Syria Operation Farce

[waitforufo]

If the President loses Trudy Rubin he is in trouble. She does a great job pointing out our Presidents incompetent foreign policy.

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/trudy_rubin/20130901_Worldview__Parsing_a_U_S__response_to_Syria.html

 

 

This kind of tactical strike, divorced from any larger strategy will leave Assad in power, crowing that he survived America's aggression. Yet a failure to punish Assad - after threatening to do so for weeks - will be a terrific blow for Obama, and undercut America's standing and influence abroad.

This is the Hobson's choice to which the president's indecision has led him. Operation Desert Farce is already heading our way.

 

What is worse is that now he is claiming that he didn't set a red line on chemical weapons. Yet, we all heard him lay down that line.

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/04/201163/obama-i-didnt-draw-the-red-line.html#.Uidxoz-BV8E

 

 

“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility’s on the line."

 

I don't think Obama will be able to pass the buck on this one. Does anyone? Perhaps he is hoping that congress will turn him down in the belief that he can blame congress. Or perhaps if his bungling turns in to a full blow regional war the will be able to blame congress for that.

 

In my 50+ years I have never seen anything as crazy as this. It's too late for Syria. The president had a chance early but did nothing. We should now just stay out and watch the carnage in shame.

 

[overtone]

 

 

In my 50+ years I have never seen anything as crazy as this

That's a long nap - you missed the Iraq Wars 1&2, Rwanda, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Burma, Cambodia, the entirety of the Palestinian oppression, the Congo region horrors, et al.

 

I sympathize with your sudden wakening into this, but it isn't the first, worst, or last pile of fanblown consequences to be dealt with from the legacy of Reagan/Bush. Get used to it.

[waitforufo]

That's a long nap - you missed the Iraq Wars 1&2, Rwanda, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Burma, Cambodia, the entirety of the Palestinian oppression, the Congo region horrors, et al.

 

I sympathize with your sudden wakening into this, but it isn't the first, worst, or last pile of fanblown consequences to be dealt with from the legacy of Reagan/Bush. Get used to it.

 

There are some good examples of deliberate stupidity in your list. What's different this time is how the President is publically bumbling his way in to war while catering to his own narcissism. That is what makes it unique.

Now we have Kerry saying that Arab countries have offered to pay for the war. Where have I heard that one before? Well I guess if we can't get the economy going any other way we should just become a nation of mercenaries.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3

[waitforufo]

After watching Jon Stuart, I wish I would have titled this "Operation Just the tip"

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/09/77056-operation-just-tip-daily-shows-jon-stewart-goes-epic-tirade-syria/

[overtone]

 

 

What's different this time is how the President is publically bumbling his way in to war while catering to his own narcissism. That is what makes it unique.

Like I said - you've missed a lot in your 50 year nap.

 

 

 

Now we have Kerry saying that Arab countries have offered to pay for the war. Where have I heard that one before?

Nowhere. That's kind of a new thing. In the past our "allies" in the region have used the opportunity of oil war to rip us off (jacking the prices on oil and water and stuff, getting free weapons and riot gear stockpiled).

 

We didn't even get paid for kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, although to be fair the oil companies and defense contractors and banks did chip in handsomely to various domestic political campaigns - father and later son.

[EdEarl]

Syria is a quagmire.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

[overtone]

 

Syria is a quagmire.

http://www.washingto...rrassed-to-ask/

That's the best case I've heard for a military strike by the US.

[Bill Angel]

Like I said - you've missed a lot in your 50 year nap.

 

Nowhere. That's kind of a new thing. In the past our "allies" in the region have used the opportunity of oil war to rip us off (jacking the prices on oil and water and stuff, getting free weapons and riot gear stockpiled).

 

We didn't even get paid for kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, although to be fair the oil companies and defense contractors and banks did chip in handsomely to various domestic political campaigns - father and later son.

I believe that we got repaid for the costs of Operation Desert Storm.

See Donald Trump says Kuwait never paid U.S. back for ousting Saddam Hussein

To quote from that article:

Is it really true that Kuwait didnt bother paying us back after we bailed them out? Not at all.

