Senate The US Politics discussion

Do you know what a red line is?

It does not and has not ever specified the severity of any response that would ensue. It's not even a term that applies exclusively to military actions, as there are also red lines in purely political contexts (eg Republicans attempting to force a veto of Obamacare). The term simply means that the action in question is so unacceptable that it is guaranteed to draw a response of some kind.

The Obama Administration called the use of chemical weapons a red line. For the next two years, in the face of a massive humanitarian crisis, they did absolutely nothing. However, after the red line was crossed, and chemical weapons were used, they put forward a serious plan to make a military strike in-country. That would've been previously unthinkable. The very shift in their considerations is the consequence they guaranteed, and matches perfectly well with Obama's description of a "changed calculus."

If a "red line" could only mean a promise of total annihilation for violators, no one would ever have them. Because it's a completely stupid and impractical idea. Come on.

 

They knew exactly what that phrase implied when they say it. That was a very carefully chosen phrase, and it was meant to imply intervention.

I reject the entire premise behind your post. You can't issue something like that on the world stage and then deal in half measures. Token responses that accomplish nothing after issuing a statement like that, that's not good policy. That statement wasn't good policy

This was a miscalulation and misstep.

 

No half measures, Obama.

 

Missile launches qualify as an intervention. You're whole point revolves around insisting that there was some sort of implicit promise to decimate the Assad regime, when in fact exactly the opposite has been said since the first moment this came up.

 

The geopolitical interest of disrupting the Iran-Assad-Hezbollah axis should be obvious. There's also our commitment to stability in the region, since this civil war has already spilled into Iraq and Lebanon. Our commitment to human rights means nothing if we're going to let a government gas its own people without punishment, the first time it has happened since Saddam Hussein in the early 1990's I believe. American credibility is also on the line... if we don't act with strength, after all our clear warnings, our influence will significantly weaken and the Middle East and world will lose even more stability.

This is also a good read:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...79028923699568400.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp

 

I don't think Obama should have been writing checks like this in the first place.

 

And this is going to accomplish that?

We are not in a position here to gain those goals.

Why don't you explain to me how, that was after all the second part of my question/

 

If you simply don't think we should ever get involved, that's a legitimate stance to take. But I don't feel it's accurate for you to suggest Obama has somehow over-promised. The strikes being contemplated now are about the scale we were always told to expect should the contingency arise.

 

I've already explained that several times.

I want us to bomb them and strike them with missiles, using our Navy and Air Force, as well as using (mostly-covert) Special Forces operations. To dismantle Assad's military capabilities, and destroy or secure the chemical weapon stockpiles. The rebel groups that affiliate with terrorists or commit inhumane acts (who are a minority of the rebels) should also be bombed. Quick but devastating action, so the FSA can quickly finish the Assad regime off.






EDIT:

Also, Assad's 11-year-old son is on Facebook

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/hafez-assad-facebook-syrian-presidents-son_n_3843563.html

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts..._son_writing_about_the_syrian_war_on_facebook

 

In a dangerous world, saber rattling and then doing nothing but token action to back it up is a dangerous message to send to the world. It is absurd policy.

 

And how do you make sure you get the weapons, that's easier said than done.

How do you ensure that you degrade Assad's military while at the same time not creating even more instability?

Bomb the rebels we don't like? That sounds pretty specious to me. I think what you spelled out here is recipe for chaos.

We don't need to be in this.

 

How is it "saber rattling" to promise and deliver a small strike?

 

A small strike would only embolden Assad and the rest. It has to send a powerful message, or nothing is better. Go all in, show what it's like to so blatantly defy warning after warning and butcher your own people. Anything less will only show weakness.

We know where most of the weapons are.

Syria is already in chaos. But chaos without a mass-murdering dictator who's opposed to our geopolitical interests is much better than chaos with a mass-murdering dictator who's opposed to our geopolitical interests.

Yes we do.

 

So then the message if you go against the US, we'll respond with half hearted inconsequential missle strikes that a country will shake off? That's sound policy? I don't think that's the way we should be conducting ourselves. Don't make inconsequential threats backed up with inconsequential actions.

That of course is setting aside for the moment the fact that I don't agree with your assessment of the speech in the first place.

 

How on Earth would it "embolden" them?

The message a small strike would send is that "If you want outside powers to leave you alone while you win this war, do it without chemical weapons." Which is really the only message anyone cares to send at all. US involvement of any kind is a dramatic shift from the status quo ante, and more than signals the seriousness of his transgression.

 

We do not know where all of the weapons are, they are mobile. And the stockpiles that we can locate are going to be incredibly difficult to destroy by air.

You are greatly underestimating the difficulties accomplishing what you are attempting to outline as a reasonable course of action.

 

Obama also said that Assad must go... a year or two ago.

Obama and others have also said that Assad could/should be sent a military message to stop butchering his people... before there was any use of chemical weapons.

And if it's only a small strike, Assad and others will think "that's it? we can survive this. now we can do whatever we want, and the world's last superpower will only pinch us in response!"

Also, we've already been sending supplies, and some small CIA/Special Forces. We're not completely uninvolved.

No I understand the difficulties. The right thing usually isn't the easiest.

 

The chance of destroying those stockpiles by air is low, how can you now say you understand the chances of success given what you've had to say here?

Are you suggesting invasion? Tell me how you would secure these stockpiles? I just don't see any action likely to be taken by the US that comes anywhere close to accomplishing that.

And doing what it would take to accomplish that is pretty severe.

If you have another take on how you do this, I'd love to read it.

 

I'm not going to lie, this made me laugh

 

How do you figure? Why would anyone think this? It's pretty arbitrary to assert that the very first response would represent the maximum conceivable commitment of US forces under any circumstances.

By contrast, it would be quite easily observable that by triggering direct, acknowledged entrance into the conflict, their use of chemical weapons had altered the entire policy approach to the Syrian issue. Something that was previously out of the question suddenly became not only something worth contemplating, but the actual policy undertaken. Such serious shifts are to be avoided, especially when the US started out in the position that Assad wanted them to have (largely not interfering). The logical assumption would be that further use of chemical weapons could trigger even more undesirable American response.

 

Got up, clicked on MSNBC, talking about Syria. Switched to CNN...Syria. Headline NEws...Syria. Fox News? A heart monitor graphic with the phrase "Eye on Obamacare" emblazed across it while and expert talks about how the math doesn't add up and the whole time in the background of the expert the heart monitor pumps.

 

I think we call this not getting the point.

This is why I'm laughing at all these references to Assad "butchering his own people". There are other ways to butcher one's own people, and one way is to deny them health care.

 

Lately Barack has been using language that is more appropriate for a tyrant