All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

by **Luzinski's Gut** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 19:48:59

The Syrian Air Force is crap. But it's also completely irrelevant...we could take it out in 48 hours. And the rebels still won't be able to muster enough combat power to defeat the Syrian Army.

The abortion comment was directed to draw a parallel in idiocy.

by **Luzinski's Gut** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 19:50:15

"Nothing had happened to pushbutton warfare; its emergence was at hand. Horrible weapons that could destroy every city on Earth were at hand—at too many hands. But, pushbutton warfare meant Armageddon, and Armageddon, hopefully, will never be an end of national policy.
Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had forgotten: you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud."

TR Fehrenbach

by **Luzinski's Gut** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 19:52:28

Was this posted yet from the Atlantic? The rebels weapons?

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013 ... ls/100461/

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 19:56:04

I'm not arguing that anything we do is going to change the landscape of Syria, but taking out an Air Force that bombs it's own cities is a universal good IMO.

The possibility of the next dictator going "Oh wait, the US shot a hellfire into Assad's mansion after he used sarin." is completely worth the expense. Maybe I've got a little too much of the liberal internationalist in me, but I'm unwilling to say "fuck it" about genocides and atrocities.

by **Luzinski's Gut** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 19:58:41

What about the genocides and atrocities being committed by the Sunni rebels?

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 20:28:24

Luzinski's Gut wrote:Some other things to consider, and this might inflame some, but war is ugly and the discussion to go to war should be deep.

1. If chemical weapons were used, the intelligence should be publicly broadcast to the nation. I for one don't trust our intelligence one iota. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you (and you can kiss your budget goodbye once I get my foot out of your ass). After Iraq, the nation should demand they see what intelligence we have - you can scrub the collection data (how we got the info) out of the report.

2. So children were killed huh. Horrible stuff. If this is the metric, perhaps we should invade every country with high infant mortality rates due to poor healthcare. I won't even get into the abortion parallel here.

3. Tomahawk strikes will NOT stop this regime from using chemical weapons. You can't blow up a chemical weapons bunker or a production facility...it will create a large, toxic cloud that will be dispersed with the winds over all sorts of areas. Oh, and if you have a smart enemy, he'll deliberately place chemical weapons near possible targets...and then he can blame the US for causing a mass casualty event. Let me say this again - these strikes will not stop anyone on the ground.

4. Anyone interested in the Syrian air force and air defense should read this. Very interesting:
http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/d ... f_8May.pdf

and

http://www.slideshare.net/ISWPress/syri ... e-overview

5. The moral question...it's a complex issue. Are we willing to get involved in every conflict that has a moral dilemma? Sure didn't in Rwanda and there was a lot more killing and genocide going on there...that was old fashioned Biblical killing, with machetes and axes. What happens if the strikes result in blowback against the US and the war expands...again, it's uncontrollable.

1. I think they should declassify more of the intelligence and make it as clear as they can why they think what they do. I guess you raise a decent point that even if Obama and Kerry are convinced/telling the truth, they could still be incorrect due to receiving bad info either on purpose or by accident from the intel people. I'm not sure if that's a problem with an obvious solution though.

2. It's more than children being killed though that's always pretty shitty. It's children being killed in the one way President Obama asked Toothbrush Mustache not to kill children.

3. Strikes won't remove the regime's physical capability to utilize the weapons, but they might hinder them, and more importantly will hopefully remove the regime's willingness to utilize the weapons.

5. I think we probably should have gotten involved in Rwanda if there was a way that intervention could've been done that would've minimized risk to US/western forces and helped resolve the slaughter. I was pretty young then, and have no recollection of what debates were going on at the time/what the potential plans were. I don't think there's a way that US/Western intervention happens in Syria that leads to a dramatic decline in how shitty the circumstances are there now. An attack might make things marginally better for the rebels, and would hopefully restore some credibility. Limited upside, but there's a big downside from walking away.

More broadly, I hate arguments where people say how can you get involved in country X when you didn't in country Y where even worse things were happening (not that this is what you're saying). If it made sense for us to get involved in Rwanda and we didn't, that's not a reason to avoid getting involved in future instances where intervention could prevent humanitarian disasters. There's always going to be some degree of inconsistency and hypocrisy involved in US/western military action, but each case should be examined on its own merits and not influenced because we took a pass in the past.

I guess strikes might result in blowback, but I'm not sure they increase the chances of that. One of the weird ironies of this mess is a lot of the folks who like to blow us up are supporting the rebels, so they might appreciate our bombs, not react negatively to them. Could be blowback to inaction at this point as well. Hypotheticals and counterfactuals are tough.

by **dajafi** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 20:43:14

Co-sign to Dorn's point on the high quality of discussion here. Thanks to all of you.

