War Drums - Page 3

Can we just request a mulligan and try to redo every damn stupid post WW I treaty from the beginning? Holy shit what a mess these caused.

As far as I know it's French Special Forces that are ready to go in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber 

Exactly.  It's certainly possible for the united states military to kill Assad without setting foot in the country, but they haven't.  Why?

 

It's a good question to ask, and I think it points to some deeper politics going on.

It is, simply, Russia.  Over the past few decades alone, Russia has seen their sphere of influence shrink to an unacceptable level.  A perfect example of this is the shit fit they threw back in 2008 when Ukraine looked at joining NATO.  If that occurred, NATO troops would be only a bit over 200 miles from Moscow.  Combine that with the continued westernization of Turkey and the fact that it's military is on track to double it's size (its already the second largest military presence in NATO next to the US), and Russia sees nothing good on the horizon if America begins influencing yet another country that is not only a stone's throw away, but also in a strategic military location.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 

Why not blow up Assad, and just make an announcement that anyone who continues to use chemical weapons will never hold power, not for one singe day, that they  will live out the short remainder of their lives in fear and in hiding till they too are blown up by a jet powered robot. Say that the united states has developed an invincible space age arsenal over the past decade of war, and is now prepared to deploy it against the Syrian leadership class unless there is an immediate cessation of chemical war.
With our tech I don't see why we'd really need troops anymore anyway, at least when you have a specific strategic goal like this. 

Um.  Sovereignty?  International law?

stfu you hippie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 

Why shouldn't Obama ring him up and tell him that he's quite right about that... quite right, except for one thing: the only Syrian we'll kill will be him. 

The Ryan doctrine.  Tom Clancy would be proud.

The thing is, we have a shit reputation in much of the world.  Doing something like you suggest would potentially solve the problem of Syria, but it would strain our relationships with every other country in the Middle East.  They already hate us, and 'imposing our imperialistic will' on yet another country over there would not go over well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 


What use is all this military spending if we can't deploy it for it's logical purpose? We now have the opportunity to launch a war against a specific group of people - no matter how deeply entrenched they are within an urban area -with devastating effect and total surprise, all without the messy entanglements of traditional warfare. We can realistically threaten to destroy a government (or even specific individuals) like Assad's without that country's military even factoring into the equation. No one is safe from our military robots and satellites, so why not start reminding bad actors of that fact? Assad is buoyed by the knowledge that an actual invasion would be messy and unlikely to happen. He think that means he can do what he wants without consequence - as long as he wins the civil war.
Why shouldn't Obama ring him up and tell him that he's quite right about that... quite right, except for one thing: the only Syrian we'll kill will be him. We'll blame it on a suicide bomber, and everyone who matters will grudgingly believe that story, so we're not even concerned with the political impact of such an action. See how well Assad sleeps after that, and how quickly he flees the country.
I think there is a time for America to simply say that there has been quite enough blood letting from Mr. Assad, and we're now going to facilitate his exit from the earth. Of all the extra legal actions the US has undertaken over the years, I believe a drone war in Syria would be unlikely to rank amongst the worst when the history books are written.

Um.  This post makes Dick Cheney and his ilk look like Mother Theresa.

Good lord.  If you want to go ahead and dismantle the construct of the nation state in place since the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, be my guest.  The only countries in the business of carrying out surreptitious assassinations of foreign heads of state are rogue nations.  That and terrorist groups.  Do you have any idea how incredibly destabilizing this would be for international affairs?  You can't just fucking kill heads of state willy-nilly.  Diplomacy and governing are hard.  Assad will meet his end, and if it's done correctly, i.e., either his own people throw him out of government or, better, yet, he's captured and tried in a duly configured court of law, Syria will be a better country in the end.

To take a recent example from Hollywood film, I mean, sure, Lincoln could have razed the South (moreso than he did), had seditious Congressmen tried for treason against the Union, and implemented needed reforms extra-constitutionally.  But he didn't.  Because he knew that the fate of the Union required correct process.

Same with Syria.  At best, we should assist the Syrians how we assisted the Libyans. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 


It's a pickle, there is no denying, but I think history would be on our side. I wish our President luck as he weighs the options.

