I missing something right now? How come this isn't huge news all over? I'd have thought the locals would at least turn but they're all to busy with premiers I guess.
What is the ISIS response to this?
They are terrorists, what new terror will they unleash in response to this action?
Might be to scary to fathom if what we read about their reach is accurate
What is the ISIS response to this?
They are terrorists, what new terror will they unleash in response to this action?
Might be to scary to fathom if what we read about their reach is accurate
They're less terrorists than insurgents. Yeah they have suicide bombers at their disposal. Like the Iraq and Afghan insurgents they use suicide bombers at a tactical level, to create breaches in perimeters and things like that. Their 'power' really comes from the fact that they have guys willing to stand and fight against armies that don't. Thanks to early gains and their financial resources they are usually facing guys with similar equipment and a lot less to fight for. We don't have that problem, our soldiers don't flee, our air power sure as hell doesn't, so unless they figure out how to project power through "conventional" terrorism they will struggle to respond.
There's not much reason to believe that ISIS can do something spectacular in scope here on U.S. soil.
You can't rule out the lone-wolf psychos, of course. And that shouldn't be disregarded entirely. But it's unlikely those types are capable of anything large-scale.
evidently this war will be for free as well since nary a peep from the deficit hawks
Plenty of peeps from deficit hawks, plenty of qualms expressed. But because in broad and general terms most of them (not all of them) believe this is important enough and dangerous enough to justify intervention expressing a qualm is not the same as saying it shouldn't happen. War is happening whether we like it or not, the issue is whether or not we participate.
inside a sovereign state without the consent of that state, I presume. This should go over real well.
It's the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. Problematic, to be sure, but when one state's inability to control its territory is undermining the security of neighbor states "sovereignty" can become an excuse for inaction. And while the bulk of our drone strikes have probably been with at least the tacit consent of those states presumably some have not been.
inside a sovereign state without the consent of that state, I presume. This should go over real well.
Also we told Syria we were going to do this. Presumably they're on board since ISIL is an enemy of theirs.
If a year ago you told me we were bombing Syria... and Assad would approve I would have thought you were nuts. These things are so complex and it's why the Mccains of the word look like buffoons when they sing for bombs without really know what the fuck is going on.
I think ISIS actually forced at least the timing of the action Â
There were reports on the news earlier in the evening of masses of refugees reaching the border with Turkey forced out of their villages by recent ISIS offensives. The numbers were reportedly over 100,000. You were almost getting a Yazidi situation.
At the same time while admitting some of the refugees, the Turks were stopping Kurds at the border trying to get into Syria to fight ISIS. Curious, given their indifference to foreign fighters crossing to join ISIS over the last few years.
A very tangled web of motivations and strategies I'm still trying to work through. At least Obama got some Arab and Sunni states in on the action.
I'm sure the missiles are only going to harm the bad guys. Â
This is a flawed strategy, and will harm the citizens of Syria and Iraq, while doing little to damage ISIS. At some point we will learn to let other countries fight their own civil wars.
What does the other side do to fight back this war?
More hideous you-tube videos? Attack us on the homeland?
What kind of war posses no threat to one side?
We also hit a big Al Qaeda group who was planning a US Â
ISIS is a player in 2 ongoing civil wars. I don't see any benefit getting involved. We will undoubtedly harm innocent people and only engender more anti-American feelings in those states.
THAT will have as much an impact on potential terrorist attacks domestically as ISIS will.
These guys need to be put down, so I'm okay with this Â
soil attack. We thought by making it seem like all focus was on ISIS that we could surprise them.
As scary as ISIS is, Al Qaeda needing to make a "statement" to try and get their power back is very concerning.
The actions against the so-called Khorasan Group are definitely more important, at least in the short-term, from a homeland security point of view. I had never heard of these guys before last night.
inside a sovereign state without the consent of that state, I presume. This should go over real well.
Also we told Syria we were going to do this. Presumably they're on board since ISIL is an enemy of theirs.
If a year ago you told me we were bombing Syria... and Assad would approve I would have thought you were nuts. These things are so complex and it's why the Mccains of the word look like buffoons when they sing for bombs without really know what the fuck is going on.
Not so fast.Bear in mind it is the Syrians, and them alone, to the best of my knowledge, who claim we gave them advance warning. The administration on the other hand denied giving advanced warning.
Near as I can gather we notified the Syrian ambassador to the U.N. mere moments before missiles and bombs struck targets.That way they can claim they were consulted, and not look like the bitches they desperately want to avoid looking like ( remember it is Syria who is pressing the claim we gave them advance warning). At the same time we didn't give the Syrians long enough to warn anyone, including Jihadists they don't mind having around because they are at war with The Free Syrian army and have basically deballed an non radical insurgents.ISIS and Assad's regime have a tacit understanding, common in the Arab world, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."In no way did the U.S. want to give advance notice and have the Syrian govt' potentially either interfere with the attacks or warn potential targets.
They may have technically notified an ambassador out of country after missiles were launched and before they struck targets, but they did not ask or receive permission.
if you think Assad gave permission for the U.S., SA, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE etc. to strike targets in Syria you're nuts.We didn't ask, we just did it.
ISIS is a player in 2 ongoing civil wars. I don't see any benefit getting involved. We will undoubtedly harm innocent people and only engender more anti-American feelings in those states.
THAT will have as much an impact on potential terrorist attacks domestically as ISIS will.
Maybe somebody needed an October suprise to help with elections upcoming and a poor showing for their party in polls on national security issues.Always goes over good with the boys.
There is your benefit.
speaking of which......
Speeches and a crackdown on a male dominated sport over domestic violence can't hurt with women voters either, can it?
Come on, what "October Surprise" would change the electoral landscape? If Osama were still alive, catching him might qualify, but I din't see anything that could come out of this that would have the same impact, but the tin foil hat does look good on you.
ISIS is a player in 2 ongoing civil wars. I don't see any benefit getting involved. We will undoubtedly harm innocent people and only engender more anti-American feelings in those states.
THAT will have as much an impact on potential terrorist attacks domestically as ISIS will.
Maybe somebody needed an October suprise to help with elections upcoming and a poor showing for their party in polls on national security issues.Always goes over good with the boys.
There is your benefit.
speaking of which......
Speeches and a crackdown on a male dominated sport over domestic violence can't hurt with women voters either, can it?
Meanwhile, Jordan is running out of space and resources for Syrian Refuges, and ISIS was threatening to take more and more territory.
And certain wackos in the Republican party want a full-blown shooting war. But that isn't politics, I guess.
A case can be made that we should have armed the so-called moderate rebels much earlier. Another case can be made that we needed to get critical mass of support from other nations in the neighborhood. Many experts of all stripes are actually surprised at how many Arab countries are participating. The one we need much more help from is Turkey, because of their porous common border and greater military strength than many of the other players--among many other reasons.
Erdogan is resistant, in part because of the Kurds, in part because of his quasi-extremist views on Islam. But, he will be dragged in eventually, I suspect.
A case can be made that we should have armed the so-called moderate rebels much earlier. Another case can be made that we needed to get critical mass of support from other nations in the neighborhood. Many experts of all stripes are actually surprised at how many Arab countries are participating. The one we need much more help from is Turkey, because of their porous common border and greater military strength than many of the other players--among many other reasons.
Erdogan is resistant, in part because of the Kurds, in part because of his quasi-extremist views on Islam. But, he will be dragged in eventually, I suspect.
1. A case could also be made that if the "moderates" had been armed earlier that the critical mass would not have been needed. Now that it's needed and there, particularly the fact it's Sunni, it's a positive.
2. Turkey is the mystery to me. As opposed to Jordan, which does have a massive refugee problem, the latest wave of refugees was headed to Turkey. But as I said above, yesterday Turkey was preventing Kurds from crossing into Syria to fight ISIS with much more zeal than it has been preventing foreign fighters from crossing to join ISIS. I realize that they may have been constrained by the 42 diplomatic hostages held until last weekend, but the extreme nature of their policies surprise me.
most of the reading I did on the country is a decade old or older so I'm not particularly qualified to give an opinion, but to the extent that I understand it you have a leader in Erdogan who certainly wants to take the country in a more religiously conservative direction but who still fears extremism and who is ever mindful of the status of religious and ethnic minorities in the East. Turkey's take on what the right play is in this situation seems to be in flux and really hasn't been cognizable for several months.
I could tell you stories about how they were handled during the gulf wars and we looked the other way knowing exactly what they were doings. Kurds are a pretty badass group of people that hopefully someday get their own defined country and borders.
We had to have Arab countries involved in this. This is a muslim war. It has to be more of a civil war within Muslim then a western driven USA cowboy movie. Very happy with how we are going about this.
1. A case could also be made that if the "moderates" had been armed earlier that the critical mass would not have been needed. Now that it's needed and there, particularly the fact it's Sunni, it's a positive.
[You mean the same moderates rebels who captured journalist Steven Sotloff and then sold hime to ISIS ? yes we definitely should be arming them!]
2. Turkey is the mystery to me. As opposed to Jordan, which does have a massive refugee problem, the latest wave of refugees was headed to Turkey. But as I said above, yesterday Turkey was preventing Kurds from crossing into Syria to fight ISIS with much more zeal than it has been preventing foreign fighters from crossing to join ISIS. I realize that they may have been constrained by the 42 diplomatic hostages held until last weekend, but the extreme nature of their policies surprise me.
[Yes it is truly baffling why Turkey isn't helping the Kurds more.. I mean there are only 25 milllion Kurds in Turkey who have been fighting a guerrilla war for independence from Turkey for the last 20 years ]
why would Turkey want to prevent Kurds from fighting in Syria when the that, and ISIS's decision to go after the Kurds as opposed to Assad (no friend of Erdogan) produces a wave of predominantly Kurdish refugees entering Turkey? Short term it makes absolutely no sense. And even long term I don't see a benefit to Turkey of having a large population of refugee Kurds within it's borders. Once there, I don't see them sending them back to an ISIS controlled state for what would likely be a genocide.
in Syria was ever an option. How did we know who the moderates were? It would have been just as likely that we would have armed factions of ISIS as well.
And I am even more skeptical of our bombing thwarting a terror attack here in the US. I'm a little doubtful that they could have launched an attack here from 6,000 miles away. It sounds a little too convenient.
possibly being harmed ignores that it's more probable that more civilians would be harmed doing nothing, on top of the geo-political downside to doing nothing.
but the question is, will "doing something" accomplish anything? My comment on civilians was more due to the fact that our bombing their homes, businesses and mosques makes them more easily swayed to take an anti-American attitude, and be exploited by ISIS, al Qaeda, etc.
If Obama had chosen not to participate, he and the Democrats would be getting absolutely shredded by Republicans and by the media for not going after ISIS.
I can't for the life of me believe we're doing this. We have learned Jack Shit from the last 25 years.
I think the upcoming election is a major driver for this action. Our politics suck.
How the fuck do you agree with him, but when I say the same thing it's tinfoil hat time. I call bullshit.
Seems I hit a sore spot.Not that I was saying we shouldn't have attacked them, mind you.And not like I don't think republicans pull the same thing.They do and did.
Meanwhile I still say he and his party get a boost in the polls. You want to pretend it doesn't give a shot in the arm to a president who has been polling low on National security all year, go ahead, but it's disingenuous.The man asked, what would be a motive?I simply answered.Again how you disagree when it comes from me but agree when it comes from someone else is bullshit.
The fact is if he actually intended to do something substantial it would have been done long ago.These limited strikes are for show and achieve little to nothing.
but the question is, will "doing something" accomplish anything? My comment on civilians was more due to the fact that our bombing their homes, businesses and mosques makes them more easily swayed to take an anti-American attitude, and be exploited by ISIS, al Qaeda, etc.
Here's an alternative, which can't be confirmed or discounted until the exact list of targets is known. If the homes, businesses or mosques being bombed (assuming those are the structures actually being bombed) are those of:
* Syrian Kurds whose alternative is genocide at the hands of ISIS, or
* ISIS itself
then how much additional anti-American attitude will be created?
