What was the official strategy in Syria?

[Genx87]

What should Obama's strategy have been?

Not weaken the legitimate govt of Syria and Libya? All it did was create a power vacuum filled with some of the most vile people on earth. We as a nation should have learned from the power vacuum we created in Iraq that has contributed greatly to this shitstorm.

 

[Tombstone1881]

Not weaken the legitimate govt of Syria and Libya? All it did was create a power vacuum filled with some of the most vile people on earth. We as a nation should have learned from the power vacuum we created in Iraq that has contributed greatly to this shitstorm.

Evidently the republican party as a whole, and all of it's candidates, have not learned a single thing.

They are all still beating the war drums, just as they were when they were telling us that there would be a six month war in Iraq where we would be greeted as liberators. (And it would pay for itself too!)

 

[Genx87]

Evidently the republican party as a whole, and all of it's candidates, have not learned a single thing.

They are all still beating the war drums, just as they were when they were telling us that there would be a six month war in Iraq where we would be greeted as liberators. (And it would pay for itself too!)

Ya think? McCain was there a few years ago shaking hands with many of the leaders that turned out to be some of the worst offenders. Republicans want us to get involved even more than we are right now.

One candidate has come out against intervention beyond helping the Kurds. But of course Rand Paul has no chance at the nomination.

 

[MiniDoom]

Evidently the republican party as a whole, and all of it's candidates, have not learned a single thing.

They are all still beating the war drums, just as they were when they were telling us that there would be a six month war in Iraq where we would be greeted as liberators. (And it would pay for itself too!)

Rand Paul...

 

[K1052]

Not weaken the legitimate govt of Syria and Libya? All it did was create a power vacuum filled with some of the most vile people on earth. We as a nation should have learned from the power vacuum we created in Iraq that has contributed greatly to this shitstorm.

The Lybian civil war was already in full swing prior to western intervention and the government had lost control over a lot of the state. In the end long simmering economic and political discontent felled Gadaffi, we did accelerate the process though.

Syria is our bad via Iraq. Absent ISIS the Assad government probably would have remained in control after putting down the rebellion. Not that he's a good guy or anything but the level of absolute chaos would be a lot less than now.

 

[Jaskalas]

Evidently the republican party as a whole, and all of it's candidates, have not learned a single thing.

They are all still beating the war drums, just as they were when they were telling us that there would be a six month war in Iraq where we would be greeted as liberators. (And it would pay for itself too!)

Yes, the Republicans are pathetic on this issue.
It'd just be nice if Democrat leaders (Obama, Clinton, Kerry) weren't the ones actually carrying it out. When both sides are warmongering and arming terrorists, what are voters supposed to do?

 

[TheGardener]

Yes, the Republicans are pathetic on this issue.
It'd just be nice if Democrat leaders (Obama, Clinton, Kerry) weren't the ones actually carrying it out. When both sides are warmongering and arming terrorists, what are voters supposed to do?

Trump.

 

[Jaskalas]

Trump.

That egoistical lunatic would probably go to war with Russia over rights to kill Syrians.

Trump on Putin Controlling Syria: ‘OK, Fine,’ Him Fighting ISIS ‘Wonderful Thing,’ ‘Very Little Downside’
Interesting. Doesn't meet the expectations of him being a strongman that needs to save face by going to war.

 

[x26]

the neocons thats who. We know you are stilll there deep down inside.

Sounds like you need to double down on your Meds.

 

[Genx87]

The Lybian civil war was already in full swing prior to western intervention and the government had lost control over a lot of the state. In the end long simmering economic and political discontent felled Gadaffi, we did accelerate the process though.

Syria is our bad via Iraq. Absent ISIS the Assad government probably would have remained in control after putting down the rebellion. Not that he's a good guy or anything but the level of absolute chaos would be a lot less than now.

Libyan forces were closing in on Benghazi in early March. We intervened with a no fly zone which was actually an offensive to eradicate the Libyan army capabilities to conduct war as the rebellion was about to severely dealt a major defeat. We cant wash our hands of Libya anymore than we can of our involvement in Syria. I know we would like to pretend we didnt provide the means to topple Gaddafi. But we did. And it has been a complete humanitarian disaster ever since.

 

[Knowing]

In the past couple of days it has become more clear to me what the official strategy is.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/10/remarks-president-address-nation-syria

First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.”
My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-understand-american-people-arent-with-me-on-syria-strike/

But what I'm gonna try to propose is, is that we have a very specific objective, a very narrow military option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale invasion of Syria or involvement or boots on the ground, nothing like that. This isn't like Iraq, it's not like Afghanistan, it's not even like Libya.

