CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
It almost seems more like they want to have their cake and eat it too, by claiming for voters that they voted in support of 9/11 victims families in one moment and claiming later that the bill's worst effects are somehow Obama's fault and not the fault of Congress because he didn't warn them somehow, hoping the public won't notice.
Yeah, my initial reaction was along the lines of "good, fuck the House of Saud," but at this point I'm just confused at wtf these Senators' thought process was.
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Yeah, my initial reaction was along the lines of "good, fuck the House of Saud," but at this point I'm just confused at wtf these Senators' thought process was.
Easy. It's an election year and this bill was something the 9/11 families wanted. You either vote to override or you get beaten over the head with this for the next six weeks.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
It certainly is a shitty situation. I would hope the senate would understand that overriding the veto was objectively the wrong move, but the politics of it is potentially nasty.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
It certainly is a shitty situation. I would hope the senate would understand that overriding the veto was objectively the wrong move, but the politics of it is potentially nasty.
Yeah, it's a big old can of worms. I can't say there isn't a bit of me that isn't a little happy about throwing a wrench into our relationship with SA though.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
It certainly is a shitty situation. I would hope the senate would understand that overriding the veto was objectively the wrong move, but the politics of it is potentially nasty.
Yeah, it's a big old can of worms. I can't say there isn't a bit of me that isn't a little happy about throwing a wrench into our relationship with SA though.
I mostly agree. They've tried to poison our interaction in the MENA almost as much as Israel, especially with regards to the Iran nuclear deal. Historically they have done some things for us, such as dropping the bottom out of the petroleum market in the 80's as a form of economic warfare on the USSR. But "oil politics" is a bitch, otherwise we would probably be looking heavily again towards Eqypt, and maybe contemporary Iran, as non Israeli points of contact for MENA diplomacy/interaction. What has really held us back from truly investing in Iran has been KSA and Israel, and at least for Israel the opinion on the JCPA seemingly varies from "They're going to get nuclear capability and try to destroy us!" to "This is a good incentive to keep their nuclear ambitions aimed only towards power generation". For KSA it's not just an issue of checking Iranian ambitions in the region, but an ideological conflict. And Salman appears to be very aggressive to that end in Syria and Yemen.
Yeah, my initial reaction was along the lines of "good, fuck the House of Saud," but at this point I'm just confused at wtf these Senators' thought process was.
Easy. It's an election year and this bill was something the 9/11 families wanted. You either vote to override or you get beaten over the head with this for the next six weeks.
See, I'd believe this .. except they overrode the veto.
Like, Obama already gave them an out. He handed it to them on a silver-platter. If they really thought it was a bad idea all along just eat the veto and blame the whole thing on Obama. Nice and easy.
But instead they worked to override the veto. By massive numbers. That suggests to me they are just goddamn stupid. Which is definitely completely plausible.
The Republican side of the aisle, at least, is used to not giving a damn. Doing the opposite of what he wants is probably unthinking habit/reflex by now.
I have no excuse for the Dems.
Man, a lot of Western media outlets are getting hysterical over the battle of Aleppo. Obama's refusal to directly attack the Syrian government seems to be provoking a sort of emotional breakdown in the US foreign policy establishment. The Guardian and Washington Post are at Russia Today levels of propaganda at this point.
Come on, we've read this headline like once a month for the past three years, anyone who doesn't already believe this isn't gonna be convinced by article #6083 on the subject.
Man, a lot of Western media outlets are getting hysterical over the battle of Aleppo. Obama's refusal to directly attack the Syrian government seems to be provoking a sort of emotional breakdown in the US foreign policy establishment. The Guardian and Washington Post are at Russia Today levels of propaganda at this point.
Come on, we've read this headline like once a month for the past three years, anyone who doesn't already believe this isn't gonna be convinced by article #6083 on the subject.
To be fair, a lot of them never changed this opinion--both on the left or right. Syria wasn't popular before the civil war began--neither was Iraq, but Iraq was invaded and occupied. Syria wasn't much more popular. If it gets rid of the government, turn Damascus into a giant crater. Russian aircraft? A moment of pause, but it's not like the Israelis, Saudis, and Turks didn't already have their aircraft over Syria. No one ever said it was going to be painless. Those Syrian Christians, Armenians, and other minorities aligned with the government? Either they don't exist, or they knew they were getting themselves into. No lost love there.
They're being internally consistent (in a sad, familiar way). When it comes to foreign press coverage, that's more the norm than the exception than domestic news. Is it the opinion of the vast majority of American (or British) major press? I don't know. But the Syrian Civil War has strongly suggest quite a few more of them would rather take the government's--and the White House's--word at face value than wouldn't (or at the very least, they're much more vocal about it). Aleppo seems to be the latest in as series of cases where the government's rhetorical bluster has "written a cheque" that's a little less attractive for a Democratic presidency to cash in the middle of presidential election and very high levels of public skepticism of government.
But that's only how I see it. I definitely feel like we've been here before--back when Sec. Kerry had to awkwardly dance around the fact that those so-forbidden chemical weapons had been used by much-praised Syrian rebels, according to the same sources the United States counted on deliver (most likely genuine) reports of Syrian government use of chemical weapons. It's that awkward moment over again.