...if you want to draw the United States into a military conflict, simply cut some poor bastards head off in the months leading up to an election.
We are giant suckers.
The Brits too - after announcing they wanted no part of it, off comes one of their heads.
You might want to throw a little genocide into that mix. Without that issue with respect to the Yazidis and the Syrian Kurds I'm not sure this would have happened, particularly on this time table.
LA Times story on recent flood of refugees into Turkey Â
130,000 in the last few days. I don't see how this couldn't have affected at least the timing of the air strikes. Also illustrates why I'm a little perplexed by Turkey's response. Link - ( New Window )
GWG, because x meadowlander didn't stray into the Â
"October Surprise" conspiracy bullshit. Sorry, that's where you lose me; like Obama has something in the wings to pull out next month that will sway the election.
I agree that politics played a role, but it was, IMO, a defensive move by Obama, not an offensive one.
One has to consider the risks if the US--with more allies than most experts anticipated--sat back and did nothing:
1) A vast increase in the level of genocide in both Iraq and Syria. A vastly increased refugee crisis.
2) A locking in of the Caliphate as a de facto nation.
3) A growing beleif that the West is "weak"--that is the way these types think--and additional moves to exploit that weakness.
4) Massive recruiting opportunities for ISIS and its "cousins" in Yemen, Somolia, Nigeria, etc.
5) Increased threats of re-infiltration of European- and US sourced extremsits back to their homelands.
6) Weakened incentives for the new Iraqi government to act at least slightly inclusive.
7) Real risks to oil fields.
8) Real risks that the Kurdish sector of Iraq would be overrun. They are not strong enough on their own to stave off a continually strengthening ISIS, which was adding an annualized $6 billion to its coffers.
9) A strong risk that additional importantinfrastrucutre would be overrun and used a weapons--e.g., dams.
10) More opportunities for ISIS to INCREASE its revenue generating capabilities.
For the "anti" group, which of those is incorrect?
Nice post. If These Arab countries are truly heavily involved, then this is actually a huge shift. This war has to be a civil one within Islam. We can't win hearts and minds but they can. Let them jump into the fire. Its their fire.
!) I don't see how a massive bombing campaign is a solution to a refugee crisis, as opposed to the cause of one.
2) Is this really a concern? Who's running that nation, sure, but that area of the ME has been an artificial construct since WW1.
3) Who cares what they think? Terrorists will always say that the west (US) is weak, bombing plays right into their hands.
4) Nothing contributed to al Qaeda's "recruiting campaign" more than our invasion of Iraq. Likewise, any bombing campaign will serve ISIS and al Qaeda recruitment better than any effort those groups could make.
5) I'm not sure how a bombing campaign prevents this.
6) Again, this is a sectarian civil war, any Muslim sect is going to be targeted by the other. At the end of the day (thanks Antrell!), it is up to them to fight that battle.
7) Oil fields are the reason these clowns are fighting, they want access to the pot of gold. Unlikely they would kill the golden goose.
8) That is a legitimate threat. Arm and finance the Kurds.
9) Maybe so, but the same thing could happen after a bombing campaign.
10) After looting Iraq's banks, they have all the revenue they need, unfortunately. But again, any bombing campaign is more likely to move moderates over to ISIS side.
I don't know that bombing is necessarily the answer... Â
but the idea that "it's just their war" isn't really the case. If they get their hands on significant oil reserves it will bring the global economy to its knees. There are no obvious geographic borders to constrain them, as there were in Afghanistan with the Taliban. "Their war" could rapidly become our war, or at least Europe's.
And this idea that we're out there willy-nilly killing civilians pays little heed to the reality of how war is fought. When you're striking the targets of an army in the field the risk of civilian casualties is very low. In Iraq and Afghanistan you were fighting insurgents who lived among the local population and blended in easily with them. Even in the border regions of Pakistan we were (are) mostly concerned with the transport of men, rather than military equipment, so the possibility of mistake is greater. Men riding on military equipment and firing artillery pieces are not easily confused with goatherds.
That's my concern, that this whole affair will be micromanaged from the White House and too limited to actually accomplish anything. Air strikes can stop IS where they are, but air power alone cannot clear territory.
I'll keep beating this drum - arm the Kurds. Heavily. They're the closest thing to a real ally we have in that region, they're facing an existential threat and they can fight without the training wheels required by the Iraqi Army. Between the peshmerga of the Iraqi Kurds and the YPG of the Syrian Kurds, they've proven that they can hold their own on the battlefield but they need materiel and supplies.
Understood Duned, but ISIS is not your typical standing army. Â
Sure, they have (somewhat significant) military assets, but they also have fighters ingrained within communities. It's far from as clear cut as it was fighting Saddam's armies.
Sure, they have (somewhat significant) military assets, but they also have fighters ingrained within communities. It's far from as clear cut as it was fighting Saddam's armies.
I get that, but based on the early reports it does not seem like we're getting involved enough to start trying to root them out in those communities. It looks like we're predominately striking equipment and camps.
1. The article I linked reported 130,000 new refugees due to the ISIS offensive against the Syrian Kurds. Airstrikes would not create anything like that number of refugees. This is not WWII area bombing. And the ISIS offensive poses the risk of genocide, which you didn't address.
2. Yes it is a concern. Any safe haven is.
3. We care what they think if it leads to further aggression, either in the ME or elsewhere in the world.
4. Comparative recruiting opportunities. With Sunni involvement, I believe this reduces the recruiting opportunity.
5. Lack of a safe haven reduces the opportunity, particularly long term.
6. But it still provides an incentive for Bagdad to pull back from the worst of Maliki
7. Unintended consequences.
8. Already have consensus on the problem.
9. We already had a bombing campaign close to a dam that did not damage it. Actually, 2 dams. This is not 1000 B-17s doing pattern bombing
10. Now is the time to start depleting their hoard.
I'm not disputing that there are legal issues with this, but it is nothing that hasn't been done on hundreds of occasions through drone strikes. And why is a bullet somehow less offensive than a bomb? We used a few of the former in the Bin Laden raid.
My point was, we unilaterally used military force on the territory of a sovereign country. Bombs or boots it doesn't matter, we breached a sovereign nation. And Pakistan is our ally, at least nominally.
What we're doing in Syria isn't all that unprecedented. You may dislike that precedent, but that's a different discussion (but it's a good discussion to have.
then the USA should have had no problem with Russia attacking Ukrainian "terrorists.'
There is no precedent for this scale. This is scary on the highest level. The president just simply decrees that he has legal authority then refuses to provide it to the American public.
He needed Congress to authorize this or get a UN declaration. He did neither
RE: LA Times story on recent flood of refugees into Turkey Â
130,000 in the last few days. I don't see how this couldn't have affected at least the timing of the air strikes. Also illustrates why I'm a little perplexed by Turkey's response. Link - ( New Window )
Edrogan is not an extremist, but he isn't a moderate either. I'm sure part of the reason Obama did this is to take some pressure off Turkey who really doesn't want a flood of Kurds who already give them a headache with their ambitions of statehood, p[art of which they prefer come from Kurd dominated eastern Turkey.Ceasefire between turks and kurds or no, he bears them no love, and it serves his purposes to have ISIS beat up on them a bit. He also may not be betting on ISIS being ousted longterm anytime soon, and may recognize a political reality that he would rather have ISIS nipping at the sauds and the Iranians than him.
Bear in mind, regardless of Turkeys position within NATO ( which I view them as next ti useless)they still support HAMAS, and TURKEY and QATAR are Hamas'#1 supporters.His sympathies lie closer to ISIS than they do to the US.
we would do well to remember that in the last war there Turkey refused to let US forces into the country, and we had to delay the start of festiv,,,err, hostilities by over a month because Turkey wouldn't let the US 4th Infantry Division landin Turkey and then invade out of it into Northern Iraq, Kinda screwed the whole operation up and made sure it took a long ass time till we had control over the northern part of the country, which we never relaly did establish, instead letting US friendly Kurds administer the region instead.Turkey also doesn't like the fact that it is under the US occupation that the Kurds became so empowered. He resents us for it.
Those are the best reasons I can come up with to answer the question as to why is Turkey not more supportive.Frankly I think their membership in NATO was purely to prevent them from falling under Russian/Soviet influence. I don't see them as true partners the way the nations of western europe are.
than went on vacation. I couldn't agree more that actions like this should involve congress, but congress has been more and more willing to pass that responsibility to the president.
This dates back far longer than the Obama presidency or GWB, for that matter. Now congress can claim credit if it works, or blame the president if it fails.
then the USA should have had no problem with Russia attacking Ukrainian "terrorists.'
There is no precedent for this scale. This is scary on the highest level. The president just simply decrees that he has legal authority then refuses to provide it to the American public.
He needed Congress to authorize this or get a UN declaration. He did neither
You act like this is something unprecedented though. It isn't. See Libya and most of the drone strikes of the last 13 years.
RE: GWG, because x meadowlander didn't stray into the Â
"October Surprise" conspiracy bullshit. Sorry, that's where you lose me; like Obama has something in the wings to pull out next month that will sway the election.
I agree that politics played a role, but it was, IMO, a defensive move by Obama, not an offensive one.
You misunderstand. This was the suprise, his ,move, if any.I'm not anticipating anything else.
Was a curious thing, as Rep[ublican pundits all weekend were talking about what exactly it would be, and they expected one. Then Monday this happens.All I'm saying is Mainstream republicans (I'm not one, regardless of how certain posters would portray me) consider this his "october suprise".Listen to any right wing pundits and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Fair enough, GWG, sorry I misinterpreted your post, Â
but this has been anticipated for weeks now. More like an August surprise than an October. And I agree with x that it was done to stem electoral losses rather than in anticipation of swinging the electorate to the Dem side.
because he clearly would get congressional approval to declare war. But he won't because this is all political. I don't view drone attacks the same way as full scale bombings.
BTW, the Libya bombings were unconscionable. A horrible strategy. The country is being taken over by the worst elements.
RE: Yeah, that's what this is, electoral politics. Â
Meanwhile, Jordan is running out of space and resources for Syrian Refuges, and ISIS was threatening to take more and more territory.
And certain wackos in the Republican party want a full-blown shooting war. But that isn't politics, I guess.
A case can be made that we should have armed the so-called moderate rebels much earlier. Another case can be made that we needed to get critical mass of support from other nations in the neighborhood. Many experts of all stripes are actually surprised at how many Arab countries are participating. The one we need much more help from is Turkey, because of their porous common border and greater military strength than many of the other players--among many other reasons.
Erdogan is resistant, in part because of the Kurds, in part because of his quasi-extremist views on Islam. But, he will be dragged in eventually, I suspect.
I will say this:if there is any country worth a shit in the mideast worth going to war over, and supporting with boots on ground, it's Jordan. Jordan goes Militant islalmist and we are game over in mideast, Israel wouldn't last 20 years.Israel is already going to have a real demographic problem in 20-25 years when all the palestinians who stayed iN Israel, never left, wide up being the majprity by demographics.I don't know how citizenship for Palestinians born in Israel works, or what their voting rights are, but when they become the majority I don't see how a democracy can deny them their place.It's a reality Israel is somehow going to have to come to terms with.
Jordan was the first Country that made peace with Israel, and Jordan has a King who is half American by blood( his mother is NY born american).They are one of only 2 real democracies in the region( the other being Israel), and as such are the only Arab Nation that are our Natural allies, by form of Govt.You could include egypt I guess but the Birthplace and sanctuary of the Islalmic brotherhood doesn't fill me with confidence, especially not with all those tunnels going into Gaza from Egypt.
If Jordan is threatened, we should, we HAVE to, defend them, in my mind.
in Syria was ever an option. How did we know who the moderates were? It would have been just as likely that we would have armed factions of ISIS as well.
And I am even more skeptical of our bombing thwarting a terror attack here in the US. I'm a little doubtful that they could have launched an attack here from 6,000 miles away. It sounds a little too convenient.
