- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
"America's new war in Syria is a total disaster"
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:01 am
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:01 am
LINK
quote:
This action is only the most visible and recent part of what has become a comprehensive strategic disaster for the United States. Despite not being able to articulate any sort of logical strategy, let alone any actually compelling interest for what we're doing, we're stumbling into yet another boneheaded open-ended conflict in the Middle East.
Why is that? Could be that our plan makes no sense at all. Strikes in Syria are already compromising other objectives, as Kurdish officials report that the strikes are pushing ISIS forces toward Kurdish territory. The idea that we can successfully arm and train "moderate" Syrian rebels is simply ludicrous. As Ross Douthat points out, we just tried that with the Iraqi Army, for eight years, and it was an utter failure. Everything about Syria suggests that such an effort will be more difficult than before, not less.
It has been barely a year since we came within a hair's breadth of supporting ISIS and other Syrian rebels in their quest to topple the dictator Bashar al-Assad. Now, as Glenn Greenwald points out, we're tipping off Assad in advance about coming airstrikes. All our quagmire alarms should go off when a civil war is so chaotic that the target of intervention shifts 180 degrees in a single year.
11
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:02 am to LSURussian
Obama's War
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:05 am to LSURussian
Pastor Lindsey Willams has been saying for about 2 years that we would attack Syria and then Iran in the endless Oil Wars.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:05 am to constant cough
quote:
Obama's War
Bush's fault
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:08 am to constant cough
My issues:
(1) Is ISIS actually a clear and present danger to the United States homeland or to critical allies abroad?;
(2) If there is a clear and present danger to the homeland, then would it not be more prudent to expend resources securing access to the country (borders, international flights, ports, etc.);
(3) What are we trying to accomplish and can we accomplish this without US soldiers on the ground in the area;
(4) What are the long term consequences of us doing this relative to OUR interests?
(1) Is ISIS actually a clear and present danger to the United States homeland or to critical allies abroad?;
(2) If there is a clear and present danger to the homeland, then would it not be more prudent to expend resources securing access to the country (borders, international flights, ports, etc.);
(3) What are we trying to accomplish and can we accomplish this without US soldiers on the ground in the area;
(4) What are the long term consequences of us doing this relative to OUR interests?
This post was edited on 9/24/14 at 9:22 am
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:09 am to udtiger
Hey - there isnt much we can do other than what were doing. ..and we have to do something.
None of the options are good, and the only one guarenteed to be initially successful (a full-scale invasion/occupation of Syria) would come at an extremely high price and be highly unpopular domestically and internationally. Not to mentional all would be lost as soon as we left the country (See Iraq/Afgan)
All options suck. Gotta pick the least risky/sucky, and i think weve done that.
None of the options are good, and the only one guarenteed to be initially successful (a full-scale invasion/occupation of Syria) would come at an extremely high price and be highly unpopular domestically and internationally. Not to mentional all would be lost as soon as we left the country (See Iraq/Afgan)
All options suck. Gotta pick the least risky/sucky, and i think weve done that.
This post was edited on 9/24/14 at 9:11 am
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:13 am to BobBoucher
quote:
All options suck.
Not bombing Syria sucks less.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:16 am to BobBoucher
quote:
Hey - there isnt much we can do other than what were doing. ..and we have to do something. None of the options are good, and the only one guarenteed to be initially successful (a full-scale invasion/occupation of Syria) would come at an extremely high price and be highly unpopular domestically and internationally. Not to mentional all would be lost as soon as we left the country (See Iraq/Afgan) All options suck. Gotta pick the least risky/sucky, and i think weve done that.
This is just gobbeldygook bullshite. I'm actually sorry for you that you typed that out.
If ISIS is actually a direct threat to U.S. interests, then we should determine the least costly method of destroying them (with input from DOD) and commit 100% to that mission. POTUS should then inform the public of the mission and carry it out.
If they are not a direct threat to U.S. interests, we should pursue covert opportunities with partners to destroy them without arming groups that have burned us so many times in the past.
This post was edited on 9/24/14 at 9:16 am
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:21 am to BobBoucher
quote:
and we have to do something.
Absolutely! The midterm elections are coming up and the polls show the public thinks Barry and the Dems are a bunch of limp-wristed butt pirates when it comes to National Defense.
It's like this at the DNC,
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:22 am to LSURussian
The problem with politicians making foreign policy and military decisions is the bias to "act". The public doesn't always know what they want, but they want something to be done about whatever problem is happening, hence the "there aughts to be a law about that!" crowd. For a politician, it is more damaging to be seen as "impotent", "waffling", and "weak" than it is to be seen acting, even if it's actually in the country's best interests to do nothing.
