Syria

[carlfense]

Apparently you are the one who doesn't understand. "Threatening" military action can be a form of negotiation or diplomacy but, once that military action starts, it needs to be about killing the enemy and destroying their strategic assets. Period. I suppose the end game of winning (the enemy conceding) could be considered diplomacy but my point was we should never commit our troops or forces in a half-assed manner. I learned that as a young boy watching coverage of the Vietnam war on the TV. Destroy and kill expeditiously or STFO.

 

In what different manner would you propose we should use military force?

War is a continuation of diplomacy/politics by other means. (Paraphrasing Carl von Clausewitz).

 

Nothing more than that. Anyone who thinks that military action exists for the sake of military action doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

 

 

Edit: Full quote.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1123&Itemid=290

[zoogs]

I don't think it was forced by Putin. I think (and am highly suspicious of the way in which) they seized an opportunity to delay.

 

The imminent threat of military force was not an ideal situation for Assad. Preparing to withstand the blow hamstrung their forces, something accomplished without a single shot fired. Now the urgency has dialed back and immediate strikes are tabled -- something to which Syria has responded by promptly stepping up their campaign against the rebels.

 

Russia and Syria are playing the P.R. game as best as they can now. But Russia rejects France's U.N. proposal, makes their own demands that illogically call for the removal of military threats, cancel the own UN meeting they call, and it's clear that this is going to be a drawn out diplomatic process. Let's be clear, if Syria is responsible for the chemical attack/s, then the international seizure and disarmament of their chemical stockpile must be punitive in nature, because it's holding them accountable. The idea that Syria, having just done this, is all of a sudden eager and willing to sign international accords on chemical weapons and to disarm, so long as they are not threatened and treated with amnesty....come on now, they're just playing games. That's how I see it, at least.

 

That's not to mention, supposing this all works out, the long, expensive, risky (to any U.N. personnel involved, which could include U.S. forces, no?) and overall challenging task of chemical disarmament.

 

I don't share your optimism, carl, but I do think the bad guys have gotten into a corner now. The fight is going to be over how much they can get away with without being seen as spurning what is now truly an internationally embraced diplomatic effort...a line they'll have to push, but the result is going to be a much more heavily backed retaliation. Not that anything is likely to achieve a truly good result for the Syrians. I like this Washington Post breakdown (if somewhat dated): http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

 

Syria as we know it, an ancient place with a rich and celebrated culture and history, will be a broken, failed society, probably for a generation or more. [...] At some point the conflict will cool, either from a partial victory or from exhaustion. The world could maybe send in some peacekeepers or even broker a fragile peace between the various ethnic, religious and political factions. Probably the best model is Lebanon, which fought a brutal civil war that lasted 15 years from 1975 to 1990 and has been slowly, slowly recovering ever since. It had some bombings just last week.

[zoogs]

JJ, carl's right in that military action here is a means to achieve a diplomatic end. In this context it's often said that it's designed to bring the other side to the table...and so far, the mere threat of it has accomplished that. The other side's trying to weasel out of any real punishment pre-emptively. And maybe they'll succeed.

 

I'm all for not using the military half-assedly, because I think limits and half measures are often the downfall of military campaigns. So it's definitely an interesting and very open-ended debate as to what the planned strikes would accomplish. Though I think we all agree there's no viable 'full assed' option here. Even if all the strikes achieve are a reminder that the U.S. is willing to stand and enforce the norms of chemical warfare, I think that's worth it.

[carlfense]

. . . in that military action here is a means to achieve a diplomatic end. In this context it's often said that it's designed to bring the other side to the table...and so far, the mere threat of it has accomplished that. The other side's trying to weasel out of any real punishment pre-emptively. And maybe they'll succeed.

 

I'm all for not using the military half-assedly, because I think limits and half measures are often the downfall of military campaigns. So it's definitely an interesting and very open-ended debate as to what the planned strikes would accomplish. Though I think we all agree there's no viable 'full assed' option here. Even if all the strikes achieve are a reminder that the U.S. is willing to stand and enforce the norms of chemical warfare, I think that's worth it.

I don't know about the part that I edited out but I agree with the remainder.