EDIT: Of course, it's further complicated that the United States' history--a history of bad blood with the Syrian government--has put us in the position of overeagerly making deals with organizations opposed to the Syrian government. It's worth remembering--Syria was our enemy before the civil war began, just as long as Iran had been. And that has made this even further complicated.
Man, a lot of Western media outlets are getting hysterical over the battle of Aleppo. Obama's refusal to directly attack the Syrian government seems to be provoking a sort of emotional breakdown in the US foreign policy establishment. The Guardian and Washington Post are at Russia Today levels of propaganda at this point.
Come on, we've read this headline like once a month for the past three years, anyone who doesn't already believe this isn't gonna be convinced by article #6083 on the subject.
For military victory over the Islamic State to be sealed, Washington and its allies must prepare their partners in the Syrian opposition to govern liberated areas.
Oh, is that all? I can't imagine why no one thought of that before...
Man, a lot of Western media outlets are getting hysterical over the battle of Aleppo. Obama's refusal to directly attack the Syrian government seems to be provoking a sort of emotional breakdown in the US foreign policy establishment. The Guardian and Washington Post are at Russia Today levels of propaganda at this point.
Come on, we've read this headline like once a month for the past three years, anyone who doesn't already believe this isn't gonna be convinced by article #6083 on the subject.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed this. These war drums beat periodically but there just isn't the will to commit more strongly to the Middle East, its too damn unpopular back home.
Man, a lot of Western media outlets are getting hysterical over the battle of Aleppo. Obama's refusal to directly attack the Syrian government seems to be provoking a sort of emotional breakdown in the US foreign policy establishment. The Guardian and Washington Post are at Russia Today levels of propaganda at this point.
Come on, we've read this headline like once a month for the past three years, anyone who doesn't already believe this isn't gonna be convinced by article #6083 on the subject.
To be fair, a lot of them never changed this opinion--both on the left or right. Syria wasn't popular before the civil war began--neither was Iraq, but Iraq was invaded and occupied. Syria wasn't much more popular. If it gets rid of the government, turn Damascus into a giant crater. Russian aircraft? A moment of pause, but it's not like the Israelis, Saudis, and Turks didn't already have their aircraft over Syria. No one ever said it was going to be painless. Those Syrian Christians, Armenians, and other minorities aligned with the government? Either they don't exist, or they knew they were getting themselves into. No lost love there.
They're being internally consistent (in a sad, familiar way). When it comes to foreign press coverage, that's more the norm than the exception than domestic news. Is it the opinion of the vast majority of American (or British) major press? I don't know. But the Syrian Civil War has strongly suggest quite a few more of them would rather take the government's--and the White House's--word at face value than wouldn't (or at the very least, they're much more vocal about it). Aleppo seems to be the latest in as series of cases where the government's rhetorical bluster has "written a cheque" that's a little less attractive for a Democratic presidency to cash in the middle of presidential election and very high levels of public skepticism of government.
But that's only how I see it. I definitely feel like we've been here before--back when Sec. Kerry had to awkwardly dance around the fact that those so-forbidden chemical weapons had been used by much-praised Syrian rebels, according to the same sources the United States counted on deliver (most likely genuine) reports of Syrian government use of chemical weapons. It's that awkward moment over again.
EDIT: Of course, it's further complicated that the United States' history--a history of bad blood with the Syrian government--has put us in the position of overeagerly making deals with organizations opposed to the Syrian government. It's worth remembering--Syria was our enemy before the civil war began, just as long as Iran had been. And that has made this even further complicated.
Longer than Iran, really. They were a target of ire from the dawn of the Ba'ath party.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
The US has said it is suspending talks with Russia over Syria, accusing Moscow of having "failed to live up" to its commitments under a ceasefire deal.
The Taliban have again penetrated Kunduz city and are fighting over the city center. The US says it is helping the ANSF try to push them out of the city.
At the same time, the Taliban reportedly took over a district center in Helmand via an assault spearheaded by a suicide truck bomb, in which they killed the district's police chief.
edit - NYT says the ANSF has reclaimed the city center and is pushing on other neighborhoods of the provincial capital which are still controlled by the Taliban.
One police commander in the city, Shafi Zakhil, said American military advisers were on the ground helping in the defense of the governor’s compound. A spokesman for the United States forces in Afghanistan said they could not provides details on “the current disposition of enabler and train, advise and assist forces” because the operation was still underway.
The US has said it is suspending talks with Russia over Syria, accusing Moscow of having "failed to live up" to its commitments under a ceasefire deal.
*Throws a grenade into the fire.*
Yeah, the Russians have also backed off on the US-Russia Plutonium deal, which is also a Bad Thing
Man, a lot of Western media outlets are getting hysterical over the battle of Aleppo. Obama's refusal to directly attack the Syrian government seems to be provoking a sort of emotional breakdown in the US foreign policy establishment. The Guardian and Washington Post are at Russia Today levels of propaganda at this point.
