Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Apr 2017, 8:55 am

Fate
Not only do you glide over the clarity I brought to your ridiculous "19 nation" claim

Your very strange.
Your source detailed the military participation of 19 nations to either the naval blockade, or the air strikes, or actual land forces... What do you think is ridiculous about a nation sending a squadron of fighters or a frigate to the blockade?

As for the rest.
It comes down to Obama Opposition Syndrome.
Whatever Obama did, had to be wrong.
If he foes in to Libya without Congressional support, he's wrong.
If he refrains from intervening in Syria because he Congress isn't supportive, he's wrong.

Fate
Yes, with no plan for what would come after. Brilliant.


Libya and the 2011 NATO intervention there have become synonymous with failure, disaster, and the Middle East being a “shit show” (to use President Obama’s colorful descriptor). It has perhaps never been more important to question this prevailing wisdom, because how we interpret Libya affects how we interpret Syria and, importantly, how we assess Obama’s foreign policy legacy.
Of course, Libya, as anyone can see, is a mess, and Americans are reasonably asking if the intervention was a mistake. But just because it’s reasonable doesn’t make it right.
Most criticisms of the intervention, even with the benefit of hindsight, fall short. It is certainly true that the intervention didn’t produce something resembling a stable democracy. This, however, was never the goal. The goal was to protect civilians and prevent a massacre.
Critics erroneously compare Libya today to any number of false ideals, but this is not the correct way to evaluate the success or failure of the intervention. To do that, we should compare Libya today to what Libya would have looked like if we hadn’t intervened. By that standard, the Libya intervention was successful: The country is better off today than it would have been had the international community allowed dictator Muammar Qaddafi to continue his rampage across the country.
Critics further assert that the intervention caused, created, or somehow led to civil war. In fact, the civil war had already started before the intervention began. As for today’s chaos, violence, and general instability, these are more plausibly tied not to the original intervention but to the international community’s failures after intervention.
Shifting U.S. interests in the Middle East
The very fact that the Libya intervention and its legacy have been either distorted or misunderstood is itself evidence of a warped foreign policy discourse in the U.S., where anything short of success—in this case, Libya quickly becoming a stable, relatively democratic country—is viewed as a failure.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2 ... yre-wrong/

fate
Further, has there been another chemical strike by Assad?

This is a measure of a successful outcome?
So, to be as successful as the solution arrived at in 2013, Assad will have to refrain from chemical weapons use for another 3 years from today.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Apr 2017, 9:13 am

rayjay
. I realize that Syria is still a mess, but can't you concede it is better that poor defenseless children aren't being gassed to death?

Sure.
On the other hand, the day after the missile strikes Russian jets bombed the same villages that were gassed. And within days the Syrians helicopters were back dropping barrel bombs.
So, I'm not sure how much of an upside this really is...
And as I said to Fate, the solution in 2103 got Assad to refrain from chemical weapons for about 3 years....or a little more... That makes Obama a success then right?

Just as critics of Obama who said, "Don't intervene without a plan" were right. So too are critics of Trump.
I'm not saying Trumps bombing was entirely worthless. But its far more symbolic then anything. And after the emotional high that American media generate after the US bombs some place has worn off....the reality will set in that nothing has been accomplished...and there is no real strategy beyond what Obama had set in motion.

The goal in Libya eventually moved from averting a genocide to regime change. Because one kinda came with the other.. To really guarantee that a genocide wouldn't be committed Qaddafi had to die.
And I'd be okay with killing Assad with cruise missiles and rolling the dice on what comes next in Syria too. Probably more so if it could have been accomplished before the Russians got in. But we can't go back in time.
In the end the ground war against ISIL will have to be finished. First in Iraq, then Syria. And that is a war that the Arabs have to fight and win. They can be assisted, but they have to be the army and the occupation force. And the end of that won't be a neat tidy outcome either.
We could end up in Syria with a festering religious war between Sunnis and Shia. More likely exhaustion will force the combatants to settle on some break up that carves up the region according to the predominate religious faction. as long as the solution is arrived at by the players in the region and isn't imposed upon them, it might end up working..
Most importantly, the lesson that outsiders from the West can't impose a solution has to be learnt.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Apr 2017, 9:48 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
Not only do you glide over the clarity I brought to your ridiculous "19 nation" claim

Your very strange.


Thank you, Mr. Kettle.

Your source detailed the military participation of 19 nations to either the naval blockade, or the air strikes, or actual land forces... What do you think is ridiculous about a nation sending a squadron of fighters or a frigate to the blockade?


Most of the 19-nation "coalition" may as well have sent crossing guards. A frigate? Really?

As for the rest.
It comes down to Obama Opposition Syndrome.
Whatever Obama did, had to be wrong.
If he foes in to Libya without Congressional support, he's wrong.
If he refrains from intervening in Syria because he Congress isn't supportive, he's wrong.


Oh brother.

I didn't mention "Congressional support" regarding Libya.

HE HAD NO PLAN FOR THE AFTERMATH!!!

Can you read that?

