Saddle up for Syria? Or Op Deny Christmas '13

[SurelySerious]

Copy bro, thanks. I had zero SA on how anything went down in Libya. But my schedule now has me available for Syria!

NATO will be waiting to use your unique capabilities.

[Guest]

NATO will be waiting to use your unique capabilities.

Uh oh...

[ThreeHoler]

BEIRUT— The Arab League on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a series of economic sanctions against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, including freezing the assets of senior figures, banning high-level Syrian officials from visiting Arab nations and ending dealings with the country’s central bank. The decision is the first of its kind by a body that is often perceived as divided and indecisive. Iraq, Lebanon and Algeria did not vote on the sanctions.

https://www.washingto...Pm1N_story.html

[Ram]

Dear Israel, Arab League, et al -

We are broke. Please take care of this yourself.

Sincerely,

The United States of America

PS: Oil below $50/barrel would be nice.

[brickhistory]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/clinton-meets-with-syrian-opposition-figures-discusses-plans-for-new-democratic-government/2011/12/06/gIQAWM6VZO_story.html?wprss=rss_middle-east

GENEVA — The Obama administration moved to expand contacts with opponents of Syria’s President Bashar Assad on Tuesday as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton held a rare meeting with Syrian opposition figures and the top U.S. envoy to Syria returned to Damascus after a six-week absence.

Amid reports of a new surge in violence that the U.N. says has killed more than 4,000 people since an uprising against Assad erupted in March, Clinton told Syrian pro-reform activists in Geneva that she wanted to hear their plans to establish a new democratic government if they are successful in prying Assad and his regime from power.

[mcbush]

I hear Syria's nice this time of year.

[LoneStar]

Anyone hear the Donald say today that he wanted to just occupy Iraq again and take all their oil?

[brickhistory]

https://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/sen-graham-envisions-scenario-where-u-s-military-intervenes-in-syria/#ixzz1gS2frCS1

Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told The Daily Caller that he could envision using American military force as a part of a broader coalition to stop Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad from continuing to attack his people.

Well, f' me.

What part of this is in our national interest in any way, shape, or form?

[brickhistory]

I listened to Clark's video.

This talk was given in 2007 during near the height of anti-Iraq sentiment leading up to the 2008 election, pimping for a book, and an absolutely ardent anti-Bush democrat.

SACEUR and 4-stars be damned; it helps that he was a college student (Rhodes) with Clinton. I give him respect for his junior-ish officer record. Brave guy.

That said, he is completely a political animal trying to keep his bread buttered.

I'll refrain on the Jordan article.

Edited December 13, 2011 by brickhistory

[SuperWSO]

So he's lying? Maybe he is, I dunno.

Disclaimer - I didn't watch the video. I don't want to lose 8 minutes of my life to that raging d-bag.

BUT, is he talking about O-plans? Saying we have a plan to invade is kind of a given. I think it is established fact that between WWI and WWII, the Navy had plans for how to take on the British. Staffs create O-plans. We probably have plans for a lot of countries, that may or may not be in the axis of evil.

[Guest]

I didn't read what you wrote, but what'd you say?

Say again, I couldn't hear you.

[brickhistory]

https://news.yahoo.com/obama-calls-un-back-syria-resolution-160556751.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Amid fresh violence in Syria, President Barack Obama called on the U.N. Security Council on Saturday to stand up against Bashar Assad's "relentless brutality" and act as a credible advocate for human rights.

In a blistering statement, Obama said Assad had displayed "disdain for human life and dignity" following weekend attacks in the city of Homs that left more than 200 people dead.

Obama urged the Security Council to take a stand against Assad's regime and back the resolution.

"The international community must work to protect the Syrian people from this abhorrent brutality," he said.

The Obama administration has long called for Assad to leave power during the 11-month crackdown on the uprising against his regime. But the U.S. has ruled out military action to oust Assad.

I'm betting that the last line becomes moot if the UN passes said resolution.

Better to whale away on Syria who has no oil and no ability to screw with oil shipments but still show a certain other country who can and is an ally of Syria without going toe-to-toe. At least if I were running for re-election and didn't want gas to go even higher than it currently is. A UN figleaf can allow this.

Just sayin'...

[Slander]

Russia and China vetoed the resolution. Ban Ki Moon complained, the US complained, nothing really changes.

[brickhistory]

Will somebody tell this silly cow that "no" means "no!"

https://news.yahoo.com/clinton-calls-friends-syria-unite-132749258.html

SOFIA, Bulgaria (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Sunday for "friends of democratic Syria" to unite and rally against President Bashar Assad's regime, previewing the possible formation of a formal group of likeminded nations to coordinate assistance to the Syrian opposition.

Speaking in the Bulgarian capital Sofia a day after Russia and China blocked U.N. Security Council action on Syria, Clinton said the international community had a duty to halt ongoing bloodshed and promote a political transition that would see Assad step down. She said the "friends of Syria" should work together to promote those ends

[nsplayr]

Will somebody tell this silly cow that "no" means "no!"

Yea, 'cause fuck 'em, the Syrian people are on their own. We don't stand up for freedom or civil rights or fighting against brutal oppression or anything like that...

In other news, we closed our Embassy and pulled our diplomats...sh*t's gettin real...