Come on, we've read this headline like once a month for the past three years, anyone who doesn't already believe this isn't gonna be convinced by article #6083 on the subject.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed this. These war drums beat periodically but there just isn't the will to commit more strongly to the Middle East, its too damn unpopular back home.
My unscientific opinion is that popularity, as we think of it, doesn't really matter anymore. The argument and objectives of the hawks have shifted. For all I've prattled on about just why the United States sees the government of Syria as its enemy, and has no reason to change that opinion, the Deir ez-Zor raid has more or less punctuated what I assumed was the objective for a long time: while the brain trusts debate about how to keep the Islamic State dwindling into defeat, today's United State' grievances can be largely fulfilled by destroying the government enemy as it sees fit--and since a dozen nations have spent the last five years periodically bombing Syria with very few, if any, political consequences (and to be fair, so has the Syrian government to innocent civilians and armed combatants alike), it'd be foolish not to. How is this different from Iraq? Has Washington learned a fundamental lesson about the cost of rebuilding countries in its own image? Did former Pres. Bush have a personal grudge or history with the Hussein leadership clique that current Pres. Obama doesn't have against the Assad leadership clique, even if it is clearly his enemy nonetheless? Are we just at our limit with a few hundred thousand troops all over the world? There are as many answers to that as overseas American bases.
I don't think there's a need to sell 85% of the American population and legislature on an escalation of ground forces, a proper invasion force, and, eventually, a decades-long occupation. 95% of the population is either in favor of, or doesn't care, if you launch an asymmetrical air war against what amounts to just another enemy. And remaining <5% will probably stay quiet so long as everyone else reminds them that the enemy "is as bad as or worse than ISIL", and, unlike ISIL, actually possesses a sovereign nation and government that you can bomb into dirt, and not just some hastily seized territory and intangible ideals of Salafist and Wahhabist resistance to its enemies whom amount to the rest of the world. Of course, my theory will be shot up like a Syrian army camp targeted by Operation 'Inherent Resolve' aircraft if a no-fly zone goes up, and after a few waves of Syrian aircraft are shot down, a Russian or Iranian aircraft is downed, I won't know what'll happen next.
Say what you will about the American government, we're/they're learning. And our/their political denial abilities are second to none, and we've demonstrated that we'll resort to political theater--"The gall of these accusations!"--like any other power involved.
Also, 'Inherent Resolve'....if one thing hasn't changed, it's the government's love of airport thriller novel titles for its operations.
I'm honestly not sure what we're supposed to do about Assad.
I don't think we can do nothing -- that's both politically and morally untenable. We also can't go in and kick him out. We're kind of stuck with this middle ground of ineffectually bombing things and hoping someone else will do something. I don't think that's the right thing to do, but all the other options are just as bad or worse. What do you do when there are no good options?
I'm honestly not sure what we're supposed to do about Assad.
I don't think we can do nothing -- that's both politically and morally untenable. We also can't go in and kick him out. We're kind of stuck with this middle ground of ineffectually bombing things and hoping someone else will do something. I don't think that's the right thing to do, but all the other options are just as bad or worse. What do you do when there are no good options?
Strictly in relation to them, I think what we're going to do (which from a cynical standpoint of adversarial nation states is indistinguishable from ought to do) is bomb Syria, and arm a variety of Syrian opposition forces, until either the Assad family is dead or forced into exile. And it won't be over then obviously.
I think it's important to remember that Pres. Assad does not exist in a vacuum any more than Pres. Obama does. While it's a comforting thought to think, "Oh, if only this one guy was dead, maybe not all of our problems would be solved, but it'd at least be a start..." The civil war has galvanized both sides leadership for and against the Assad family's rule. Bashar Al-Assad, personally, wasn't revered as a protector to Syrian Christian communities before they were targeted by their neighbors in the conflagration--before that, he was probably at best just a benefactor within the status quo. And there's not a lot of indication that the United States is in a particular mood to negotiate with the Ba'athist Party as a whole when, after all, the Syrian opposition is better at providing lots of charismatic leaders-in-waiting than effective fighters who're immune to sectarian motivations. If the Damascus government is able to compromise, even on a day-to-day basis, with Kurdish forces, it'll only raise the pressure on all their enemies.
Personally, I have a long list of reasons why I absolutely do not think assassinating the Assad family is any sort of positive solution, but let's put that aside in the face that, clearly, many Syrian opposition groups would consider it a positive outcome. If/After/When the Assad family dies or leaves, I imagine the war will go on--especially if it was an assassination. Martyrdom will force the sides to double-down and make a truce seem even more untenable, even if their absence weakens loyalist forces. If/After/When the whole Ba'athist leadership is decapitated? Who knows.
EDIT: I drifted off-topic a bit VishNub, I didn't mean to suggest that you were advocating assassination.
Synthesis on
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
"No good options" is the motto for the entire region.
Foreign Policy in a nutshell.
+1
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
Say what you will about the Russians, at least their policy towards Syria is concrete. "Assad's our guy, so we back Assad. Also, we don't want any of that terrorist shit working its way back to Chechnya, so fuck these Islamist groups." It's callous, even monstrous, but it's straightforward and pursues a tangible goal.
