US & Syria - What drives Kerry?

[Trinidad]

As to parenting, I never much worried about a little inconsistency. A presidency is different.

Konrad Adenauer (former German Chancelor) didn't seem to agree with you (He once said: "Who says that I need to be consistent?".)

 

Rik

[mike777]

Konrad Adenauer (former German Chancelor) didn't seem to agree with you (He once said: "Who says that I need to be consistent?".)

 

Rik

 

 

sorry but you don't seem to know history..in fact he was willing for west Germany to be Abomb death to stop ussr

 

Germans willing to die ...very brave.

The whole point was to stop massive USSR tank attack.

 

You miss the entire post.

 

I fully grant today.....stop chemical attack..no stop Iran getting the bomb....well we see....

[blackshoe]

Being a leader means you act or do not act on imperfect information....

Barack Obama is not, never was, and never will be a leader.

[hrothgar]

Personally, I'm very torn on Syria.

 

I don't see much good coming from a small scale military intervention.

Lobbing in a few cruise missiles isn't going to do much good other than killing a few people and exposing the limits of power.

 

At the same time, I also believe that using gas weapons against civilian populations breaks civilized norms.

This sort of thing shouldn't be allowed to stand.

 

Its not necessarily the US's job to "fix" this type of problem. However, Obama did set certain expectations with his (stupid) comments about "crossing the red line". I didn't much like this statement when he made it. Right now, it looks to be a clear mistake because its tying our hands.

 

I don't pretend to know the right answer on this one. However, here's a couple quick observations about what I'd like to see.

 

First: This is a war of choice, not one of necessity. The decision to intervene in Syria should not be made by Obama in isolation, but rather determined by congress.

 

Second: If we go in, we should go in hard. I'm not talking boots on the ground. However, I don't think that a few cruise missiles are going to do anything. In order to make a meanfuling statement, we're going to want to inflict significant damage on the Syria military which means suppressing their air defenses, destroying their air force, and killing every major unit that doesn't scatter / disperse. If we aren't willing to take this step, we shouldn't get involved.

 

Third: I think that it would be a mistake to intervene unilaterally. I don't care about the British, the French, or even the UN. However, if we can't get active participation from either the Arab league or Saudi Arabia we shouldn't take action.

 

I suspect that the end result of this is an argument against intervention. However, I wouldn't be disappointed to see Obama pursue this course of action and then call things off if step one or three fail.

[hrothgar]

sorry but you don't seem to know history..in fact he was willing for west Germany to be Abomb death to stop ussr

 

Germans willing to die ...very brave.

The whole point was to stop massive USSR tank attack.

 

 

Mike, I suspect that you'd be every bit as brave if you were living in an occupied country with limited control over your foreign policy...

[hrothgar]

Barack Obama is not, never was, and never will be a leader.

 

How about going out on a limb and stating what you would do rather than complaining that the world doesn't correspond with your treasured Heinlein juveniles...

[kenberg]

Richard's views a few posts back pretty much agree with mine. I would add one more item to his list.

 

If Obama acts, he must be prepared to say what the objective is. Mostly, he has been speaking in negative terms. It woun't be prolonges, we don't intend to bring about regime change, we wone be sending in troops in a land invasion, etc. OK, but we do intend to do what?

 

 

Obviously it is always desirable to have a clear view of purpose befor launching a strike but I think that here it is even more important than usual. If I have it right, not only do we not want Assad to prevail, we are not so pleased with the current insurgent leadership either. Quite possibly the effect of a substabtial but not overwhelming or prolonged strike would be to deny either side a winning positino, greatly prolonging the killing, chemical or otherwise. This would not be good, and, for us, it particularly would not be good if it came to be thought that this was our intention. I hope that it is not our intention. Launching a strike when we don't really support either side seems close to nuts.

 

We need to be very clear about what we are doing, what our objectives are, how what we are doing has a reasonable chance of achieving our goals. I think it was Eliot Engel (NY Dem) last night on the PBS Newshour basically saying he supports our president and we should all support our president. Well, not really. I wish the president well just as I wish every president well in such difficult circumstances. But he needs to get this right, and critical evaluation of his plans is useful.

[kenberg]

After the coffee thought: Refresh my memory. During the Iran-Iraq war poison gas was used, was it not? No doubt we deplored it, but we didn't go bomb anyone because of it, did we?

