OT: looks like we fired on Libya…..

[Allan from Fallbrook]

FIH: So, this administration has dithered for two years, nearly 100,000 people are dead, there is no workable plan in place for effective strikes and Obama, realizing that he’s painted himself into a corner, is now attempting to proactively blame shift by involving Congress is crafting a master stroke?

That’s your honest read of the situation? You think Assad gives a rat’s ass if we take out a palace? Really? This dude is all about holding onto power. Period. There is no viable endgame for Assad, other than death or victory.

You notice who is remarkably quiet on all this? Hillary Clinton. Wonder why that is? I thought Dubya’s foreign policy in the Middle East was too heavy handed, but he knew how to sound a message. This administration is starting to make Carter look actually competent. The US is a joke now.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I watched all the Sunday analysis.

Syria is not about regime change but a punishing strike for the use of chemical weapons. Kerry made the case that regime change is a goal through diplomatic and political means, not military.

Coming from Kerry, a long time anti war activist, I trust his judgement.

A strike could be something like destroying the presidential palace.

I think that Obama asking for congressional approval will turn out to be a master stoke. We will find out when congress gets back into town.[/quote]

This post reminds me why it’s important not to get too attached to the political party. Obama drew some red line and in order to maintain credibly he has to do something that only his strongest supporters want him to do. Most Obama supporters are anti war yet now they want war (aka “limited strikes” to make it look better on paper) because Obama looks weak if he doesn’t follow through. Obama is indeed fallible, striking Syria with no international support is stupid. Just like it would be stupid to strike Syria if warmonger John McCain was president.

In the world of unintended consequences we probably get drawn in, topple Asad and the Al Qaida linked rebels get access to Syria’s chemical weapons. Brilliant strategy that was executed because of some kind of political face saving. Democratic party strategist, “We’ll poll better in 2014 midterm elections if we look strong. If something bad happens we can just put the blame elsewhere.”

[SD Realtor]

yep…yep… and yep…as horrid as Assad is, I cringe to think what happens if he falls. Utter and complete chaos. Unless you have a plan to 100% occupy that country and cleanse it of all the weaponry I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Launching a strike to “prove a point” without any contingency plan in place is the stupidest thing in the world. What happens if Obama proves his point and other countries launch strikes on Isreal who then strikes back and the whole place flares up.

What the hell are we thinking?

Then what? What kind of genius is that?

[NotCranky]

Allan, Correct me if I am wrong but Hillary is a private citizen at this time? Taking a highly public role would be not so great for her and could be bad for the party.
Can’t see why to call her out? She might endorse Obama publicly, but doesn’t want to look too involved.

Situation is getting worse either way. The propaganda machine has been turned up to 11. The “debate” is scandalous. Anything we do, or don’t do is scandalous because that’s how history has made it. We do what we shouldn’t do or turn our backs on Allies who are used to us doing their fighting/nation building for them. Bad situation.

Putin is kicking O’s ass and there is nothing “his girl”Oprah can do about it. If it weren’t so serious it would be hilarious.

Going for popcorn now.

[SD Realtor]

Better to fold then to play out a losing hand.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Blogstar]Allan, Correct me if I am wrong but Hillary is a private citizen at this time? Taking a highly public role would be not so great for her and could be bad for the party.
Can’t see why to call her out? She might endorse Obama publicly, but doesn’t want to look too involved.

Situation is getting worse either way. The propaganda machine has been turned up to 11. The “debate” is scandalous. Anything we do, or don’t do is scandalous because that’s how history has made it. We do what we shouldn’t do or turn our backs on Allies who are used to us doing their fighting/nation building for them. Bad situation.

Putin is kicking O’s ass and there is nothing “his girl”Oprah can do about it. If it weren’t so serious it would be hilarious.

Going for popcorn now.[/quote]

Russ: Hillary is indeed a private citizen, and I wasn’t calling her out as much as I was making an observation. If the political calculus favored it, Hillary would’ve issued a statement calling for a “measured response” and done so for the good of the party, as Obama is clearly floundering here.

Anyway you cut it, he’s hosed. He opts out of the strike, he’ll be castigated roundly for being weak and Assad and Putin and Iran will turn this into a major propaganda victory.

He decides to strike, he runs the risk of a widening conflict, potentially one spilling out and involving Israel, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, take your pick. Syria is pretty much right in the middle of everything there.

It’s a godawful mess and our foreign policy is an absolute shambles right now.

Maybe he can give another speech in Cairo. Oh, wait…

[FlyerInHi]

I don’t think Obama is painting himself in a corner at all.

Assad may not care about a palace but a strike would be of symbolic significance that that world will not countenance the use of chemical weapons.

Strike or not, Assad will remain power for a while yet. I don’t think that there is anything for us to lose in a limited strike.

If Congress passes the resolution, Obama is stronger. If Congress rejects the resolution, Obama can still order a targeted strike (such as the destruction of a palace of military installation) and look presidential. He wins either way.

With a congressional resolution, he can do more.

I don’t think there was dithering. The alternative would have been a McCain type involvement.

[spdrun]

We won’t countenance use of chemical weapons except by ourselves. We used white phosphorus (which is a toxin as well as a incendiary) against civilians in Fallujah in 2004. How quickly we hypocrites forget.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

FIH: So, uh, the last two years never happened? That first 90,000+ who were killed is okey doke, but we’re really pissed off at this last 1,500 because Assad used chemical weapons?

Does taking out a palace count for more on the international stage, then, say, lobbing a cruise missile at an aspirin factory?

And you believe that Obama’s planned destruction of Assad’s pied a terre is gonna make him look “presidential”? To whom? He has bungled badly here and, yes, he has painted himself into a corner and is desperately seeking help from wherever he can find it. I mean, France? Seriously?

Dude, just because you voted for him (I’m guessing twice, based on your full-throated support of his obvious ineptitude) doesn’t mean you have to suspend reality on his behalf.

Obama is being exposed for his lack of credentials and lack of experience and profound lack of understanding of the power dynamics that undergird the Middle East. Poor sap truly believed that his speech in Cairo would change a single thing there. And we have 3 and a half more years of this nonsense to look forward to.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]Better to fold then to play out a losing hand.[/quote]

There is no winning hand here, and there never has been. Not two years ago, not a year ago, and not now. The only question is what degree of chaos will ensue.

[spdrun]

^^^

Exactly. And I’m not sure whether an intervention in Syria will make things there better or worse.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]^^^

Exactly. And I’m not sure whether an intervention in Syria will make things there better or worse.[/quote]

That’s why we want targeted strike that won’t affect the military outcome in Syria but is a moral stance against chemical weapons.

Kerry said military regime change is not the goal. McCain want to make it an American objective.

[FlyerInHi]

You are casting too wide a net, Allan.

I don’t support regime change and getting involved in other countries’ affairs.

This is about punishment for the use of chemical weapons, nothing more. Kerry said as much.

As far as the bigger picture in the Middle East, the current situation was decades in the making and we largely contributed to it. In my opinion, we should have stayed out of the middle easy altogether. We went in there to protect European oil interests (read Iran).

We should have let Israel fend for itself back in the early days. That was a British problem. Had we let it play out then, the situation would have resolved itself by now.

[spdrun]

“Targeted strike” — meaning we kill a few hundred more civilians and give Assad a new scapegoat to blame his failures on. Color me skeptical.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=spdrun]^^^

Exactly. And I’m not sure whether an intervention in Syria will make things there better or worse.[/quote]

You’re not sure, huh? Color me shocked.

[Author]

Posts