Compare to the US approach, which is to try to bring down Assad with no plan for what would happen if he fell and nobody to back but a motley collection of rebel groups who fight each other as often as they fight Assad. All while fighting ISIS yet not really addressing the factors that created it in the first place and that will probably create a new, similar group even if ISIS is destroyed.
Say what you will about the Russians, at least their policy towards Syria is concrete. "Assad's our guy, so we back Assad. Also, we don't want any of that terrorist shit working its way back to Chechnya, so fuck these Islamist groups." It's callous, even monstrous, but it's straightforward and pursues a tangible goal.
Compare to the US approach, which is to try to bring down Assad with no plan for what would happen if he fell and nobody to back but a motley collection of rebel groups who fight each other as often as they fight Assad. All while fighting ISIS yet not really addressing the factors that created it in the first place and that will probably create a new, similar group even if ISIS is destroyed.
OK, so solve the problem then. Take down Assad and you will just have a collection of militias fighting each other, providing the same conditions to create a new, similar group to ISIS.
Say what you will about the Russians, at least their policy towards Syria is concrete. "Assad's our guy, so we back Assad. Also, we don't want any of that terrorist shit working its way back to Chechnya, so fuck these Islamist groups." It's callous, even monstrous, but it's straightforward and pursues a tangible goal.
Compare to the US approach, which is to try to bring down Assad with no plan for what would happen if he fell and nobody to back but a motley collection of rebel groups who fight each other as often as they fight Assad. All while fighting ISIS yet not really addressing the factors that created it in the first place and that will probably create a new, similar group even if ISIS is destroyed.
The US approach isn't really to bring down Assad. I... uh... if that was really the US' primary goal, it would have happened already. It's, at most, a secondary goal, or a byway to its real goals. There've been several pieces where Obama has described his reasons for not intervening in Syria, specifically citing their failures in Libya and Iraq, though he also slams the US foreign policy establishment for advocating exactly what you describe.
That being said, imo, the US should just NOPE the fuck out of the Middle East. The region's basically re-enacting the European religious wars. There's no benefit to interceding in any way, unless the US is willing to use a lot more force than I think. (My background position is that I believe that societies have to "earn" their achievements; grafting democracy or peace onto a society that didn't pay the price for them is only a temporary bandaid at best.)
Man, a lot of Western media outlets are getting hysterical over the battle of Aleppo. Obama's refusal to directly attack the Syrian government seems to be provoking a sort of emotional breakdown in the US foreign policy establishment. The Guardian and Washington Post are at Russia Today levels of propaganda at this point.
Come on, we've read this headline like once a month for the past three years, anyone who doesn't already believe this isn't gonna be convinced by article #6083 on the subject.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed this. These war drums beat periodically but there just isn't the will to commit more strongly to the Middle East, its too damn unpopular back home.
My unscientific opinion is that popularity, as we think of it, doesn't really matter anymore. The argument and objectives of the hawks have shifted. For all I've prattled on about just why the United States sees the government of Syria as its enemy, and has no reason to change that opinion, the Deir ez-Zor raid has more or less punctuated what I assumed was the objective for a long time: while the brain trusts debate about how to keep the Islamic State dwindling into defeat, today's United State' grievances can be largely fulfilled by destroying the government enemy as it sees fit--and since a dozen nations have spent the last five years periodically bombing Syria with very few, if any, political consequences (and to be fair, so has the Syrian government to innocent civilians and armed combatants alike), it'd be foolish not to. How is this different from Iraq? Has Washington learned a fundamental lesson about the cost of rebuilding countries in its own image? Did former Pres. Bush have a personal grudge or history with the Hussein leadership clique that current Pres. Obama doesn't have against the Assad leadership clique, even if it is clearly his enemy nonetheless? Are we just at our limit with a few hundred thousand troops all over the world? There are as many answers to that as overseas American bases.
I don't think there's a need to sell 85% of the American population and legislature on an escalation of ground forces, a proper invasion force, and, eventually, a decades-long occupation. 95% of the population is either in favor of, or doesn't care, if you launch an asymmetrical air war against what amounts to just another enemy. And remaining <5% will probably stay quiet so long as everyone else reminds them that the enemy "is as bad as or worse than ISIL", and, unlike ISIL, actually possesses a sovereign nation and government that you can bomb into dirt, and not just some hastily seized territory and intangible ideals of Salafist and Wahhabist resistance to its enemies whom amount to the rest of the world. Of course, my theory will be shot up like a Syrian army camp targeted by Operation 'Inherent Resolve' aircraft if a no-fly zone goes up, and after a few waves of Syrian aircraft are shot down, a Russian or Iranian aircraft is downed, I won't know what'll happen next.
Say what you will about the American government, we're/they're learning. And our/their political denial abilities are second to none, and we've demonstrated that we'll resort to political theater--"The gall of these accusations!"--like any other power involved.
Also, 'Inherent Resolve'....if one thing hasn't changed, it's the government's love of airport thriller novel titles for its operations.
