shymexx:

Bro, the whole thing is looking like mission creep already, with the inclusion of Syria. Just one miscalculation might lead to troops being sent there, and that's a scary permutation. I'm anti-war - and I was planning to join the British Army next year as an officer. But that looks unlikely now due to what's on the horizon. It's sad.

You are right. We have this right wing nuts that are chicken hawks pushing Obama to war . Hopefully, the peaceniks will win the discuss. Am anti war just like you. This senseless wars has destroyed so many lives already.

frankels: ... "War doesn't determine who is right but who is left!!!!" -mikel obi

na me talk that thing not Mikel Obi

The Isis guys were set up by mossad trained by CIA, financed by Saudi Arabia,UAE ,Qatar, Turkey armed by USA BRITAIN AND FRANCE....now the tables had turned due to Isis becoming "born again" the Osama bin Laden's way...hence no permanent friends but only INTEREST!!!!!

maxit2:
All attempts to perceive this comment as funny has failed.
Dude I give up!

if i wanted to b funny ill post in d jokes section.

there is nothing funny about WAR

its called sacarsm, a contrasting figure of speech
u wouldnt know, would u?
u might have heard of OxyMORON though..

smh.. such a living dead

shymexx:

The whole thing looks like mission creep already, with the inclusion of Syria in the folds - without a vote for that at the UN security council. Also, both Obama and David Cameron have declared Assad's government as illegitimate. And that obviously means they can violate Syrian airspace and territorial integrity, without Assad's permission.

Let's say, Syria for example shoots down a US fighter jet (the Syrian air defense system is one of the most sophisticated in MENA), that might lead to something else. Or, Syrian troops (or its Hezbollah and Shia proxies) become targets of US "friendly fire" and things escalate from there?

Furthermore, I don't even think ISIS can be defeated without troops on the ground - they're too organised and sophisticated for aerial attacks to have any meaningful impact on, in Syria. Except they're also planning to use the Kurds in Syria against them - and that looks unlikely.

Anyway, anywhere the US goes, the UK is definitely going to follow suit - that's what the special friendship is about.

If the US sticks with its plan to target only ISIS in Syria, the Syrian government may scream publicly about Airspace violation, but privately, it will consider it a welcome development. It is unlikely that Assad may deliberately choose to shoot down a US war plane - since this will only give the US an incentive to degrade the so called sophisticated air defense system.

ISIS cannot be defeated without troops on the ground - but as evidence from Iraq as shown so far, the precision strikes by US aircraft has weakened their momentum - more strikes can only mean good thing.

kilokeys:
if i wanted to b funny ill post in d jokes section.

there is nothing funny about WAR

its called sacarsm, a contrasting figure of speech
u wouldnt know, would u?
u might have heard of OxyMORON though..

smh.. such a living dead

Nigga. Say all you want. Before you go to bed 2nite you will think about my comment n be like shit that maxit2 guy burst me menhhhh....
You constructed those statements with hopes it will be seen as funny n attract you some likes.
Only a dead brain like yourself asks a question n answers it. We are talking war n you are talking sarcasm with widows.

Nigga u were tryna make a joke. Check the last part where u said widows should come seek emotional comfort with you.
I bet you put a whole lot of efforts into that last part thinking it will be funny. You were probably smiling to yourself while you typed your stupidity unto the keyboard.
You got infuriated when the ONLY reaction to your comment is my quote. Nobody liked nor quoted you. People just ignored.... that must have really hurt. Yea ?

victorazy:

Imagine Mr. Seun

THE THING THEY ANNOY ME, I NO KNOW WHY HE CLOSE THE TREAD, I WAN TEAR AM TO PIECES ALSO WRITE LONG EPISTLE ON WHY BE SAY THE ONLY NUMBER ONE BADLUCK WEY WE GET FOR THIS COUNTRY NA apc AND THERE DISCIPLES, HE FOR OPEN THE TREAD AND SEE HOW PEOPLE WILL REACT! NON-SENSE AND INGREDIENTS!

So Mr. Obama's so-called soft power did not work out as envisioned?

WAR .....america..oya .....bombard dem

Lucasbalo: You are right. We have this right wing nuts that are chicken hawks pushing Obama to war . Hopefully, the peaceniks will win the discuss. Am anti war just like you. This senseless wars has destroyed so many lives already.

