Welcome! Login | Register
 

Do You Get “Do-Overs” in Politics?—Sunday Political Brunch - July 22, 2018—Do You Get “Do-Overs” in Politics? -- Sunday…

The Portland Trail Blazers Won! With A Bunch Of NBA Players…—The Portland Trail Blazers Won! With A Bunch…

McCain Calls Trump’s Meeting & Press Conference With Putin “Disgraceful”—McCain Calls Trump's Meeting & Press Conference With…

The Politics of Finesse, 2018 Style - The Sunday Political Brunch - July 15—The Politics of Finesse, 2018 Style - The…

Trump Names Kavanaugh To United States Supreme Court—Trump Names Kavanaugh To United States Supreme Court

You CAN Stop Emotional Eating – Here’s How—You CAN Stop Emotional Eating – Here’s How

The Best Running Gear You Can Buy—The Best Running Gear You Can Buy

“Come See About Me” - The Supreme Court Picks—Sunday Political Brunch July 8, 2018—“Come See About Me” - The Supreme Court…

The Politics of Civility - or the Lack Thereof—Sunday Political Brunch July 1, 2018—The Politics of Civility - or the Lack…

Guest MINDSETTER™ York: Toxic Social Media Influencers As A Catalyst For Violence—Guest MINDSETTER™ York: Toxic Social Media Influencers As…

 
 

Fecteau: Dire Choices on Syria

Monday, February 27, 2017

 

The United States has been leading an air assault similar to that of past conflicts in Libya, and Yugoslavia, but this time, targeting the terror group the so-called Islamic State in Syria. It was recently disclosed the Pentagon has been discussing introducing conventional troops into Syria; this comes with some profound, inherent risks. 

This new proposal would expand the war in Syria much further and also increase the potential for American casualties. These forces would obviously complement the American special operators already in Syria. The initial, limited aim of the operation would likely be the defeat of the Islamic State. 

 The Pentagon has two dreadful choices to make if it seeks to introduce conventional forces. The first option would be to withdraw after the terror group is defeated. In doing so, U.S. forces would simply relinquish control to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, and his government. The Syrian government would likely further destabilize the region through its persecution of those opposed to its regime, only exacerbating the refugee crisis. 

The Assad-led Syrian government has been making significant inroads through indiscriminate killing, chemical weapons, and torture; legitimate grievances now exist against this regime, especially if the U.S. is seen siding with Assad. This is something our enemies could capitalize on for propaganda purposes. 

The second choice is even more concerning. More combat troops could expedite our victory over the so-called Islamic State, but as we’ve seen in Iraq, a conventional victory doesn’t necessarily translate into an end to the conflict. If the situation becomes even more tenuous, the United States faces the risk of being involved in a protracted war. 

The fluidity of the situation may call for a longer commitment than planned; the military calls this mission creep, shifting from a short-term to long-term commitment because of uncertainty -- similar to that of insurgency during the Iraq War. This would come at the hefty expense of American lives, and money. 

 No easy solutions exist to defeat the so-called Islamic State, but even limited action has a price; the mounting death toll in Syria is evidence of that. Americans are at present ambivalent about another war. A recent NBC News and Survey Monkey poll found that 66% of Americans are worried about a war over the next four years—as they should be; another war may be on the horizon once again.   

Matt Fecteau ([email protected])  is a former White House national security intern and Iraq war veteran. Follow him on Twitter @MatthewFecteau

 

Related Articles

 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

 

X

Stay Connected — Free
Daily Email