I think Syria is very different then Iraq pre-Invasion though. Like, the foreign policy establishment/deep-state in the US has had a hate on for Assad for awhile now and still does. But the public imo just doesn't give a shit and never has. Contrast this against Iraq and Saddam Hussein who's name was super well-known since the 90s and was well known enough to be a generic evil guy in movies and shit.
You'd have to sell the US populace on this idea, over their reluctance to have another war and over the fact that they don't care and have no real pre-existing cultural zeitgeist to work off of.
They've been watching us get our hands dirty in Iraq/Afghanistan for going on 15 years now. Don't know why they'd pay more attention in Syria. Unless we actually fight them, they aren't going to care.
Is backing down and accepting "defeat" in Syria really not an option? I'm under no delusions that the war would end if we did - regional allies would continue backing the rebels, and the government isn't strong enough to achieve a quick victory. But if only one major power was involved, rather than two using the country as a battleground, might that not end up reducing violence in the medium to long term? The US doesn't want to intervene decisively, for good reason, so it seems to me that continued backing of the rebels just ensures a longer and bloodier conflict.
Maybe one of the US goals is, in a way, 'impressing' Russia, so they stop shitting up Europe with their paid alt right parties?
If that's your goal, I hope you have a time machine, because you're going to need to go back 25 years and tell the western governments, "I know communism is really bad, but maybe don't give this Boris Yeltsin guy a blank cheque and your vocal public backing. He's shitting on the entirety of Eurasia, and people aren't going to forget all your smiling faces on television."
Of course, the irony there is that not only did people remember those smiling faces, so did Boris Yeltsin's successors--and they're very good at scheming, almost as good as ourselves. But that's literally a discussion for a different thread, I suppose.
The Russians just moved another AA system into Syria.
I think they are worried we will knock over Assad.
Under the current President no. He has stated many times he does not see how it helps America to do so.
Under the next President.....
If I were in Damascus, I think I would look at the coming months in the United States as such: either one person will win, and she will have previously come out in favor of no-fly-zones and have a hawkish reputation both as a former foreign minister during wartime, and also out of obligation to overcome the stereotype of a "weak woman" in office (Thatcher and Gandhi, hawks in their own time, faced a similar pressure).
Or another person will win, and he will, having largely been recognized as having literally no foreign policy experience and rumored to have very little interest in government leadership in that arena beyond inflammatory, often implausible rhetoric, will defer to his rivals in the leadership of his party and legislature--men whom are thoroughly ideological cold warriors, who share the same disgust for the region as a whole, and are more publicly keen for warfare or escalation.
It doesn't look great either way. But I'm also overly pessimistic.
"No good options" is the motto for the entire region.
Quite possibly because we spent 150 years breaking the place in the name of imperialism.
France/Austria/GB "Hey. The Ottomans are kind of a threat right? So lets fucking crush them...riiight?"
France/GB "What do you mean by 'we can't just draw an arbitrary line'? Nonsense!"
GB/France/US "I mean. Technically we're pro-democracy. But they got oil man. OIL!"
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Is backing down and accepting "defeat" in Syria really not an option? I'm under no delusions that the war would end if we did - regional allies would continue backing the rebels, and the government isn't strong enough to achieve a quick victory. But if only one major power was involved, rather than two using the country as a battleground, might that not end up reducing violence in the medium to long term? The US doesn't want to intervene decisively, for good reason, so it seems to me that continued backing of the rebels just ensures a longer and bloodier conflict.
I'm doubtful considering how long the thing has been going before everyone really started sticking their fingers into the pie.
shryke on
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The Russians just moved another AA system into Syria.
I think they are worried we will knock over Assad.
Under the current President no. He has stated many times he does not see how it helps America to do so.
Under the next President.....
Specifically a S-300VM that Wikipedia (Jane's for poor people) says is totes good against cruise missiles. Dunno how accurate the information is, but it's not a cut-rate out of date system they sent over there.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+1
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Is backing down and accepting "defeat" in Syria really not an option? I'm under no delusions that the war would end if we did - regional allies would continue backing the rebels, and the government isn't strong enough to achieve a quick victory. But if only one major power was involved, rather than two using the country as a battleground, might that not end up reducing violence in the medium to long term? The US doesn't want to intervene decisively, for good reason, so it seems to me that continued backing of the rebels just ensures a longer and bloodier conflict.
I'm doubtful considering how long the thing has been going before everyone really started sticking their fingers into the pie.
I think the idea is if there was only one major power involved, and that major power was Russia, they would act decisively to crush the rebels and reestablish Assad. Which seems just terrible. Is there a reason we couldn't form an alliance with Russia with the agreement that after the ruling government is ousted we butt out of their proxy state and let them negotiate favorable alliances with the new guys? Besides how outlandish it is I mean, voluntarily bowing out of the prick waving contest and all.
Is backing down and accepting "defeat" in Syria really not an option? I'm under no delusions that the war would end if we did - regional allies would continue backing the rebels, and the government isn't strong enough to achieve a quick victory. But if only one major power was involved, rather than two using the country as a battleground, might that not end up reducing violence in the medium to long term? The US doesn't want to intervene decisively, for good reason, so it seems to me that continued backing of the rebels just ensures a longer and bloodier conflict.
