Syria after 2016...

[Person Man]

If Assad wins by default as the rebels and Islamists beat each other into a bloody pulp and then proceeds to reneg on the chemical weapons deal, retakes the entire country and "cleans house" and if a Republican wins in 2016 and his a Republican Congress, what result?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Unfortunately, I think the fighting will still be going on in Syria come 2017.  I doubt Assad will reneg on the chemical weapons deal, tho he likely will be slo about it.  So long as he has the Russians backing him, he doesn't need the chemical weapons and if he loses Russian backing, chemical weapons will make it more likely the West will intervene.

[Person Man]

Unfortunately, I think the fighting will still be going on in Syria come 2017.  I doubt Assad will reneg on the chemical weapons deal, tho he likely will be slo about it.  So long as he has the Russians backing him, he doesn't need the chemical weapons and if he loses Russian backing, chemical weapons will make it more likely the West will intervene.

...which would be more likely under a straight R ticket. I can easily see Syria becoming the next Iraq in the worst case scenario. However, I think it is more likely that Assad slowly resolidifies control and gives up his weapons and the situation being a status quo ante minus chemical weapons by 2017 or 2018. Basically, Assad stays but loses his credibility as a threat. Think what happened to Saddam in 1991.
 

[Famous Mortimer]

What are you talking about Republicans for?

Regardless of who is in power in Washington, they will not want to get involved in Syria. Who would

[Person Man]

What are you talking about Republicans for?

Regardless of who is in power in Washington, they will not want to get involved in Syria. Who would

In 1999, was anyone talking about Iraq?

[Mr. Morden]

What are you talking about Republicans for?

Regardless of who is in power in Washington, they will not want to get involved in Syria. Who would

In 1999, was anyone talking about Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)

[Person Man]

Would this likely change if the events that happened in Iraq in terms of genocide happened in Syria? I guess the situation would also depend on whether a neoconservative-inspired Republican or a realist-inspired Republican become president. We may even get an isolationist Republican but even Republican presidents in the 1920s called airstrikes in Central America.

[MATTROSE94]

I can see Ted Cruz sending troops into Syria (and possibly Iran, Russia, North Korea and China as well) if he is elected in 2016.

[Famous Mortimer]

I can see Ted Cruz sending troops into Syria (and possibly Iran, Russia, North Korea and China as well) if he is elected in 2016.

Good God. The discussion of American politics on this board is downright unhinged. This sounds like the ramblings of a homeless person.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can see Ted Cruz sending troops into Syria (and possibly Iran, Russia, North Korea and China as well) if he is elected in 2016.

Why?  Even if we were to intervene because of oil, Syria doesn't have enough to make it worth while, even if such interventions worked.  We intervened in Libya because of concerns over refugees, but those concerns were about where Libyan refugees would go, not that there were refugees.  We don't really care that much about the places Syrian refugees are ending up.

[Person Man]

I can see Ted Cruz sending troops into Syria (and possibly Iran, Russia, North Korea and China as well) if he is elected in 2016.

Why?  Even if we were to intervene because of oil, Syria doesn't have enough to make it worth while, even if such interventions worked.  We intervened in Libya because of concerns over refugees, but those concerns were about where Libyan refugees would go, not that there were refugees.  We don't really care that much about the places Syrian refugees are ending up.

There is really no motive for eventually intervening in Syria UNLESS they maintain their chemical weapons and our Government's rivals use their favorable resolution of the conflict in Syria as a way to deny us security and being emboldened to do so further by the nature of the resolution. A potential conflict would be geographically closer to us than Iraq and we would know there are weapons there.

Basically, my thesis is that if we are totally denied influence in Syria over the course of the coming couple of years, it my be an impetus for various levels of military intervention if those who see them as a more effective tool than diplomacy have the appropriate offices to order military intervention. That's a whole lot of ifs, but I would give each condition (a Hawk Government is elected and Syria reneging on its conditions) roughly a 50/50 of occurring. At this point, I would say its a potential Foreign Policy issue in 2016.

[Franknburger]

There are at least three wildcards in your calculation:

1.) The quasi-autonomous Kurdish part of Syria, currently everybody's darling as they are fighting the Islamists and are no fans of Assad. Unfortunately, however, they are orienting on PKK leader Öcalan and his Marxist, soviet republic vision. This isn't something any US government, and especially not a Republican government, would really be looking for, and also brings in

2.) Turkey that since Atatürk's time has been trying to extinguish any hope of their Kurdish population to ever be able to use their native language in public, not even speaking of an independent state. Kurdish Iraq is already difficult to bear, but a Kurdish Syria in open support of the PKK (and potential save haven for PKK fighters) might achieve the impossible, namely the Turkish army putting aside their concerns on Erdogan's creeping Islamisation.  Under pressure from a more and more urbanising population, and because of various corruption scandals, this might actually be Erdogan's best bet to stay in power.

3.) Israel, while no friend of Assad, would definitely prefer him to Islamists controlling parts or even all of Syria. Moreover, a relevant part of Israel's political establishment is interested in maintaining some hypothetical threat to its existence in order to keep Europe and the US from asking nasty questions on settlement policies and relation to Palestine territories. So far, Iran has done the favour, but if they should calm down, a "bad Syrian guy" could work as well.

Plus, there is Lebanon, which is already part of the battlefield and might even become more so if Assad manages to drive his opponents out of Syria. Should he also manage to clean up the Kurdish part, that would of course affect Iraq, which is anything but stable these days..

In short - the typical middle-Eastern minefield that generations of well-intended diplomats have been unable to clear. I can't see any US government voluntarily getting involved there with armed forces. But there is a substantial risk of being drawn into some kind of pacifying that ultimately turns  into active engagement. And the last Republican governments have tended to underestimate such risk, and to overestimate the effectiveness of short-term military action...