Intervention in Syria NOW

[vertical_doug]

Honestly, Trump has shown little empathy so the reality this was more likely theater for President XI since Rex Tillerson recently stated US will act unilaterally if China cannot control North Korea.

Politics 101 don't let a crisis go to waste.

[Matthew J]

It´s not the "US wants a war" mantra: it´s ISis and AQ establishing a territory in Syria where to plan strikes against european nations and the US.
Assad butchering the people there is no solution and staying out of it, sitting on the hands is no solution either.

What did the strikes accomplish?

Assad and many of his henchman are clear war criminals. Will they now be removed from power and brought to the Hague to face justice?

And if so, what happens to Syria?

A democratic Syria is a Sunni Syria. Evil as he is, Assad opposes AQ and ISIS because they think Assad and his fellow Alawites are just as much apostate as any other non-Sunni.

At one time a moderate Sunni Syria may have been doable. Now not so certain. Many of the moderates are living in refugee camps around the ME and in Europe. Will they be able to return to Syria upon Assad's removal and take charge?

Of all the Arab Spring nations, only Tunisia appears to be going the moderate course. Tunisia experienced very little violence. The parties that took over were not headed by people returning from life in refugee camps, but rather bureaucrats and business leaders who were established in place. And even they have had problems.

The US has long proven itself capable of flinging bombs, missiles and bullets at the Mid-East. There is absolutely nothing suggest doing so will bring any sort of long term benefit.

[EightySixer]

RE: Establishing a no-fly zone, that was Ben Shapiro's main point yesterday. That it should have been established long ago to help thwart/prevent attacks such as this. At the same time, the verbal warnings and establishment of the 'red line' has been grossly ignored so why would an establishment of a no-fly zone create any different a situation?

They aren't playing by the worlds rules and ethics. The persecution has gone on for some years now and the UN and US has stood aside. Maybe we aren't the best at completely establishing a beautiful new democracy in civil war torn countries, but to stand aside and do nothing is worse IMO.

Give them an inch and they take a mile, this is the trajectory the past six years in Syria. At the very least Assad now knows that inaction is no longer the action.

[colker]

What did the strikes accomplish?

Assad and many of his henchman are clear war criminals. Will they now be removed from power and brought to the Hague to face justice?

And if so, what happens to Syria?

A democratic Syria is a Sunni Syria. Evil as he is, Assad opposes AQ and ISIS because they think Assad and his fellow Alawites are just as much apostate as any other non-Sunni.

At one time a moderate Sunni Syria may have been doable. Now not so certain. Many of the moderates are living in refugee camps around the ME and in Europe. Will they be able to return to Syria upon Assad's removal and take charge?

Of all the Arab Spring nations, only Tunisia appears to be going the moderate course. Tunisia experienced very little violence. The parties that took over were not headed by people returning from life in refugee camps, but rather bureaucrats and business leaders who were established in place. And even they have had problems.

The US has long proven itself capable of flinging bombs, missiles and bullets at the Mid-East. There is absolutely nothing suggest doing so will bring any sort of long term benefit.

I believe you are correct.

[colker]

RE: Establishing a no-fly zone, that was Ben Shapiro's main point yesterday. That it should have been established long ago to help thwart/prevent attacks such as this. At the same time, the verbal warnings and establishment of the 'red line' has been grossly ignored so why would an establishment of a no-fly zone create any different a situation?

They aren't playing by the worlds rules and ethics. The persecution has gone on for some years now and the UN and US has stood aside. Maybe we aren't the best at completely establishing a beautiful new democracy in civil war torn countries, but to stand aside and do nothing is worse IMO.

Give them an inch and they take a mile, this is the trajectory the past six years in Syria. At the very least Assad now knows that inaction is no longer the action.

I agree.

[Corso]

The US is damned is we do, damned if we don’t.

We should completely get away from Syria. It’s no win for us. If the United Nations doesn’t stop the gassing in Syria, the UN should be disbanded.

Syrian Refugees?

Why don’t we send them all to Brazil?

Colker, what’s your policy now?

