Obama Changes Tune on Attacking Syrian Rebels

[Kurieuo]

Remember how evil Russia was for killing "civilians" through bombing rebel forces in Aleppo?

Looks like Trump becoming POTUS elect, has made Obama step up and start doing the right thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

If US and Russia start having the same primary aims, to kill off ISIS rather than topple Assad, then Syria will soon be able to start rebuilding rather than becoming entirely destroyed like Libya.

War is messy, but this is the right action here Obama is taking as I see things.

[Philip]

The whole "the evil dictator is killing Muslim rebels, what should we do about it?" - well, that depends. As Trump has asked, who the heck ARE these so-called rebels (I'm referencing Syria). Maybe at least there would be peace if they quit trying to unseat him. Who, from our perspective, might be worst than the dictator we already know? What happens if Assad goes and the rebel factions are worse? What if they then start fighting each other in a civil war? Didn't we learn ANTHING form our invasion of Iraq?

[Jac3510]

I don't know why we're involved at all. Why should I care if one bad guy kills another one? There are no moderates over there--certainly not in enough numbers to govern effectively. Let them have at each other. Save our blood and treasure for something that matters. And if somebody--anybody, be it the rebels who take over or Assad who wins and rebuilds or anybody anywhere--goes on to threaten America or our interests, then we deal with them swiftly and appropriately. No need to stick around and help them rebuild what gets destroyed, be that literal destruction or otherwise.

[Kurieuo]

I don't know why we're involved at all. Why should I care if one bad guy kills another one? There are no moderates over there--certainly not in enough numbers to govern effectively. Let them have at each other. Save our blood and treasure for something that matters. And if somebody--anybody, be it the rebels who take over or Assad who wins and rebuilds or anybody anywhere--goes on to threaten America or our interests, then we deal with them swiftly and appropriately. No need to stick around and help them rebuild what gets destroyed, be that literal destruction or otherwise.

Why involved at all, that's the question right? Which presupposes there must be an answer, some vested interest known to those running the US, a strategy and plan. Why mess with Libya, why Afghanistan, why Iraq, such are all precursors one can look to for answers.

[Jac3510]

Well that's the problem. I'm not persuaded that there are any good reasons to muss with those countries. I used to think there are good reasons. I don't think so anymore.

For the record, I'm not saying we should be isolationist. On the contrary, we should be very involved in the affairs of those and other countries. We should work very hard to make sure to protect our interests, up to and including dropping bombs and rolling over enemies where necessary. But how long did the actual Iraq war last before it became an occupation? It was just a couple of weeks. Our problem there was that we stuck around and tried to build a nation, a democratic one, no less. It was a lofty goal, sure. But a fool's errand in the end. Same thing with Afghanistan. The Taliban fell after less than two months of fighting (first strike was on Oct 7, and the surrender of the last Taliban fighters was on Nov 30). And what did we do? We stuck around again.

Then we started picking sides in civil wars (stupid), arming people who we didn't know and who would ultimately be our enemies. And why? Out of some misguided view to promote some Arab Spring and prove to the world that we didn't hate Muslims after all (all while playing a very high stakes games with Iran). Again, all stupid, as far as I can tell.

My own views on foreign policy--which I am quick to say are very underinformed, ad would add just as quickly that so is yours and everyone else's here--is that we state simply and firmly, "We are America. Work with us, and we'll help make you rich. Don't, and we'll crush you economically. Attack our interests or us, and we'll kill you and leave you in your own ruins." And then stick to that. Carrots and sticks. Promote our interests, ignore or economically cripple those who don't play by our rules, and destroy those quickly and ruthlessly who physically attack us, and as soon as the counter punch is delivered, immediately step away and get back to business. And don't do it with major fanfare or victory celebrations. Don't do it with long speeches about American values. Just do it and be done while you talk about the good that comes with promoting freedom and doing business with a free people. Eventually, people will learn their lesson. Those that don't will either fall away and die a natural death or will be killed by attacking the stronger force. Either way, we win.

[Kurieuo]

Jac, have you seen this?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

[Philip]

Jac: I don't know why we're involved at all. Why should I care if one bad guy kills another one? I don't know why we're involved at all. Why should I care if one bad guy kills another one? There are no moderates over there--certainly not in enough numbers to govern effectively. Let them have at each other.

The only problem is that innocent women, children and non-combatants are being slaughtered and horrifically wounded. This is the main reason why we should leave dictators alone - AS LONG AS - they keep their ambitions within borders that do not threaten our interests or peace. What we should have done with Saddam, as he threatened the region and western interests outside of Iraq, is to have removed ONLY him some key generals. Then warned the remaining government that we would respect their sovereignty to the point that they kept out of making trouble that impacts our interests - peace, democracy, economic progress, the necessary flow of petroleum - which impacts all nations and economies. But NATION BUILDING in a Muslim country (or ANY country) - how stupid - all those live, the financial cost, the encouragement of groups like ISIS, after the vacuum of our leaving. So sad. Removing dictators is often a case of a subsequent civil war amongst factions. And their are MANY competing Islamic factions that hate each other more than they hate us!

Jac: Save our blood and treasure for something that matters. And if somebody--anybody, be it the rebels who take over or Assad who wins and rebuilds or anybody anywhere--goes on to threaten America or our interests, then we deal with them swiftly and appropriately. No need to stick around and help them rebuild what gets destroyed, be that literal destruction or otherwise.There are no moderates over there--certainly not in enough numbers to govern effectively. Let them have at each other. Save our blood and treasure for something that matters.

Yep. Like when Israel loved when Iran and Iraq was slaughtering each other under Saddam.

And if somebody--anybody, be it the rebels who take over or Assad who wins and rebuilds or anybody anywhere--goes on to threaten America or our interests, then we deal with them swiftly and appropriately. No need to stick around and help them rebuild what gets destroyed, be that literal destruction or otherwise.

Agreed.

[Jac3510]

Jac, have you seen this?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

I've not, but I'm not inclined to take much of what Gen Clark says very seriously. Generals, in general, are political figures. Yes, they're in the military and so are a different class of politicians, but trust me when I say that if you are a general, it is because you are a politician. They aren't mere military strategy experts who are really good at assessing military objectives, tactics, planning battles, etc. No, they're "the brass," and the brass is as political as you get.

I don't doubt the conversation he relayed was more or less true. But none of that means that the Bush administration went into Iraq for the oil. Maybe they did, but those sorts of conspiracy theories just ought not be seriously entertained. And if someone that close to the inside literally said, "We decided to go to war. I don't know why!" then that person obviously lacks a basic level of intelligence and ought be fired. Those two sentences, at best, summarize one or more long meetings that included a lot of discussion at a lot of level. And to conclude with "I don't know why" the conclusion was drawn and then to draw from that ignorance a nefarious political motive--well, let me put it this way, for Clark (an expert politician) to frame the conversation in such a way that he wants us to draw from this unnamed individual's stated ignorance a nefarious political motive on behalf of the political administration just smacks of typical politician speak. It's standard, run of the mill political rhetoric, probably much closer to lie than truth. But it's a lie he benefited from from telling and from us believing, and so he said it.

edit:

I'm also very familiar with Democracy Now! You can assume anything said on the program is garbage. It is to the left what InfoWars is to the right--just a bunch of nut job conspiracy stupidity. There are actual left leaning media organizations that are more or less accurate in their reporting given their perspective, just like there are actual right leaning media organizations that are more or less accurate in their reporting given their perspective. DN is not one of them.