He learned nothing from Iraq and Egypt. He knew, or should have known, chaos and a failed state would ensue, breeding terror. And, he did NOTHING to prevent that from happening.

That's not ODS. That's something you're unfamiliar with: logic.

As for the Brookings piece, it's an opinion. What it fails to do is look at what was known beforehand.

Did the intervention save lives? Maybe. On the other hand, maybe not. People are still fleeing Libya. People are being sold into slavery in Libya. It's not over.

One might as well argue that we could have saved more lives by intervening on behalf of Qaddafi.

fate
Further, has there been another chemical strike by Assad?

This is a measure of a successful outcome?


Did Trump claim any other measure?

So, to be as successful as the solution arrived at in 2013, Assad will have to refrain from chemical weapons use for another 3 years from today.


What we know about 2013 is that Obama, Kerry, et al were hoodwinked. Well, either that or they lied. Take your pick.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Apr 2017, 9:51 am

I'm still laughing.

Being part of a "coalition" means providing temporary air cover with six planes?

Sending sandwiches?

Imagine the US being part of a "coalition" on D-Day and offering no troops but a frigate. I'm sure that would have warmed Churchill's heart.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Apr 2017, 12:17 pm

fate
Imagine the US being part of a "coalition" on D-Day and offering no troops but a frigate. I'm sure that would have warmed Churchill's heart.


Churchill was happy to have the HNoMS Nordkapp, Icelandic patrol boat as a part of the effort on DDAY, even if it was all Iceland could send.

Every little bit helps.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Apr 2017, 1:04 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Imagine the US being part of a "coalition" on D-Day and offering no troops but a frigate. I'm sure that would have warmed Churchill's heart.


Churchill was happy to have the HNoMS Nordkapp, Icelandic patrol boat as a part of the effort on DDAY, even if it was all Iceland could send.

Every little bit helps.


Yes, I hear Canada was part of the 19-nation coalition. We appreciate your help.

Image
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 20 Apr 2017, 1:45 pm

Couldn't they send a better beer than...Molson. At least the UK sent Newcastle!
Last edited by freeman3 on 20 Apr 2017, 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Apr 2017, 1:53 pm

freeman3 wrote:Couldn't see they sent a better beer than...Molson. At least the UK sent Newcastle!


:laugh:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 22 Apr 2017, 5:48 am

Ricky:
And as I said to Fate, the solution in 2103 got Assad to refrain from chemical weapons for about 3 years....or a little more... That makes Obama a success then right?


Under Obama's watch there were 500,000 deaths, 6 million internal refugees, and 5 million external refugees. Put that in your utilitarian calculator. If Trump equals those milestones you would have a point.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Apr 2017, 12:45 pm

Rayjay
Under Obama's watch there were 500,000 deaths, 6 million internal refugees, and 5 million external refugees. Put that in your utilitarian calculator. If Trump equals those milestones you would have a point.

So in your mind Obama is responsible for this all by his lonesome?
Does Congress bear some of the responsibility for not approving military intervention when Obama requested such?
Do other allies bear some of the responsibility?
In large part the destabilization of Syria began with drought.
Starting in 2006, Syria suffered its worst drought in 900 years; it ruined farms, forced as many as 1.5 million rural denizens to crowd into cities alongside Iraqi refugees and decimated the country’s livestock. Water became scarce and food expensive. The suffering and social chaos caused by the drought were important drivers of the initial unrest

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sens ... te-change/
Does Obama bear responsibility for this?
He certainly doesn't bear responsibility for the initial disruptive force that created the current middle east mess...the invasion and occupation of Iraq. he voted against that.


In the case of Libya, the NATO intervention had as its goal the avoidance of a genocide by Qaddafi. The intervention was successful in achieving that goal.
Does Obama get credit for that success?


Trump is basically following Obama's foreign policy in Syria. Other than the One off of the bombing
nothings changed.
And you can't get any clarity on what his policy is by parsing the various public pronouncements of his cabinet.
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... cy/522669/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 24 Apr 2017, 3:10 pm

rickyp wrote:Rayjay
Under Obama's watch there were 500,000 deaths, 6 million internal refugees, and 5 million external refugees. Put that in your utilitarian calculator. If Trump equals those milestones you would have a point.

So in your mind Obama is responsible for this all by his lonesome?
Does Congress bear some of the responsibility for not approving military intervention when Obama requested such?
Do other allies bear some of the responsibility?
In large part the destabilization of Syria began with drought.
Starting in 2006, Syria suffered its worst drought in 900 years; it ruined farms, forced as many as 1.5 million rural denizens to crowd into cities alongside Iraqi refugees and decimated the country’s livestock. Water became scarce and food expensive. The suffering and social chaos caused by the drought were important drivers of the initial unrest

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sens ... te-change/
Does Obama bear responsibility for this?
He certainly doesn't bear responsibility for the initial disruptive force that created the current middle east mess...the invasion and occupation of Iraq. he voted against that.