New Brazilian government suspends plans to welcome Syrian refugees | Americas | DW.COM | 26.6.216

[colker]

The US is damned is we do, damned if we don’t.

We should completely get away from Syria. It’s no win for us. If the United Nations doesn’t stop the gassing in Syria, the UN should be disbanded.

Syrian Refugees?

Why don’t we send them all to Brazil?

Colker, what’s your policy now?

New Brazilian government suspends plans to welcome Syrian refugees | Americas | DW.COM | 26.6.216

Brazil is receiving syrian refugees. I meet them almost every day. NIce people. If Brasil ever decides to send troops to protect children in Syria i will give my support. And the US is not staying out of Syria because it is a super power and cannot ignore the conflict.
Btw... we have a huge lebanese community here. MOstly christian but there is muslim too.

"we should send them all"? They are people... not objects or cattle to be sent anywhere.

[bking]

A. Pope once wrote, "A little learning is a dangerous thing..." I'm guilty.

They aren't playing by the worlds rules and ethics. The persecution has gone on for some years now and the UN and US has stood aside. Maybe we aren't the best at completely establishing a beautiful new democracy in civil war torn countries, but to stand aside and do nothing is worse IMO..

I was in Israel a month ago, first time, we crossed the concrete wall into Bethlehem which is primarily Palestinian, hence the wall, and spent most of the day with a Palestinian guide. Good man, good family we met his two kids. I asked him towards the end of the day if there was any hope for a resolution. He shook his head, "end of the world" is what he told me.

As EightySixer points out, they don't play by our western rules. They--most of the middle east, don't see things as we do. The west established lines we called borders in the early nineteenth century and designated them countries then helped designate a power system and thought they'd play by our western rules. They now are struggling with the results of this. How do you undue 100 plus years? And would it have been better. We could argue this another 100 years.

[Matthew J]

RE: Establishing a no-fly zone, that was Ben Shapiro's main point yesterday. That it should have been established long ago to help thwart/prevent attacks such as this. At the same time, the verbal warnings and establishment of the 'red line' has been grossly ignored so why would an establishment of a no-fly zone create any different a situation?

When Russia ignores the no-fly zone do we shoot down their jets?

[Matthew J]

If the United Nations doesn’t stop the gassing in Syria, the UN should be disbanded.

The UN has no standing army. Given the strength of Assad's supporters any UN action would need at the very least US air support if not troops on the ground.

[colker]

The UN has no standing army. Given the strength of Assad's supporters any UN action would need at the very least US air support if not troops on the ground.

Or a multinational coalition. I don´t know if this is possible though.. but could be the right thing.

EDIT: another attack in Europe, this time in Sweden.

[davids]

Attachment 101079

It's one thing to talk about impulsive responses on an Internet forum. It's another to do it as the leader of the free world. My President scares the crap out of me, and this is why. From today's Boston Globe:

Trump can’t send a message if he doesn’t have one

By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan APRIL 06, 2017

It may be dawning on The Donald that it’s easier to sit in the peanut gallery and heckle than to be on center stage orchestrating America’s response to world crises when lives and security hang in the balance.

When Syria’s Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons to kill hundreds of people in 2013, then-President Barack Obama was faced with the choice of ordering airstrikes to retaliate against a war crime and defend Syrian lives, or negotiating a surrender of chemical weapons to avoid dragging the United States into another Mideast war.

Trump was a private citizen, with no policy experience or access to intelligence, but he fired off a slew of know-it-all tweets, including this gem in all capitals: “AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA — IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!”

Four years later, history repeats itself, as it loves to do. Assad unleashed chemical weapons, killing scores of civilians, days after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said forcing the Russian-backed Assad from power is not a US priority anymore. (We all know fighting ISIS — a common enemy of Assad — is.) The troubling question — raised by Republican Senators Marco Rubio and John McCain — is whether Assad saw their statements as a green light to wipe out those who oppose his rule, including children who are clearly not ISIS terrorists.

Trump’s first reaction was to assign blame to “the past administration’s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a ‘red line’ against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing.”

Wait . . . what? This, from the same guy who tweeted to Obama when that red line was crossed: “The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do not attack Syria.’’