We did arm them. It's a known fact that several dozen ISIS core CADREs were trained in Jordan by US advisers under the notion they were moderates. Or so we claim.How do you think ISIS got to be as proficient as they were and just kind of sprang us "in place". was Jordanian and US traing and funding initially of what were supposed to be moderate rebels looking to fight Assad.In short, we been there, done that.
because he clearly would get congressional approval to declare war. But he won't because this is all political. I don't view drone attacks the same way as full scale bombings.
BTW, the Libya bombings were unconscionable. A horrible strategy. The country is being taken over by the worst elements.
When was the last time we declared war? We don't have declarations of war anymore, we have mealy-mouthed resolutions and authorizations and memoranda. I understand where you're coming from, I don't think your objections are without merit, but that ship has sailed.
RE: So, the lesson for the world is going to be... Â
That's my concern, that this whole affair will be micromanaged from the White House and too limited to actually accomplish anything. Air strikes can stop IS where they are, but air power alone cannot clear territory.
I'll keep beating this drum - arm the Kurds. Heavily. They're the closest thing to a real ally we have in that region, they're facing an existential threat and they can fight without the training wheels required by the Iraqi Army. Between the peshmerga of the Iraqi Kurds and the YPG of the Syrian Kurds, they've proven that they can hold their own on the battlefield but they need materiel and supplies.
Agree 100% with every word.A sustained endless war is BAD for the US.
yeah I agree about Congress. The hawks were so happy the president would do this, they just closed their eyes and ran away. They are probably just happy they don't have to cast a vote like this before their elections.
to attack a sovereign nation and this is beyond outrageous. If he does, then he should tell America what it is.
This is how we got bin Laden. We basically invaded Pakistan.
The thing of it is, we have already stated publicly that we don't think their leader is legitimate, so, as the head of his state we really don't give a shit about him being pissed at us. He has been a russian stooge his whole life.We have no relationship to preserve with them, they are sworn enemies of our close Ally Israel, but, as I said initially, it's irrelevant, as we don't recognize the current government of Syria as legitimate.Obama has said repeatedly he must step down.
11. The very good news for a bombing campaign in the areas held by ISIS is that this isn't Afghanistan, or Pakistan. It's a huge area of mostly desert. We can find these guys any time they are on the move, and many times in small towns where the original civilians have manages to escape. They have begun to camouflage their heavy weapons while they are at rest, but any time they become operative, we have satellites and drones around to identify where whey are and then precision bomb them.
12. As far as boots on the ground are concerned, Iraq shouldn't be that hard. The Kurds will play, the Shiite militias will play, some parts of the Iraqi army will play. A key reason the Iraqi army cut and run last time was fucking Maliki, who had given Sunnis in his own army no reason to take on Sunni extremists, and who had replaced all of his quality senior officers with political hacks. One of the reasons he wouldn't give up power was because he thought he would be killed if he did. He should be. He is the single greatest reason for the current mess.
Syria is, of course,, much, much harder in terms of the boots on the ground aspect--the so-called moderate opposition is so weak, and is fighting on two fronts. This is a key reason why we need allies. I also expect that ultimately US Special Forces will be involved, because we will need a way to respond to downings of our own airplanes and helicoptors, and because there is expertise that they provide locals can't, in terms of targetting, logisitics, etc.
Section 331, njm responded to your comments, which also contain massive flaws--as usual--that I don't have time or interest in responding to. I will respond to one, though: why perceptions of weakness matter. You are aware, I am sure (/sarcasm) that one of the key reasons for 9/11 was OBL's belief that the US had become weak and lazy, and that any response would reflect that?
then the USA should have had no problem with Russia attacking Ukrainian "terrorists.'
There is no precedent for this scale. This is scary on the highest level. The president just simply decrees that he has legal authority then refuses to provide it to the American public.
He needed Congress to authorize this or get a UN declaration. He did neither
Perhaps you need to read the 1973 War Powers Act. the president can commit US troops for () days without saying fuckall to cngress, after which if he doesn't have their approval he must have US forces withdrawn from theater within another 90 days.Thes are the actual legal limits of his power.
and you say he's not an extremist? Maybe I don't understand what you think an extremist is?
Meh, listen, I don't like the guy, but I'm not well like don here and was trying to avoid a shitstorm by saying that the president of a NATO nation is a muslim extremist.I prefer to be politic and call him a strongman.Who likes to screw with israel for his own reason. And the US as well, for that matter, as I expleained in earlier posts about his stance towards the kurds, and us for having empowered them.
I'll keep beating this drum - arm the Kurds. Heavily. They're the closest thing to a real ally we have in that region, they're facing an existential threat and they can fight without the training wheels required by the Iraqi Army. Between the peshmerga of the Iraqi Kurds and the YPG of the Syrian Kurds, they've proven that they can hold their own on the battlefield but they need material and supplies.
Not that it isn't without its risks, but it is, by far, the least risky option. The Kurds have something tangible to fight for - their own country. My only question is whether they could come up with the manpower to defeat ISIS. I honestly don't know the answer to that question.
The plots against the United States were discovered by the intelligence community in the past week, an intelligence source with knowledge of the matter told CNN. The source did not say what the target may have been, but said the plot involved a bomb made of a nonmetallic device, toothpaste container, and clothes dipped in explosive material. Link - ( New Window )
President Dwight D. Eisenhower: "A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. … That isn't preventive war; that is war. I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."
just I don't like the way we casually do this. This is not good for either party.
I hear you. I really do. I'm totally a rule of law guy.The thing is like greg said, go strong or not at all. We blew 100 million in munitions yesterday, easy, 80 mil just on the Tomohawks. We killed about 28 ISIS guys and 8 civilians by my intel.That's a shitty bargain.Half a moron knows you can't do shit with airpower alone. and respecting Syrian Sov or not, we will never be putting US troops in syria, the russians won't allow iot. Having said that it's clear UIS special forces are already there , as some videos were clearly taken on the ground from US troops as can be heard by their comments on the tapes. Also, some strikes were clearly from Helocopter gunships, so someone somewhere nearby is basing US choppers there. They didn't come from a US amphib.
I tried to type in 90 days under the war powers act that the president can commit troops without a say so from congress, not () days.
Numbers i compiled myself from dif news outlets that cited casualty counts at dif locations. I imagine they did more material damage than anything, TBH.Seriously though, what did CNN give for numbers?
If this is true, throw most of the discussion above in the garbage. Â
There has been a lot of speculations regarding accleration of the timing of the attack. The timing of the strike was apparently accellerated because of the need to destroy a chunk of the Al Qaeda afilliate, Khorasan.
Quote:
Airstrikes in Syria against the extremist Khorasan group were prompted by planning for an “imminent” terror attack on U.S. soil, the Pentagon said.
“We believe the individuals plotting and planning it were eliminated” in the eight U.S. airstrikes overnight, Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said today in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” program.
Amid attention on the threat from Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Khorasan has emerged in recent weeks as a more immediate peril in the view of the U.S. intelligence community because it’s more focused on attacking America and Europe.
The militant group is made up of a “network of seasoned al-Qaeda veterans” preparing to attack “United States and Western interests,” the Defense Department said in a statement. U.S. officials so far have provided no details about the terrorists’ planned attack or the credibility of the intelligence they had on it.
I doubt that they would have started the bombing of ISIS in Syria yesterday if they weren't already going to breach borders to take out Khorisan.
Numbers i compiled myself from dif news outlets that cited casualty counts at dif locations. I imagine they did more material damage than anything, TBH.Seriously though, what did CNN give for numbers?
Got the number from Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has apparently got 200 observers in country and been giving casualty counts since 2011. 70 ISIS killed and 300 wounded. No estimate of civilian casualties.
RE: If this is true, throw most of the discussion above in the garbage. Â
There has been a lot of speculations regarding accleration of the timing of the attack. The timing of the strike was apparently accellerated because of the need to destroy a chunk of the Al Qaeda afilliate, Khorasan.
Quote:
Airstrikes in Syria against the extremist Khorasan group were prompted by planning for an “imminent” terror attack on U.S. soil, the Pentagon said.
“We believe the individuals plotting and planning it were eliminated” in the eight U.S. airstrikes overnight, Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said today in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” program.
Amid attention on the threat from Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Khorasan has emerged in recent weeks as a more immediate peril in the view of the U.S. intelligence community because it’s more focused on attacking America and Europe.
The militant group is made up of a “network of seasoned al-Qaeda veterans” preparing to attack “United States and Western interests,” the Defense Department said in a statement. U.S. officials so far have provided no details about the terrorists’ planned attack or the credibility of the intelligence they had on it.
I doubt that they would have started the bombing of ISIS in Syria yesterday if they weren't already going to breach borders to take out Khorisan. Link - ( New Window )
I'm sure that was an important consideration, but I think the sudden flood of refugees played a part as well.
to attack a sovereign nation and this is beyond outrageous. If he does, then he should tell America what it is.
Except that we did not attack that sovereign nation. We attacked an outlaw terrorist group which that nation is also at war with. A fine point perhaps, but the way you framed it is calibrated to paint a picture that skews the reality.
that's a distinction without a difference. We're bombing Syria. That should mean we get permission from Syria to do that. I'm guessing Assad is not too happy with us on one hand and on the other he's happy that we're doing his dirty work.
And whomever was talking about Khorasan, just note that the campaign includes striking ISIS targets as well. So my original comment holds.
Again, I support this venture. It's just that it creates an ability for a president to launch attacks without congressional consent. I think that is very bad. Not that I am giving Congress a pass either. They punted on Libya and they punted on this. Feel free to disagree
there's a difference between attacking a nation and attacking a terrorist group that said nation is also fighting, then there's not much more I can say. Now, do I think it should have been done differently, or do I think the legal basis might be shakey? Maybe, but to say there's no difference is, well .... (speechless)
" As the U.S. expands its war against the Islamic State, the Army is preparing to deploy a division headquarters to Iraq.
Officials have not identified the division that will deploy — the first division headquarters to go to Iraq since the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.
An official announcement is expected in the coming days. But Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno recently confirmed the Army “will send another division headquarters to Iraq to control what we’re doing there, a small headquarters.”
It’s unclear how many soldiers will be sent, or how long they will deploy. Division headquarters average between 100 and 500 soldiers and deploy for one year."
Mission creep?Sounds like we're going back to war in Iraq.You don't deploy a division HQ unless the Division is going to follow.
I'll be shocked if he does this the right way. On the other hand, if he is, then where was the debate on it?
just I don't like the way we casually do this. This is not good for either party.
If you think that our nation just "casually do this," you are dumber than even I have told you regarding your simpleton understanding of how our nation come to these decisions.
Many don't agree how this administration or many other have decided to conduct military operations in the past, but the decision makers just don't casually decide to circumvent our national or even international law as you so stupidly suggest. A lot of decision-making calculus is conducted by people far more qualified than you (and obviously with more information). You don't like it just like many others don't either, and that's your prerogative. But to state that our nation just casually decide to conduct military operations show why you continue to sound like a fucking idiot whenever you jump into any of these conversations you have very little understanding of beyond reading some conservative drivel of news sites.
If this was in response to my post, let me put into context my issue with Bake54.
He's a simpleton, who uses what he reads on some shitty partisan websites to make stupid comments regarding topics he barely understands beyond what a high schooler knows. He does little self research and merely parrots what he reads from some garbage websites.
Brings almost nothing to the table of any substance beyond throwing veiled political barbs regarding the decisions being made. Just as FMiC doesn't suffer fools when it comes to Game Day Threads, it annoys the shit out of me when people talk out of their asses about national security matters when it is clear they don't know shit about it and have done little to no honest research. Even the picture he posted above (from another stupid partisan website) is false as TTH stated. That's the simpleton level of contribution he brings.
just I don't like the way we casually do this. This is not good for either party.
If you think that our nation just "casually do this," you are dumber than even I have told you regarding your simpleton understanding of how our nation come to these decisions.