[John Cuthber]

I saw this and wondered how valid it is

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/09/04/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline/

[Iggy]

I saw this and wondered how valid it is

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/09/04/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline/

 

I've read about that before. It's true that Russia would prefer to hold the monopoly on eastern European (and increasingly western European) energy, so they have pressured Syria not to build the pipeline. And, it's true that Qatar would prefer the pipeline be built for the sake of their own economy, and I'm sure Europe wouldn't mind the prospect of cheaper energy, but I find it really hard to believe this plays very much into the current conflict.

 

It would be about impossible to build a pipeline in the war-torn aftermath no matter which side wins and gets to rule the pile of rubble. I'm sure Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries support the downfall of Assad for mostly religious and ethnic reasons. They would rather Syria be a partner with other Sunni nations rather than Shia Iran. Syria is, after all, majority Sunni.

 

Russia just hates the idea of the west intervening in anything.

 

EDIT:

 

I forgot the US. The US doesn't want to go to war and isn't going to war with Syria, so the question "Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?" is absurd. Besides, nothing could motivate the US less than natural gas imports from the middle east.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Iggy

[overtone]

 

 

I believe that we got repaid for the costs of Operation Desert Storm.

Although that accounting only runs through 1991, covers only 5/6 of only the official incremental costs of even that (military operations ran until at least '95), and includes money from non-Arab allies not currently present, your point is taken - States in the region have pledged and actually delivered significant defrayments of military cost in the past, and that is not a new thing as I claimed. Mea culpa.

 

It did not happen in anything like that degree in thesecond Iraq War, however - it's not a tradition we could assume. If we can avoid getting scammed for big piles of cash on top of the war expenses this time (Kuwait made a lot of its outlay for 1 back on 2) we'll be ahead.

[ewmon]

Obama, a military amateur, probably didn't have contingency plans before setting a red line regarding/requiring military action. I don't see how he has the authority to engage in military action without Congress's approval, and even with Congress's blessings, it would be short-sighted to go it alone without several significant allies. France, although surprisingly on our side, doesn't count for much. Someone once said that going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. So true.

 

Obama needs Congress and plenty of allies.

[Iggy]

Obama, a military amateur, probably didn't have contingency plans before setting a red line regarding/requiring military action.

The red line was set 36 years before the president was born. Almost nobody seems to take it seriously anymore. It's weird.

 

Obama gets in trouble for saying "hey, you better not use chemical weapons", as if that's a novel thing to say. Really weird.

 

I don't see how he has the authority to engage in military action without Congress's approval, and even with Congress's blessings,

Because cruise missile strikes don't amount to a declaration of war.

 

it would be short-sighted to go it alone without several significant allies.

You think the US is incapable?

 

France, although surprisingly on our side, doesn't count for much.

After Libya and Mali it shouldn't be surprising.

 

Someone once said that going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. So true.

No, that may be funny, but not true. It's prejudiced.

 

Obama needs Congress and plenty of allies.

To lob a few cruise missiles?

 

I feel like Iraq has caused the whole world to lose perspective. A mad dictator continually escalates his use of chemical weapons indiscriminately murdering something like a thousand civilians, and everybody figures this makes for a good opportunity to give Obama a hard time because he wants to do something abut it.

 

Where are your priorities?

[Bill Angel]

I feel like Iraq has caused the whole world to lose perspective. A mad dictator continually escalates his use of chemical weapons indiscriminately murdering something like a thousand civilians, and everybody figures this makes for a good opportunity to give Obama a hard time because he wants to do something abut it.

 

Where are your priorities?

The present political conundrum does suggest a fictional scenario from the time of World War II. What if Nazi Germany had embarked on a programme of killing its political enemies with poison gas BEFORE the USA had declared war on Nazi Germany and Japan, and the USA learned about it. Would the USA have attempted to carry out military activities meant to curtail such gassing by the Nazi forces, or would isolationist sentiment in the USA have stymied any attempts by the Roosevelt Administration to do so?

[John Cuthber]

Someone once said that going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. So true.

 

LOL

The British ca. 1775

 

Anyway, I still want to know who these possible missiles might be targeted at.

