If a Labonese civil war breaks out, do we go in?

[jimmyboy]

Well, the Syrians may be leaving Lebanon. But yesterday 500,000 pro-Syrians were picketing. And the day prior, 500,000 anti-Syrians were also picketing. We know that both sides are armed to the teeth.

Since we (the U.S.) was the catalyst in getting Syria to leave, if a civil war breaks out in Lebanon, are we obligated to send in our troops? Did we just openned a can of worms?

[blu3l1ghtn1ng]

Did we just openned a can of worms?

Just for that, you shouldn't

[Peregrine]

Go in with what? We're already massively over-committed, and I doubt we have enough numbers left to get involved in a third foriegn country. This is of course the reason the Iraq war was such a stupid idea. Not because it was immoral, but because it destroyed our strategic options. I just hope we don't regret it too much and watch helplessly as something like this turns into a disaster.

[Necrolestes]

As it's an internal affair of a foreign nation, we are not obligated to send troops. This is between Lebanon and Syria. This does not mean that we are not obligated to provide humanitarian aid to either side (preferably the Lebanese, as they don't have a long standing tradition of trying to kill us). We should send food, water, and medical supplies but not weapons, logistical support, or troops.

There's nothing civil about a civil war.

[DrunkCajun]

Ohh, come on, you mean your blood isn't stirring at the thought of another war? Let's go! Giddee-up! Let's forcibly recruit Canucks and send them!

[maccool]

Since we (the U.S.) was the catalyst in getting Syria to leave, if a civil war breaks out in Lebanon, are we obligated to send in our troops?

Last time we tried that it didn't turn out so well.

[llad12]

Where is the country of Labon anyway?

[Freemason]

If a civil war breaks out, that gives us all the incentive we need to send a quick strike force into Syria. Seeing as how we have a rather large force in Iraq currently not involved in combat operations, we seem to have a forward deployed combat force... We're not as overdeployed as Peregrine says we are.

Syria knows this very well. They know how many combat troops are over there. They know how many are not currently in a combat role. They also know how fast and how hard we can strike.

I don't believe the Syrian thugs are dumb enough to give us a reason to attack them. They saw what Libya did. Gadaffi cried "uncle" and is still running his country. Saddam said $&%& YOU! and is in prison. Syria cooperates and it's government gets to live a little longer. Pretty simple choice isnt' it?

[Nastie_Bowie]

If a civil war breaks out, that gives us all the incentive we need to send a quick strike force into Syria. Seeing as how we have a rather large force in Iraq currently not involved in combat operations, we seem to have a forward deployed combat force... We're not as overdeployed as Peregrine says we are.

Syria knows this very well. They know how many combat troops are over there. They know how many are not currently in a combat role. They also know how fast and how hard we can strike.

I don't believe the Syrian thugs are dumb enough to give us a reason to attack them. They saw what Libya did. Gadaffi cried "uncle" and is still running his country. Saddam said $&%& YOU! and is in prison. Syria cooperates and it's government gets to live a little longer. Pretty simple choice isnt' it?

Amen, Smegeroo!

[Matt]

Syria knows this very well. They know how many combat troops are over there. They know how many are not currently in a combat role. They also know how fast and how hard we can strike.

If I recall correctly, Iraq was suppoused to be a really quick war, over in what, weeks? months? Certianly not years. Yet look where we are now, entrenched in Iraq, thanks to a "fast war", you know, desert storm round 2, over before we know it.

Yeah, they may know that we can strike them, and theres not a whole lot they can do about THAT, but if theres resistance like there is/was in Iraq, and all hell breaks loose we simply dont have the troops for another Iraq. So yeah, we can sure do a quick strike, but we both know if we did, it wouldnt end there, they wouldnt say "ok, ok, you struck us, we're done, nice fighting with you", they would take up arms (if not the government, rebels in the country), and we would end up having to withdraw anyways, because like I said, we simply cant fight 2 Iraqi-level wars.

-Matt