Many don't agree how this administration or many other have decided to conduct military operations in the past, but the decision makers just don't casually decide to circumvent our national or even international law as you so stupidly suggest. A lot of decision-making calculus is conducted by people far more qualified than you (and obviously with more information). You don't like it just like many others don't either, and that's your prerogative. But to state that our nation just casually decide to conduct military operations show why you continue to sound like a fucking idiot whenever you jump into any of these conversations you have very little understanding of beyond reading some conservative drivel of news sites.
so all opinions and arguments are valid. That is patently false.
There are number of people on BBI with personal experience bordering on subject matter expertise in many areas that are discussed. And some who don't have personal experience have done much honest research to gain more insight in the nuances of such topics. These individuals bring a lot to provide substance to the discussion.
However, we also have a lot of people, who think they know what they're talking about because they watch some network news coverage or read on some partisan drivel of websites regarding topics of discussion (this can be said for the football side of the house as well). But instead of coming into a discussion to learn, they start spouting their own simplistic view of what is being discussed. When they are provided with more nuanced views by others, they don't listen but rather get into a long argument showing their lack of knowledge and much times their poorly veiled political views.
If you don't know what you're talking about, shut your pie hole and learn from others. That's what good discussions are about, to learn from others. But if you decide to jump in with your simplistic view, then you're probably going to get ridiculed, especially if you double down and continue to show just how little you know of the situation.
HH...I'm definitely not referring to you with my last post. Please don't take this as an offense, but one of the things I like most about you is that you don't really take yourself too seriously whenever you get into a discussion. You occasionally throw out posts for levity's sake and are actually pretty good at leaving much of the heavy discussions to those with more knowledge when you feel like you don't have much to add to the discussion.
But yes, staying at Holiday Inn Express does make you a bit smarter than you were the night before.
I try to take it all with a grain of salt. I post a lot of dumb things that I know as soon as I hit submit, but for the most part it is fun or I wouldn't be here. Oh by the way you are no longer in consideration for the Mother Teresa of BBI
Nothing is worse than arguing with someone who only has very little in depth knowledge of a subject and refuses to listen to those who have may a better understanding whether through personal experiences or actually taking the time to educate themeselves so they know what the ef they are talking about. I think arrogance lies with those who refuse to listen and actually learn something outside of their narrow politival viewpoints.
have no right an informed opinion. Already, we have some of our Syrian rebel "allies" complaining about our strikes on the Nosru Front (allegedly part of the al Qaeda affiliate, Khorasan). Strange bedfellows and all that.
I just don't believe there is any way to win this battle. The groups we are fighting with today may be fighting with ISIS or Khorasan tomorrow. Wait...they already were fighting with Khorasan!
Call it arrogance. You can have opposing views on any matter in a discussion, and they will both be right on certain aspects. No one here is saying one side is more right than the other. I've been proven wrong on many occasions during a discussion and argument. As long as the opposing views are based on honest research, knowledge, I'm all for any views on a matter.
The issue I have (and this is my personal view, so take it or leave it) is that people come onto a discussion with shitty understanding of the situation and turn it into and argument session instead of a productive discussion session (not sure why I even expect this from BBI). And much of the shitty understanding is based on people either being lazy with regards to learning about the topic or being entrenched in their political views that they formed by only read sources that they are used to (such as partisan websites, etc.). If these people came on to learn, that'll be one thing, but much of the time, they come on to throw out veiled political barbs and just double down when they are given a more nuanced information by those, who have done their research or have experience and knowledge.
RE: I disagree with the notion that those of us who haven't serve Â
have no right an informed opinion. Already, we have some of our Syrian rebel "allies" complaining about our strikes on the Nosru Front (allegedly part of the al Qaeda affiliate, Khorasan). Strange bedfellows and all that.
I just don't believe there is any way to win this battle. The groups we are fighting with today may be fighting with ISIS or Khorasan tomorrow. Wait...they already were fighting with Khorasan!
Who said anything about serving? Matter of fact, the best view points and knowledge in these discussions have been brought by those who never served, and this is based on their honest research and learning.
Call it arrogance. You can have opposing views on any matter in a discussion, and they will both be right on certain aspects. No one here is saying one side is more right than the other. I've been proven wrong on many occasions during a discussion and argument. As long as the opposing views are based on honest research, knowledge, I'm all for any views on a matter.
The issue I have (and this is my personal view, so take it or leave it) is that people come onto a discussion with shitty understanding of the situation and turn it into and argument session instead of a productive discussion session (not sure why I even expect this from BBI). And much of the shitty understanding is based on people either being lazy with regards to learning about the topic or being entrenched in their political views that they formed by only read sources that they are used to (such as partisan websites, etc.). If these people came on to learn, that'll be one thing, but much of the time, they come on to throw out veiled political barbs and just double down when they are given a more nuanced information by those, who have done their research or have experience and knowledge.
I admit I am pretty late to this party, so I am doing more reading than reacting... so maybe you can help me...
1. Does air striking prolong any conflict we have with ISIL?
2. Does releasing aiding nations only make this situation worse?
3. Is Obama using too much power by supposedly doing something "illegal?" It seems like Dems are at odds with Obama by the growing fay.
stop trolling me. I told you to leave me alone and I mean that. Bother someone else. Go away.Last time I say this.
Eh...I'm going to call a stupid a stupid. So stop making idiotic comments (and posting false pictures to add to it) if you don't want someone to call you out on it. If you bring something of substance, then we won't have any issues.
You need to be proactive in finding a variety of sources Â
There's good reporting out there, but limiting yourself to a few major media outlets isn't the way to find it. The more you read, the more you'll start to get a feel for who's serious and who isn't.
Trolling? Everyone that challenges your nonsense is trolling? Â
You cry on the George Zimmerman threads that you are being trolled when
your bullshit is called out. Don't post if you are a sensitive vagina that can't take the heat. Now you can warn me to stop trolling you
go away..don't comment on anything I say. You could have disagreed without bring disagreeable. You could have made your points without getting personal. But in your superior and infinite wisdom you decided to make it personal despite me not ever saying one unkind word to you.
I admit I am pretty late to this party, so I am doing more reading than reacting... so maybe you can help me...
1. Does air striking prolong any conflict we have with ISIL?
2. Does releasing aiding nations only make this situation worse?
3. Is Obama using too much power by supposedly doing something "illegal?" It seems like Dems are at odds with Obama by the growing fay.
I'm sure there are others with far more knowledge when it comes to the international impact of the military operations currently being conducted. I can only provide what my opinion is based on what I know from my experience.
1) I don't think we necessarily had a conflict with ISIL prior to our involvement if we are to look at this in a strict sense of "conflict." However, ISIL was/is in conflict with our allies, and they pose limited terrorist threat to us and our partners. With that being said, any military involvement with the situation in ISIL will most definitely "prolong" our active role in Iraq and Syria and potentially risk increasing our active role (more boots on the ground beyond advisors). Of course as ISIL move more towards international terrorism, we will be involved more with them.
2) I'm not sure that it necessarily makes the situation worse. Sure, Saudi Arabian royals may get flak for their involvement, but how does it really make the situation really all that much worse? Most of the nations involved have already made it public that they see ISIL as a grave threat to not only their nation but to the region as a whole. So I don't think it makes it any worse than it was already.
3) This is one of those topics that I think others have already covered well with far more insight and understanding than I can provide, but here's my attempt. I don't believe that the CINC is doing anything illegal as much as politically unfavorable in the eyes of many in the public and Congress. When it comes to our own legality (national), many military operations (limited and prolonged campaigns) have been conducted without the declaration of "war" (matter of fact, the last declared war was the Korean War, no?). I believe that the CINC has the legal precedence to conduct these operations based on his authorities alone. As far as the international legality is concerned, we have conducted attacks against "terrorist" and "insurgent" groups in foreign lands with tacit approval by the ruling government. My personal view is that sometimes you just have to play outside of the international law when you're dealing with organizations/nations/etc. that are not playing by the international law as well. Is that right? No. Can I live with it? Yeah. But that's just my opinion.
I find it interesting that they're sending A-10s to the region Â
First of all, because they were supposed to be heading for the boneyard at Davis-Monthan. Second of all, because I'm wondering who is going to be getting the close air support they provide?
supporting a version of the point I have been making
Quote:
Mr. Obama has failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action. The White House claims that Mr. Obama has all the authority he needs under the 2001 law approving the use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law permitting the use of force in Iraq, but he does not. He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but that is not a substitute for congressional authorization.
The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.
Meanwhile, Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities. It has left Washington and gone into campaign fund-raising mode, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue. That has deprived the country of a full and comprehensive debate over the mission in Syria and has shielded administration officials and military commanders from tough questions about every aspect of this operation — from its costs to its very obvious risks — that should be asked and answered publicly.
As I said, this is not good for either party and there is plenty of criticism that can be leveled at both No convincing plan - ( New Window )
from an absurd website (seriously dude, stop reading that shit...it will make you dumb), he's got a point in there somewhere. One may trust this President to duly exercise restraint, but how about the next, or the one after that? The country is poorly served when the peoples' reps are continually sidestepped.
Fair to say there is some gray area where, okay, he's the Commander in Chief and holds a certain degree of singular power when it comes to force (OBL, e.g.) but the point is that there has arisen a worrisome pattern of almost flippancy toward waging these types of campaigns...always under the guise of "it's the right thing to do, we cannot delay". Okay well if that's true and it's so crucial, you should have no problem finding support in what is, let's face it, a Congress historically amenable to global conflict (whether always legit or as a result of what Eisenhower admonished about in his farewell address, I'll let the viewer decide). And this time from a liberal president. Imagine Prez McCain with a Graham SoD.
RE: Ironically here is the NY Times editorial board Â
supporting a version of the point I have been making
Quote:
Mr. Obama has failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action. The White House claims that Mr. Obama has all the authority he needs under the 2001 law approving the use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law permitting the use of force in Iraq, but he does not. He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but that is not a substitute for congressional authorization.
The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.
Meanwhile, Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities. It has left Washington and gone into campaign fund-raising mode, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue. That has deprived the country of a full and comprehensive debate over the mission in Syria and has shielded administration officials and military commanders from tough questions about every aspect of this operation — from its costs to its very obvious risks — that should be asked and answered publicly.
As I said, this is not good for either party and there is plenty of criticism that can be leveled at both No convincing plan - ( New Window )
Don't say I don't give credit where credit is due. While I don't necessarily agree with the opinion of this editorial peace, at least they make a somewhat cogent argument with a clearly stated reasoning.
from an absurd website (seriously dude, stop reading that shit...it will make you dumb), he's got a point in there somewhere. One may trust this President to duly exercise restraint, but how about the next, or the one after that? The country is poorly served when the peoples' reps are continually sidestepped.
Fair to say there is some gray area where, okay, he's the Commander in Chief and holds a certain degree of singular power when it comes to force (OBL, e.g.) but the point is that there has arisen a worrisome pattern of almost flippancy toward waging these types of campaigns...always under the guise of "it's the right thing to do, we cannot delay". Okay well if that's true and it's so crucial, you should have no problem finding support in what is, let's face it, a Congress historically amenable to global conflict (whether always legit or as a result of what Eisenhower admonished about in his farewell address, I'll let the viewer decide). And this time from a liberal president. Imagine Prez McCain with a Graham SoD.
I hear your concern. I admit that I have not been a big fan of the CINC's decisions when it comes to matters such as Syria, Libya, etc. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he and his team did their due diligence to get to their decision, whether I (we) agree or not with him. I think the NYT editorial that Bake linked poses this concern clearly, at least in my opinion.
In terms of potentially making the situation worse... Â
please note that ISIS has moved in directions that even Al Qaeda wouldn't go, which is why Al Qaeda broke off.
There is a more than insignificant chance that taking on ISIS, if done effectively and in combination with better bahvior by the new Iraqi government post-Maliki, will pull more Sunnis and Sunni leaders away from ISIS and into the growing coalition. Sunni leaders throughout the Middle East are fed up with violent extremists. As an example, several key countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have been silent while Israel took on Hamas, and Hamas is teeny-tiny potatoes compared to ISIS.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I'm not actually arguing with you guys Â
please note that ISIS has moved in directions that even Al Qaeda wouldn't go, which is why Al Qaeda broke off.