 

 

Winston mentioned the Limits of Power. With that comes limits on responsibility. Syria is a mess. We can solve this? I doubt it.

[hrothgar]

 

If Obama acts, he must be prepared to say what the objective is. Mostly, he has been speaking in negative terms. It woun't be prolonges, we don't intend to bring about regime change, we wone be sending in troops in a land invasion, etc. OK, but we do intend to do what?

 

 

Since I advocated bombing (under certain circumstances) I guess I should explain why...

 

In my mind, the goal behind a bombing campaign is to inflict so much pain directly on the Syrian army that they are unwilling to follow Assad's commands.

Ideally, the army would be unwilling or unable to follow any commands. I'll settle for locking down the chemical weapon stores.

 

I admit to not having detailed knowledge of the ethnic composition of the Syrian army.

Its quite possible that its fragmented with certain groups more loyal to Assad than others.

If this is the case, it would probably be fruitful to only target Assad loyalists if this is feasible.

(One way or another we'll need to take out the air defense systems and probably the air force)

 

I recognize that this is in no way "limited" nor is it proportionate. I don't consider this constraints to be useful.

 

I also recognize that this doesn't specify how to put the country back together again.

This isn't about Syria.

 

It's about demonstrating that the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations will not be tolerated and hopefully deterring future use.

[1eyedjack]

As I understand the news reports, the French are in favour of military intervention on moral and humanitarian grounds. Obama is in favour of intervention because he will "continue to act in the USA's best interests".

 

I thought that Obama's stated reasons were refreshingly honest, if less admirable.

[kenberg]

 

I recognize that this is in no way "limited" nor is it proportionate. I don't consider this constraints to be useful.

 

 

I absolutely agree with this. Where did all of this enthusiasm for proportional, whatever that means, come from? The only conceivable justification for military action is that there is reason to believe that it will accomplish something worthwhile. Who cares about some proportionality assessment.

 

I applaud the fact that you give some sort of outline of what you would hope a strike would accomplish. I am not so sure that it would accomplish that, probably you aren't either, but at least it's the start of an evaluation.

 

 

[Trinidad]

As to parenting, I never much worried about a little inconsistency. A presidency is different.

Konrad Adenauer (former German Chancelor) didn't seem to agree with you (He once said: "Who says that I need to be consistent?".)

sorry but you don't seem to know history..in fact he was willing for west Germany to be Abomb death to stop ussr

Maybe you care to explain what the link is between the NATO cold war strategy in Europe and me saying that Konrad Adenauer took the liberty to be inconsistent?

 

You miss the entire post.

LOL

 

Oh, and BTW, you are completely wrong: It is a well documented fact that hippos do get quite aggressive.

 

Rik

[Winstonm]

I believe Ken brings up an extremely important point (one brought out by Andrew Bacevich, as well) that military intervention should have a clear objective, and it is equally important to have a post-strike objective. It is clear that the object here is to punish the use of chemical weapons against civilians - what is not so clear is who should be punished and how should that be done.

 

But even after such a strike, what then?

 

If this latter question cannot be answered, then there is no point in answering the first two.

[hrothgar]

But even after such a strike, what then?

 

If this latter question cannot be answered, then there is no point in answering the first two.

 

Not sure if I agree with this.

 

Right now, no one has a solution any better than "Sit back and watch this fester"

I'm not sure that we need to insist that the bombing makes this any better.

 

The point to understand is that the purpose in bombing is not to deter Assad, but to deter other (non Syrian) actors.

 

If I believed that the bombing would make things significantly worse in Syria that would be a different story.

[Winstonm]

Not sure if I agree with this.

 

The point to understand is that the purpose in bombing is not to deter Assad, but to deter other (non Syrian) actors.

 

If I believed that the bombing would make things significantly worse in Syria that would be a different story.

 

IMO, the idea of bombing is to show the world that line "x" cannot be crossed without consequences - but to make such a threat requires a consortium of nations willing to take such a position - and forcing reluctant nations to back that position is the political motivation for taking unilateral initial action.

 

The question is whether or not it is worth the consequences of polarization of nations that intervention will cause in order to force a future coalition of our allies.

 

This really needs to be a UN decision and a UN action, I believe.

 

Edit: I notice that Obama is asking Congressional approval for action - I hate to be this cynical but this looks to me like a case of passing the blame or a part of the blame for an attack to Congress, while creating, if Congress says no, a way to claim that he wanted to take action but was "prevented" by Congress.

