The Red Line: Part Deux

[volmaverick]

President Obama never misses a chance to “blame it on Bush,” and last night’s address to the nation on Syria was no exception.

The reason Obama has failed to win support military action in Syria, the president declared last night, is not because he has failed to lay out a coherent strategy — it’s because of “the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan.” Obama further slammed former president George W. Bush for presiding over “a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.”

Put aside the fact that Congress explicitly authorized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Obama did not seek congressional authorization before launching his war in Libya — or that dozens of nations joined us in Iraq and Afghanistan, while in Syria we have . . . France.

If Bush was so bad, then why did Obama lift so much of his speech making the case for military action in Syria from Bush’s speech making the case for military action in Iraq?

In his address Tuesday night arguing that the United States must hold a Baathist dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people to account, Obama said: “I know Americans want all of us in Washington — especially me — to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home. . . . It’s no wonder then that you’re asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I’ve heard from members of Congress and that I’ve read in letters that you’ve sent to me.”

Marc Thiessen: Obama lifted his Syria speech from Bush - The Washington Post


It is quite amazing to watch narcissism at work. It can be painful at times, but it is quite amazing.

More deaths in Afghanistan happened during Obama’s watch. Something like 75% more ...

 

[Gramps]

President Obama never misses a chance to “blame it on Bush,” and last night’s address to the nation on Syria was no exception.

The reason Obama has failed to win support military action in Syria, the president declared last night, is not because he has failed to lay out a coherent strategy — it’s because of “the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan.” Obama further slammed former president George W. Bush for presiding over “a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.”

Put aside the fact that Congress explicitly authorized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Obama did not seek congressional authorization before launching his war in Libya — or that dozens of nations joined us in Iraq and Afghanistan, while in Syria we have . . . France.

If Bush was so bad, then why did Obama lift so much of his speech making the case for military action in Syria from Bush’s speech making the case for military action in Iraq?

In his address Tuesday night arguing that the United States must hold a Baathist dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people to account, Obama said: “I know Americans want all of us in Washington — especially me — to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home. . . . It’s no wonder then that you’re asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I’ve heard from members of Congress and that I’ve read in letters that you’ve sent to me.”

Marc Thiessen: Obama lifted his Syria speech from Bush - The Washington Post


It is quite amazing to watch narcissism at work. It can be painful at times, but it is quite amazing.

More deaths in Afghanistan happened during Obama’s watch. Something like 75% more ...

I consider Bush and Obama both terrible presidents.

Serious question:

If the Bush Administration focused on the war in Afghanistan instead of pulling troops to invade Iraq, would we still be fighting in Afghanistan?


I hope York chimes in on this.

 

[davethevol]

I consider Bush and Obama both terrible presidents.

Serious question:

If the Bush Administration focused on the war in Afghanistan instead of pulling troops to invade Iraq, would we still be fighting in Afghanistan?


I hope York chimes in on this.

I don't think we would. We could have and should have used nukes in Afganistan and Saudi Arabia within a few weeks after 9-11. It's crazy to think, but the Middle East was safer when Saddam was in power.

 

[Velo Vol]

Serious question:

If the Bush Administration focused on the war in Afghanistan instead of pulling troops to invade Iraq, would we still be fighting in Afghanistan?

Not sure it would make a great difference. It's a guerrilla war with militants crossing the border.

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

I consider Bush and Obama both terrible presidents.

REALLY?!?!?!?!?!?

I'd have never guessed.

 

[Gramps]

I don't think we would. We could have and should have used nukes in Afganistan and Saudi Arabia within a few weeks after 9-11. It's crazy to think, but the Middle East was safer when Saddam was in power.

I tend to agree.

 

[YorkVol]

Good ole John McShame....

McCain: Screw Russia China, We'll Invade Anybody We Want to - YouTube

 

[Gramps]

U.N. report: Abuses on both sides of Syrian civil war - CNN.com

A new United Nations report asserts that both sides in the Syrian civil war have committed grave crimes in violation of international law.

Government forces continue to attack civilian populations in what amounts to crimes against humanity, says the report, released Wednesday by the U.N. Human Rights Council.

But anti-government groups, in their fight against President Bashar al-Assad, have themselves committed war crimes, including murder, torture and hostage-taking, the report states.

The report provides details on nine massacres that it is investigating, eight believed to have been carried out by the government and one by the opposition.

 

[hog88]

I consider Bush and Obama both terrible presidents.

Serious question:

If the Bush Administration focused on the war in Afghanistan instead of pulling troops to invade Iraq, would we still be fighting in Afghanistan?


I hope York chimes in on this.

Yes I think we would be since we took the nation building approach. If we would have just went in after AQ, scorched earth approach, maybe we would have been out within a year.

 

[YorkVol]

I consider Bush and Obama both terrible presidents.

Serious question:

If the Bush Administration focused on the war in Afghanistan instead of pulling troops to invade Iraq, would we still be fighting in Afghanistan?