The military and intelligence community have to think long term, but politicians have to think "will this play in Peoria?" Politicians have to think about how their actions (or lack thereof) will be perceived in the short term, months, 1 year, 2 years, or 4 years down the road.
Often times, when there is no good choice, simply making no choice is the correct one. Unfortunately, in politics, the last thing one wants to be seen doing is nothing.
The military and intelligence community have to think long term, but politicians have to think "will this play in Peoria?" Politicians have to think about how their actions (or lack thereof) will be perceived in the short term, months, 1 year, 2 years, or 4 years down the road.
Often times, when there is no good choice, simply making no choice is the correct one. Unfortunately, in politics, the last thing one wants to be seen doing is nothing.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:26 am to LSURussian
FTR I'm in favor of annihilating these fricking psychos, but it's hilarious that every leftist on this board is in full support of this war when I know for a fact they'd all be screaming "War Criminal!!!" at the top of their lungs if the president had an R behind his name.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:27 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:This.....
I'm in favor of annihilating these fricking psychos, but it's hilarious that every leftist on this board is in full support of this war when I know for a fact they'd all be screaming "War Criminal!!!" at the top of their lungs if the president had an R behind his name.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:27 am to goatmilker
quote:
Not bombing Syria sucks less.
Sure. and let them continue to build their Caliphate and carry out attacks against US citizens and targets. brilliant
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:30 am to BobBoucher
Nice magic crystal ball. Please jump the fence and get this to BHO stat.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:31 am to jamboybarry
quote:
This is just gobbeldygook bullshite. I'm actually sorry for you that you typed that out.
becuase youre opinion is the only correct one?
The only way to "destroy them" with certaintly is with US boots on the ground ala Iraq. IS that what you want?
frick no. bomb them back in to the middle ages and let the locals deal with it on the ground. Anything else gets too messy. The last 20 years says im right.
Minimal risk while mitigating the risk they pose.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:34 am to LSURussian
Obama is a reactionary when it comes to foreign policy. He reacts to current events, and fails to see what may or may not happen down the road.
Its the old checker/chess analogy.
Obama's defenders constantly ask what would YOU do as president about________________________.
But they never mention the guy has been POTUS for over 5 years and has access to the best advice and best intel there is. They fail to mention that things you do two or three years earlier can offset events in the future.
TODAY is often too late. YESTERDAY was too late. The time to act in Syria was years ago. The time to act in Iraq was years ago. The time to help the Ukraine was years ago.
It's too late now, and Obama is proving that on a regular basis now.
Its the old checker/chess analogy.
Obama's defenders constantly ask what would YOU do as president about________________________.
But they never mention the guy has been POTUS for over 5 years and has access to the best advice and best intel there is. They fail to mention that things you do two or three years earlier can offset events in the future.
TODAY is often too late. YESTERDAY was too late. The time to act in Syria was years ago. The time to act in Iraq was years ago. The time to help the Ukraine was years ago.
It's too late now, and Obama is proving that on a regular basis now.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:36 am to BobBoucher
quote:
becuase youre opinion is the only correct one?
No, but yours conflicts with even the administration's military advisors.
quote:
The only way to "destroy them" with certaintly is with US boots on the ground ala Iraq. IS that what you want?
Again, the administration's own military advisors have said this will more than likely be necessary to destroy them. No one wants that, but why say you're committing to something while holding the only avenue to do it off the table. Sillyness by the administration and you've apparently bought into it.
quote:
frick no. bomb them back in to the middle ages and let the locals deal with it on the ground. Anything else gets too messy.
The Iraqi army, or the "vetted rebels"? You tell me?
quote:
Minimal risk while mitigating the risk they pose.
The phrase you're looking for is "pissing in the wind"
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:39 am to doubleb
quote:
The time to act in Iraq was years ago. The time to help the Ukraine was years ago.
The one thing youre overlooking is the war-fatigue this country, and the international community has had for the past 5+ years.
People are sick of it and the presidents decisions reflect the will of the people.
Ill grant you that "the people" dont always know whats best for the country. I dont fault what has happened in Iraq. A lot has changed in 6 months, and now we have to reac I dont think anyone could have predicted the Iraq army laying their weapons down.
In Ukraine, i would prefer we arm them.
and the Syria red line - BHO just flat screwed that up.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:40 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
FTR I'm in favor of annihilating these fricking psychos, but it's hilarious that every leftist on this board is in full support of this war when I know for a fact they'd all be screaming "War Criminal!!!" at the top of their lungs if the president had an R behind his name.
This so intensely true that I doubt even the guilty parties will try to argue the point.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:41 am to kingbob
quote:
The military and intelligence community have to think long term
They should, but they don't.
They are not thinking long term either, they are thinking about not screwing up in the current job they are in which means not rocking the boat, and getting their next promotion/duty location, or double dip retirement job.
Page 1 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News