Politics Middle Eastern power shifts

once upon a time, the united states was dominated by neo-con fuckheads who imagined that fabricating a case for war in iraq was hunky dory because the united states is the universal hegemon and can just do that sort of thing and besides that's what Leaders Do, you know, make shit up to legitimate actions that just shake things up, destructive innovation and all that dontcha know...and then, once the fake cases for war was sold to a paranoid american public, cowed into acceptance via the "war on terror" and some apparently naive belief that even the bush people wouldn't just lie to them, the geniuses of Leadership went into iraq without a plan except the "wolfowtiz doctrine" which held that the streets would be strewn with flowers in advance of the Liberators because everyone knows that the way Leadership sees the world correponds to how others see the world because the idea of Leadership says that is the case in those trash books of management literature and so of course it must be so. except that it was delusional. eight years, hundreds of thousands of deaths, an on-going civil war that should be more the center of attention than it is were it not for the fact that the united states seems committed to running away from the consequences of its action, mission accomplished with a knotted bandana stuffed down the front of his flight suit cowboy george in epic cretin regalia told the world, who gives a fuck about the chaos unleashed by that mission...this is what neo-con Leadership horseshit produced in iraq. so, obviously, the best imaginable idea would be to repeat the same fucking thing in syria. because the idea of Leadership as it is elaborated in trash management literature books sez so.

 

The Syrian conflict is internal. The risk of US involvement triggering responses from those opposed to US involvement is high. Too high given the President's rhetoric about limited strikes. The American public is war weary it would not be wise to initiate another military conflict under the circumstances.

I thought I read somewhere that Canada does not support outside military intervention in Syria. Is the current position a change?

Read what preceded my post. Your comments regarding US military policy in the past and your discussion about this issue begs the question regarding Canada. Even your above statement - "Canada has endorsed the position of the U.S. government" - the U.S. government has not established a position! what are you talking about? what is the Canadian government talking about? What is the Canadian government willing to do?

I wonder if the money is going to its intended use? Otherwise it is an honorable gesture. If I have offended any Canadian, I apologize.
--- merged: Sep 3, 2013 at 12:39 PM ---

I was not mislead. Perhaps you were mislead, but I have never understood if you ever supported US military action in Iraq and if you did not how do you argue that you were mislead. I guess my point is be more specific - who was mislead. Was Hilary Clinton mislead?
--- merged: Sep 2, 2013 at 12:25 PM ---

Having a warrior mentality is not exclusive of wisdom. For example the writings of Sun Tzu (Art of War) illustrates exceptional wisdom. Obama consistently acts in contradictory ways relative to the principles Tzu outlined.

Spot on. In my view there is no nuance to war.

 

So you believe Iraq had WMD capabilities to strike its neighbors with WMD within days or months as we were told and that Saddam had ties to al Queda as we were also told?

Based on what intel?

I supported the no fly zones over Iraq in 1992 after the first Gulf War and Operation Desert Fox, Clinton's four day targeted bombing of military and security targets in 1998 and Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver WMD.....the results of both of which combined deterred Saddam from attacking his neighbors or even his own people and significantly degraded his WMD capabilities....at no loss of US life or Iraqi civilians and little monetary cost to the US taxpayers.

You can point to Sun Tzu. I will point to more modern political leaders with a warrior mentality – Cowboy George and Chicken Hawk Chaney and their neo-con suborindates who willingly risked thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, in an off-budget $multi-billion invasion and occupation in pursuit of an ideological objective that left Iraq with a new corrupt government with stronger ties to Iran and sectarian insurrections/bombings that are a weekly, if not daily occurrence.

I am more supportive of a thoughtful combination of strategic use of military force along diplomatic pressure as opposed to “shock and awe” of military might alone.

As demonstrated by GHW Bush in Gulf War I, Clinton in the above cited Operation Desert Fox as well as Clinton/NATO approach to the Bosnia War and Obama/NATO response to the popular uprising against Gadaffi in Libya, all of which accomplished military and foreign policy objectives without significant loss of life.

 

meanwhile, an egyptian court has recommended the muslim brotherhood be made illegal.
egypt has more or less cut off tunnels into gaza.
hamas is, they say, not at all happy with the turn of events in egypt.
and, they say, gaza has its own tamarod.
but much of it is in jail.

on syria, here's a summary of what is known about the attack munitions-wise via brown moses:

Brown Moses Blog

 

well, folk cling to curious things:

Obama Assures Americans This Will Not Be Another 1456 Ottoman Siege Of Belgrade | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

"All war is based on deception" -- Sun Tzu

 

The two faces of John McCain

Two days ago:

Today:

 

mccain won the gop nomination for president by being the last man standing. he was playing poker on his phone during the syria debates the other day. why does anyone still give him credit? why would obama even consider him on foreign policy? his policies suck. this guy has become such a joke even mainstream radio talk show hosts bash him all day long when he speaks. the other laughing stock is john kerry making a case for war when NO ONE wants it. obama likes to consult congress as the last possible avenue, then does whatever he wants anyway.

 

I agree with you on McCain, probably the biggest war hawk in Congress. It's a shame that the most widely respected Republican in recent years on foreign policy, Richard Lugar, lost in a primary last year to a Tea Party extremist because Lugar worked with Obama on nuclear disarmament issues and was willing to compromise (a dirty word to Tea Party members) on domestic issues.

I thought John Kerry's testimony at both the Senate and House hearings was compelling and made a strong case that a limited action to deter and degrade Assad's use of chemical weapons addressed both the humanitarian/international obligations against only the third person since WW I to use chemical weapons (Hitler and Saddam) against all international standards and, more importantly, US interests.

The biggest joker to me was Sen. Ted Cruz (no surprise) who characterized the proposed limited action as "acting as al Queda's air force", followed by Congressman Joe Wilson (who screamed liar during an Obama state of the union address several years ag0) who claimed that Obama was pushing to strike Syria as a distraction for the Benghazi "cover up.)

We'll see if Rand Paul joins the joker crowd in the coming days when the vote comes to the Senate floor...after demanding that Obama bring a resolution to the Congress for a vote, if he in fact will prevent the Senate from voting with a filibuster.
--- merged: Sep 5, 2013 3:27 AM ---
IMO, the gravest danger to US foreign policy interests, in both short and long term, would be the isolationist/tea party extremists becoming the voice of the Republican party.

I dont like the war hawks like McCain on the other side of the aisle on critical foreign policy issues, but the Tea Party types like Paul and Cruz are just as bad, if not worse.

 

the limited actions sound ok by itself, but what if russia get involved, what if israel does something? any strikes we do could commit us to 'boots on the ground.' if it was just syria and the us in the picture then it's cut and dry. that's not the situation over there at the moment. no clear battle lines drawn up and no one's supporting us. kerry was totally over simplifying this. it could open a whole bag of worms that we can't deal with or afford.

 

Russia may huff and puff but respond military? No way, in fact, they are getting closer to signing on to a UN resolution calling for action against Assad.

Israel will go on alert but certainly wont initiate any military strikes. Why would they?

As to the war weary American public? I get it. They were drawn into a costly (in terms of lives and dollars) invasion and occupation of Iraq based on lies and an "over simplification" of what that would require.

But sometimes the right thing to do is not the popular thing to do, and IMO, a limited, targeted strike to degrade Assad's chemical weapon capabilities, thus deterring him from using them again on his own people or even potentially siphoning them off to Hezbollah at some point, is the right thing to do for US interests and the humanitarian thing to do for the people of Syrian and the next dictator who might see the use of chemical weapons as acceptable behavior.