Precipitating WWIII with a nuclear power seems like a proportionate response to one of its allies using improvised chemical weapons. Good call.
I think you’re looking for an answer like this:
"Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday that President Obama damaged U.S. credibility by drawing a “red line” against Syria’s use of chemical weapons and then failed to back it up with military force when Syria crossed the line.
“It was damaging,” Mr. Panetta, who also served as CIA director for Mr. Obama, told Yahoo News.
Mr. Panetta said he supported drawing the red line as a warning to Syrian President Bashar Assad not to use chemical weapons was “the right thing to do” but failing to enforce it was a mistake.
Mr. Obama instead opted for a Russian-brokered disarmament plan after Mr. Assad, tightening his grip on power in the face of a popular uprising and civil war, used chemical weapons to kill as many as 1,400 people.
“I think the credibility of the United States is on the line,” Mr. Panetta said. “It was important for us to stand by our word and go in and do what a commander in chief should do.”
He said Mr. Obama “sent a mixed message, not only to Assad, not only to the Syrians, but [also] to the world. And that is something you do not want to establish in the world, an issue with regard to the credibility of the United States to stand by what we say we’re gonna do.”
Exactly,
Which is why we have been saying over and over and over again that Obama drawing a red line in Syria was an asinine stupid thing to do if backing up his threat is damn near impossible!
What Syrian policy do you prescribe for the US in the wake of what you wrote above? Should we be directly targeting the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian allies?
What should Obama do? He’s Commander in Chief. He issued an ultimatum about the Syrians using gas against the rebels, I did not. Now either he follows through with his threat and bombs the Syrian forces or his, and ultimately the United State’s, threat looks empty and weak.
Maybe we could beg the Russians to intercede like they did before.
Yeah, that would make us look real powerful.
Initially the people of the United States were not told about the looming threat of ISIS in Syria. Our Commander in Chief called them the J.V. team and the rebellion in Syria was made to look like a spontaneous civilian uprising. It may have been originally.
But as soon as ISIS got involved, rolled over the border taking huge territories in Iraq and Al-Qaeda forces got involved in the fray…since we’re involved in a so-called “global war on terror”, I would have cut a dead with Assad and helped him eradicate the terrorists by all means necessary.
This would have prevented the Russians from coming in and filling a power vacuum due to inaction by the United States. I would stop funneling weapons to people who history has shown us will turn on us with the drop of a hat. I would have sent all my aid to people dedicated to the utter destruction of Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
I would have done the same thing in Libya. To bomb the forces of a dictator who gave up his nuclear ambitions to be more closely aligned with the West was even a stupider thing than the freaking Red Line.
It also seems idiotic to back a coalition of nations with an interest in helping your enemies, the ones you are out to destroy, to survive. It makes no sense. Hell, Iran and Hezbollah are dedicated to destroying ISIS. Saudi Arabia and several other Sunni nations, Turkey included, are playing both sides. We should ditch this coalition fast.
I would have backed Assad and Qaddafi and crushed Al-Qaeda and ISIS where ever they stood.
And so what if they were dictators, so what if they kill and imprison their own people, it’s not like we never dealt with leaders like that in the Cold War. Look at Central and South America for instance.
Then instead of being a hub for terrorism and an ally of the Russians, Assad and Qaddafi would have been our allies and ISIS and Al-Qaeda would have been defeated.
Some times you have to make hard choices to meet your goals and this Commander in Chief and his advisers weren’t up to the task and the world is worse off because of it.
I’m asking what president Gkhan would do here and now in the wake of what appears to be another chlorine gas attack. Assume Obama proceeded you.
That is a trap. You can’t make a good decision on a situation like that without the most recent and accurate information available, and that info is only available to an extremely select few govt. and military personnel.
Can’t you read? I just posted what I would do. I would cut a deal with the Assad government for their help in wiping out Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
If Obama proceeded me his word is certainly not mine, so his red-line threat would no longer apply.
Yet for appearances I would stipulate the United States would give all conventional aid and support if the Assad government withholds the use of chemical weapons in it’s fight against the terrorists.
Again thinking in western terms. It’s not Assad vs. Al-Qaeda it’s shia vs. sunni, or to be precise it’s fake shias (Alawites) and real shias (Hezbollah, Iranians) vs. sunnis. (FSA, Al-Qaeda, ISIS…).
Sunnis are currently dominated by hardline islamists so one cannot “wipe out” a specific cross section of millions of angry sunnis living in Syria/Iraq.
If you go back in pre-islam times, it’s coastal tribes vs. desert tribes in what is now called Syria. The
The problem with the US involvement is hesitation and indecisiveness. This enables the sunni extremists to build a positive narrative for them - one must not underestimate a power of a good narrative - besides propaganda it creates simmering anger, rallies you kinsmen to your cause, creates tales of historical injustices that need to be redressed etc.
If the US of A ignored the war in Syria, it would be better that this - everybody is ignoring the war and genocide in Yemen, the US is selling billions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudis and rarely a blurb in the Western media. So that was one option.
The current situation is worse - Obama publicly threw the US weight behind the “opposition” (again, thinking in political not in tribal terms) and the “FSA” and began the rebel training fiasco. In the mean time, he kind of lost interest and virtually signaled Russia that they should take over because the US simply stop caring (remember the “quagmire” warning?).
And that’s very good bad for US prestige - naturally Putin is milking it for what it’s worth. Russian AF effectively became Assad’s flying artillery, and while the Americans are still narrowly focused on defeating a specific sunni militia (ISIS) the Russians and the islamists are looking at the bigger picture and cutting deals among many factions.