There is a more than insignificant chance that taking on ISIS, if done effectively and in combination with better bahvior by the new Iraqi government post-Maliki, will pull more Sunnis and Sunni leaders away from ISIS and into the growing coalition. Sunni leaders throughout the Middle East are fed up with violent extremists. As an example, several key countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have been silent while Israel took on Hamas, and Hamas is teeny-tiny potatoes compared to ISIS.
I'm not sure they're fed up with extremism. Saudi Arabia IS extremist. They (and by that I mean their political and economic elites) are fed up with a brand of extremism that threatens their survival and/or their prosperity.
Obama wouldn't have to take steps of questionable constitutionality if Congress had balls.
There attitude has been:
1) Let Obama take the steps he wants to and defend their constitutionality;
2) Let's stay completely out of the line of fire by not taking any votes on the subject that we can possibly avoid.
This is true of both parties, so I am not being political here.
The absconsion of responsibility by Congress regarding the conduct of war - for almost exclusively political reasons - crosses political boundaries and is something that should really trouble us.
RE: In terms of potentially making the situation worse... Â
please note that ISIS has moved in directions that even Al Qaeda wouldn't go, which is why Al Qaeda broke off.
There is a more than insignificant chance that taking on ISIS, if done effectively and in combination with better bahvior by the new Iraqi government post-Maliki, will pull more Sunnis and Sunni leaders away from ISIS and into the growing coalition. Sunni leaders throughout the Middle East are fed up with violent extremists. As an example, several key countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have been silent while Israel took on Hamas, and Hamas is teeny-tiny potatoes compared to ISIS.
all true, but you're overlooking why they are so popular to begin with, why all the arab spring shit, why Saddam, why assad, Why mubarak, why Ghadaffi.These non-monarch tyrants have largely been disposed of.The monarchies have been more stable up to thia point.
The fact is the people of the mid-east, and at this moment the citizens of the Arab Monarchies in particular are hating on their leadership, their kings, Arab nobility, and want power in the hands of the people, all of them. Some are secular, some are not, but the ones that aren't are very skilled at co-opting any rsistance movements against these regimes, and portraying the US as the Villains that have been propping up what they label as Tyrants.The one common factor amongst this coalition is all these govts involved are Sunni Monarchies.None that aren't participated, even NATO member Turkey.
I think these monarchies have seen what has happened throughout the Mideast, and they realize that if one of them goes, they all go.I think that's part of the reason they aren't that opposed to helping Assad by proxy.The Rebel movement the US would like to see succeed in Syria is NOT the same group of rebels the Sauds and other Royal houses want to see come out on top.They have no desire to see moderate secularists' with democratic sympathies prevail.
Obama wouldn't have to take steps of questionable constitutionality if Congress had balls.
There attitude has been:
1) Let Obama take the steps he wants to and defend their constitutionality;
2) Let's stay completely out of the line of fire by not taking any votes on the subject that we can possibly avoid.
This is true of both parties, so I am not being political here.
The absconsion of responsibility by Congress regarding the conduct of war - for almost exclusively political reasons - crosses political boundaries and is something that should really trouble us.
So wrong in so many ways. Don't see what's "questionable" about anything he has done, if you have any understanding of how govt., and the war powers act works.He doesn't need any autrhorization from congress, and no congressional vote can make him withdraw forces, unless it's within the frame of the War powers act.
Specifically, the War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress and to justify, within 48 hours, the sending of U.S. military forces:
Into hostile circumstances where imminent involvement in those hostilities is indicated,
Into a foreign nation equipped for combat, or
In "numbers which substantially enlarge" U.S. military forces presently in the foreign region.
If forces are launched without Congressional approval, the War Powers Resolution gives a 90-day window for the president to direct troops: 60 days to continue to arm military forces, and 30 days to withdraw those forces.
He has 6 months to wrap this up if he gets no congressional approval, as long as he can make a case that he has notified Congress of his actions and his rationale within 2 days of the commencement of hostilities.
He can argue he did that when he adressed Congress a couple months ago about Strikes against ISIS.He can argue he has done it since by making a public address as Congress is not in session.It's not questionable at all, he's pretty clearly withing his Authority to do this. Congress can vote it down, but under US law he has 6 months more or less to do what he sees fir even without anny consent and absent approval from Congress. Don't know what Law you think he's breaking.No US laws anyway....
By extremism I was specifically referring to violent jihadist extremism--Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boku Harum, Al Shabab, The Talaban, Hamas, etc.
These groups overlap with Islamic Fundamentalism, such as Wahabism/Salafism as practiced and promoted by many wealthy and powerful Saudis in particular, but they aren't the same issue. The Saudis are finally beginning to show some signs that they recognize the potential of the fundamentalism they have promoted and distributed though Wahabist schools and mullahs to morph into jihadism.
Been wondering what is being used to replace them. AC130s are pretty good there too.
nothing is being used to replace them. The administration and the airforce are trying to force the F-35 buys ( which have a plethora of problems so long they need their own thread)at the expense of all other programs. The F-35 is being given the close air support billet,regardless of the fact is carries like 120 rds of 25mm ammo, and if you think any commander is going to bring that thing down below 10,000 feet to get shot at by a manpad you are mistaken. I guarantee they never do, the military would never risk losing a 250 mil+ aircraft to a 35,000 dolar shoulde fired SAM.
It's a crime what the airforce is doing.That's why Congress tried to stop the airforce from forcibly retiring all A-10s, because if they can, then Congress will have no choice but to fully fund the F-35, which is the airfocres goal. The Navy, for their part are hedging their bets, they want to deploy the Advanced super Hornet and the UCAV drones they have been testing. they don't want the F-35, is a piece of shit junk after what, 17 years of development and they still haven't conducted an arrested carrier landing yet?The Marines don't give a shit, they are already making buys on their version even without it's software and ability to use all it's hardpoints. It's restricted from making the VSTOL takeoffs and landings it was designed to, but the USMC don't care, they are getting their plane and thats that.They only reason it has VSTOL to begin with is so the Marines can claim they need their own specialized aircraft, and this is the method they seized upn in the late 60s, but it's all politics.
was an A10 Warthog unit that was deployed twice to that theater while he was in. Without getting too specific, those planes inspired real terror in the gut of the bad guys when they showed up. They were the weapon platform the bad guys least wanted to see coming at them. Now they're gone, its a real shame if not a crime.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'm not actually arguing with you guys Â
was an A10 Warthog unit that was deployed twice to that theater while he was in. Without getting too specific, those planes inspired real terror in the gut of the bad guys when they showed up. They were the weapon platform the bad guys least wanted to see coming at them. Now they're gone, its a real shame if not a crime.
A10 was definitely a godsend in Afghanistan and the initial invasion of Iraq. And it will be so again against ISIL. However, it's pretty much worthless in a counterinsurgency fight, which includes majority of the conflict in Iraq.
was an A10 Warthog unit that was deployed twice to that theater while he was in. Without getting too specific, those planes inspired real terror in the gut of the bad guys when they showed up. They were the weapon platform the bad guys least wanted to see coming at them. Now they're gone, its a real shame if not a crime.
A10 was definitely a godsend in Afghanistan and the initial invasion of Iraq. And it will be so again against ISIL. However, it's pretty much worthless in a counterinsurgency fight, which includes majority of the conflict in Iraq.
Wouldn't it be valuable in degrading some of the armor and vehicles that ISIS has captured and is using in Iraq/Syria?
Wouldn't it be valuable in degrading some of the armor and vehicles that ISIS has captured and is using in Iraq/Syria?
Of course. Hence my comment about it being useful against ISIL (in its current state) since it resembles an actual military in its operations rather than the insurgency of OIF.
HH...I'm definitely not referring to you with my last post. Please don't take this as an offense, but one of the things I like most about you is that you don't really take yourself too seriously whenever you get into a discussion. You occasionally throw out posts for levity's sake and are actually pretty good at leaving much of the heavy discussions to those with more knowledge when you feel like you don't have much to add to the discussion.
But yes, staying at Holiday Inn Express does make you a bit smarter than you were the night before.
Must be because of the bedbugs.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'm not actually arguing with you guys Â
Link - ( New Window )
They are terrorists, what new terror will they unleash in response to this action?
Might be to scary to fathom if what we read about their reach is accurate
They are terrorists, what new terror will they unleash in response to this action?
Might be to scary to fathom if what we read about their reach is accurate
They're less terrorists than insurgents. Yeah they have suicide bombers at their disposal. Like the Iraq and Afghan insurgents they use suicide bombers at a tactical level, to create breaches in perimeters and things like that. Their 'power' really comes from the fact that they have guys willing to stand and fight against armies that don't. Thanks to early gains and their financial resources they are usually facing guys with similar equipment and a lot less to fight for. We don't have that problem, our soldiers don't flee, our air power sure as hell doesn't, so unless they figure out how to project power through "conventional" terrorism they will struggle to respond.
You can't rule out the lone-wolf psychos, of course. And that shouldn't be disregarded entirely. But it's unlikely those types are capable of anything large-scale.
evidently this war will be for free as well since nary a peep from the deficit hawks
evidently this war will be for free as well since nary a peep from the deficit hawks
Plenty of peeps from deficit hawks, plenty of qualms expressed. But because in broad and general terms most of them (not all of them) believe this is important enough and dangerous enough to justify intervention expressing a qualm is not the same as saying it shouldn't happen. War is happening whether we like it or not, the issue is whether or not we participate.
It's the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. Problematic, to be sure, but when one state's inability to control its territory is undermining the security of neighbor states "sovereignty" can become an excuse for inaction. And while the bulk of our drone strikes have probably been with at least the tacit consent of those states presumably some have not been.
Also we told Syria we were going to do this. Presumably they're on board since ISIL is an enemy of theirs.
If a year ago you told me we were bombing Syria... and Assad would approve I would have thought you were nuts. These things are so complex and it's why the Mccains of the word look like buffoons when they sing for bombs without really know what the fuck is going on.
At the same time while admitting some of the refugees, the Turks were stopping Kurds at the border trying to get into Syria to fight ISIS. Curious, given their indifference to foreign fighters crossing to join ISIS over the last few years.
A very tangled web of motivations and strategies I'm still trying to work through. At least Obama got some Arab and Sunni states in on the action.
Who am I kidding, no, we'll never learn.
http://www.newsweek.com/etymology-islamic-state-270752 - ( New Window )
More hideous you-tube videos? Attack us on the homeland?
What kind of war posses no threat to one side?
As scary as ISIS is, Al Qaeda needing to make a "statement" to try and get their power back is very concerning.
THAT will have as much an impact on potential terrorist attacks domestically as ISIS will.
Bombing inside a sovereign country would seem to have legal implications.
As scary as ISIS is, Al Qaeda needing to make a "statement" to try and get their power back is very concerning.
The actions against the so-called Khorasan Group are definitely more important, at least in the short-term, from a homeland security point of view. I had never heard of these guys before last night.
Quote:
inside a sovereign state without the consent of that state, I presume. This should go over real well.
Also we told Syria we were going to do this. Presumably they're on board since ISIL is an enemy of theirs.
If a year ago you told me we were bombing Syria... and Assad would approve I would have thought you were nuts. These things are so complex and it's why the Mccains of the word look like buffoons when they sing for bombs without really know what the fuck is going on.
Near as I can gather we notified the Syrian ambassador to the U.N. mere moments before missiles and bombs struck targets.That way they can claim they were consulted, and not look like the bitches they desperately want to avoid looking like ( remember it is Syria who is pressing the claim we gave them advance warning). At the same time we didn't give the Syrians long enough to warn anyone, including Jihadists they don't mind having around because they are at war with The Free Syrian army and have basically deballed an non radical insurgents.ISIS and Assad's regime have a tacit understanding, common in the Arab world, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."In no way did the U.S. want to give advance notice and have the Syrian govt' potentially either interfere with the attacks or warn potential targets.
