I won’t pretend I’m being clever, because I’m not the first person to ask this question.
Here is an excellent review of recent noise about plans to land troops in Libya, and possibly Syria. It ends with a strong discount against the rumors:
Wawro says the looming specter of another Iraq means the US will not risk any type of deployment on the ground.
“The Syrian situation is analogous to Iraq in the sense that ‘if we break it, we own it,’ which is a burden that Washington won’t be eager to inherit. The sectarian differences in Syria are as deep as they are in Iraq. Decapitating the Assad regime might lead to a civil war. That is not an argument for supporting Assad, it is however an argument against an ‘Operation Syrian Freedom.'”
Okay, but a couple of what-ifs. (1) What if the orders are given through the CIA, so that the whole thing becomes a huge secret ops? (2) What if we have some sudden domestic disaster, like say, a nuke plant or storage site doing a Fukushima on us here in the US? You know, something really distracting. Would either of those alter the chances of a ground invasion in Libya, Syria, or both? Because the people pushing these military operations sure seem to think money is no object. (And I tend to think they would be real happy with Libyan style civil war in Syria.)
I was just wondering.