I think the debate boils down to two questions:

1) should we act?
2) are we likely to achieve our goals?

On #1, I have some sympathy with the arguments of jh and Nightman. Those weapons are hideous in any context, but perhaps especially when used against civilians and countrymen. There is an international norm, and as the country most invested in the rules of the international community we arguably have the most at stake in upholding those norms.

Where I get off the bus is the question of "credibility." My read of modern history is that the past use of force by a third party is a lousy deterrent in any event, and that we face the issue anew every time anyway. YMMV, but whether or not we act this time, we'll still be the baddest dudes on the block next time.

The other issue, which I won't dwell on since LG and others covered it so well, is the near impossibility of limiting our engagement. It used to be that the United States didn't start wars, but often ended them. Sometime after WWII we started to get that backwards.

Of course this impacts #2. I haven't heard anybody, here or anywhere else, suggest that the US through its limited measures is likely to materially erode Assad's capacity to win the war. Then again, maybe that's not the goal. If we're trying to deter future use of chemical weapons, that's another issue... but I don't see that working either.

Bottom line, this seems like a lousy idea.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 20:54:26

On dajafi's point #2. If you spend any time talking to thoughtful military people, you quickly learn about the limitations of military force. Sealing borders, destroying Iran's bunkers where they develop their nuclear arsenal even with tactical nuclear weapons are both impossible. In the same way, I think we need to take seriously the idea that cruises missiles will not stop Assad from doing pretty much anything he wants, and could easily strengthen Assad's hand. Especially given that Obama has said the goal is not regime change. So, at best, we'll do to Assad what we did to Hussein in 1991. Which means more chemical attacks, not fewer.

by **karn** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 21:00:34

I don't see this coming anywhere close to flying in the house without a major event / revelation between now and Monday. Very interesting days after that as to what Obama will do. For all our sakes he should accept the mandate graciously like Cameron and save face. It would be to the benefit of himself and his party

by **drsmooth** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 21:05:29

war is an instrument humans use. it's the basest, most awful implement humans use. it has no "morality', any more than does a chainsaw, or a toothbrush.

individual human beings have morality.

states have constitutions, written or unwritten, more or less.

that's all I've got.

for the nine hundred page version see ("there he goes again") The Shield of Achilles

by **drsmooth** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 21:14:39

when congress votes no, will Team Barry blaze away anyway?

I think not

this event may drain the Gulf of Tonkin

(you knew that wasn't all i had)

by **drsmooth** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 21:21:32

karn wrote:I don't see this coming anywhere close to flying in the house without a major event / revelation between now and Monday. Very interesting days after that as to what Obama will do. For all our sakes he should accept the mandate graciously like Cameron and save face. It would be to the benefit of himself and his party

this will surprise you but I'd put your mortgage on him anticipating this outcome before requesting Congressional authority

call it the GV variation:

- Iran reflexively rattles a saber in israel's direction

- israel lights up a significant portion of Iran

- syria voids its sphincter, loosing dangerous weaponry,

- GV forecast 4 materializes

by **drsmooth** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 21:25:17

and this probably isn't the time to bring it up, but Kerry's had a bunch of work done, hasn't he?

I'm talking plastic surgery

by **Luzinski's Gut** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 22:00:14

War is conducted by humans, who have moral codes. If there was no morality in war, there would be no use for Geneva Conventions or any other laws of war. War would be conducted without limitations, civilian populations could be deliberately targeted for destruction using any kind of weaponry as nothing would be outlawed. POWs would not exist, you'd just annihilate every soldier captured.

States are political organizations, also comprised of human beings with moral codes. States also have codes of conduct, rules of engagement, laws of war, and other moral codes designed to constrain behavior.

The Nuremberg trials also established a number of moral restrictions on the application of violence, such as the inability to use the "I was just following orders" defense for the physical destruction of people according to the desires of the political leadership.

Obviously not buying this argument.

drsmooth wrote:war is an instrument humans use. it's the basest, most awful implement humans use. it has no "morality', any more than does a chainsaw, or a toothbrush.

individual human beings have morality.

states have constitutions, written or unwritten, more or less.

that's all I've got.

for the nine hundred page version see ("there he goes again") The Shield of Achilles

by **drsmooth** » Thu Sep 05, 2013 22:13:51

LG I hope it's obvious that I respect you, your service, and your views.

I'm more sanguine about the musings of any military philosopher. War is the ultimate ugly compromise of principles. It has no ideals. it has no compass. How could it be hell otherwise?