In the case of Libya, the NATO intervention had as its goal the avoidance of a genocide by Qaddafi. The intervention was successful in achieving that goal.
Does Obama get credit for that success?


Trump is basically following Obama's foreign policy in Syria. Other than the One off of the bombing
nothings changed.
And you can't get any clarity on what his policy is by parsing the various public pronouncements of his cabinet.
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... cy/522669/


A false dichotomy. I never said Obama was responsible for all of the carnage on his lonesome. That's you being a jerk because you can't think of anything else to say to support your position. . Assad is the murderer. But Obama could have done a lot better. Congress does deserve some responsibility; but leadership is more than finding excuses for not doing the right thing. Both Lincoln and FDR lead a recalcitrant public and congress for a much bigger commitment..

Yes, I supported Obama on Libya.

Re Trump, I'm no fan. (I can't stand the guy.) He's a crazy man, but fortunately he's hired some good people. And in the case of Syria, he got it right when he retaliated.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Apr 2017, 6:42 am

rayjay
And in the case of Syria, he got it right when he retaliated.

And yet his retaliation hasn't stopped any of the carnage in Syria.
Assads planes, and the Russians continue to bomb. Assads helicopters continue to drop barrel bombs.
So his retaliation makes Americans feel good for a while. But has no substantial effect.
Otherwise, what Trump is doing in Syria is essentially what Obama did ....
And you think he got it right?

rayjay
but leadership is more than finding excuses for not doing the right thing
.
You recognize that Obama was castigated by Republicans, primarily, for intervening in Libya to avert a genocide? Successfully? And a major criticism was that he did not have Congresses approval?

In your opinion he should have repeated that unsupported intervention in Syria? (Without the allied support that he had in Libya, since the Arab League and NATO wanted nothing to do with Syria...)
Who would he have bombed? Assads troops? And watch ISIS gain as Assads forces are diminished?
Isis? Providing support for Assads murderous army?
Both? ISIS in particular are intermingled with civilians ...



Rayjay
Both Lincoln and FDR lead a recalcitrant public and congress for a much bigger commitment..

Both waited for forcing events to act. Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor.
And in the case of both, public opinion, and the recalcitrant Congress were swayed by the enemies aggression. Without an attack on the US, it's likely FDR would have continued to have trouble getting the required support in Congress to declare war.
Similarly it took the torpedoing of Americans in WWI to move Congress from isolationism to involvement.
The world is different today, in that the US is the lone super power. But Americans, at the moment, are in an isolationist mood. Although they want to be able to control world events, they aren't interested in involving American troops. At least not since the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Trump got elected in part because he was an isolationist, who offered magical thinking where he could get adversaries to behave as the US wanted just by talking tough....
That's not likely is it?

Until the Arab coalition defeats ISIS on the ground and decides on action in Syria, there's no real solution on offer in Syria. Because, 59 missiles on a nearly vacant airfield isn't going to change a damn thing.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 25 Apr 2017, 7:40 am

Ricky:
Until the Arab coalition defeats ISIS on the ground and decides on action in Syria, there's no real solution on offer in Syria. Because, 59 missiles on a nearly vacant airfield isn't going to change a damn thing.


So you are saying that it is a bad thing that Assad is no longer gassing children to death? Because no one here said anything about it being a real solution.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Apr 2017, 8:15 am

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:
Until the Arab coalition defeats ISIS on the ground and decides on action in Syria, there's no real solution on offer in Syria. Because, 59 missiles on a nearly vacant airfield isn't going to change a damn thing.


So you are saying that it is a bad thing that Assad is no longer gassing children to death? Because no one here said anything about it being a real solution.


Actually, his goal is to reduce the moral culpability of Obama by demonstrating that Trump can't stop the slaughter. Of course, it's just another false dichotomy. Obama is responsible for not doing more. rickyp is nothing but a consistent flack for Obama.

Trump inherited the mess and is responsible for how he manages it. Then again, he didn't campaign about getting involved in Syria. All he said he would do is wipe out ISIS. MOAB says a little something about his being more serious about that than Obama.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 25 Apr 2017, 8:57 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:
Until the Arab coalition defeats ISIS on the ground and decides on action in Syria, there's no real solution on offer in Syria. Because, 59 missiles on a nearly vacant airfield isn't going to change a damn thing.


So you are saying that it is a bad thing that Assad is no longer gassing children to death? Because no one here said anything about it being a real solution.


Actually, his goal is to reduce the moral culpability of Obama by demonstrating that Trump can't stop the slaughter. Of course, it's just another false dichotomy. Obama is responsible for not doing more. rickyp is nothing but a consistent flack for Obama.

Trump inherited the mess and is responsible for how he manages it. Then again, he didn't campaign about getting involved in Syria. All he said he would do is wipe out ISIS. MOAB says a little something about his being more serious about that than Obama.


Yes, you nailed it as it relates to Ricky. Interesting that we are finding that Russia is aiding the Taliban and the Trump Administration is calling them out on it. I wonder whether we will find that Russia has been aiding them for some time and the Obama administration was downplaying it.