"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 


What use is all this military spending if we can't deploy it for it's logical purpose? We now have the opportunity to launch a war against a specific group of people - no matter how deeply entrenched they are within an urban area -with devastating effect and total surprise, all without the messy entanglements of traditional warfare. We can realistically threaten to destroy a government (or even specific individuals) like Assad's without that country's military even factoring into the equation. No one is safe from our military robots and satellites, so why not start reminding bad actors of that fact? Assad is buoyed by the knowledge that an actual invasion would be messy and unlikely to happen. He think that means he can do what he wants without consequence - as long as he wins the civil war.
Why shouldn't Obama ring him up and tell him that he's quite right about that... quite right, except for one thing: the only Syrian we'll kill will be him. We'll blame it on a suicide bomber, and everyone who matters will grudgingly believe that story, so we're not even concerned with the political impact of such an action. See how well Assad sleeps after that, and how quickly he flees the country.
I think there is a time for America to simply say that there has been quite enough blood letting from Mr. Assad, and we're now going to facilitate his exit from the earth. Of all the extra legal actions the US has undertaken over the years, I believe a drone war in Syria would be unlikely to rank amongst the worst when the history books are written.

How about the next time you guys elect someone like Bush and start messing up the world the Chinese assassinate him? How about if Obama does this and the Russians feel their sphere of influence is under attack, members of the US government start dying from pollonium  poisoning?

Is that OK too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 


No my criteria here involves only situations where a bunch of people are about to get gassed by a cackling James Bond villain.

If only.  I think your problem here is that you think Assad is a James Bond villain.  Assad is the recognized head of state of a sovereign nation.  We haven't pulled our ambassador yet.  We still recognize him as Syria's head of state, and it'll be a while until we don't.

Your suggestion would lead precisely to the types of outcomes that stelios describes.  It doesn't already happen because something close to MAD keeps us in check.  But once a legitimate nation state crosses that breach, it's game over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 

I think he's a James Bond villain because he views power as a goal worth obtaining, even over a pile of gassed bodies. I think right now it's his hand on the trigger and it would be a good idea to take him out and tell whoever came next not to make Assad's mistake.
I'm not trying to wage a ideological crusade though so now that I've put my solution forward I'll leave the rest to the policy makers.

Your grasp of current affairs and their complexity makes Princess Kate look like Colin fucking Powell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber 

I'm not sure what I can add that will help, but let me try:

 

Israel, who has the military capacity, and the will to assassinate Al Assad, hasn't done anything.  

 

This is a country that covertly flew F-16's into Syria and blew up an under-construction reactor, and they won't do it.

 

They know how dangerous a precedent it would set.  They know it would be open season on every member of their government, and every Israeli abroad, and quite possibly, start World War III.

 

It's not a question of could Assad be taken out, that's immaterial.

 

And even if Assad is killed, or his regime bombed to dust, the chemical weapons stockpiles don't magically vanish too, they have to be secured, and by all means kept out of the hands of bad actors on BOTH sides of the Syrian civil war.

Completely agree, and exactly what I was getting at.

If things were that easy, Assad would be six feet under by now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber 

Another thing to note, some of the Syrian rebels are not good people, and are as likely to use chemical weapons as the Assad government.  The last thing the West wants is to create another Bin Laden, this time one with WMDs.

Or a failed state in the most volatile region in the world with a loose arsenal of WMDs.  We already have enough basket cases to deal with (Pakistan, Iraq, etc.).

Note much to add to the above discussion except: I think the good Doctor vastly overestimates the capabilities of the US military in regards to killing Assad. We badly wanted Saddam Hussein after we invaded Iraq, but even with all our Satellites, drones, spies, boots on the ground etc it was years before one of his own gave him up. These people aren't schmucks: they are survivors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spook 

 

Your grasp of current affairs and their complexity makes Princess Kate look like Colin fucking Powell.

Reading Harford's responses in this thread reminded me of this:

with PK/Not PK on the petals.

