Shades of Vietnam--Syria Is a Clusterf*ck, and It's About to Get Worse for the US [Picture, video]

 am getting ominous 1965 flashbacks again. Robert McNamara and Creighton Abrams are starting to appear in my mind’s eye, pointing down a long, dark tunnel at the lights of an oncoming train.​

The debate over the proposed steps, which would for the first time position a limited number of Special Operations forces on the ground in Syria and put U.S. advisers closer to the firefights in Iraq, comes as Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter presses the military to deliver new options for greater military involvement in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. The changes would represent a significant escalation of the American role in Iraq and Syria. They still require formal approval from Obama, who could make a decision as soon as this week and could decide not to alter the current course, said U.S. officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions are still ongoing. It’s unclear how many additional troops would be required to implement the changes being considered by the president, but the number for now is likely to be relatively small, these officials said.  source

​

 ”The number for now…”

Those are two words—”for now”—that could be full of blood. There could be hundreds of American kids interred in those two words—”for now”—along with god knows how many Syrians and Iraqis. Once, we allegedly learned the folly of involving ourselves in a distant civil war. Now, we seem primed to involve ourselves in two of them. Our role seems to have been designed in a funhouse mirror.

The biggest problem facing Carter, and Obama, is that the increase in American military commitment would be unlikely to produce any major changes to the political situations in Iraq and Syria that have given rise to the Islamic State. In Iraq, the United States is fighting the Islamic State alongside Shiite militias—some of which are backed by Iran. Just across the border in Syria, Iran-backed Shiite militias are fighting in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is barrel-bombing civilians and battling the moderate rebel groups that the United States is supporting. Obama has said that Assad, who depends on Iranian and Russian military backing for his regime’s survival, must go for there to be any hope of peace.

​​

If you’re keeping score at home, in Syria, we’ll be fighting alongside the people against whom we’ll be fighting in Syria. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And the friend of my friend is the enemy of the enemy of my friend. And the friend of the devil is a friend of mine. This isn’t foreign policy. It’s a Lewis Carroll poem, and it’s getting to be a longer one.              source

Iran has invested heavily in Syria’s civil war. Having already spilled much blood and spent much treasure to shore up President Bashar al-Assad against opposition forces, Tehran appears to be doubling down with yet more commitments of resources and manpower. But will Iran’s efforts make a difference? Assad’s side is now faltering, even publicly admitting this summer that it faces a severe manpower shortage thanks to death and defection.

Because of Iran’s ever-deepening involvement in the fighting, analysts have speculated about the possibility that Syria could be Iran’s Vietnam. The parallel may be imperfect, but the comparison has become political shorthand for a more basic question: has Iran stuck itself in a quagmire? source