I'm doubtful considering how long the thing has been going before everyone really started sticking their fingers into the pie.
Everyone was pretty much sticking their fingers in the pie by the end of 2012, but in some cases I guess it was just the fingertip, whereas now they're basically fisting the pie. So I half agree.
Is backing down and accepting "defeat" in Syria really not an option? I'm under no delusions that the war would end if we did - regional allies would continue backing the rebels, and the government isn't strong enough to achieve a quick victory. But if only one major power was involved, rather than two using the country as a battleground, might that not end up reducing violence in the medium to long term? The US doesn't want to intervene decisively, for good reason, so it seems to me that continued backing of the rebels just ensures a longer and bloodier conflict.
I'm doubtful considering how long the thing has been going before everyone really started sticking their fingers into the pie.
I think the idea is if there was only one major power involved, and that major power was Russia, they would act decisively to crush the rebels and reestablish Assad. Which seems just terrible. Is there a reason we couldn't form an alliance with Russia with the agreement that after the ruling government is ousted we butt out of their proxy state and let them negotiate favorable alliances with the new guys? Besides how outlandish it is I mean, voluntarily bowing out of the prick waving contest and all.
My POV: The administration has seen the result of helping overthrow Qaddafi which opened up a situation with two "legitimate" governments currently fighting each other (Tripoli and Tobruk) with a smattering of Islamist groups and local militias (including remnants of IS after they lost Sirte last month).
Combine that with a desire to check Russia's ambitions to get into the Med (part of their ongoing naval modernization is a desire to regain a Cold War level of presence in the Med) and I imagine that colors the WH's desire to "ally" with Russia on this and why they've cooled off on the "Red Line" rhetoric.
Posts
Idiots.
"Why didn't you tell us the stove was hot?!"
"We did."
"Well... you should have known we wouldn't listen the first time and said it again!"
This is really stupid on so many levels.
It's quite amazing.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Easy. It's an election year and this bill was something the 9/11 families wanted. You either vote to override or you get beaten over the head with this for the next six weeks.
Yeah, it's a big old can of worms. I can't say there isn't a bit of me that isn't a little happy about throwing a wrench into our relationship with SA though.
I mostly agree. They've tried to poison our interaction in the MENA almost as much as Israel, especially with regards to the Iran nuclear deal. Historically they have done some things for us, such as dropping the bottom out of the petroleum market in the 80's as a form of economic warfare on the USSR. But "oil politics" is a bitch, otherwise we would probably be looking heavily again towards Eqypt, and maybe contemporary Iran, as non Israeli points of contact for MENA diplomacy/interaction. What has really held us back from truly investing in Iran has been KSA and Israel, and at least for Israel the opinion on the JCPA seemingly varies from "They're going to get nuclear capability and try to destroy us!" to "This is a good incentive to keep their nuclear ambitions aimed only towards power generation". For KSA it's not just an issue of checking Iranian ambitions in the region, but an ideological conflict. And Salman appears to be very aggressive to that end in Syria and Yemen.
See, I'd believe this .. except they overrode the veto.
Like, Obama already gave them an out. He handed it to them on a silver-platter. If they really thought it was a bad idea all along just eat the veto and blame the whole thing on Obama. Nice and easy.
But instead they worked to override the veto. By massive numbers. That suggests to me they are just goddamn stupid. Which is definitely completely plausible.
I have no excuse for the Dems.
"The Islamic State and Assad: Two sides of the same coin"
Come on, we've read this headline like once a month for the past three years, anyone who doesn't already believe this isn't gonna be convinced by article #6083 on the subject.
To be fair, a lot of them never changed this opinion--both on the left or right. Syria wasn't popular before the civil war began--neither was Iraq, but Iraq was invaded and occupied. Syria wasn't much more popular. If it gets rid of the government, turn Damascus into a giant crater. Russian aircraft? A moment of pause, but it's not like the Israelis, Saudis, and Turks didn't already have their aircraft over Syria. No one ever said it was going to be painless. Those Syrian Christians, Armenians, and other minorities aligned with the government? Either they don't exist, or they knew they were getting themselves into. No lost love there.
They're being internally consistent (in a sad, familiar way). When it comes to foreign press coverage, that's more the norm than the exception than domestic news. Is it the opinion of the vast majority of American (or British) major press? I don't know. But the Syrian Civil War has strongly suggest quite a few more of them would rather take the government's--and the White House's--word at face value than wouldn't (or at the very least, they're much more vocal about it). Aleppo seems to be the latest in as series of cases where the government's rhetorical bluster has "written a cheque" that's a little less attractive for a Democratic presidency to cash in the middle of presidential election and very high levels of public skepticism of government.
But that's only how I see it. I definitely feel like we've been here before--back when Sec. Kerry had to awkwardly dance around the fact that those so-forbidden chemical weapons had been used by much-praised Syrian rebels, according to the same sources the United States counted on deliver (most likely genuine) reports of Syrian government use of chemical weapons. It's that awkward moment over again.
