The Red Line: Part Deux

[82_VOL_83]

RE Boots on the Ground

John Kerry Stumbles In Ruling Out 'Boots On The Ground' In Syria

What a muddled individual.

fyp

 

[tim]

fyp

Flip flop

 

[Velo Vol]

If true, this isn't good.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKnll7oVy9k[/youtube]

I wonder if anyone has notified Secretary of State McCain?

And these are the folks we're supposed to be arming.

Oh well, it worked in Afghanistan. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[TheDeeble]

This is very different from 2003.

1) We have video of the rockets being launched.

2) We intercepted the orders to carry out the attack.

3) The military operation contemplated here is a specific targeting, not an invasion.

4) There is no history of the decision makers having a personal bias or prior beef with the leadership in Syria.

5) We are not relying on suspect information from unreliable third parties to determine what happened.

Benghazi was because of a youtube video.

Remember that?

 

[lawgator1]

Benghazi was because of a youtube video.

Remember that?

That mistake was cleared up in days. Here, we have hard data proving it and all who've seen it agree. Even opponents of striking agree that it was Assad.

Your attempt to analogize the two situations is extremely weak.

 

[oz615]

Two devil's advocate thoughts.

1) Having your word mean something is the bedrock of any successful diplomacy (and avoid war). Doesn't excuse making unnecessary ultimatums.

2) If those CW's get in the wrong hands (plenty of those in Syria) and used against the US, Obama and those that vote against taking action will get blamed.

Damned if we do,damned if we don't.

:shakehead:

 

[lawgator1]

On #1 you are correct but we never said the response would be a military strike. I think the core criticism is that we had no strategy surrounding the ultimatum and there is huge skepticism that this is much more than a symbolic action. If only symbolic does your word really mean anything?

As an aside, the general that testified today said his instructions are to degrade capabilities but not change momentum. Not sure how you thread that needle.

On #2 we are always in that situation. I refer back to #1 - the real criticism lies in the lack of a strategy for Syria and for the larger ME. This lack of strategy led to the off-the-cuff bravado of the red line and left us with no plan for the red line being violated.

Prior to Iraq I'd have felt #2 was more legit than I do know. The risks of someone getting Syria's chem weapons and killing a couple thousand US citizens don't outweigh the risks of the protracted efforts required to ensure that could never happen IMHO.

If we are really down to "blame calculus" the smart money is still on no action since it is likely Obama will be long gone before (and if) this happened. Clinton dodged almost all blame for AQ ascendency and 9/11 even though it happened both on his watch and shortly after his watch.

It is simply not possible to have a strategy for that region. It's too complicated. Too many players. Too unstable. Allies and enemies effectively interchangeable.

 

[volinbham]

It is simply not possible to have a strategy for that region. It's too complicated. Too many players. Too unstable. Allies and enemies effectively interchangeable.

Disagree wholeheartedly - what we had was completely reactionary.

It's absurd to say the world is too complicated to have a strategy

More specifically can you tell me what our Syria strategy was prior to the redline? After the redline statement? Now?

 

[lawgator1]

Disagree wholeheartedly - what we had was completely reactionary.

It's absurd to say the world is too complicated to have a strategy

More specifically can you tell me what our Syria strategy was prior to the redline? After the redline statement? Now?

Name a president who had a consistent, predictable, clear strategy for that region not based on reacting.

 

[Velo Vol]

Name a president who had a consistent, predictable, clear strategy for that region not based on reacting.

Probably all of them have had strategies, though some turn out to be wrong. There's probably a strategy at work now, though at times it's difficult to tell.

Got to keep in mind that Syria is just part of the bigger picture. In several ways it's a proxy for larger regional conflicts.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Soooo ... don't check with Congress = unconstitutional.


Do check with Congress = bad strategy.


I get it right ?

How about keep your mouth shut and discuss it behind closed doors? BHO has made a first class fool of himself.....he looks like a Gong Show contestant

 

[utvolpj]

I can't wait to see an actual vote on this. Every member should be forced to cast a yes/no vote so it's clearly on their record. No calling in sick or voting present

That mistake was cleared up in days. Here, we have hard data proving it and all who've seen it agree. Even opponents of striking agree that it was Assad.

Your attempt to analogize the two situations is extremely weak.

they had hard data on Benghazi before ever releasing the youtube vid lie.

all this "hard data" comes from US and Israeli intelligence agencies whose admin wanted to go in before the chemical attacks anyway.

the Gulf of Tonkin incident was considered hard data at the time too

 

[FLVOL69]

That mistake was cleared up in days. Here, we have hard data proving it and all who've seen it agree. Even opponents of striking agree that it was Assad.