I hope York chimes in on this.

I'll try to be succint :whistling:

My opinion is yes, we would still be there and we will be there for a long time to come. There is a slim possibility that in the 03-05 time frame, had we continued the efforts to strengthen the Afghan government and institutions, we could have achieved some measure of success and left after the Parliamentary Elections. The war in Iraq did take a lot of focus away from our efforts in Afghanistan, but I think we would still be there regardless.

Bottomline why I think that is simply both the Bush and Obama Administrations failed in several key areas that have resulted in a protracted conflict:

1. No real strategic goals and endstates have ever been decided upon. Sure, we've had some tactical goals, such as the nebulous "defeat of the Taliban", but we've never had a true set of national strategic goals that all means of national power could work toward.

2. Along with that, we've never had full commitment of all those means of national power to settle achieve whatever we are trying to do there. The military has been fully committed, but the state department approach has always been half-hearted. Few other cabinet level agencies have played even a minor role in the affair. If you are going to be successful, you need all means of national power to participate and we never had that.

3. Wrong focus: We went in to defeat AQ and punish the Taliban, all while assuming that removing them would naturally result in a state where they could not come back. Somehow, good governance, strong institutions and a viable economy would simply emerge from the ashes and everything would be okay. While some members of the military and state department tried to do things to strengthen the Afghan government institutions, the efforts were disjointed and never fully supported by the SECDEF or White House. Until good governance develops you will always find someone willing to fight.

4. Too many restrictions: Most concerning was our inability to cross into Pakistan once the center of gravity moved across the Durand Line. The Taliban as well as the many other different groups fighting for power in Afghanistan (HiG, LeT, Lumber Mafia, Tribal Leaders, War Lords and so forth), are able to come and go across the border, whereas ISAF or US Forces are confined to Afghanistan. This fact alone does harm in two ways. It offers the tactical enemy a sanctuary from which to operate, and, it angers the host nation because they think we should be going after the center of gravity across the border.

5. Finally, a complete misunderstanding of how Afghanistan works as well as a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the relationships between governments and the governed. In the first case, many of the conflicts in Afghanistan go back decades or even generations. It isn't always Taliban vs Karzai government, but often Hatfields vs McCoys, or Pashtuns vs Tajiks. The complexity of the situation means we often find the wrong solution because we haven't identified the real problem.

In the second case, the Afghan government continues to be funded by international donors and a small level of customs and duties. Less than 10% of their government budget comes from revenue collected by the government. Consequently, the people aren't invested in the nation and the national government does not feel obligated to support the people. Until that fundamental relationship changes the situation won't change. As long as the situation doesn't change, we'll either have some level of troops there, or will have to weather the international scorn when the country breaks up again.

There are a couple of excellent articles in Foreign Affairs from last month that I would recommend to anyone interested: The Limits of Counterinsurgency Doctrine in Afghanistan | Foreign Affairs

Again, this is all my opinion, take it for what it is worth.

 

[Velo Vol]

3. Wrong focus: We went in to defeat AQ and punish the Taliban, all while assuming that removing them would naturally result in a state where they could not come back. Somehow, good governance, strong institutions and a viable economy would simply emerge from the ashes and everything would be okay. While some members of the military and state department tried to do things to strengthen the Afghan government institutions, the efforts were disjointed and never fully supported by the SECDEF or White House. Until good governance develops you will always find someone willing to fight.

This is the biggie. We can't leave (and claim success) until there is a functional government to hand off to. And that was going to take years, regardless of Iraq.

 

[volinbham]

Interesting stuff York.

I keep going back to the notion that the military is there to kill people and break stuff. It's overly simplistic but we need to keep this in mind and focus on b*tch slapping people that mess with us directly while maintaining a significant threat capability and forget about the nation building/transforming.

I about lost my mind last night with the endless string of hypotheticals about what "could" happen if we don't do something unbelievably small all the while admitting that Assad is no threat to us.

Even if we act it will have zero bearing on some other bad actor using CW if his butt's on the line. It's all situational.

 

[Gramps]

I'll try to be succint :whistling:

My opinion is yes, we would still be there and we will be there for a long time to come. There is a slim possibility that in the 03-05 time frame, had we continued the efforts to strengthen the Afghan government and institutions, we could have achieved some measure of success and left after the Parliamentary Elections. The war in Iraq did take a lot of focus away from our efforts in Afghanistan, but I think we would still be there regardless.

Bottomline why I think that is simply both the Bush and Obama Administrations failed in several key areas that have resulted in a protracted conflict:

1. No real strategic goals and endstates have ever been decided upon. Sure, we've had some tactical goals, such as the nebulous "defeat of the Taliban", but we've never had a true set of national strategic goals that all means of national power could work toward.

2. Along with that, we've never had full commitment of all those means of national power to settle achieve whatever we are trying to do there. The military has been fully committed, but the state department approach has always been half-hearted. Few other cabinet level agencies have played even a minor role in the affair. If you are going to be successful, you need all means of national power to participate and we never had that.