They may have technically notified an ambassador out of country after missiles were launched and before they struck targets, but they did not ask or receive permission.
if you think Assad gave permission for the U.S., SA, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE etc. to strike targets in Syria you're nuts.We didn't ask, we just did it.
THAT will have as much an impact on potential terrorist attacks domestically as ISIS will.
There is your benefit.
speaking of which......
Speeches and a crackdown on a male dominated sport over domestic violence can't hurt with women voters either, can it?
Quote:
ISIS is a player in 2 ongoing civil wars. I don't see any benefit getting involved. We will undoubtedly harm innocent people and only engender more anti-American feelings in those states.
THAT will have as much an impact on potential terrorist attacks domestically as ISIS will.
Maybe somebody needed an October suprise to help with elections upcoming and a poor showing for their party in polls on national security issues.Always goes over good with the boys.
There is your benefit.
speaking of which......
Speeches and a crackdown on a male dominated sport over domestic violence can't hurt with women voters either, can it?
Now I understand why youre so popular here
And certain wackos in the Republican party want a full-blown shooting war. But that isn't politics, I guess.
A case can be made that we should have armed the so-called moderate rebels much earlier. Another case can be made that we needed to get critical mass of support from other nations in the neighborhood. Many experts of all stripes are actually surprised at how many Arab countries are participating. The one we need much more help from is Turkey, because of their porous common border and greater military strength than many of the other players--among many other reasons.
Erdogan is resistant, in part because of the Kurds, in part because of his quasi-extremist views on Islam. But, he will be dragged in eventually, I suspect.
Erdogan is resistant, in part because of the Kurds, in part because of his quasi-extremist views on Islam. But, he will be dragged in eventually, I suspect.
1. A case could also be made that if the "moderates" had been armed earlier that the critical mass would not have been needed. Now that it's needed and there, particularly the fact it's Sunni, it's a positive.
2. Turkey is the mystery to me. As opposed to Jordan, which does have a massive refugee problem, the latest wave of refugees was headed to Turkey. But as I said above, yesterday Turkey was preventing Kurds from crossing into Syria to fight ISIS with much more zeal than it has been preventing foreign fighters from crossing to join ISIS. I realize that they may have been constrained by the 42 diplomatic hostages held until last weekend, but the extreme nature of their policies surprise me.
We had to have Arab countries involved in this. This is a muslim war. It has to be more of a civil war within Muslim then a western driven USA cowboy movie. Very happy with how we are going about this.
[You mean the same moderates rebels who captured journalist Steven Sotloff and then sold hime to ISIS ? yes we definitely should be arming them!]
2. Turkey is the mystery to me. As opposed to Jordan, which does have a massive refugee problem, the latest wave of refugees was headed to Turkey. But as I said above, yesterday Turkey was preventing Kurds from crossing into Syria to fight ISIS with much more zeal than it has been preventing foreign fighters from crossing to join ISIS. I realize that they may have been constrained by the 42 diplomatic hostages held until last weekend, but the extreme nature of their policies surprise me.
[Yes it is truly baffling why Turkey isn't helping the Kurds more.. I mean there are only 25 milllion Kurds in Turkey who have been fighting a guerrilla war for independence from Turkey for the last 20 years ]
And I am even more skeptical of our bombing thwarting a terror attack here in the US. I'm a little doubtful that they could have launched an attack here from 6,000 miles away. It sounds a little too convenient.
I can't for the life of me believe we're doing this. We have learned Jack Shit from the last 25 years.
Seems I hit a sore spot.Not that I was saying we shouldn't have attacked them, mind you.And not like I don't think republicans pull the same thing.They do and did.
Meanwhile I still say he and his party get a boost in the polls. You want to pretend it doesn't give a shot in the arm to a president who has been polling low on National security all year, go ahead, but it's disingenuous.The man asked, what would be a motive?I simply answered.Again how you disagree when it comes from me but agree when it comes from someone else is bullshit.
The fact is if he actually intended to do something substantial it would have been done long ago.These limited strikes are for show and achieve little to nothing.
Here's an alternative, which can't be confirmed or discounted until the exact list of targets is known. If the homes, businesses or mosques being bombed (assuming those are the structures actually being bombed) are those of:
* Syrian Kurds whose alternative is genocide at the hands of ISIS, or
* ISIS itself
then how much additional anti-American attitude will be created?
We are giant suckers.
The Brits too - after announcing they wanted no part of it, off comes one of their heads.
We are giant suckers.
The Brits too - after announcing they wanted no part of it, off comes one of their heads.
You might want to throw a little genocide into that mix. Without that issue with respect to the Yazidis and the Syrian Kurds I'm not sure this would have happened, particularly on this time table.
Link - ( New Window )
I agree that politics played a role, but it was, IMO, a defensive move by Obama, not an offensive one.
1) A vast increase in the level of genocide in both Iraq and Syria. A vastly increased refugee crisis.
2) A locking in of the Caliphate as a de facto nation.
3) A growing beleif that the West is "weak"--that is the way these types think--and additional moves to exploit that weakness.
4) Massive recruiting opportunities for ISIS and its "cousins" in Yemen, Somolia, Nigeria, etc.
5) Increased threats of re-infiltration of European- and US sourced extremsits back to their homelands.
6) Weakened incentives for the new Iraqi government to act at least slightly inclusive.
7) Real risks to oil fields.
8) Real risks that the Kurdish sector of Iraq would be overrun. They are not strong enough on their own to stave off a continually strengthening ISIS, which was adding an annualized $6 billion to its coffers.
9) A strong risk that additional importantinfrastrucutre would be overrun and used a weapons--e.g., dams.
10) More opportunities for ISIS to INCREASE its revenue generating capabilities.
For the "anti" group, which of those is incorrect?
2) Is this really a concern? Who's running that nation, sure, but that area of the ME has been an artificial construct since WW1.
3) Who cares what they think? Terrorists will always say that the west (US) is weak, bombing plays right into their hands.
4) Nothing contributed to al Qaeda's "recruiting campaign" more than our invasion of Iraq. Likewise, any bombing campaign will serve ISIS and al Qaeda recruitment better than any effort those groups could make.
5) I'm not sure how a bombing campaign prevents this.
6) Again, this is a sectarian civil war, any Muslim sect is going to be targeted by the other. At the end of the day (thanks Antrell!), it is up to them to fight that battle.
7) Oil fields are the reason these clowns are fighting, they want access to the pot of gold. Unlikely they would kill the golden goose.
8) That is a legitimate threat. Arm and finance the Kurds.
9) Maybe so, but the same thing could happen after a bombing campaign.
10) After looting Iraq's banks, they have all the revenue they need, unfortunately. But again, any bombing campaign is more likely to move moderates over to ISIS side.
And this idea that we're out there willy-nilly killing civilians pays little heed to the reality of how war is fought. When you're striking the targets of an army in the field the risk of civilian casualties is very low. In Iraq and Afghanistan you were fighting insurgents who lived among the local population and blended in easily with them. Even in the border regions of Pakistan we were (are) mostly concerned with the transport of men, rather than military equipment, so the possibility of mistake is greater. Men riding on military equipment and firing artillery pieces are not easily confused with goatherds.
I'll keep beating this drum - arm the Kurds. Heavily. They're the closest thing to a real ally we have in that region, they're facing an existential threat and they can fight without the training wheels required by the Iraqi Army. Between the peshmerga of the Iraqi Kurds and the YPG of the Syrian Kurds, they've proven that they can hold their own on the battlefield but they need materiel and supplies.
I get that, but based on the early reports it does not seem like we're getting involved enough to start trying to root them out in those communities. It looks like we're predominately striking equipment and camps.
2. Yes it is a concern. Any safe haven is.
3. We care what they think if it leads to further aggression, either in the ME or elsewhere in the world.
4. Comparative recruiting opportunities. With Sunni involvement, I believe this reduces the recruiting opportunity.
5. Lack of a safe haven reduces the opportunity, particularly long term.
6. But it still provides an incentive for Bagdad to pull back from the worst of Maliki
7. Unintended consequences.
8. Already have consensus on the problem.
9. We already had a bombing campaign close to a dam that did not damage it. Actually, 2 dams. This is not 1000 B-17s doing pattern bombing
10. Now is the time to start depleting their hoard.
This is how we got bin Laden. We basically invaded Pakistan.
President said war on terror is over - ( New Window )
I'm not disputing that there are legal issues with this, but it is nothing that hasn't been done on hundreds of occasions through drone strikes. And why is a bullet somehow less offensive than a bomb? We used a few of the former in the Bin Laden raid.
My point was, we unilaterally used military force on the territory of a sovereign country. Bombs or boots it doesn't matter, we breached a sovereign nation. And Pakistan is our ally, at least nominally.
What we're doing in Syria isn't all that unprecedented. You may dislike that precedent, but that's a different discussion (but it's a good discussion to have.
There is no precedent for this scale. This is scary on the highest level. The president just simply decrees that he has legal authority then refuses to provide it to the American public.
He needed Congress to authorize this or get a UN declaration. He did neither
Bear in mind, regardless of Turkeys position within NATO ( which I view them as next ti useless)they still support HAMAS, and TURKEY and QATAR are Hamas'#1 supporters.His sympathies lie closer to ISIS than they do to the US.
we would do well to remember that in the last war there Turkey refused to let US forces into the country, and we had to delay the start of festiv,,,err, hostilities by over a month because Turkey wouldn't let the US 4th Infantry Division landin Turkey and then invade out of it into Northern Iraq, Kinda screwed the whole operation up and made sure it took a long ass time till we had control over the northern part of the country, which we never relaly did establish, instead letting US friendly Kurds administer the region instead.Turkey also doesn't like the fact that it is under the US occupation that the Kurds became so empowered. He resents us for it.
Those are the best reasons I can come up with to answer the question as to why is Turkey not more supportive.Frankly I think their membership in NATO was purely to prevent them from falling under Russian/Soviet influence. I don't see them as true partners the way the nations of western europe are.
This dates back far longer than the Obama presidency or GWB, for that matter. Now congress can claim credit if it works, or blame the president if it fails.
There is no precedent for this scale. This is scary on the highest level. The president just simply decrees that he has legal authority then refuses to provide it to the American public.
He needed Congress to authorize this or get a UN declaration. He did neither
You act like this is something unprecedented though. It isn't. See Libya and most of the drone strikes of the last 13 years.
I agree that politics played a role, but it was, IMO, a defensive move by Obama, not an offensive one.
Was a curious thing, as Rep[ublican pundits all weekend were talking about what exactly it would be, and they expected one. Then Monday this happens.All I'm saying is Mainstream republicans (I'm not one, regardless of how certain posters would portray me) consider this his "october suprise".Listen to any right wing pundits and you'll see what I'm talking about.
BTW, the Libya bombings were unconscionable. A horrible strategy. The country is being taken over by the worst elements.
And certain wackos in the Republican party want a full-blown shooting war. But that isn't politics, I guess.
A case can be made that we should have armed the so-called moderate rebels much earlier. Another case can be made that we needed to get critical mass of support from other nations in the neighborhood. Many experts of all stripes are actually surprised at how many Arab countries are participating. The one we need much more help from is Turkey, because of their porous common border and greater military strength than many of the other players--among many other reasons.
Erdogan is resistant, in part because of the Kurds, in part because of his quasi-extremist views on Islam. But, he will be dragged in eventually, I suspect.
Jordan was the first Country that made peace with Israel, and Jordan has a King who is half American by blood( his mother is NY born american).They are one of only 2 real democracies in the region( the other being Israel), and as such are the only Arab Nation that are our Natural allies, by form of Govt.You could include egypt I guess but the Birthplace and sanctuary of the Islalmic brotherhood doesn't fill me with confidence, especially not with all those tunnels going into Gaza from Egypt.
If Jordan is threatened, we should, we HAVE to, defend them, in my mind.
And I am even more skeptical of our bombing thwarting a terror attack here in the US. I'm a little doubtful that they could have launched an attack here from 6,000 miles away. It sounds a little too convenient.