Edited February 7, 2012 by nsplayr

[Vertigo]

Yea, 'cause fuck 'em, the Syrian people are on their own. We don't stand up for freedom or civil rights or fighting against brutal oppression or anything like that...

In other news, we closed our Embassy and pulled our diplomats...sh*t's gettin real...

How about, for once, we mind our own fucking business?

[Homestar]

Yea, 'cause ###### 'em, the Syrian people are on their own. We don't stand up for freedom or civil rights or fighting against brutal oppression or anything like that...

We've spent the past 10 years doing this. Time to move on.

[brickhistory]

Yea, 'cause fuck 'em, the Syrian people are on their own. We don't stand up for freedom or civil rights or fighting against brutal oppression or anything like that...

In other news, we closed our Embassy and pulled our diplomats...sh*t's gettin real...

"The liberalism is strong with this one..."

Call me old-fashioned, I'm a big fan of vital national interests before going to war. Past and present, it should be to some advantage to the US before blood and treasure is expended.

[nsplayr]

Oh where, oh where have the neocons gone, or where or where can they be? Guess we have a large contingent of Ron Paul foreign policy types here and not so much George W. Bush followers. No freedom agenda eh?

Anyways, yea, intervening around the world is a shared pursuit among democrats and republicans, don't pretend otherwise. I'd argue we have a national interest in Assad not slaughtering his own people but then again maybe that's just me. Plus he was an asshole to begin with and sponsored all kinda of bad guys in Lebanon/Israel/Palestine.

Does that mean I think we should full up Iraq their ass and takeover the whole place? No way, it's not that vital of an interest, but we can certainly help them and if it came down to a Libya-type operation I'd be for that as well. There are many, many steps along the way before you start conducting airstrikes and it can start with trying to gather a coalition of other states who want the same things we do. Just sitting back and letting those trying to overthrow a violent dictator kinda sounds like ceding world leadership to me...

[brickhistory]

Just sitting back and letting those trying to overthrow a violent dictator kinda sounds like ceding world leadership to me...

See your posts in the "Defense Strategy" thread. We're broke; you argue we can't afford it anyway. I agree.

And my previous post in this thread did say "past and present." 2003 Iraq, 2011 Libya, current Afghanistan. Either go all in if commiting military force or don't send 'em. Agree that other means can be done - covert arms, financial support to opposition, etc (But then you and others criticize when those former friends turn on us.). Beating up a little kid like Libya for the same rationale that is occuring in Syria now at even larger casualty figures but offers more risk seems pretty hypocritical. You don't stay a world leader when you lose; therefore don't start a fight if you aren't going for the KO.

[Champ Kind]

Man, if only somebody would have put on paper this whole idea of not committing national treasures (namely, but not excluded to military forces) unless it was vital to national security. Oh, wait, someone did.... 27 years ago:

The Weinberger doctrine:

The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.

U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.

U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.

The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance"of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.

The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

Edit: Formatting fail.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Champ Kind

[brickhistory]

Articulated even earlier: George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government, but that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Edited February 7, 2012 by brickhistory

[MKopack]

I can see where those who thought that supporting the revolution in Libya might think that the same would be true in Syria, and I can see where the fall of the Syrian regime might be even more in the world's best interest than the one in Libya.

Libya was relatively straight forward though - bad guys vs. potentially somewhat less bad guys. Syria has the same, but in a different neighborhood and throw in Hamas, Hezballah and any number of other Palestinian extremist groups (who would be more than happy to take a shot at anyone who set foot in the country) and are overtly supported by Syria and Iran. I could see Lebanon, and possibly Jordan drawn in (probably not nationally, but in a revolutionary sense) and if (when) things begin to implode, who is to say that Assad and his military don't "go Saddam" and launch everything they have against Israel right next door (they've got a pile of surface-to-surface missiles). If that were to happen, all bets are off.

Too many moving pieces to guess where they might fall together. What do I know though, I'm just an old mechanic...

[Danny Noonin]

I'd argue we have a national interest in Assad not slaughtering his own people but then again maybe that's just me.

If "slaughtering" the bar for military intervention in our vital national interest, then I trust you also believe we should have intervened in all of the other slaughterhouses in the world, e.g. Darfur. True?

The strategic question for our nation is: despite the obvious moral implications of standing by and doing nothing in Syria, are there unintended consequenses detrimental to our national interests should we intervene (successfully or not)? Will that stoke the fire of hatred for the U.S. in the middle east as we once again try and force regime change (the only real option here) in a sovereign country? Or will we be seen as good guys who saved they oppressed and brutalized Syrian people from their tryannic regime? If we don't intervene, will that make people hate us more? Would that hatred be enough to recruit more terrorists or otherwise support the anti-American cause? How has that worked out for us in other interventions? Serious questions and I'm not trying to flame bait anyone, nor am I taking a side. I just think successful intervention in a foreign country is usually much easier said than done. Do we have the national will in this case to deal with a potential messy aftermath of military action?

Edited February 7, 2012 by Danny Noonin

[murdocjxx]

I, who is to say that Assad and his military don't "go Saddam" and launch everything they have against Israel right next door (they've got a pile of surface-to-surface missiles). If that were to happen, all bets are off.

Dec 2012 has to start somewhere.