[kenberg]

I am very p[eased that Obama is bringing Congress into this. It is my understanding that an aide brought my post #58 to his attention and he immediately saw the wisdom of it. Sources tell me that high level discussions are now in progress based on Richard's suggestions in post #79. Meanwhile, Sasha has been assigned to the Global Warming thread.

[Winstonm]

I am very p[eased that Obama is bringing Congress into this. It is my understanding that an aide brought my post #58 to his attention and he immediately saw the wisdom of it. Sources tell me that high level discussions are now in progress based on Richard's suggestions in post #79. Meanwhile, Sasha has been assigned to the Global Warming thread.

 

I got assigned to the Hijacked Thread Thread. <_<

[PassedOut]

Duplicate

[PassedOut]

I am very pleased that Obama is bringing Congress into this. It is my understanding that an aide brought my post #58 to his attention and he immediately saw the wisdom of it. Sources tell me that high level discussions are now in progress based on Richard's suggestions in post #79.

Well done posters!

 

Statement by the President on Syria

 

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.

 

Over the last several days, we've heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

 

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America's national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

Perhaps Assad will send an open letter to Congress as he did to Parliament. Congressional aides could read the letter and the information provided by US intelligence, if necessary, to their bosses.

[Aberlour10]

Obama and Kerry claim several times in the last 48 hours, that their evidence is very strong. I just wonder, why do they not show this so strong evidence in the UN Security Council?

If its true, the Russians would have no choice, they have to follow it.. Mr Putin asked for it today. Why not? Or his substantial doubts about this Slam Dunk are quite justifiable?

[PassedOut]

Obama and Kerry claim several times in the last 48 hours, that their evidence is very strong. I just wonder, why do they not show this so strong evidence in the UN Security Council?

If its true, the Russians would have no choice, they have to follow it.. Mr Putin asked for it today. Why not? Or his substantial doubts about this Slam Dunk are quite justifiable?

Obama offered the evidence in exchange for a hand, foot, and ear from Edward Snowden. Putin is still thinking it over...

:angry:

[blackshoe]

I don't think the US is the world's oldest constitutional democracy. The Six Nations have a constitution, and that democracy dates back 900 years.

 

I read "all of us should be accountable as we move forward" as "I'm not going down alone when this goes wrong". And it would be interesting to see what he says if Congress says no.

[hrothgar]

I read "all of us should be accountable as we move forward" as "I'm not going down alone when this goes wrong".

 

And, in a shocking development, Blackshoes is unable to under the notion of mutual responsibility...

[kenberg]

Obama and Kerry claim several times in the last 48 hours, that their evidence is very strong. I just wonder, why do they not show this so strong evidence in the UN Security Council?

If its true, the Russians would have no choice, they have to follow it.. Mr Putin asked for it today. Why not? Or his substantial doubts about this Slam Dunk are quite justifiable?

 

Vladimir Putin will acknowledge that the Syrians were behind the chemical attack on the same day that Donald Trump acknowledges Obama was born in Hawaii. They can hold a joint news conference.

[Trinidad]

Vladimir Putin will acknowledge that the Syrians were behind the chemical attack on the same day that Donald Trump acknowledges Obama was born in Hawaii. They can hold a joint news conference.

You have written this many times now, and I still don't have any idea where you get this idea.

 

It seems to be mainstream American ot think that the Russians will deny the truth. So far, Putin has said that there is no evidence. According to Putin, the Americans claim that they have evidence, but they aren't showing any of it. And evidence that you are not willing to show is no evidence.

 

I must say that I agree with Putin. The international community should not want to condemn a country based on hearsay from a country that has hardly any credibility at all in these matters.

 

I would even go further. I realize a comparison with bridge is not entirely fair, but in effect we have here one government (the USA) accusing another government (the Assad regime) of cheating. If you do that in bridge, you'ld better be willing to show some solid evidence the moment you make such an accusation. The Americans say: "We have evidence, but we don't allow you to verify it.". That simply means: provide the evidence or shut up.

 

In addition, we have a TD walking around here (the UN). The USA is not listening to the TD, they do not want to wait for the TD's ruling, and they say that they will chose their options ignoring the TD whenever they see fit.

 

Is this the kind of player you want in your game?!?

 

Let's wait until the TD returns with evidence. Then we will see what Putin does. (We already know what the Americans will say regardless of what the UN conclusions will be.)

 

Rik