« Aftermath of hostage situation in Algeria; at least 37 hostages, 29 terrorists killed | Main | The 'Opium Brides' of Afghanistan »

Fighting in Damascus, Homs

NBC News covers fighting in Syria, describing the current state of the conflict as a "stalemate." More than 7,000 troops affiliated with the regime of Bashar al-Assad have been killed and over 3 million refugees have fled their homes during the conflict.

Find related articles:

READER COMMENTS: "Fighting in Damascus, Homs"

Posted by blert at January 26, 2013 2:03 AM ET:

Unless Assad can run his war machine without money...

There is no stalemate.

Conventional armies, such as Syria's, are gutted logistically.

They don't get defeated: guns vs tanks.

They get defeated: guns vs trucks.

At this time, Assad appears to be running his fuel pumps on Russian Diesel fuel imports.

Beyond that, it would appear that the regime can't stop outside factions from supplying anti-regime elements.

Instead of a stalemate -- we're seeing modern siege warfare.

Posted by James at January 27, 2013 4:52 PM ET:

Bill, I have empasized this from the start, either we step in to fill the vacuum in Syria or Al Queda will, which do you prefer? Hopefully, it's not too late already.

The longer the situation in Syria deteriorates and the misery multiplies the more likely that country will become an Al Queda breeding ground.

IMHO, we should be helping the Syrian resistance any and every way we possibly can SHORT OF DIRECT MILITARY INVOLVEMENT.

I don't see how anyone clamoring for 'change-of-regime' in Iran could support US only being peripherally involved in ousting Assad. The Assad regime and the regime in Iran are twins of terrorism generation.

The nail in the coffin of the Assad regime will be the same nail that will go in the coffin of the regime in Iran.

The only 2 significant cohorts Assad seems to have are Iran and Putin which are two entities that most certainly are not in our best interests.

Posted by Paul at January 29, 2013 1:15 AM ET:

I feel we should not supply the rebels with anything because I fine this situation the same as Afghanistan during the Afghan-Soviet War. We supplied the fighters with weapons and money by funneling it through Pakistan. And see where that got us roughly 15 years later; a war in Afghanistan. This situation should be handled by Syrians and the League of Arab Nations. They should be the ones conducting that intervention and not the west. They have more in common with the Syrian people than we would. Finally, we must carefully pick and choose what conflicts decide to support or enter.

Posted by Buzz at January 29, 2013 3:59 AM ET:

The US does not need to be involved in any mid-eastern islamist countries civil wars,period. We need to continue to support Isreal and their right to exist on this planet. Saudi Arabia has plenty of funds ( including US ) to support these refugees who are caught up in the middle of a civil/religious war. These islamist wars are created by Saudi Arabia and Iranian funds,let them deal with these conflicts. Ask russia and china for some help too,they are supplying the arms and ammunition to both sides. Syria,Algeria,Lybia,Afghanistan,Pakistan etc....al-qaeda wants to expel all of the infidels from the lands of the islamist,who cares about vacuums ? al-qaeda,taliban and all of their factions and affiliates can make their own beds and lie in them. No more US tax dollars to these countries who want to "smite our necks" !!