3. Wrong focus: We went in to defeat AQ and punish the Taliban, all while assuming that removing them would naturally result in a state where they could not come back. Somehow, good governance, strong institutions and a viable economy would simply emerge from the ashes and everything would be okay. While some members of the military and state department tried to do things to strengthen the Afghan government institutions, the efforts were disjointed and never fully supported by the SECDEF or White House. Until good governance develops you will always find someone willing to fight.

4. Too many restrictions: Most concerning was our inability to cross into Pakistan once the center of gravity moved across the Durand Line. The Taliban as well as the many other different groups fighting for power in Afghanistan (HiG, LeT, Lumber Mafia, Tribal Leaders, War Lords and so forth), are able to come and go across the border, whereas ISAF or US Forces are confined to Afghanistan. This fact alone does harm in two ways. It offers the tactical enemy a sanctuary from which to operate, and, it angers the host nation because they think we should be going after the center of gravity across the border.

5. Finally, a complete misunderstanding of how Afghanistan works as well as a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the relationships between governments and the governed. In the first case, many of the conflicts in Afghanistan go back decades or even generations. It isn't always Taliban vs Karzai government, but often Hatfields vs McCoys, or Pashtuns vs Tajiks. The complexity of the situation means we often find the wrong solution because we haven't identified the real problem.

In the second case, the Afghan government continues to be funded by international donors and a small level of customs and duties. Less than 10% of their government budget comes from revenue collected by the government. Consequently, the people aren't invested in the nation and the national government does not feel obligated to support the people. Until that fundamental relationship changes the situation won't change. As long as the situation doesn't change, we'll either have some level of troops there, or will have to weather the international scorn when the country breaks up again.

There are a couple of excellent articles in Foreign Affairs from last month that I would recommend to anyone interested: The Limits of Counterinsurgency Doctrine in Afghanistan | Foreign Affairs

Again, this is all my opinion, take it for what it is worth.

Thank you York.

Does not sound good with no good end game in sight.

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/opinion/dowd-who-do-you-trust.html?hp&_r=0

Article regarding Syria by Maureen Dowd.

 

[FLVOL_79]

When does the bombing start? I've been busy watching football and soccer so I haven't been able to keep up with Obama's strong leadership.

 

[Velo Vol]

So it begins.

CIA begins weapons delivery to Syrian rebels - The Washington Post

The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

The arms shipments, which are limited to light weapons and other munitions that can be tracked, began arriving in Syria at a moment of heightened tensions over threats by President Obama to order missile strikes to punish the regime of Bashar al-Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons in a deadly attack near Damascus last month.

The arms are being delivered as the United States is also shipping new types of nonlethal gear to rebels. That aid includes vehicles, sophisticated communications equipment and advanced combat medical kits.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

When does the bombing start? I've been busy watching football and soccer so I haven't been able to keep up with Obama's strong leadership.

:blink: he's trying to figure out between heads or tails.

 

[RollinVol]

:blink: he's trying to figure out between heads or tails.

You mean he isn't using his head and has his tail between his legs.

 

[lawgator1]

So, in the end, is Syria just the latest Russia vs US battlefield? Is it 1962 Cuba, 1978 Iran, 1984 Afghanistan, all rolled into one? Or just "next!"

 

[Velo Vol]

So, in the end, is Syria just the latest Russia vs US battlefield?

No, it's international law versus terrorism, apparently.

 

[DC_Vol]

When does the bombing start? I've been busy watching football and soccer so I haven't been able to keep up with Obama's strong leadership.

No way Obama could support a bombing campaign on Syria. Here's what he had to say about Iraq in 2002:

[Saddam] has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity....But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors....I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Obama Opposed To Dumb Wars | HuffingtonPost.com

 

[YorkVol]

No, it's international law versus terrorism, apparently.

What the heck kind of world are we living in when the President of the United States sounds incoherent and the President of Russia says things like this?

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

 

[utvolpj]

So it begins.

CIA begins weapons delivery to Syrian rebels - The Washington Post

has been going on for well over a year already

*cough* Benghazi *cough*

What the heck kind of world are we living in when the President of the United States sounds incoherent and the President of Russia says things like this?

that happens when you elect a man with zero experience in anything except campaigning to lead your country. Putin has been slapping Obama around all over the place on Syria. Very disheartening

 

[Velo Vol]

What the heck kind of world are we living in when the President of the United States sounds incoherent and the President of Russia says things like this?

Putin is taking a shot at those who believe America is exceptional. Do you agree with him?

 

[theFallGuy]

La Stampa - Quirico: “It is madness to say I knew it wasn’t Assad who used gas”

"...During the Skype conversation, they said that the gas attack on the two neighbourhoods in Damascus had been carried out by rebels as a provocation, to push the West towards a military intervention. They also said they believed the death toll had been exaggerated,” Quirico said in his statement...."