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
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 )
"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...
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.
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
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
"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,
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.
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...
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.
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