Now, we know that there are actually already boots on the ground... after all who was training the "moderate opposition" for millions of dollars a pop?

But now it really seems like he is actually doing what he said he wasn't going to do because the American people really weren't behind it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/politics/syria-troops-special-operations-forces/

Syria: Obama authorizes boots on ground to fight ISIS

Then there's this:

http://www.france24.com/en/20151031-uns-ban-says-syrian-talks-hostage-assads-future

"It is totally unfair and unreasonable that the fate of one person takes the whole political negotiation process hostage. It is unacceptable," he said, referring to Assad.
"The future of Assad must be decided by the Syrian people," he said in the interview, according to a translation of his comments in the Spanish daily El Mundo.
His comments came after diplomats from 17 countries, as well as the United Nations and the European Union (EU), sought to narrow their differences over the four-year-old Syria crisis during a meeting in Vienna on Friday. The Syrian regime and the opposition were not represented.
But regime allies Russia -- which has waged a month of intense air strikes against Syrian rebels -- and Iran are resisting Western and Saudi pressure to force Assad from power.
"The Syrian government insists that President Assad takes part (in any transitional government)" but others, especially Western countries [Read: Obama], say "there is no place for him," said Ban.
"But because of that we have lost three years, there have been more than 250,000 dead, more than 13 million displaced within Syria... more than 50 percent of hospitals, schools and infrastructure have been destroyed. There's no time to lose," said Ban.

So if there's next to no support, domestically or abroad, why does this seems like it's exactly what Obama said it wasn't repeatedly over the course of many years?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Piss poor leader has piss poor strategy and zero credibility.

That sounds like an appropriate description of Putin.

 

[Fern]

I find it somewhat amusing that the Democrats who never fail to criticize GWB for toppling Saddam and all that such actions entailed (e.g., creation of new govt.) are striving to topple Assad. Take away the phony marketing spin and PR and the similarities between Iraq and Syria are striking.

- Thousands and thousands of civilian deaths.
- Thousands and thousands of refugees.
- Country infested with foreign Islamic jihaddists.
- Country basically out-of-control
- Installation of new leader/govt.

Does the above describe Iraq or Syria? Or both?

Fern

 

[TheGardener]

That egoistical lunatic would probably go to war with Russia over rights to kill Syrians.

Trump on Putin Controlling Syria: ‘OK, Fine,’ Him Fighting ISIS ‘Wonderful Thing,’ ‘Very Little Downside’
Interesting. Doesn't meet the expectations of him being a strongman that needs to save face by going to war.

So there you go. Listening and then criticizing or even being pleasantly surprised is better than just attacking someone because you've already figured out what you think they are going say. One thing I've come to realize is that predicting what Trump is going to say, is sometimes a pretty difficult task.

Glad you came back to update your original reply and add the link. I didn't read this thread for a month, so I just got to view the link you posted.

If he [Putin]wants to fight ISIS, let him fight ISIS. Why do we always have to do everything.

Maybe President Trump would keep us out of a few wars.

 

[Knowing]

http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Tr...briefing-on-enhancing-counter-isil-operations

Now we're sending F15s. I'm not sure why we would do that since ISIS has no air force to speak of. Russia does, but we couldn't possibly be having a proxy war with them over who gets to kill ISIS.

I wonder what else could be going on. /sarc

 

[bshole]

I find it somewhat amusing that the Democrats who never fail to criticize GWB for toppling Saddam and all that such actions entailed (e.g., creation of new govt.) are striving to topple Assad. Take away the phony marketing spin and PR and the similarities between Iraq and Syria are striking.

- Thousands and thousands of civilian deaths.
- Thousands and thousands of refugees.
- Country infested with foreign Islamic jihaddists.
- Country basically out-of-control
- Installation of new leader/govt.

Does the above describe Iraq or Syria? Or both?

Fern

It really is disheartening to see that we have two war-mongering parties. They simply cannot see that all this meddling is against America's self-interests. No matter how sick the American people are of these interventions, they keep upping the ante.

I will probably vote for Trump this time because he actually is the ONLY person talking any kind of sense about our involvement in the Middle East. Any of the other choices are openly for a larger bloodbath. At this point, only a drooling mouth-breathing bat shit insane fucktard can believe that further intervention is good for the Middle East or for us.

Oh..... why in the holy hell are we taking in refugees for Syria?!!!! These people do NOT share our western secular values. This will go sideways, it is inevitable.

 

[Jaskalas]

On that note... of all the "drooling mouth-breathing bat shit insane fucktards" it's Trump that comes out against escalation in the Middle East. How did that happen?