BTW, the Libya bombings were unconscionable. A horrible strategy. The country is being taken over by the worst elements.
When was the last time we declared war? We don't have declarations of war anymore, we have mealy-mouthed resolutions and authorizations and memoranda. I understand where you're coming from, I don't think your objections are without merit, but that ship has sailed.
We are giant suckers.
The Brits too - after announcing they wanted no part of it, off comes one of their heads.
I'm with you. I find this state of affairs and our collective reaction to it pretty depressing.
I'll keep beating this drum - arm the Kurds. Heavily. They're the closest thing to a real ally we have in that region, they're facing an existential threat and they can fight without the training wheels required by the Iraqi Army. Between the peshmerga of the Iraqi Kurds and the YPG of the Syrian Kurds, they've proven that they can hold their own on the battlefield but they need materiel and supplies.
Quote:
to attack a sovereign nation and this is beyond outrageous. If he does, then he should tell America what it is.
This is how we got bin Laden. We basically invaded Pakistan.
12. As far as boots on the ground are concerned, Iraq shouldn't be that hard. The Kurds will play, the Shiite militias will play, some parts of the Iraqi army will play. A key reason the Iraqi army cut and run last time was fucking Maliki, who had given Sunnis in his own army no reason to take on Sunni extremists, and who had replaced all of his quality senior officers with political hacks. One of the reasons he wouldn't give up power was because he thought he would be killed if he did. He should be. He is the single greatest reason for the current mess.
Syria is, of course,, much, much harder in terms of the boots on the ground aspect--the so-called moderate opposition is so weak, and is fighting on two fronts. This is a key reason why we need allies. I also expect that ultimately US Special Forces will be involved, because we will need a way to respond to downings of our own airplanes and helicoptors, and because there is expertise that they provide locals can't, in terms of targetting, logisitics, etc.
Section 331, njm responded to your comments, which also contain massive flaws--as usual--that I don't have time or interest in responding to. I will respond to one, though: why perceptions of weakness matter. You are aware, I am sure (/sarcasm) that one of the key reasons for 9/11 was OBL's belief that the US had become weak and lazy, and that any response would reflect that?
There is no precedent for this scale. This is scary on the highest level. The president just simply decrees that he has legal authority then refuses to provide it to the American public.
He needed Congress to authorize this or get a UN declaration. He did neither
Don't get me wrong we need to get rid of these guys.
Not that it isn't without its risks, but it is, by far, the least risky option. The Kurds have something tangible to fight for - their own country. My only question is whether they could come up with the manpower to defeat ISIS. I honestly don't know the answer to that question.
Link - ( New Window )
I tried to type in 90 days under the war powers act that the president can commit troops without a say so from congress, not () days.
“We believe the individuals plotting and planning it were eliminated” in the eight U.S. airstrikes overnight, Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said today in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” program.
Amid attention on the threat from Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Khorasan has emerged in recent weeks as a more immediate peril in the view of the U.S. intelligence community because it’s more focused on attacking America and Europe.
The militant group is made up of a “network of seasoned al-Qaeda veterans” preparing to attack “United States and Western interests,” the Defense Department said in a statement. U.S. officials so far have provided no details about the terrorists’ planned attack or the credibility of the intelligence they had on it.
I doubt that they would have started the bombing of ISIS in Syria yesterday if they weren't already going to breach borders to take out Khorisan.
Link - ( New Window )
Got the number from Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has apparently got 200 observers in country and been giving casualty counts since 2011. 70 ISIS killed and 300 wounded. No estimate of civilian casualties.
Quote:
Airstrikes in Syria against the extremist Khorasan group were prompted by planning for an “imminent” terror attack on U.S. soil, the Pentagon said.
“We believe the individuals plotting and planning it were eliminated” in the eight U.S. airstrikes overnight, Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said today in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” program.
Amid attention on the threat from Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Khorasan has emerged in recent weeks as a more immediate peril in the view of the U.S. intelligence community because it’s more focused on attacking America and Europe.
The militant group is made up of a “network of seasoned al-Qaeda veterans” preparing to attack “United States and Western interests,” the Defense Department said in a statement. U.S. officials so far have provided no details about the terrorists’ planned attack or the credibility of the intelligence they had on it.
I doubt that they would have started the bombing of ISIS in Syria yesterday if they weren't already going to breach borders to take out Khorisan. Link - ( New Window )
I'm sure that was an important consideration, but I think the sudden flood of refugees played a part as well.
Except that we did not attack that sovereign nation. We attacked an outlaw terrorist group which that nation is also at war with. A fine point perhaps, but the way you framed it is calibrated to paint a picture that skews the reality.
And whomever was talking about Khorasan, just note that the campaign includes striking ISIS targets as well. So my original comment holds.
Again, I support this venture. It's just that it creates an ability for a president to launch attacks without congressional consent. I think that is very bad. Not that I am giving Congress a pass either. They punted on Libya and they punted on this. Feel free to disagree
via Army Times.
" As the U.S. expands its war against the Islamic State, the Army is preparing to deploy a division headquarters to Iraq.
Officials have not identified the division that will deploy — the first division headquarters to go to Iraq since the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.
An official announcement is expected in the coming days. But Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno recently confirmed the Army “will send another division headquarters to Iraq to control what we’re doing there, a small headquarters.”
It’s unclear how many soldiers will be sent, or how long they will deploy. Division headquarters average between 100 and 500 soldiers and deploy for one year."
Mission creep?Sounds like we're going back to war in Iraq.You don't deploy a division HQ unless the Division is going to follow.
I'll be shocked if he does this the right way. On the other hand, if he is, then where was the debate on it?
Don't get me wrong we need to get rid of these guys.
This picture is complete bullshit.
Here's a link to a site that has this same picture from january 31, 2014.
http://www.diariodenavarra.es/noticias/mas_actualidad/internacional/2014/01/31/durante_ginebra_han_muerto_menos_800_personas_145820_1032.html
Link - ( New Window )
If you think that our nation just "casually do this," you are dumber than even I have told you regarding your simpleton understanding of how our nation come to these decisions.
Many don't agree how this administration or many other have decided to conduct military operations in the past, but the decision makers just don't casually decide to circumvent our national or even international law as you so stupidly suggest. A lot of decision-making calculus is conducted by people far more qualified than you (and obviously with more information). You don't like it just like many others don't either, and that's your prerogative. But to state that our nation just casually decide to conduct military operations show why you continue to sound like a fucking idiot whenever you jump into any of these conversations you have very little understanding of beyond reading some conservative drivel of news sites.
If this was in response to my post, let me put into context my issue with Bake54.
He's a simpleton, who uses what he reads on some shitty partisan websites to make stupid comments regarding topics he barely understands beyond what a high schooler knows. He does little self research and merely parrots what he reads from some garbage websites.
Brings almost nothing to the table of any substance beyond throwing veiled political barbs regarding the decisions being made. Just as FMiC doesn't suffer fools when it comes to Game Day Threads, it annoys the shit out of me when people talk out of their asses about national security matters when it is clear they don't know shit about it and have done little to no honest research. Even the picture he posted above (from another stupid partisan website) is false as TTH stated. That's the simpleton level of contribution he brings.
Quote:
just I don't like the way we casually do this. This is not good for either party.
If you think that our nation just "casually do this," you are dumber than even I have told you regarding your simpleton understanding of how our nation come to these decisions.
Many don't agree how this administration or many other have decided to conduct military operations in the past, but the decision makers just don't casually decide to circumvent our national or even international law as you so stupidly suggest. A lot of decision-making calculus is conducted by people far more qualified than you (and obviously with more information). You don't like it just like many others don't either, and that's your prerogative. But to state that our nation just casually decide to conduct military operations show why you continue to sound like a fucking idiot whenever you jump into any of these conversations you have very little understanding of beyond reading some conservative drivel of news sites.
And I'm an asshole? Ok.
We're assholes for two very reasons, brosef.
There are number of people on BBI with personal experience bordering on subject matter expertise in many areas that are discussed. And some who don't have personal experience have done much honest research to gain more insight in the nuances of such topics. These individuals bring a lot to provide substance to the discussion.
However, we also have a lot of people, who think they know what they're talking about because they watch some network news coverage or read on some partisan drivel of websites regarding topics of discussion (this can be said for the football side of the house as well). But instead of coming into a discussion to learn, they start spouting their own simplistic view of what is being discussed. When they are provided with more nuanced views by others, they don't listen but rather get into a long argument showing their lack of knowledge and much times their poorly veiled political views.
If you don't know what you're talking about, shut your pie hole and learn from others. That's what good discussions are about, to learn from others. But if you decide to jump in with your simplistic view, then you're probably going to get ridiculed, especially if you double down and continue to show just how little you know of the situation.
HH...I'm definitely not referring to you with my last post. Please don't take this as an offense, but one of the things I like most about you is that you don't really take yourself too seriously whenever you get into a discussion. You occasionally throw out posts for levity's sake and are actually pretty good at leaving much of the heavy discussions to those with more knowledge when you feel like you don't have much to add to the discussion.
But yes, staying at Holiday Inn Express does make you a bit smarter than you were the night before.
Both can be amazingly wrong, as well as annoying.
and of course, there's always those who do know a lot, but can still be wrong vs those who don't know shit, but can still be right.
And, if you argue with an idiot, that only means there's two idiots arguing. One simply has more details.
I just don't believe there is any way to win this battle. The groups we are fighting with today may be fighting with ISIS or Khorasan tomorrow. Wait...they already were fighting with Khorasan!
The issue I have (and this is my personal view, so take it or leave it) is that people come onto a discussion with shitty understanding of the situation and turn it into and argument session instead of a productive discussion session (not sure why I even expect this from BBI). And much of the shitty understanding is based on people either being lazy with regards to learning about the topic or being entrenched in their political views that they formed by only read sources that they are used to (such as partisan websites, etc.). If these people came on to learn, that'll be one thing, but much of the time, they come on to throw out veiled political barbs and just double down when they are given a more nuanced information by those, who have done their research or have experience and knowledge.
I just don't believe there is any way to win this battle. The groups we are fighting with today may be fighting with ISIS or Khorasan tomorrow. Wait...they already were fighting with Khorasan!
Who said anything about serving? Matter of fact, the best view points and knowledge in these discussions have been brought by those who never served, and this is based on their honest research and learning.
The issue I have (and this is my personal view, so take it or leave it) is that people come onto a discussion with shitty understanding of the situation and turn it into and argument session instead of a productive discussion session (not sure why I even expect this from BBI). And much of the shitty understanding is based on people either being lazy with regards to learning about the topic or being entrenched in their political views that they formed by only read sources that they are used to (such as partisan websites, etc.). If these people came on to learn, that'll be one thing, but much of the time, they come on to throw out veiled political barbs and just double down when they are given a more nuanced information by those, who have done their research or have experience and knowledge.
I admit I am pretty late to this party, so I am doing more reading than reacting... so maybe you can help me...
1. Does air striking prolong any conflict we have with ISIL?
2. Does releasing aiding nations only make this situation worse?
3. Is Obama using too much power by supposedly doing something "illegal?" It seems like Dems are at odds with Obama by the growing fay.
Eh...I'm going to call a stupid a stupid. So stop making idiotic comments (and posting false pictures to add to it) if you don't want someone to call you out on it. If you bring something of substance, then we won't have any issues.
your bullshit is called out. Don't post if you are a sensitive vagina that can't take the heat. Now you can warn me to stop trolling you
Go play in a different sandbox.
1. Does air striking prolong any conflict we have with ISIL?
2. Does releasing aiding nations only make this situation worse?
3. Is Obama using too much power by supposedly doing something "illegal?" It seems like Dems are at odds with Obama by the growing fay.
I'm sure there are others with far more knowledge when it comes to the international impact of the military operations currently being conducted. I can only provide what my opinion is based on what I know from my experience.