Both sides have access to sarin and both sides are "mad, bad, and dangerous to know" so it's difficult to work out which side was responsible- especially since both groups would probably have had the sense to use it in a way that implicated their opponents.

 

You could, I guess, hope to find where the stuff is stockpiled and target that- but such action would almost certainly release some of the material which would leave the missile launcher open to accusations of having deliberately released poison gas in someone else's country.

If you used enough fire-power to ensure the destruction of any sarin, then the collateral damage would be a PR disaster.

 

What purpose could missiles actually serve, especially against a regimen that's happy see its own citizens killed?

[ADreamIveDreamt]

Bashar al-Assad needs to face Justice.

[Iggy]

Bashar al-Assad needs to face Justice.

 

Yeah, a few days ago Assad said in an interview, "The only way to deal with them [rebels] is to annihilate them. Only then will we be able to talk about political measures"

 

The Assad regime isn't hiding the fact that they are annihilating a sizable portion of their own population, and doing a pretty good job of it. And, John wants to know who to target, because he just can't figure it out.

 

This all got started when there were peaceful protests in the north (people asking for basic human rights) until al-Assad decided to take after his father and just started killing everybody. And, everybody sort of seems fine with that. I'm reminded of Eddie Izzard...

 

Edited September 7, 2013 by Iggy

[John Cuthber]

 

And, John wants to know who to target, because he just can't figure it out.

 

Indeed, perhaps it's just me being thick, but when those rebels include religious extremists with access to sarin, I'm genuinely not sure we should be supporting them. Their links to Al Quaeda are not strong, but it's difficult to ignore them.,

[Iggy]

Indeed, perhaps it's just me being thick, but when those rebels include religious extremists with access to sarin, I'm genuinely not sure we should be supporting them. Their links to Al Quaeda are not strong, but it's difficult to ignore them.,

 

August 18, 2011: the US, Britain, France, Germany and the EU demand Assad resign over his actions. Three months later the Arab League kicked Syria out of the organization -- an unprecedented move -- so appalled they were with Assad's crackdown.

 

Everybody else figured out what was going on two years ago. Everyone at least recognized who the bad guy was. Now, you aren't sure.

 

Fine. It's a framing effect. It's fine.

[john5746]

Russia was the bad guy in Afghanistan when Bin Laden was fighting them. Saddam was the "good" guy when fighting Iran, then he was the bad guy. After we got rid of him, we had mission accomplished and imagined ticker tape parades.

 

This isn't black and white. Get rid of the dictator, what do you get?

 

I think we need some American humility, I hope the Russian proposal to destroy the chem weapons can happen. This seems like a very reasonable compromise. We can still consider Assad a war criminal, we just don't necessarily need to start bombing.

 

The US WILL have less influence in the world, it will happen. If others don't pick up the slack, then we have to live with things like this.

[Iggy]

I hope the Russian proposal to destroy the chem weapons can happen. This seems like a very reasonable compromise.

 

Is it possible, though? Can weapons inspectors even begin to do that kind of work in the middle of a war? I don't think so -- I think there would have to be a cease fire, and that isn't about to happen. It sounded like Kerry knew it would be impossible when he said it, and maybe the only reason Russia then Syria picked up on it was because they knew it would be impossible too.

 

Without a UN peacekeeping force, I'm sure UN weapons inspectors couldn't do it, and Russia is capable of making sure no such force exists. Speaking of which...

 

This isn't black and white. Get rid of the dictator, what do you get?

The US isn't proposing to get rid of the dictator, because you are right. That, in and of itself, would be a disaster.

 

The way it should work... about a year ago Assad needed toppled with a NATO or UN force. Then a massive UN peacekeeping force needed to move in. Scold the wrongful parties, commit to humanitarian aid, and generally put things back together. But, that can't happen under constant Russian veto, and most of the world, too, has decided in the last few years that intervention just isn't worth it.

 

It is better, everyone figures, to let the rebels die (for the sake of stability), then we can sadly mourn their loss (just like Rwanda), because fighting for the living (like Bosnia) is messy and difficult. It's easier to let the innocent die, than to fight for the living. That is what international policy has boiled down to.

 

It's nauseating.