EDIT: Of course, it's further complicated that the United States' history--a history of bad blood with the Syrian government--has put us in the position of overeagerly making deals with organizations opposed to the Syrian government. It's worth remembering--Syria was our enemy before the civil war began, just as long as Iran had been. And that has made this even further complicated.
Oh, is that all? I can't imagine why no one thought of that before...
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed this. These war drums beat periodically but there just isn't the will to commit more strongly to the Middle East, its too damn unpopular back home.
Longer than Iran, really. They were a target of ire from the dawn of the Ba'ath party.
*Throws a grenade into the fire.*
At the same time, the Taliban reportedly took over a district center in Helmand via an assault spearheaded by a suicide truck bomb, in which they killed the district's police chief.
edit - NYT says the ANSF has reclaimed the city center and is pushing on other neighborhoods of the provincial capital which are still controlled by the Taliban.
Hah.
Yeah, the Russians have also backed off on the US-Russia Plutonium deal, which is also a Bad Thing
My unscientific opinion is that popularity, as we think of it, doesn't really matter anymore. The argument and objectives of the hawks have shifted. For all I've prattled on about just why the United States sees the government of Syria as its enemy, and has no reason to change that opinion, the Deir ez-Zor raid has more or less punctuated what I assumed was the objective for a long time: while the brain trusts debate about how to keep the Islamic State dwindling into defeat, today's United State' grievances can be largely fulfilled by destroying the government enemy as it sees fit--and since a dozen nations have spent the last five years periodically bombing Syria with very few, if any, political consequences (and to be fair, so has the Syrian government to innocent civilians and armed combatants alike), it'd be foolish not to. How is this different from Iraq? Has Washington learned a fundamental lesson about the cost of rebuilding countries in its own image? Did former Pres. Bush have a personal grudge or history with the Hussein leadership clique that current Pres. Obama doesn't have against the Assad leadership clique, even if it is clearly his enemy nonetheless? Are we just at our limit with a few hundred thousand troops all over the world? There are as many answers to that as overseas American bases.
I don't think there's a need to sell 85% of the American population and legislature on an escalation of ground forces, a proper invasion force, and, eventually, a decades-long occupation. 95% of the population is either in favor of, or doesn't care, if you launch an asymmetrical air war against what amounts to just another enemy. And remaining <5% will probably stay quiet so long as everyone else reminds them that the enemy "is as bad as or worse than ISIL", and, unlike ISIL, actually possesses a sovereign nation and government that you can bomb into dirt, and not just some hastily seized territory and intangible ideals of Salafist and Wahhabist resistance to its enemies whom amount to the rest of the world. Of course, my theory will be shot up like a Syrian army camp targeted by Operation 'Inherent Resolve' aircraft if a no-fly zone goes up, and after a few waves of Syrian aircraft are shot down, a Russian or Iranian aircraft is downed, I won't know what'll happen next.
Say what you will about the American government, we're/they're learning. And our/their political denial abilities are second to none, and we've demonstrated that we'll resort to political theater--"The gall of these accusations!"--like any other power involved.
Also, 'Inherent Resolve'....if one thing hasn't changed, it's the government's love of airport thriller novel titles for its operations.
I don't think we can do nothing -- that's both politically and morally untenable. We also can't go in and kick him out. We're kind of stuck with this middle ground of ineffectually bombing things and hoping someone else will do something. I don't think that's the right thing to do, but all the other options are just as bad or worse. What do you do when there are no good options?
Strictly in relation to them, I think what we're going to do (which from a cynical standpoint of adversarial nation states is indistinguishable from ought to do) is bomb Syria, and arm a variety of Syrian opposition forces, until either the Assad family is dead or forced into exile. And it won't be over then obviously.
I think it's important to remember that Pres. Assad does not exist in a vacuum any more than Pres. Obama does. While it's a comforting thought to think, "Oh, if only this one guy was dead, maybe not all of our problems would be solved, but it'd at least be a start..." The civil war has galvanized both sides leadership for and against the Assad family's rule. Bashar Al-Assad, personally, wasn't revered as a protector to Syrian Christian communities before they were targeted by their neighbors in the conflagration--before that, he was probably at best just a benefactor within the status quo. And there's not a lot of indication that the United States is in a particular mood to negotiate with the Ba'athist Party as a whole when, after all, the Syrian opposition is better at providing lots of charismatic leaders-in-waiting than effective fighters who're immune to sectarian motivations. If the Damascus government is able to compromise, even on a day-to-day basis, with Kurdish forces, it'll only raise the pressure on all their enemies.
Personally, I have a long list of reasons why I absolutely do not think assassinating the Assad family is any sort of positive solution, but let's put that aside in the face that, clearly, many Syrian opposition groups would consider it a positive outcome. If/After/When the Assad family dies or leaves, I imagine the war will go on--especially if it was an assassination. Martyrdom will force the sides to double-down and make a truce seem even more untenable, even if their absence weakens loyalist forces. If/After/When the whole Ba'athist leadership is decapitated? Who knows.
EDIT: I drifted off-topic a bit VishNub, I didn't mean to suggest that you were advocating assassination.
Foreign Policy in a nutshell.