Are Democrats going to nominate a Warmongering Hillary?

 

[Genx87]

On that note... of all the "drooling mouth-breathing bat shit insane fucktards" it's Trump that comes out against escalation in the Middle East. How did that happen?

Are Democrats going to nominate a Warmongering Hillary?

Was there another option? Hillary has been the pick since Obama won in 08. Nobody is running against her worth a damn. And the establishment within the DNC is doing their best to shield her. Her poll numbers drop when she opens he mouth.

 

[werepossum]

It really is disheartening to see that we have two war-mongering parties. They simply cannot see that all this meddling is against America's self-interests. No matter how sick the American people are of these interventions, they keep upping the ante.

I will probably vote for Trump this time because he actually is the ONLY person talking any kind of sense about our involvement in the Middle East. Any of the other choices are openly for a larger bloodbath. At this point, only a drooling mouth-breathing bat shit insane fucktard can believe that further intervention is good for the Middle East or for us.

Oh..... why in the holy hell are we taking in refugees for Syria?!!!! These people do NOT share our western secular values. This will go sideways, it is inevitable.

Well said, although even though both parties are more anti-THEIR war than anti-war, it's worth noting that the Dems have more always anti-war pols. You are correct about Trump, but I've seen nothing to make me wish to vote for him over whatever wing nut the Libertarians put up. Could even be Gary Johnson again, my favorite Presidential candidate since Reagan if not ever.

 

[Knowing]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/31/us-mideast-crisis-usa-escalation-idUSKCN0SP05920151031
Oct 31, 2015

However, they acknowledged that at least a limited number of TOWs have ended up with jihadists. They said U.S. officials had no plans to supply any kind of surface-to-air missiles, known as MANPADs, to Syrian rebels,
"While it is understandable for the opposition to want to strike directly against the Russians, proliferation of MANPADS into an area with a large terrorist presence is beyond dangerous," one intelligence official added, referring to shoulder-fired heat-seeking missile weapons.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/06/1445423/-Do-we-really-want-to-go-to-war-with-Russia

In addition to the arms the U.S. has agreed to provide, Saudi and Turkish officials have renewed talks with their American counterparts about allowing limited supplies of shoulder-fire man-portable air-defense systems, or Manpads, to select rebels. Those weapons could help target regime aircraft, in particular those responsible for dropping barrel bombs, and could also help keep Russian air power at bay, the officials said.
...
U.S. intelligence agencies are concerned that a few older Manpads may already have been smuggled into Syria through supply channels the CIA doesn’t control.

supply channels the CIA doesn't control
or is it
supply channels the CIA won't admit it controls

Anywho, this latest batch of news has me wondering what in the actual f*** Washington is thinking. We're well passed time to stop. Waiting for the antiwar Democrats to show up... any moment now...

 

[Knowing]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-a...e-forces-army-soldiers-deir-ezzor-airstrikes/

Deir Ezzor province links ISIS' self-declared capital in Raqqa, Syria, with the group's territory in neigboring Iraq.
The province is also home to major oilfields, which have been a major source of revenue for ISIS.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/12/04/458524627/episode-667-auditing-isis
Just a couple of months ago we didn't want to bomb their revenue stream for some reason, now we're auditing their budgets. Still haven't figured out who they're selling oil to though - unless Russia and Iran are correct, which could look really awkward for the west.

Then there's the whole unannounced not an invasion thing going on.

This is a very strange coalition, and it really seems like there's only a few nations pulling their weight while the US bombs hospitals and the Syrian army.

 

[michal1980]

http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Tr...briefing-on-enhancing-counter-isil-operations

Now we're sending F15s. I'm not sure why we would do that since ISIS has no air force to speak of. Russia does, but we couldn't possibly be having a proxy war with them over who gets to kill ISIS.

I wonder what else could be going on. /sarc

its a proxy way over syria.

To what end?

 

[Knowing]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/17/middl...lition-airstrike-hit-regime-forces/index.html

If it was any country but murrica, cable news would be wall to wall Pearl clutching panic about the act of war that just happened.

 

[maddie]

Definitely worth reading for those wanting a more knowledgeable viewpoint and opinion than the forum world experts here.

http://www.politico.eu/article/why-...s-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/

 

[Jaskalas]

Definitely worth reading for those wanting a more knowledgeable viewpoint and opinion than the forum world experts here.

http://www.politico.eu/article/why-...s-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/

This is a must-read for the details on how the United States is responsible for the blood in Syria, and the creation of genocidal ISIS.