In case you missed, the biggest news from the battlefields of Syria is that the sunnis have broken the siege of Aleppo in several major engagements, against Assad’s dwindling Syrian Army, Hezbollah, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Russian Air Force.
Things were so bad the Iranians had to use their Revolutionary Guards to prop up the regime forces instead of the usual cannon fodder of Hezbollah. Iranians are pissed because they lost many soldiers and high ranking officers, which is bad for morale. Contrary to myth, these guys are not that keen on meeting their allotted virgins and this creates problems on the home front.
Remember the narrative problem? Well, the guys who broke the siege aren’t plucky “pro-democracy” fighters but Al-Qaeda rebranded. And for sunnis, these guys saved their coreligionists and are the heroes of the day. This builds the positive narrative for them - “shias want us dead, these guys may be a little on the hardline side, but are ok, they saved us from starvation and death. They can’t be that bad”
In many sunni muslim countries, the breaking of the siege was publicly celebrated - even in the Aleppo proper, several ISIS flags were waved.
And for the US this is the worst case scenario - public disengagement, some half-hearted “concerns” and idiotic ideas about “humanitarian airlifts” while for millions of muslims, islamic militias, formerly affiliated with AQ are heroes. And no one cares about the airstrikes against ISIS, as this is primarily a propaganda war…
3 Likes
loppar:
I agree with with all you have written…except this.
The problem that you have lain out is the true problem. Much like the surgeon attempting to stop the bleeding after major shrapnel wounds; they close up one bleeder…and another, even worse one, opens up.
Who do you really “support”? Who is truly a U.S. “ally”? As we have seen over and over and OVER again in the Middle East…when you think you are helping…and you are “decisive”…things end up worse. (Case in point…Iraq…could we have been more “decisive” at the cost of Trillions of dollars and thousands of Dead and Wounded?).
While I am FAR from talking about you (your analysis are often very through and eye-opening)…I bristle at the crowd that says that in the Middle East all we have to so is "do this…then do that…that damn Obama…problem solved…! as if the U.S. and this Administration; and most importantly thousands of brave men and women in the Military and Intelligence; risk it all in an area of the World where choices are often between Terrible and Horrific.
I guess I incorrectly expressed my argument - it’s not indecisiveness per se, but indecisiveness in this specific situation vis-a-vis the Syrian rebels, where the US effectively pulled out, concentrating on airstrikes against ISIS and some help for the Kurds.
Too much meddling under GWB created the current Iraq chaos, FWIW.
There is no magic fix, no “bomb them all” solution - as you’ve correctly identified the choices are terrible and horrific, and it wasn’t my intention to pin the blame on Obama personally, like some partisan supporters would.
I just got the feeling that the current administration got tired of Syria and is simply going through the motions, while other players are more cynically exploiting the political and power vacuum - Putin struck yet unknown deals with Erdogan - a geopolitical rival is striking deals with a regional ally and NATO member who is increasingly belligerent towards the US of A.
Personally, if I weren’t just some guy with some ME experience but a politician I would strongly back the Kurds and cut a deal with Iran - as Iranians aren’t that much at odds with the Kurds as the sunnis are (Kurds are sunni, but Kurds first and foremost). This would also address the Iraq problem and formalize the unspoken alliance vs. ISIS.
I have nothing but highest respect for the US servicemen - my brother served in the ISAF contingent in Afghanistan and has nothing but praise for US soldiers.
1 Like
Thanks, Loppar.
One of the things that concerns the previous Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense, CIA directors, etc. that have signed joint statements of “concern” over Trump is NOT because of some love for Clinton…it is for the very real possibility of weakening already struggling alliances…and most importantly going in “bombs blazing” as a “solution” for everything.
They are not (for the most part) partisans trying to put Clinton in the White House…but people who see someone who goes by his “gut”; is angered by even legitimate criticism…and as most recent history has shown, hires advisers that he doesn’t listen to.
LET ME BE CLEAR…I don’t think any one person is the answer to the problems in the Middle East…INCLUDING Clinton. To me (and to at least some if the aforementioned individuals) it probably boils down to “the lesser of 2 evils”…
ISIS isn’t Islamic…
I am sad I can only like this once. But especially the part below:
so incredibly true.
We’ve been bombs blazing over there almost non stop for several years. Trump used that as a rah-rah point to get the crowd of people who didn’t already know that we’ve been “Bombing the shit out of them” for several years fired up.
You do know that we’ve been flying sorties and using drones on ISIS targets for quite a while now, don’t you?
Yes I do.
And it’s been a completely false and disingenuous narrative that this President; his administration; and the brave men and women risking and losing their lives are doing “nothing” in the Middle East.
That would be false and disingenuous. Who actually says that?
I mean, the Pres. may have made some bad decisions, which should be scrutinized, but I have yet to hear anybody say anything bad about the military.
???
If you have not heard the relentless drumbeat of “…We are doing NOTHING in the Middle East…”…then I don’t know what to say, SkyzykS
I have, I just don’t interpret that as a criticism of that military. The military action is a result of the decisions being made by politicians.
If you tell a soldier to beat a hammer against a granite slab all day and come back 12 hours later to find the same exact granite slab being beaten upon, you can’t blame the soldier for not doing his job. You blame who gave him the orders.
In my book, when you unleash the dogs of war, you unleash them. You don’t put them on a leash X meters long, then yank it back when they get near the limit.