House Votes to Authorize Aid to Syrian Rebels in ISIS Fight

[Paul98]

Many of these people who voted to do this did so partly to give a reason to mount attacks on the Syrian military. It's something they have wanted to do for a while.

 

[Texashiker]

OK, fair enough. You get this one, TH.

Thank you.

But I get the feeling if Fern had not weighed in you would have dogged me for 5 or 6 pages.

:hmm:

 

[JEDIYoda]

I would think that the Russians could have a vested interest in what is going on!!
What wants a middle east that is totally ruled by ISIS? To do nothing is to allow that to happen.....I would even wager that the Soviets really do not care..as long as they are left alone!
I would also think that to do nothing is inviting an eventual war where it will be Israel and out allies against ISIS........

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Many of these people who voted to do this did so partly to give a reason to mount attacks on the Syrian military. It's something they have wanted to do for a while.

Also note that a majority of both parties voted for it. Congratulations, bipartisanship wins.

 

[werepossum]

Also note that a majority of both parties voted for it. Congratulations, bipartisanship wins.

Sad how that always happens on something stupid or immoral, huh?

I see no way this works out well. Obviously the rebels we like (at the moment) aren't going to ally with Assad, which leaves either fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously or allying with the other rebels - ISIS. And that ignores the elephant in the room - that the moderate Muslim groups we arm are almost always moderate only until they receive enough Western weapons to compete as yet another fanatical Islamist group.

 

[MongGrel]

Holy crap.

Flying unauthorized missions into Syria would be a violation of their sovereign airspace. Which means Russia would be justified in striking US military jets.

Imagine that.

But is just part of it.

 

[cubby1223]

I just dont know about arming rebels in Syria. What is Putin going to think about this? I am concerned Putin may see this as an attempt to destabilize the area even more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/us/politics/house-vote-isis.html?_r=0

Who are these rebels? What is going to happen to the arms after the conflict is over?

What good is arming rebels in the fight against isis?

The alternative to arming people already in the region, is supplying people to the region (U.S. boots on the ground).

If the plan is to fight IS/ISIS/ISIL whatever they call themselves today, those are the choices. And U.S. boots on the ground will not happen. So...

It's not a good plan, but it's the plan that is most likely to be approved.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The alternative to arming people already in the region, is supplying people to the region (U.S. boots on the ground).

If the plan is to fight IS/ISIS/ISIL whatever they call themselves today, those are the choices. And U.S. boots on the ground will not happen. So...

It's not a good plan, but it's the plan that is most likely to be approved.

No, there's other options. Punishing air strikes where IS tries to move is perhaps the best option. They're self funding. Remove that capability. Identify and remove their leadership. Very targeted and restrained action. Remembering that IS wants to establish a physical caliphate is key. Stop enabling that and give their leadership no rest.

 

[MongGrel]

No, there's other options. Punishing air strikes where IS tries to move is perhaps the best option. They're self funding. Remove that capability. Identify and remove their leadership. Very targeted and restrained action. Remembering that IS wants to establish a physical caliphate is key. Stop enabling that and give their leadership no rest.

+1

Although I'd imagine might be a few other things might get thrown in there real soon.

 

[cubby1223]

No, there's other options. Punishing air strikes where IS tries to move is perhaps the best option. They're self funding. Remove that capability. Identify and remove their leadership. Very targeted and restrained action. Remembering that IS wants to establish a physical caliphate is key. Stop enabling that and give their leadership no rest.

I guess I just don't view air strikes alone being able to achieve victory. I could be wrong, though. I'm certainly no military expert

 

[Orignal Earl]

I would think that the Russians could have a vested interest in what is going on!!
What wants a middle east that is totally ruled by ISIS? To do nothing is to allow that to happen.....I would even wager that the Soviets really do not care..as long as they are left alone!
I would also think that to do nothing is inviting an eventual war where it will be Israel and out allies against ISIS........

You mentioned a couple months ago that you were on your way to Russia, where the people you came in contact with concerned about ISIS?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Sad how that always happens on something stupid or immoral, huh?

I see no way this works out well. Obviously the rebels we like (at the moment) aren't going to ally with Assad, which leaves either fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously or allying with the other rebels - ISIS. And that ignores the elephant in the room - that the moderate Muslim groups we arm are almost always moderate only until they receive enough Western weapons to compete as yet another fanatical Islamist group.

Israel is the major suppler of arms to Azerbaijan and they don't seem too worried about them turning fanatical

 

[cabri]

Also note that a majority of both parties voted for it. Congratulations, bipartisanship wins.

and when things go south, fingers will be pointed and "lack of information" excuses will be trotted out.

 

[bshole]

I guess I just don't view air strikes alone being able to achieve victory. I could be wrong, though. I'm certainly no military expert

Dude can you even DEFINE what victory would be? The utter destruction of ISIS? To be replaced by what? Shia Fanatics?

