and Kuwait for example don't even criminalize financing ISIS, while Saudies at best are very lenient and only passed a law criminalizing such activities after some pressure from the US in 2013.

These type of double standards are indeed what is troubling about the whole ordeal. While allowing this type of financing the West won't address the real issue. Saudi, Kuwaiti and Qatari interests in the region and how they have pushed this fundamental aspect of Islam for political reasons for nearly two decades. Without the Golf States playing ball and actually combating the rising extremist threat the region could very well spin out of control.

Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government accuses Saudi Arabia of supporting the ISIS jihadis. On Tuesday (17.06.2014), Iraqi Premier Nouri al-Maliki said "we hold Saudi Arabia responsible" for the financial and moral support given to ISIS.

The USA, which is Saudi Arabia’s most important ally, has rejected the Iraqi Premier’s accusation. Jen Psaki, a speaker for the US State Department, said on Tuesday evening that al-Maliki’s accusation was "inaccurate and humiliating."

"There is no publicly accessible proof that the government of a state has been involved in the creation or financing of ISIS as an organisation," said Charles Lister, Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, a subsidiary of the US think-tank Brookings Institution.

Others take a different view. Günter Meyer is Director of the Center for Research into the Arabic World at the University of Mainz. Meyer says he has no doubt about where ISIS gets its funding. "The most important source of ISIS financing to date has been support coming out of the Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia but also Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates," Meyer told Deutsche Welle. The Gulf states' motivation in financing groups like ISIS was to support their fight against the regime of President Bashar al Assad in Syria, according to Meyer. Three quarters of the Syrian population are Sunni Muslims, but Syria is ruled by an elite drawn mostly from the Alawite minority. The Alawites are an offshoot of Shiite Islam.

Recently, however, the government of Saudi Arabia has recognized the dangers of this policy . "Saudi citizens now compose the largest contingent of foreign fighters in ISIS. When those fighters come home, there's a danger that they might turn against the Saudi regime," Meyer said. But there are reasons to believe that financing for ISIS continues to flow out of Saudi Arabia, "less from the Saudi government than from rich Saudis".

http://www.dw.com/en/who-finances-isis/a-17720149

 

[reckless]

Coalition ground troops is the only answer.

Then Syria would just have an insurgency like Iraq did.

There really is no answer.