Anti-war movement - say NO to wars!

We've fought so many wars in the last 100 years alone, yet humanity is still messed up.

And like Winston Churchill said, "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

Shock:
If the US sticks with its plan to target only ISIS in Syria, the Syrian government may scream publicly about Airspace violation, but privately, it will consider it a welcome development. It is unlikely that Assad may deliberately choose to shoot down a US war plane - since this will only give the US an incentive to degrade the so called sophisticated air defense system.

ISIS cannot be defeated without troops on the ground - but as evidence from Iraq as shown so far, the precision strikes by US aircraft has weakened their momentum - more strikes can only mean good thing.

Firstly, sticking to plan is where it gets tricky because the US is trying to fight ISIS on one hand in Syria, while also trying to arm the "moderate" FSA rebels on the other hand, to overthrow Assad (based on all the statements in the media this week and NATO summit in Wales last week). And that's mission creep right there - with the plausibility of friendly fire against Syrian forces and Hezbollah.

Secondly, if the US views Assad's government as illegitimate, despite the legitimacy it got at the polling boot during the last election. What makes you think the US would view flying in the Syrian airspace, without consultations with Assad, as a violation?

Thirdly, degrading Syria's sophisticated air defense system is one thing. However, once that happens, the West would be sucked into putting boots on the ground, to oust Assad - and also to take on ISIS. Moreover, air strikes against ISIS in Syria would more or less be a waste of time, since ISIS and the FSA rebels are more or less intertwined in Syria - unlike Iraq where everyone, from the Kurds, to the Iraqi army, to the Shiite militias, to Sunni tribal militias are more or less the ground troops taking on ISIS, with air support from the US.

Also, ISIS are somewhat more acquainted to the Syrian terrain(Iraqi terrain is a new one), since they have been fighting there for more than three years - with a huge swathe under their control - and they've been able to build a defense mechanism against Syrian air strikes in that terrain. Evidently, US air strikes won't solve anything - it will just be business as usual.

Finally, ISIS have the covert support of Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia (especially in Syria since they're the ones doing the heavy fighting there) - and Turkey for example is a member of NATO. While both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are US allies. The whole thing is more complex than you think.

Leetunechi:


when wola soyinka's hair turns black

Abeg, make you send guys kidnap Soyinka come dye hin hair black by force o. Nigerians really need that change quickly.

Ahmeduana:
THE THING THEY ANNOY ME, I NO KNOW WHY HE CLOSE THE TREAD, I WAN TEAR AM TO PIECES ALSO WRITE LONG EPISTLE ON WHY BE SAY THE ONLY NUMBER ONE BADLUCK WEY WE GET FOR THIS COUNTRY NA apc AND THERE DISCIPLES, HE FOR OPEN THE TREAD AND SEE HOW PEOPLE WILL REACT! NON-SENSE AND INGREDIENTS!

Of course you can create a thread from it by quoting the apology and the link to it. I assure you that the thread will be the most viewed and commented on in recent times. It doesn't even need to be in front page.

This above is one secret to poster wall-of-game in Nairaland. Therefore thank me later.

Psylas: na me talk that thing not Mikel Obi

Hehehehe..

shymexx:

Firstly, sticking to plan is where it gets tricky because the US is trying to fight ISIS on one hand in Syria, while also trying to arm the "moderate" FSA rebels on the other hand, to overthrow Assad (based on all the statements in the media this week and NATO summit in Wales last week). And that's mission creep right there - with the plausibility of friendly fire against Syrian forces and Hezbollah.

Secondly, if the US views Assad's government as illegitimate, despite the legitimacy it got at the polling boot during the last election. What makes you think the US would view flying in the Syrian airspace, without consultations with Assad, as a violation?

Thirdly, degrading Syria's sophisticated air defense system is one thing. However, once that happens, the West would be sucked into putting boots on the ground, to oust Assad - and also to take on ISIS. Moreover, air strikes against ISIS in Syria would more or less be a waste of time, since ISIS and the FSA rebels are more or less intertwined in Syria - unlike Iraq where everyone, from the Kurds, to the Iraqi army, to the Shiite militias, to Sunni tribal militias are more or less the ground troops taking on ISIS, with air support from the US.