After meeting this week with King Abdullah of Jordan, who opposes Assad’s war on the Syrian opposition and whose glamorous wife has welcomed Syrian refugees, Trump changed his tone, having seen the victims’ glazed dead eyes and contorted bodies on TV.

“When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, little babies, with a chemical gas that is so lethal — people were shocked to hear what gas it was — that crosses many, many lines – beyond a red line — many, many lines,” Trump said.

Much like Obama did four years ago, Trump was said to be considering military options against Assad on Thursday. The options are no better now than they were then, defense officials told me, and all the downsides Trump warned Obama of remain. But Trump’s stand for justice and compassion has a hypocritical punchline: Any innocent babies who survived the gas attack couldn’t come here, because he’s banned them as potential terrorists.

And that’s the problem with Trump’s foreign policy: It’s incoherent and internally contradictory, because it’s based on gut feelings, not on weighing difficult problems, based on facts and expertise.

“Trump is against whatever seems not to be working,” said Philip Gordon, who was Obama’s coordinator for Mideast policy. “He was for the Iraq War, and then against it. He was against making a red line in Syria and now he’s against what he said before,” Gordon said. “Flip-flopping 180 degrees based on a single incident is not a good basis for policy, because he could flip back again as soon as something goes wrong.”

Trump’s ace-in-the-hole expert was supposed to be Tillerson, the former Exxon CEO who’s worked around the world. But when North Korea fired another ballistic missile this week, Tillerson’s response was more baffling than reassuring: “The United States has spoken enough about North Korea. We have no further comment.”

The point of diplomacy is to send a message, not to confuse. The problem is you can’t send a message if you don’t have one.

It’s easy to take cheap shots from the cheap seats. Now he’s in charge, and the thing about being a great conductor — of an orchestra or a foreign policy — is that you need expert performers in the pit, and the boss has to listen to them and understand the score.

Indira A.R. Lakshmanan in a Washington columnist and the Newmark chair in journalism ethics at the Poynter Institute.

[colker]

It's one thing to talk about impulsive responses on an Internet forum. It's another to do it as the leader of the free world. My President scares the crap out of me, and this is why. From today's Boston Globe:

Trump can’t send a message if he doesn’t have one

By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan APRIL 06, 2017

It may be dawning on The Donald that it’s easier to sit in the peanut gallery and heckle than to be on center stage orchestrating America’s response to world crises when lives and security hang in the balance.

When Syria’s Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons to kill hundreds of people in 2013, then-President Barack Obama was faced with the choice of ordering airstrikes to retaliate against a war crime and defend Syrian lives, or negotiating a surrender of chemical weapons to avoid dragging the United States into another Mideast war.

Trump was a private citizen, with no policy experience or access to intelligence, but he fired off a slew of know-it-all tweets, including this gem in all capitals: “AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA — IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!”

Four years later, history repeats itself, as it loves to do. Assad unleashed chemical weapons, killing scores of civilians, days after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said forcing the Russian-backed Assad from power is not a US priority anymore. (We all know fighting ISIS — a common enemy of Assad — is.) The troubling question — raised by Republican Senators Marco Rubio and John McCain — is whether Assad saw their statements as a green light to wipe out those who oppose his rule, including children who are clearly not ISIS terrorists.

Trump’s first reaction was to assign blame to “the past administration’s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a ‘red line’ against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing.”

Wait . . . what? This, from the same guy who tweeted to Obama when that red line was crossed: “The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do not attack Syria.’’

After meeting this week with King Abdullah of Jordan, who opposes Assad’s war on the Syrian opposition and whose glamorous wife has welcomed Syrian refugees, Trump changed his tone, having seen the victims’ glazed dead eyes and contorted bodies on TV.

“When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, little babies, with a chemical gas that is so lethal — people were shocked to hear what gas it was — that crosses many, many lines – beyond a red line — many, many lines,” Trump said.

Much like Obama did four years ago, Trump was said to be considering military options against Assad on Thursday. The options are no better now than they were then, defense officials told me, and all the downsides Trump warned Obama of remain. But Trump’s stand for justice and compassion has a hypocritical punchline: Any innocent babies who survived the gas attack couldn’t come here, because he’s banned them as potential terrorists.

