I think everyone needs to take a breath.
First off, we're not talking about full-scale war here. We're talking about air strikes. This is less Iraq redux and more Libya redux. Assad should take notice — Qaddafi was stabbed in the ass several times before he was finally killed. Bad enough to be overthrown and murdered, but stabbed in the ass seriously sucks.
Second, there is no desire on the part of the United States government to do this. In fact we have dragged our feet from day one. As soon as that chemical weapons attack was reported you could almost hear the White House saying "shit." The president had, after all, very publicly drawn a line in the sand (ha!) on Syria, stating that the use of chemical weapons on a civilian population would be seen as a justification for intervention. Still, we've known about the attack for a while now, and so far all the administration has done is dawdle and delay and hope something else in the news cycle knocks this off the media's — and the public's — radar. But the media were not going to let them off that easy.
It now looks like there will be air strikes. These will likely have the effect of shattering the Assad regime's hold on power, allowing the rebels to win. It really is startling how much it resembles Libya. And the problems are the same, too. Assad was a devil we knew; who comes after him is anyone's guess. What if the Assad regime fell and was replaced by an Islamic one? That's not likely to do anything to ease tensions in the region. More than likely the fighting will not end with Assad's fall; multiple factions that have found common cause would quickly factionalize. Terrorist organizations like Hezbollah would be huge players. It would be a frigging mess.
Or rather, it will be a frigging mess, since it now seems all but inevitable. I hope in a year I remember this thread. 
Now, there has been some suggestion that the chemical weapons attack was some kind of frame-up, the implication being that "we" (i.e. the CIA) did it in order to give us a reason to go to war. This seems unlikely. First of all, it presupposes a desire on the part of the United States government to intervene, and as we've already seen, no such desire exists. In fact quite the contrary. Funny how history moves sometimes, isn't it? None of the major powers wanted war in 1914, yet a confluence of events forced an inevitable outcome. Despite their best efforts at avoiding it, it seems this government now has virtually no choice but to take some action. It's like a double-dog dare with geopolitical consequences and god knows how many innocent deaths.
I do, however, agree with the assertion that the timing of the chemical weapons attack seemed awfully convenient, what with UN inspectors having only just arrived in the country. But it seems to me that if we accept the premise that the attack was a frame-up done to make Assad look bad, then the next logical question is who stood to benefit? It seems to me the prime suspects are the rebel forces themselves.
The other people who will gain are the military contractors and assorted hangers-on who stand to make bank if the US starts dropping bombs. But those guys tend to exert their will politically. Watch for a sizable number of Congress to be on board with this. The GOP, for the most part, won't like it because Obama is president and everything he does is pure, uncorrupted evil. Seriously, he could propose eliminating the IRS and the Department of Education and they'd yell and scream and say it was a socialist plot. And the far left are opposed to war because they agree with Edwin Starr that WAR is ultimately good for NOTHIN.' Say it again. And of course the libertarians and Tea Party types, who tend to be isolationist to begin with. Really the only people Obama has on his side are the corporate types. Some socialist. But a lot of members on both sides of the aisle will quietly be okay with it, some maybe even not so quietly, because whatever business interest has him/her in their pocket will be salivating for American intervention. I bet there are a LOT of boners at Halliburton right now.
The mere fact that Big Money would love it if the US took lucrative military action in Syria should speak volumes about just how much the administration does not want to do it. These guys are practically Obama's base. For a man who came to office preaching change, Barack Obama has proven almost pathologically unwilling to shake up the status quo. But that's a separate rant.
Bottom line: I doubt we're looking at "war." We're looking at air strikes. Still killing people, and to the person whose child is killed as "collateral damage" I'm sure the distinction means nothing. But I sincerely doubt we will see American soldiers on the ground in Syria. In fact I think we're looking at a mess. We're good at making messes.
The only problem I see with this is that very little money is to be made from the actual bombing itself. The stockpiles of explosives will be compiled regardless, and we still have retrofitted 1960's bombs with standardize gliding modules for our JDAM's. 1 billion dollars = 200,000 bombs, a lot more than we're likely to use. Thus, there's not a whole lot of money to be made. The planes, aircraft, aircraft carriers, and all that are already bought and patrol the world 24/7, with the ability to filter water, and have over 10 years worth of food at any one point in time, and many years of jet fuel, meaning that there will be no increases in spending given it's largely self contained with it's nuclear reactors.
The biggest form of money will likely come from aid, primarily huminatarian, meaning medical and food supplies for the rebels themselves since they have no supply lines. We are likely to drop in medical personel and problably green berets and other special forces, to train and arm the rebels as well as advise them, say with our sattelites (that we already have) on where and when to strike, monitoring their positions. These types of things are infinetely invaluable. While we won't have boots on the ground, it's pretty much always the case that special forces advise when and where to make air strikes, disable communication systems, and things like that; little front line work, but invaluable recconisance. Maybe sniping or attacking a few key targets.
So, that's likely how it's to play out, and there's likely not much money to be made from this war.
The biggest issue will be the cost of rebuilding. But that's not really the arms industry per say.
Also halliburton doesn't stand to make much money and it's very unstable in the region meaning the profits could be cut off quickly and they could lose a substantial amount of equipment. It is through reluctance they take contracts; in fact, there was not a single oil contract to an American company in the Iraq war. There is also not that much oil in Syria.
Edited by Manoka, 28 August 2013 - 07:10 PM.