Also, ISIS are somewhat more acquainted to the Syrian terrain(Iraqi terrain is a new one), since they have been fighting there for more than three years - with a huge swathe under their control - and they've been able to build a defense mechanism against Syrian air strikes in that terrain. Evidently, US air strikes won't solve anything - it will just be business as usual.

Finally, ISIS have the covert support of Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia (especially in Syria since they're the ones doing the heavy fighting there) - and Turkey for example is a member of NATO. While both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are US allies. The whole thing is more complex than you think.

I don't think ISIL (or ISIS) has the support of the Turkish govt (they have civilian support, just as they have Brits, US, Egyptian and almost every nation that has muslims in the west and east flocking to join their ranks). They want a Caliphate (their own kingdom) and Jordan and some other ME countries are beginning to be worried (even Saudi Arabia wouldn't want such a strong force at the backs, they may be sponsoring them in the hopes they stay engaged in Syria and not turn eyes towards their wealth).

Did you hear? There's been a new video release, ISI beheaded a British Humanitarian worker.

honeric01: The same group they funded and equipped?

yeye dey smell.

Abi oo..tell them something they don't know

Onegai:
I don't think ISIL (or ISIS) has the support of the Turkish govt (they have civilian support, just as they have Brits, US, Egyptian and almost every nation that has muslims in the west and east flocking to join their ranks). They want a Caliphate (their own kingdom) and Jordan and some other ME countries are beginning to be worried (even Saudi Arabia wouldn't want such a strong force at the backs, they may be sponsoring them in the hopes they stay engaged in Syria and not turn eyes towards their wealth).

Did you hear? There's been a new video release, ISI beheaded a British Humanitarian worker.

The support from Turkey isn't overt, but covert. All the foreign jihadists fighting with ISIS (or ISIL like the US calls it) went there through Turkey. Also, the covert support they get from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, goes through Turkey. Ditto the refusal of Turkey to do something about its borders with Syria, which the Islamists control, and oil from the Syrian oil fields in control of ISIS are sold via Turkey. The leaders of the FSA rebels in Syria, which are more or less intertwined with ISIS also live in Turkey. And Turkey has also come out to say it won't allow the NATO coalition use its air bases to attack ISIS - read the link here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/11/turkey-joins-the-coalition-of-the-unwilling.html

Anyway, I saw the news about the beheading yesterday. That's crazy.

missdebs: wetin concern terry g wit grammy

but terry g wouldn't mind clinching d Grammy. so would US army if given d chance.

shymexx:

Firstly, sticking to plan is where it gets tricky because the US is trying to fight ISIS on one hand in Syria, while also trying to arm the "moderate" FSA rebels on the other hand, to overthrow Assad (based on all the statements in the media this week and NATO summit in Wales last week). And that's mission creep right there - with the plausibility of friendly fire against Syrian forces and Hezbollah.

Secondly, if the US views Assad's government as illegitimate, despite the legitimacy it got at the polling boot during the last election. What makes you think the US would view flying in the Syrian airspace, without consultations with Assad, as a violation?

Thirdly, degrading Syria's sophisticated air defense system is one thing. However, once that happens, the West would be sucked into putting boots on the ground, to oust Assad - and also to take on ISIS. Moreover, air strikes against ISIS in Syria would more or less be a waste of time, since ISIS and the FSA rebels are more or less intertwined in Syria - unlike Iraq where everyone, from the Kurds, to the Iraqi army, to the Shiite militias, to Sunni tribal militias are more or less the ground troops taking on ISIS, with air support from the US.

Also, ISIS are somewhat more acquainted to the Syrian terrain(Iraqi terrain is a new one), since they have been fighting there for more than three years - with a huge swathe under their control - and they've been able to build a defense mechanism against Syrian air strikes in that terrain. Evidently, US air strikes won't solve anything - it will just be business as usual.

Finally, ISIS have the covert support of Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia (especially in Syria since they're the ones doing the heavy fighting there) - and Turkey for example is a member of NATO. While both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are US allies. The whole thing is more complex than you think.