[waitforufo]

 

It sounded like Kerry knew it would be impossible when he said it, and maybe the only reason Russia then Syria picked up on it was because they knew it would be impossible too.

 

Obama set down the red line not believing that Syria would have the audacity to cross it. But Syria did. Kerry proposed eliminating chemical weapons expecting that Syria would reject the idea. But Syria accepted eliminating the weapons knowing the elimination could not be enforced. I didn't know Hans Blix was looking for work. I doubt Kerry even checked with Obama about this elimination offer. So now we have foreign policy by public blunder. I have to admit that it is entertaining. I'm sure some form of victory will be declared soon. What an embarrassment for the US.

[john5746]

Obama set down the red line not believing that Syria would have the audacity to cross it. But Syria did. Kerry proposed eliminating chemical weapons expecting that Syria would reject the idea. But Syria accepted eliminating the weapons knowing the elimination could not be enforced. I didn't know Hans Blix was looking for work. I doubt Kerry even checked with Obama about this elimination offer. So now we have foreign policy by public blunder. I have to admit that it is entertaining. I'm sure some form of victory will be declared soon. What an embarrassment for the US.

I agree, so embarrassing. I wish we could declare Assad public enemy #1, claim that he would give wmd's to terroists and begin a war in Syria. Then claim ties to Iran and invade them, get bogged down in that mess and then claim we aren't that concerned with Assad. Yeah, I miss those days, when we had a President that was hell bent on war.

[Iggy]

Obama set down the red line not believing that Syria would have the audacity to cross it. But Syria did. Kerry proposed eliminating chemical weapons expecting that Syria would reject the idea. But Syria accepted eliminating the weapons knowing the elimination could not be enforced. I didn't know Hans Blix was looking for work. I doubt Kerry even checked with Obama about this elimination offer. So now we have foreign policy by public blunder. I have to admit that it is entertaining. I'm sure some form of victory will be declared soon. What an embarrassment for the US.

 

I see where you're coming from, but you are missing something more fundamental.

 

The US is no more willing to fix this problem than anyone else. We've all become suddenly impotent.

 

A mad dictator in the middle east is committing genocide (and using chemical weapons to do it)... meanwhile you're saying "what an embarrassment for the US" and John is saying "I think we need some American humility".

 

You see the problem with that?

 

Does anybody see the problem with that? I feel like I'm alone on this.

[waitforufo]

I agree, so embarrassing. I wish we could declare Assad public enemy #1, claim that he would give wmd's to terroists and begin a war in Syria. Then claim ties to Iran and invade them, get bogged down in that mess and then claim we aren't that concerned with Assad. Yeah, I miss those days, when we had a President that was hell bent on war.

I don't recall saying I wanted to go to war in Syria. I don't believe projecting weakness is a path to war avoidance. I don't think a President should parade around like the leader of the free world and then act surprised when no other country follows. I find that embarrassing. Don't you? The current estimates are that over 100,000 people have died in a civil war that Assad could have easily avoided. I don't understand why our President is diminishing our standing in the world over the last 1500 dead bodies. We don't have any moral high ground on chemical weapons. During the Iran-Iraq war the US gave Saddam targeting information on masses of Iranian troops knowing that Saddam would gas them.

 

Now we have Putin the peace maker bailing out Obama. Like I said embarrassing.

 

 

I see where you're coming from, but you are missing something more fundamental.

 

The US is no more willing to fix this problem than anyone else. We've all become suddenly impotent.

 

A mad dictator in the middle east is committing genocide (and using chemical weapons to do it)... meanwhile you're saying "what an embarrassment for the US" and John is saying "I think we need some American humility".

 

You see the problem with that?

 

Does anybody see the problem with that? I feel like I'm alone on this.

The mad dictator is out maneuvering the US with his allies (Russia, Iran) because Obama is clueless on foreign policy. This is a crisis of Obama's making. He had a chance two years ago and blew it. He could have supported the peaceful protests in Syria. When civil war broke out he could have supported those who wanted moderate government in Syria. Instead he left a power vacuum that is now filled by extremists leaving him no options except an ineffective slap on Assad's wrist. Is there any wonder that our allies have said no?