BananaGrabber mentioned it in regards to ending Assad but I bet when the history books are written Ahmed Al-Jabari of Hamas will be recognized as the Archduke Ferdinand of World War III(IV).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

Note much to add to the above discussion except: I think the good Doctor vastly overestimates the capabilities of the US military in regards to killing Assad. We badly wanted Saddam Hussein after we invaded Iraq, but even with all our Satellites, drones, spies, boots on the ground etc it was years before one of his own gave him up. These people aren't schmucks: they are survivors.

During the First Gulf War, the US knew where he was most of the time, but he was either in some pretty deep bunkers or surrounded by non-combatants. He would bring families and children to sleep around him, making a missle strike too costly for planners.

The second time around, he dropped most of the technology. As we have progressed militarily, we keep thinking others are going to use the same tech resources. We lost some old school skills.

More problems between China and Japan.

Between Syria continuing its downward spiral, North Korea launching unstable things into space, and now this I wonder if humanity is dead set on making sure an apocalypse actually does happen on the 21st.  
 

Could get exciting. The Japanese like surprises.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Warren 

Could get exciting. The Japanese like surprises.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB2GboGOuTI

It's worth mentioning that Wesley Clark (whose dubious military talents almost brought about World War 3 in Yugoslavia) claimed in his book "Winning Modern Wars" (2001) - page 130:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff Foster 

It's worth mentioning that Wesley Clark (whose dubious military talents almost brought about World War 3 in Yugoslavia) claimed in his book "Winning Modern Wars" (2001) - page 130:

 

“As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

 

…He said it with reproach–with disbelief, almost–at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. …I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned.”

 

Plans to de-stabilize Syria (much in the same way America de-stabilized Chile, Nicaragua, Iran etc. before installing murderous puppet rulers), create a pretext for intervention (evil Arab dictators dousing their citizens with chemical weapons ... hmmm ... where have I heard this before?), bomb the country back to the stone age and then erect a ring of colossal garrisons bristling with high-tech weaponry (are we over 1,100 known US bases on foreign soil now?) in order to encircle Russia (who for supposed "bad guys" seem almost pacifist in comparison) and exercise complete control over the largest known reserves of oil in the world have been on the table for years. 

 

If there are any surprises here it's the length of time it's taken to execute the plan. 

...to paraphrase: "American Exceptionalism is a hell of a drug."

fuckin' Rummy, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al ....I know it's all godwin-y but I can easily picture these neo-con assholes in nazi uniforms circa 1930's Germany

Yeah, I remember reading about the coup plot against FDR a couple years ago. 

I am constantly amazed at the stories like this that have been largely ignored by the general populace....<cough...Howard Zinn....cough>

There is always Oliver Stone's "The Untold History of the United States."  : )
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

Yeah, I remember reading about the coup plot against FDR a couple years ago. 

I am constantly amazed at the stories like this that have been largely ignored by the general populace....<cough...Howard Zinn....cough>

 

There is always Oliver Stone's "The Untold History of the United States."  : )
 

I watched the first episode - but much of it seemed to cover history I knew a good deal about. I am looking forward to the rest, tho. 

The US is often criticized for having a media which is largely controlled by three or four major conglomerates which tend to blot out opinions running contrary to the status quo. It's a fair assessment, but America does have a vigorous and multi-faceted public-access TV and Radio culture (with every socio-political persuasion imaginable represented - from anarchism to radical conservatism) which you just don't see in many parts of Europe.

It's lo-fi stuff often broadcast to only a handful of viewers/listeners. But with the advent of YouTube and file-sharing anyone in any part of the world with access to the Internet can now gain access to a wealth of archive material which is every bit as valuable as anything produced by the major corporations.

As mentioned earlier, I love watching old episodes of Alternative Views, which was broadcast out of Austin TX for the best part of two decades (some of the interviews on there are literally priceless). Ditto Ralph Schoenman's "Taking Aim". It's easy to look at this stuff and ignore it because it isn't getting the page views of, say, Salon magazine. But I know which services I attach greater importance to. 

And yes, RIP Howard Zinn. 

This will probably get pretty ugly. The Somalians have also posted a picture online of the French commando killed there.

http://news.yahoo.com/france-bombs-islamist-strongholds-deep-north-mali-052016965.html