And that’s the problem with Trump’s foreign policy: It’s incoherent and internally contradictory, because it’s based on gut feelings, not on weighing difficult problems, based on facts and expertise.

“Trump is against whatever seems not to be working,” said Philip Gordon, who was Obama’s coordinator for Mideast policy. “He was for the Iraq War, and then against it. He was against making a red line in Syria and now he’s against what he said before,” Gordon said. “Flip-flopping 180 degrees based on a single incident is not a good basis for policy, because he could flip back again as soon as something goes wrong.”

Trump’s ace-in-the-hole expert was supposed to be Tillerson, the former Exxon CEO who’s worked around the world. But when North Korea fired another ballistic missile this week, Tillerson’s response was more baffling than reassuring: “The United States has spoken enough about North Korea. We have no further comment.”

The point of diplomacy is to send a message, not to confuse. The problem is you can’t send a message if you don’t have one.

It’s easy to take cheap shots from the cheap seats. Now he’s in charge, and the thing about being a great conductor — of an orchestra or a foreign policy — is that you need expert performers in the pit, and the boss has to listen to them and understand the score.

Indira A.R. Lakshmanan in a Washington columnist and the Newmark chair in journalism ethics at the Poynter Institute.

Not everything is about Trump.

[TTX1]

Not everything is about Trump.

Observation: Russians are, generally speaking, much better chess players than Americans.

So are Syrians, Persians, and most Europeans.

Generally speaking.

[bigbill]

The Tomahawk strike was against a good target. Miles from any civilian population, the missiles wouldn't pass over Russian encampments, textbook layout of the base, not even tricky, the new version of TLAMs can loiter over the target and reports are saying up to an hour to gather real time data on the target, and then destroy the targets on the ground using that data instead of hours old satellite imagery. The US told the Russians to make sure they stayed clear, the strike was during a time when the fewest people were at the base, and maximized damage against aircraft, fuel depots, and weapons bunkers.

Trump may sound like a random thought generator, but this was very well planned and executed. The Russians and Iranians are pissed, but there's nothing they can do. Both have a good understanding of military force and know theirs is inferior.

[colker]

The Tomahawk strike was against a good target. Miles from any civilian population, the missiles wouldn't pass over Russian encampments, textbook layout of the base, not even tricky, the new version of TLAMs can loiter over the target and reports are saying up to an hour to gather real time data on the target, and then destroy the targets on the ground using that data instead of hours old satellite imagery. The US told the Russians to make sure they stayed clear, the strike was during a time when the fewest people were at the base, and maximized damage against aircraft, fuel depots, and weapons bunkers.

Trump may sound like a random thought generator, but this was very well planned and executed. The Russians and Iranians are pissed, but there's nothing they can do. Both have a good understanding of military force and know theirs is inferior.

A practical objective response to a circumstance that when discussed in abstract terms had no responses..
One must generalize principle and respect to living beings. Other than those principles, it´s the specific details of each circumstance that count. There must always be a solution. If our only answer is "there is no solution" better not to say anything at all.

[davids]

Not everything is about Trump.

My point is that - in this case on this issue - you and Trump are reacting the same way.

And while you are free to propose actions based on your emotional response to news reports, the President should not be. Because it's incredibly dangerous.

I am convinced that he has no more idea how to answer my question - "what, exactly, are you proposing be done?" - than you do.

[classtimesailer]

I'm afraid that Syria was on the list of technologically advancing, increasingly progressive, pluralistic, generally peaceful countries in the region that could not be allowed to continue to prosper, grow, and collaborate with its neighbors. If Syria was backward, monocultural, autocratic, and only interested in shopping in Paris and NY, then they would not be bothered by america except to fund the slaughter of their neighbors.

[djg714]

America feels good now....Let's have a good weekend.

[christian]

Trump may sound like a random thought generator, but this was very well planned and executed.

I don't think these things are oppositional, or even have a relationship. Even the most ardent Trump detractor doesn't doubt the operational capability or tactical ability of the United States Navy.