Compare to the US approach, which is to try to bring down Assad with no plan for what would happen if he fell and nobody to back but a motley collection of rebel groups who fight each other as often as they fight Assad. All while fighting ISIS yet not really addressing the factors that created it in the first place and that will probably create a new, similar group even if ISIS is destroyed.
OK, so solve the problem then. Take down Assad and you will just have a collection of militias fighting each other, providing the same conditions to create a new, similar group to ISIS.
The US approach isn't really to bring down Assad. I... uh... if that was really the US' primary goal, it would have happened already. It's, at most, a secondary goal, or a byway to its real goals. There've been several pieces where Obama has described his reasons for not intervening in Syria, specifically citing their failures in Libya and Iraq, though he also slams the US foreign policy establishment for advocating exactly what you describe.
That being said, imo, the US should just NOPE the fuck out of the Middle East. The region's basically re-enacting the European religious wars. There's no benefit to interceding in any way, unless the US is willing to use a lot more force than I think. (My background position is that I believe that societies have to "earn" their achievements; grafting democracy or peace onto a society that didn't pay the price for them is only a temporary bandaid at best.)
I think Syria is very different then Iraq pre-Invasion though. Like, the foreign policy establishment/deep-state in the US has had a hate on for Assad for awhile now and still does. But the public imo just doesn't give a shit and never has. Contrast this against Iraq and Saddam Hussein who's name was super well-known since the 90s and was well known enough to be a generic evil guy in movies and shit.
You'd have to sell the US populace on this idea, over their reluctance to have another war and over the fact that they don't care and have no real pre-existing cultural zeitgeist to work off of.
Kind of a "we're not afraid to get our hands real dirty, don't you forget, and the tools we use are mighty"
I think they are worried we will knock over Assad.
Under the current President no. He has stated many times he does not see how it helps America to do so.
Under the next President.....
Somewhat related - General Dunford (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff) says "a no fly zone would require war with Syria and Russia." Meanwhile, Washington Post says "Obama administration considering strikes on Assad, again"
I just can't see how both headlines can be accurate. How can anyone consider "war with Russia" a viable foreign policy option in this context?
This is the only part that lets me sleep. And why I remain scared of what happens if/when Clinton becomes president.
If that's your goal, I hope you have a time machine, because you're going to need to go back 25 years and tell the western governments, "I know communism is really bad, but maybe don't give this Boris Yeltsin guy a blank cheque and your vocal public backing. He's shitting on the entirety of Eurasia, and people aren't going to forget all your smiling faces on television."
Of course, the irony there is that not only did people remember those smiling faces, so did Boris Yeltsin's successors--and they're very good at scheming, almost as good as ourselves. But that's literally a discussion for a different thread, I suppose.
EDIT:
If I were in Damascus, I think I would look at the coming months in the United States as such: either one person will win, and she will have previously come out in favor of no-fly-zones and have a hawkish reputation both as a former foreign minister during wartime, and also out of obligation to overcome the stereotype of a "weak woman" in office (Thatcher and Gandhi, hawks in their own time, faced a similar pressure).
Or another person will win, and he will, having largely been recognized as having literally no foreign policy experience and rumored to have very little interest in government leadership in that arena beyond inflammatory, often implausible rhetoric, will defer to his rivals in the leadership of his party and legislature--men whom are thoroughly ideological cold warriors, who share the same disgust for the region as a whole, and are more publicly keen for warfare or escalation.
It doesn't look great either way. But I'm also overly pessimistic.
Quite possibly because we spent 150 years breaking the place in the name of imperialism.
France/Austria/GB "Hey. The Ottomans are kind of a threat right? So lets fucking crush them...riiight?"
France/GB "What do you mean by 'we can't just draw an arbitrary line'? Nonsense!"
GB/France/US "I mean. Technically we're pro-democracy. But they got oil man. OIL!"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I'm doubtful considering how long the thing has been going before everyone really started sticking their fingers into the pie.
Specifically a S-300VM that Wikipedia (Jane's for poor people) says is totes good against cruise missiles. Dunno how accurate the information is, but it's not a cut-rate out of date system they sent over there.
I think the idea is if there was only one major power involved, and that major power was Russia, they would act decisively to crush the rebels and reestablish Assad. Which seems just terrible. Is there a reason we couldn't form an alliance with Russia with the agreement that after the ruling government is ousted we butt out of their proxy state and let them negotiate favorable alliances with the new guys? Besides how outlandish it is I mean, voluntarily bowing out of the prick waving contest and all.
Everyone was pretty much sticking their fingers in the pie by the end of 2012, but in some cases I guess it was just the fingertip, whereas now they're basically fisting the pie. So I half agree.
My POV: The administration has seen the result of helping overthrow Qaddafi which opened up a situation with two "legitimate" governments currently fighting each other (Tripoli and Tobruk) with a smattering of Islamist groups and local militias (including remnants of IS after they lost Sirte last month).
Combine that with a desire to check Russia's ambitions to get into the Med (part of their ongoing naval modernization is a desire to regain a Cold War level of presence in the Med) and I imagine that colors the WH's desire to "ally" with Russia on this and why they've cooled off on the "Red Line" rhetoric.