1) I don't think we necessarily had a conflict with ISIL prior to our involvement if we are to look at this in a strict sense of "conflict." However, ISIL was/is in conflict with our allies, and they pose limited terrorist threat to us and our partners. With that being said, any military involvement with the situation in ISIL will most definitely "prolong" our active role in Iraq and Syria and potentially risk increasing our active role (more boots on the ground beyond advisors). Of course as ISIL move more towards international terrorism, we will be involved more with them.
2) I'm not sure that it necessarily makes the situation worse. Sure, Saudi Arabian royals may get flak for their involvement, but how does it really make the situation really all that much worse? Most of the nations involved have already made it public that they see ISIL as a grave threat to not only their nation but to the region as a whole. So I don't think it makes it any worse than it was already.
3) This is one of those topics that I think others have already covered well with far more insight and understanding than I can provide, but here's my attempt. I don't believe that the CINC is doing anything illegal as much as politically unfavorable in the eyes of many in the public and Congress. When it comes to our own legality (national), many military operations (limited and prolonged campaigns) have been conducted without the declaration of "war" (matter of fact, the last declared war was the Korean War, no?). I believe that the CINC has the legal precedence to conduct these operations based on his authorities alone. As far as the international legality is concerned, we have conducted attacks against "terrorist" and "insurgent" groups in foreign lands with tacit approval by the ruling government. My personal view is that sometimes you just have to play outside of the international law when you're dealing with organizations/nations/etc. that are not playing by the international law as well. Is that right? No. Can I live with it? Yeah. But that's just my opinion.
And those nations have acknowledged their involvement, though that might not have happened if the US hadn't announced it.
Mr. Obama has failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action. The White House claims that Mr. Obama has all the authority he needs under the 2001 law approving the use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law permitting the use of force in Iraq, but he does not. He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but that is not a substitute for congressional authorization.
The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.
Meanwhile, Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities. It has left Washington and gone into campaign fund-raising mode, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue. That has deprived the country of a full and comprehensive debate over the mission in Syria and has shielded administration officials and military commanders from tough questions about every aspect of this operation — from its costs to its very obvious risks — that should be asked and answered publicly.
As I said, this is not good for either party and there is plenty of criticism that can be leveled at both
No convincing plan - ( New Window )
No prob...I'm learning as much as you on this thread from others as well.
Fair to say there is some gray area where, okay, he's the Commander in Chief and holds a certain degree of singular power when it comes to force (OBL, e.g.) but the point is that there has arisen a worrisome pattern of almost flippancy toward waging these types of campaigns...always under the guise of "it's the right thing to do, we cannot delay". Okay well if that's true and it's so crucial, you should have no problem finding support in what is, let's face it, a Congress historically amenable to global conflict (whether always legit or as a result of what Eisenhower admonished about in his farewell address, I'll let the viewer decide). And this time from a liberal president. Imagine Prez McCain with a Graham SoD.
Quote:
Mr. Obama has failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action. The White House claims that Mr. Obama has all the authority he needs under the 2001 law approving the use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law permitting the use of force in Iraq, but he does not. He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but that is not a substitute for congressional authorization.
The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.
Meanwhile, Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities. It has left Washington and gone into campaign fund-raising mode, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue. That has deprived the country of a full and comprehensive debate over the mission in Syria and has shielded administration officials and military commanders from tough questions about every aspect of this operation — from its costs to its very obvious risks — that should be asked and answered publicly.
As I said, this is not good for either party and there is plenty of criticism that can be leveled at both No convincing plan - ( New Window )
Don't say I don't give credit where credit is due. While I don't necessarily agree with the opinion of this editorial peace, at least they make a somewhat cogent argument with a clearly stated reasoning.
Fair to say there is some gray area where, okay, he's the Commander in Chief and holds a certain degree of singular power when it comes to force (OBL, e.g.) but the point is that there has arisen a worrisome pattern of almost flippancy toward waging these types of campaigns...always under the guise of "it's the right thing to do, we cannot delay". Okay well if that's true and it's so crucial, you should have no problem finding support in what is, let's face it, a Congress historically amenable to global conflict (whether always legit or as a result of what Eisenhower admonished about in his farewell address, I'll let the viewer decide). And this time from a liberal president. Imagine Prez McCain with a Graham SoD.
I hear your concern. I admit that I have not been a big fan of the CINC's decisions when it comes to matters such as Syria, Libya, etc. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he and his team did their due diligence to get to their decision, whether I (we) agree or not with him. I think the NYT editorial that Bake linked poses this concern clearly, at least in my opinion.
There is a more than insignificant chance that taking on ISIS, if done effectively and in combination with better bahvior by the new Iraqi government post-Maliki, will pull more Sunnis and Sunni leaders away from ISIS and into the growing coalition. Sunni leaders throughout the Middle East are fed up with violent extremists. As an example, several key countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have been silent while Israel took on Hamas, and Hamas is teeny-tiny potatoes compared to ISIS.
Quote:
And I'm an asshole? Ok.
We're assholes for two very reasons, brosef.
I spent some time thinking about it, and came to the conclusion it's actually for the same reason, if you're honest about it.
There attitude has been:
1) Let Obama take the steps he wants to and defend their constitutionality;
2) Let's stay completely out of the line of fire by not taking any votes on the subject that we can possibly avoid.
This is true of both parties, so I am not being political here.
There is a more than insignificant chance that taking on ISIS, if done effectively and in combination with better bahvior by the new Iraqi government post-Maliki, will pull more Sunnis and Sunni leaders away from ISIS and into the growing coalition. Sunni leaders throughout the Middle East are fed up with violent extremists. As an example, several key countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have been silent while Israel took on Hamas, and Hamas is teeny-tiny potatoes compared to ISIS.
I'm not sure they're fed up with extremism. Saudi Arabia IS extremist. They (and by that I mean their political and economic elites) are fed up with a brand of extremism that threatens their survival and/or their prosperity.
There attitude has been:
1) Let Obama take the steps he wants to and defend their constitutionality;
2) Let's stay completely out of the line of fire by not taking any votes on the subject that we can possibly avoid.
This is true of both parties, so I am not being political here.
The absconsion of responsibility by Congress regarding the conduct of war - for almost exclusively political reasons - crosses political boundaries and is something that should really trouble us.
There is a more than insignificant chance that taking on ISIS, if done effectively and in combination with better bahvior by the new Iraqi government post-Maliki, will pull more Sunnis and Sunni leaders away from ISIS and into the growing coalition. Sunni leaders throughout the Middle East are fed up with violent extremists. As an example, several key countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) have been silent while Israel took on Hamas, and Hamas is teeny-tiny potatoes compared to ISIS.
The fact is the people of the mid-east, and at this moment the citizens of the Arab Monarchies in particular are hating on their leadership, their kings, Arab nobility, and want power in the hands of the people, all of them. Some are secular, some are not, but the ones that aren't are very skilled at co-opting any rsistance movements against these regimes, and portraying the US as the Villains that have been propping up what they label as Tyrants.The one common factor amongst this coalition is all these govts involved are Sunni Monarchies.None that aren't participated, even NATO member Turkey.
I think these monarchies have seen what has happened throughout the Mideast, and they realize that if one of them goes, they all go.I think that's part of the reason they aren't that opposed to helping Assad by proxy.The Rebel movement the US would like to see succeed in Syria is NOT the same group of rebels the Sauds and other Royal houses want to see come out on top.They have no desire to see moderate secularists' with democratic sympathies prevail.
Quote:
Obama wouldn't have to take steps of questionable constitutionality if Congress had balls.
There attitude has been:
1) Let Obama take the steps he wants to and defend their constitutionality;
2) Let's stay completely out of the line of fire by not taking any votes on the subject that we can possibly avoid.
This is true of both parties, so I am not being political here.
The absconsion of responsibility by Congress regarding the conduct of war - for almost exclusively political reasons - crosses political boundaries and is something that should really trouble us.
Specifically, the War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress and to justify, within 48 hours, the sending of U.S. military forces:
Into hostile circumstances where imminent involvement in those hostilities is indicated,
Into a foreign nation equipped for combat, or
In "numbers which substantially enlarge" U.S. military forces presently in the foreign region.
If forces are launched without Congressional approval, the War Powers Resolution gives a 90-day window for the president to direct troops: 60 days to continue to arm military forces, and 30 days to withdraw those forces.
He has 6 months to wrap this up if he gets no congressional approval, as long as he can make a case that he has notified Congress of his actions and his rationale within 2 days of the commencement of hostilities.
He can argue he did that when he adressed Congress a couple months ago about Strikes against ISIS.He can argue he has done it since by making a public address as Congress is not in session.It's not questionable at all, he's pretty clearly withing his Authority to do this. Congress can vote it down, but under US law he has 6 months more or less to do what he sees fir even without anny consent and absent approval from Congress. Don't know what Law you think he's breaking.No US laws anyway....
These groups overlap with Islamic Fundamentalism, such as Wahabism/Salafism as practiced and promoted by many wealthy and powerful Saudis in particular, but they aren't the same issue. The Saudis are finally beginning to show some signs that they recognize the potential of the fundamentalism they have promoted and distributed though Wahabist schools and mullahs to morph into jihadism.
It's a crime what the airforce is doing.That's why Congress tried to stop the airforce from forcibly retiring all A-10s, because if they can, then Congress will have no choice but to fully fund the F-35, which is the airfocres goal. The Navy, for their part are hedging their bets, they want to deploy the Advanced super Hornet and the UCAV drones they have been testing. they don't want the F-35, is a piece of shit junk after what, 17 years of development and they still haven't conducted an arrested carrier landing yet?The Marines don't give a shit, they are already making buys on their version even without it's software and ability to use all it's hardpoints. It's restricted from making the VSTOL takeoffs and landings it was designed to, but the USMC don't care, they are getting their plane and thats that.They only reason it has VSTOL to begin with is so the Marines can claim they need their own specialized aircraft, and this is the method they seized upn in the late 60s, but it's all politics.
F-35 is shit, we need to keep the A-10s.
Quote:
In comment 11879152 Great White Ghost said:
Quote:
And I'm an asshole? Ok.
We're assholes for two very reasons, brosef.
I spent some time thinking about it, and came to the conclusion it's actually for the same reason, if you're honest about it.
Hey...whatever you want to say to be like me, sure thing...;)
A10 was definitely a godsend in Afghanistan and the initial invasion of Iraq. And it will be so again against ISIL. However, it's pretty much worthless in a counterinsurgency fight, which includes majority of the conflict in Iraq.
but look at how goddamned big it is out of the plane!
And it fires 70 of these per second
Quote:
was an A10 Warthog unit that was deployed twice to that theater while he was in. Without getting too specific, those planes inspired real terror in the gut of the bad guys when they showed up. They were the weapon platform the bad guys least wanted to see coming at them. Now they're gone, its a real shame if not a crime.
A10 was definitely a godsend in Afghanistan and the initial invasion of Iraq. And it will be so again against ISIL. However, it's pretty much worthless in a counterinsurgency fight, which includes majority of the conflict in Iraq.
Wouldn't it be valuable in degrading some of the armor and vehicles that ISIS has captured and is using in Iraq/Syria?
Of course. Hence my comment about it being useful against ISIL (in its current state) since it resembles an actual military in its operations rather than the insurgency of OIF.
Quote:
after I spent a night in a Holiday Inn Express
HH...I'm definitely not referring to you with my last post. Please don't take this as an offense, but one of the things I like most about you is that you don't really take yourself too seriously whenever you get into a discussion. You occasionally throw out posts for levity's sake and are actually pretty good at leaving much of the heavy discussions to those with more knowledge when you feel like you don't have much to add to the discussion.
But yes, staying at Holiday Inn Express does make you a bit smarter than you were the night before.
Must be because of the bedbugs.
Quote:
In comment 11879207 RC02XX said:
Quote:
In comment 11879152 Great White Ghost said:
Quote:
And I'm an asshole? Ok.
We're assholes for two very reasons, brosef.
I spent some time thinking about it, and came to the conclusion it's actually for the same reason, if you're honest about it.
Hey...whatever you want to say to be like me, sure thing...;)
Well then...that's one way to say "no."