Quiet insightful. I agree that the situation in Syria is complicated for different reasons. Here, there is ISIS and then there's the moderate rebels - and the lines are pretty blurred between the two as it appears that it only comes down to labels and definitions - but both of them have a common enemy. Then there's Assad, who common enemies are ISIS and moderate rebels. The there's the US and a host of other countries that support the moderate rebels, but do not support ISIS or Assad.

It's all just chaotic!

My view is that the US knows that there is no alternative to Assad in Syria - but given how far it has come in criticising Assad and pushing for his exit, it will lose all credibility with its partners if it decides to back pedal on its Syrian policies at this point.


What is however unclear is whether or not the US views Assad as a worse alternative than ISIS. If it does, then i think it is likely that the US wouldn't do much in Syria for now except intelligence gathering.

My view is that the so called coalition will seek to contain ISIS to Syria in the short to medium term while leaving the options open to strike over the longer term. It is likely the case that the US will focus on recovering as much ground as possible in Iraq. This will include places such as Tirkrit, Mosul and Ramadi. As the Kurdish/Iraq forces become more confident, they are expected to hold on to their territorial gains and force ISIS fighters back over the boarder into Syria.

The presence of ISIS in Syria will become heavier and increase pressure on Assad. The US may make one or two strikes, but ultimately will not do any heavy lifting. Obama talked about a "slow and resilient" effort. Syria may become more chaotic, but the US can simply afford to wait things out.

Americans has always like to go to war I pray dey succed

When is America going to stop funding and equipping terrorists all over the world?

The terrorists they equipped in Libya are still killing and destroying the already destroyed land.of Libya, even killed the Us ambassador in the process. demonic Us, stop turning the world upside down.

Methinks we will be fooling ourselves if we think that Americas incursion into Syria will be for the purpose of fighting ISIS. Simply, America wants to use IsIS as a ploy to remove Assad, but predictably they will fail. I was certain that Putin will win the tug of war with the US over Ukraine and true to my predictions the least that will happen in Ukraine is that Donbas becomes a federalized entity and after 10 years or so may vote to join Russia as their partner Crimea did.

This time again, Americas incursion into Syria May be all that is required to start a global war... And I'm certain that just as Iraq it will be a case of oh had we known we shouldn't have invaded Syria.

Shock:
Quiet insightful. I agree that the situation in Syria is complicated for different reasons. Here, there is ISIS and then there's the moderate rebels - and the lines are pretty blurred between the two as it appears that it only comes down to labels and definitions - but both of them have a common enemy. Then there's Assad, who common enemies are ISIS and moderate rebels. The there's the US and a host of other countries that support the moderate rebels, but do not support ISIS or Assad.

It's all just chaotic!

My view is that the US knows that there is no alternative to Assad in Syria - but given how far it has come in criticising Assad and pushing for his exit, it will lose all credibility with its partners if it decides to back pedal on its Syrian policies at this point.


What is however unclear is whether or not the US views Assad as a worse alternative than ISIS. If it does, then i think it is likely that the US wouldn't do much in Syria for now except intelligence gathering.

My view is that the so called coalition will seek to contain ISIS to Syria in the short to medium term while leaving the options open to strike over the longer term. It is likely the case that the US will focus on recovering as much ground as possible in Iraq. This will include places such as Tirkrit, Mosul and Ramadi. As the Kurdish/Iraq forces become more confident, they are expected to hold on to their territorial gains and force ISIS fighters back over the boarder into Syria.

The presence of ISIS in Syria will become heavier and increase pressure on Assad. The US may make one or two strikes, but ultimately will not do any heavy lifting. Obama talked about a "slow and resilient" effort. Syria may become more chaotic, but the US can simply afford to wait things out.

Interesting, I must say.

However, I'll like to put two things out there, based on my own understanding of the complexities involved in the whole madness:

1). Personally, I don't even think there are any "moderate" rebels left in Syria (if there were actually any) since their morale is low, and they've not made any for over a year now - apart from a few pockets of Sunni tribal militants, who're fighting both Assad and ISIS, just to protect their own villages. The bulk of those doing the fighting in Syria are Islamists, and a lot of them are foreigners who travelled to Syria, for Jihad.