[knapplc]

[Creighton Duke]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?src=twr&_r=2&

 

Bravo Comrade Putin

[walksalone]

I'm not sure you can classify this as a "victory", in the fact that Russia is pulling the strings of it's puppet in the middle east, so it's more of a bullet that was dodged.

I don't think that it can be classified as a victory yet. If (and at this point it's a big if) Assad gives up his chemical weapons and simultaneously keeps them out of the hands of extremists I don't think that this can be spun as anything but a victory.

 

Assuming for the sake of argument that this works, what do you think is the downside that you apparently think outweighs the upside?

 

Not to mention, who's to say Putin says, we've taken their chemical weapons, and we're disposing them, when they don't even leave the country?

That's where the details come in. You said that you wanted the UN involved. Assad's spokesman said that he would declare his weapons, sign the chemical weapons convention, and place the weapons in the hands of Russia, other countries, and the UN.

 

But what bothers me is that Putin's involved. If there are media there, watching the U.N. picking up the munitions from the Russians and Syrians, ok. But who's to say that Putin just puts up a smokescreen that they recieved the chemical weapons from Assad and allowed Syria to keep them so that their power in the region isn't diminished.

[walksalone]

War is a continuation of diplomacy/politics by other means. (Paraphrasing Carl von Clausewitz).

 

Nothing more than that. Anyone who thinks that military action exists for the sake of military action doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

 

 

Edit: Full quote.

http://oll.libertyfu...1123&Itemid=290

 

[walksalone]

http://www.nytimes.c...l?src=twr&_r=2

 

Bravo Comrade Putin

 

Ask this guy what he thinks of Putin...

 

[JJ Husker]

Apparently you are the one who doesn't understand. "Threatening" military action can be a form of negotiation or diplomacy but, once that military action starts, it needs to be about killing the enemy and destroying their strategic assets. Period. I suppose the end game of winning (the enemy conceding) could be considered diplomacy but my point was we should never commit our troops or forces in a half-assed manner. I learned that as a young boy watching coverage of the Vietnam war on the TV. Destroy and kill expeditiously or STFO.

 

In what different manner would you propose we should use military force?

War is a continuation of diplomacy/politics by other means. (Paraphrasing Carl von Clausewitz).

 

Nothing more than that. Anyone who thinks that military action exists for the sake of military action doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

 

 

Edit: Full quote.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1123&Itemid=290

 

Well I think we're on the same page now. I think you read something into my initial post that was not intended. My whole point was that we should not toy with military action in a half-assed and not fully committed manner. Identify the objective, achieve it, and get out. BTW- I didn't read the Carl von whatever thingy at the end....

[walksalone]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-military-action-undermine-un-putin-023706602.html

 

 

Russia is a traditional ally of Assad, and Moscow has blocked any attempt to sanction his regime through the United Nations during Syria's bloody two-and-a-half year civil war.

[walksalone]

http://www.nytimes.c...l?src=twr&_r=2

 

Bravo Comrade Putin

 

 

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

 

This is the funniest thing I've read in a while...

[BigRedBuster]

Oooh goodie.....

 

Now we are being scolded through our own media by the leader of Russia.

 

What a friggen joke of a situation. This keeps getting more and more pathetic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign policy VICTORY!!!!!!!

[walksalone]

Oooh goodie.....

 

Now we are being scolded through our own media by the leader of Russia.

 

What a friggen joke of a situation. This keeps getting more and more pathetic.

 

It is...

 

I want somebody to ask him if he used the same process when those apartments were "bombed" to allow him to attack Chechnya....

[carlfense]

Looks like the other aspect of this is still moving forward . . . kind of lost in the WMD shuffle:

The CIA has been delivering weapons to rebels in Syria over the past two weeks, with contributions of vehicles and other equipment from the State Department, The Washington Post is reporting.

U.S. officials are hoping the donations will boost the muscle of the rebel fighters in Syria's 2 1/2-year civil war, according to the

Post

, which cited "U.S. officials and Syrian figures."

The Post says the effort is aimed at supporting rebel Gen. Salim Idriss, commander of the Supreme Military Council, a faction of the fractured opposition. The Post said some of its sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because part of the initiative is covert.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/11/cia-state-department-weapons-gear-syrian-rebels/2802491/