My definition of victory would be complete withdrawal of all American forces and the Middle East left to it's own devices.

 

[Jaskalas]

Senate also approves.

Obama's path is cleared by both houses.

 

[michal1980]

Dont worry Obama is the smartest president ever. I'm sure he knows what he's doing. He has a noble peace prize after-all.

 

[rudder]

lol. whatheverlovingfuck does Putin have to do with this?

His anti-aircraft systems may be taking down U.S. jets.

 

[rudder]

Dude can you even DEFINE what victory would be? The utter destruction of ISIS? To be replaced by what? Shia Fanatics?

My definition of victory would be complete withdrawal of all American forces and the Middle East left to it's own devices.

It is sad... but with the mindset of people in the middle east... the only way to keep the peace is to have a non-sectarian dictator running things. ISIS ISIL or whatever will never be gone.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I blame this on Obama's lack of leadership. If he just knew how to lead the House wouldn't have to vote on anything.

 

[werepossum]

No, there's other options. Punishing air strikes where IS tries to move is perhaps the best option. They're self funding. Remove that capability. Identify and remove their leadership. Very targeted and restrained action. Remembering that IS wants to establish a physical caliphate is key. Stop enabling that and give their leadership no rest.

Sounds like a plan to me.

I guess I just don't view air strikes alone being able to achieve victory. I could be wrong, though. I'm certainly no military expert

Victory as defined by destroying ISIS, no. Victory as defined by preventing ISIS from establishing a functional Islamic caliphate, probably yes.

Israel is the major suppler of arms to Azerbaijan and they don't seem too worried about them turning fanatical

You mistake my argument. It isn't that moderate Muslims inevitably turn fanatical if well-armed, it's that Muslim groups fighting Islamic governments are almost invariably cored by hard-line Islamists who pretend to moderation to get Western aid. The hard core Islamist who wants his nation to be an Islamic theocracy run by rigid adherence to sharia is much more motivated to risk his life in rebellion than is the moderate Muslim who just wants to live his life in peace.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Senate also approves.

Obama's path is cleared by by houses.

Huge mistake imo. Anyway, did anyone catch that Reid tied this vote with keeping the federal government operating through mid-December. This is bullshit.

 

[cabri]

His anti-aircraft systems may be taking down U.S. jets.

Not if Syrian people are manning such.

The US may need to ask Israel for guidance on intrusion techniques if they intended on invading Syrian airspace.

 

[Jaskalas]

I blame this on Obama's lack of leadership. If he just knew how to lead the House wouldn't have to vote on anything.

I stand by the need for Congressional approval, even if I disagree with their decision. I see our country choosing the wrong side in a Syrian civil war - IF our goal was to bring peace and stability to the region.

Instead we are poised to repeat the Bush doctrine of bringing democracy terrorism to the Middle East. Only this time REAL chemical weapons are involved.
AND Russia has an obligation to militarily strike back.

 

[werepossum]

I stand by the need for Congressional approval, even if I disagree with their decision. I see our country choosing the wrong side in a Syrian civil war - IF our goal was to bring peace and stability to the region.

Instead we are poised to repeat the Bush doctrine of bringing democracy terrorism to the Middle East. Only this time REAL chemical weapons are involved.
AND Russia has an obligation to militarily strike back.

Agreed. I even support this decision, even though I think it's stupid; the President and Congress are the ones who have to evaluate the need. I still think it's stupid though; we need to decide if we most want to fight Assad or ISIS. Trying to fight Assad and ISIS, especially using some essentially unknown supposed moderate Syrian faction, is doomed to failure.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I guess I just don't view air strikes alone being able to achieve victory. I could be wrong, though. I'm certainly no military expert

Victory is a term I greatly dislike because it is a reinforcement of the WWII mindset of the destruction of national armies such as Germany or Japan. It's a bad way of thinking in that it provides a false impression that there is an equivalence that simply does not exist.

I believe that while these conflicts are never easy there were lessons that should but weren't learned by Iraq. One of the most important is the inherent instability of the region and the unavoidable fact that the greater one stirs that pot the more likely things will unpredictably boil over. That's bad.

What I believe the pols are missing is that this could be a potentially easier problem to remedy than Al-Qaeda with Bin Laden turned out to be. The key weakness to exploit is that IS is a nation wannabe. It's not so much ideological as political and that requires a higher level of organization to achieve. That's what to attack. Target means of funding. Remove assets financial and military. Make every advance cost more than gained. Any highly organized structure can be brought down once its underpinnings are understood and then attacked. Attack the base, but cut off the leadership and the thing will crumble. Expand into and weaken another country and then obligatory nation building results. That cannot be avoided without a further destabilization. The goal isn't Assad, or shouldn't be, but Assad seems to be the next Saddam. Bad bad bad.