2). No matter what the US does in Syria, the end game will be the Libyan quagmire. They should've thought about that before trying to force regime change in the country. Now, the crisis in Syria gave birth to ISIS, and that also has destabilised Iraq. And Iraq looks like it's going to end up being balkinised based on how stronger the Kurds are getting by day. And once the Kurds get what they want and where they want to be militarily, I doubt anyone will be able to stop them from declaring their own country. Ditto Kurds in Syria. Also, if Assad is replaced - I doubt the Alawaties would want to remain in a "united" Syria. The whole place is a mess.

shymexx:

Interesting, I must say.

However, I'll like to put two things out there, based on my own understanding of the complexities involved in the whole madness:

1). Personally, I don't even think there are any "moderate" rebels left in Syria (if there were actually any) since their morale is low, and they've not made any for over a year now - apart from a few pockets of Sunni tribal militants, who're fighting both Assad and ISIS, just to protect their own villages. The bulk of those doing the fighting in Syria are Islamists, and a lot of them are foreigners who travelled to Syria, for Jihad.

2). No matter what the US does in Syria, the end game will be the Libyan quagmire. They should've thought about that before trying to force regime change in the country. Now, the crisis in Syria gave birth to ISIS, and that also has destabilised Iraq. And Iraq looks like it's going to end up being balkinised based on how stronger the Kurds are getting by day. And once the Kurds get what they want and where they want to be militarily, I doubt anyone will be able to stop them from declaring their own country. Ditto Kurds in Syria. Also, if Assad is replaced - I doubt the Alawaties would want to remain in a "united" Syria. The whole place is a mess.

I agree on that first point. I think it is likely that American policy makers are aware that there's no chance in hell that the tide of war will ever favor Assad oppositions - so their next best strategy is to call a few radicals by the name "moderate"/"vetted" rebels and provide them with arms till at least Assad comes back to the negotiating table.

- The complexities involved are too much. I have just read an article that states that American authorities are actually co-operating with Assad on the ground, despite their public claims that they wouldn't do so! - I wouldn't be too surprised if this news were true. The Obama administration has shown its willingness to do several of such "back-room" deals in the past - from its dealings with Iran, which left Israel in the dark, to exchanging POWs with Talibans, which left several members of congress stunned. It is therefore very likely that America is secretly working with Iran and Syria while publicly denouncing those claims.

Shock:
I agree on that first point. I think it is likely that American policy makers are aware that there's no chance in hell that the tide of war will ever favor Assad oppositions - so their next best strategy is to call a few radicals by the name "moderate"/"vetted" rebels and provide them with arms till at least Assad comes back to the negotiating table.

- The complexities involved are too much. I have just read an article that states that American authorities are actually co-operating with Assad on the ground, despite their public claims that they wouldn't do so! - I wouldn't be too surprised if this news were true. The Obama administration has shown its willingness to do several of such "back-room" deals in the past - from its dealings with Iran, which left Israel in the dark, to exchanging POWs with Talibans, which left several members of congress stunned. It is therefore very likely that America is secretly working with Iran and Syria while publicly denouncing those claims.

Well, I agree with you about the back-room, hence it's better to always take what's said in public by world leaders in international relations, literally in its meaning. However, that doesn't negate the fact that Syria will never be same again for a long time. It's basically difficult to rein in hard-lined and war hardened insurgents, especially when they control a lot both financially, and in terms of lands and resources - with covert backings from a few countries whose interests they serve. The Raqqa region which ISIS controls in Syria looks like the new Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan, and dislodging them would be an uphill task.

Hopefully, we'll get a clearer picture of what the end game is soon. And once the bombing campaign starts, it's going to take a long time before it stops. That's when mission creep would get involved, with more military advisers (troops) being sent in from time to time, because you need boots on the ground, to get coordinates for air strikes. They might also need to get the Russians involved since its interests in that axis are intertwined with Syria. I doubt the Russians would want to lose their only base in East Mediterranean - a base that represents Russian pivot in MENA, Putin's new Russia.

Anyway, this might sound pedantic, but I believe both Syria and Iraq ought to be balkanised, with different countries for Sunnis, Shias, and the Kurds. The Christians in both countries can either go with the Kurds, or the Shias.

Tagus, Chebi and Echewa. Always a very toxic mixture.

......