Your attempt to analogize the two situations is extremely weak.

Days my ass ...they had rice spouting that bs for weeks after the attack.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

There is talk of this lasting 60-90 days

A) this is not the 1st time in history politicians have sold us a 60 day war

B) I am against strikes but I'm thinking maybe 48-72 hours of bombing MAX. That gives us 1 day of cruise missiles from ships and 2 days of bombers launching cruise missiles. That should be enough to prove 0s point. Anything more is ego driven nation building. When we bombed Iraq in 98, it lasted 3 days, That's it

 

[utvolpj]

Syria intervention plans fuelled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concerns | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | theguardian.com

These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

 

[utvolpj]

from 2 years ago:

Wes Clark and the neocon dream - Salon.com

After recounting how a Pentagon source had told him weeks after 9/11 of the Pentagon’s plan to attack Iraq notwithstanding its non-involvement in 9/11, this is how Clark described the aspirations of the “coup” being plotted by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and what he called “a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for the New American Century”:

He said: “Sir, it’s worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: “I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

 

[utvolpj]

from Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003–2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002–2003

Lawfare › The Administration

There is much more here than at first meets the eye. The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes. First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.). Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

 

[volmaverick]

Now they are talking boots on ground

 

[YorkVol]

Two devil's advocate thoughts.

1) Having your word mean something is the bedrock of any successful diplomacy (and avoid war). Doesn't excuse making unnecessary ultimatums.

2) If those CW's get in the wrong hands (plenty of those in Syria) and used against the US, Obama and those that vote against taking action will get blamed.

Actually, in diplomacy having some flexibility in the meaning of your words is one of the key ways to avoid war. We learned this lesson in WWI, when all the European nations had the "If you declare war on them, I'll declare war on you" treaties in place. Consequently, the death of one fairly inconsequential member of the Austrian ruling family resulted in everyone having to stand by their word, and of course the millions of lives lost and billions in damage that followed.

But, to your point, when a Head of State says it, then you would expect it to be backed up by the power of that State. Which is why I have always argued it is better to have someone other than the President make these ultimatums. When you do that, he can easily say, well that wasn't our official position, I changed course based on facts at hand, etc.

 

[YorkVol]

Syria intervention plans fuelled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concerns | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | theguardian.com

from 2 years ago:

Wes Clark and the neocon dream - Salon.com

from Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003–2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002–2003

Lawfare › The Administration

Good finds, PJ. This paints a picture of a long term, deliberate effort to destabilize the region and replace the regimes with pro-western governments, all in order to get more oil and gas from the ME instead of Russia. The Authorization of the Use of Military Force being put in place is open ended and broad enough they can attack anyone in the region as long as they claim it is linked to Syrian chemical weapons.

So there is a strategy in place after all. Just not the one published in the National Security Strategy written by the administration.

 

[OJ]

I still don't get it. Our country has legalized the lethal chemical potassium chloride
to kill millions of babies in the USA and obama keeps saying over and over that the 426 children gassed in Syria need to have justice and protection.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

I still don't get it. Our country has legalized the lethal chemical potassium chloride
to kill millions of babies in the USA and obama keeps saying over and over that the 426 children gassed in Syria need to have justice and protection.

Short term memory lost kicking in at age 52. Smoking too much dope does that to a person.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

He cant be Syria-is?

President Obama told reporters in Sweden Wednesday that he never “set a red line” when it came to deciding to intervene militarily in Syria.

“My credibility is not on the line,” Obama said Wednesday. Instead, Obama said, the international community and the American Congress — who Obama has asked to authorize action in Syria — both face credibility risks.

Obama on Syria: 'I didn't set a red line' [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

 

[FLVOL69]

He cant be Syria-is?






Obama on Syria: 'I didn't set a red line' [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

Prolific liar is he....smfh

 

[volinbham]

Name a president who had a consistent, predictable, clear strategy for that region not based on reacting.

All in recent memory had articulated strategies for both the region and specific conflicts.

All in recent memory would have been more specific about or role in or with Syria.

Obama himself had an underling announce our "plan" to supply the rebels with weapons after the first red line crossing. He made no comments to the public. Not surprisingly, none of those weapons have reached the rebels; none, nada, zip and we didn't learn that until just a few days ago.