Luzinski's Gut wrote:War is conducted by humans, who have moral codes. If there was no morality in war, there would be no use for Geneva Conventions or any other laws of war. War would be conducted without limitations, civilian populations could be deliberately targeted for destruction using any kind of weaponry as nothing would be outlawed. POWs would not exist, you'd just annihilate every soldier captured.

States are political organizations, also comprised of human beings with moral codes. States also have codes of conduct, rules of engagement, laws of war, and other moral codes designed to constrain behavior.

The Nuremberg trials also established a number of moral restrictions on the application of violence, such as the inability to use the "I was just following orders" defense for the physical destruction of people according to the desires of the political leadership.

Obviously not buying this argument.

drsmooth wrote:war is an instrument humans use. it's the basest, most awful implement humans use. it has no "morality', any more than does a chainsaw, or a toothbrush.

individual human beings have morality.

states have constitutions, written or unwritten, more or less.

that's all I've got.

for the nine hundred page version see ("there he goes again") The Shield of Achilles

by **Luzinski's Gut** » Fri Sep 06, 2013 07:48:13

Again, I disagree. And this is a good conversation to have. Everyone has been respectful of each other's opinions.

War is not an ugly compromise of principles. If one were to view war as Carl Von Clausewitz did, then "war is politics by other means." Other military theorists, such as Martin Van Creveld, believe war is an inherent part of the human condition...we fight because we are hard wired to fight, and we will fight for almost anything. If one goes back to Thucydides, the reasons why nations go to war is because of "fear, honor and interest." They were true in Ancient Greece, they are true today.

War does have a moral compass. The entire discussion about Syria is based upon the violation of a moral compass - the use of chemical weapons, banned by many treaties.

There are many ideals assocaited with war. Ernst Junger, a German officer in the first World War, wrote a book called Storm of Steel, in which he was openly enthusiastic about his fighting experiences on the Western Front. Not surprisingly, he became almost deified by the Nazis when they came to power.

The sole reason why I think we should go to war is to provide a better peace after the conflict. Unfortunately, this is not failproof - see World War One as another example. If the strategy associated with Syria was feasible, logical and acceptable, I suspect there would be greater public acceptance...but the strategy is non-existent and everyone sees it.

drsmooth wrote:LG I hope it's obvious that I respect you, your service, and your views.

I'm more sanguine about the musings of any military philosopher. War is the ultimate ugly compromise of principles. It has no ideals. it has no compass. How could it be hell otherwise?

Luzinski's Gut wrote:War is conducted by humans, who have moral codes. If there was no morality in war, there would be no use for Geneva Conventions or any other laws of war. War would be conducted without limitations, civilian populations could be deliberately targeted for destruction using any kind of weaponry as nothing would be outlawed. POWs would not exist, you'd just annihilate every soldier captured.

States are political organizations, also comprised of human beings with moral codes. States also have codes of conduct, rules of engagement, laws of war, and other moral codes designed to constrain behavior.

The Nuremberg trials also established a number of moral restrictions on the application of violence, such as the inability to use the "I was just following orders" defense for the physical destruction of people according to the desires of the political leadership.

Obviously not buying this argument.

drsmooth wrote:war is an instrument humans use. it's the basest, most awful implement humans use. it has no "morality', any more than does a chainsaw, or a toothbrush.

individual human beings have morality.

states have constitutions, written or unwritten, more or less.

that's all I've got.

for the nine hundred page version see ("there he goes again") The Shield of Achilles

by **Luzinski's Gut** » Fri Sep 06, 2013 08:06:24

Former Commandant of the Army War College weighs in:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

by **Werthless** » Fri Sep 06, 2013 09:03:37

Luzinski's Gut wrote:What about the genocides and atrocities being committed by the Sunni rebels?

Iraq is still ineligible. One invasion per quarter century per country.

by **traderdave** » Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:12:56

I am hesitant to engage LG too deeply in debate (along with several others) as I am probably as over-matched as the Ravens were last evening but I am not sure I agree that there would be any substantial uptick in American acceptance for an action in Syria even if Obama were to spend three hours next Tuesday night walking us through it step-by-step.

No matter what POTUS has to tell us next week, he, I believe, will have a very difficult time overcoming the war weariness of a public that has watched American soldiers die on a nearly daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 12 years. From the time the first Tomahawks leave their perch next week (assuming that is what is ultimately what is going to happen), the only thought for Americans will be WHEN not IF they will be watching their sons and daughters die in Syria too.

Overall, I understand that POTUS has a visibility issue here but it pisses me off to no end that it always has to be us. Everybody is more than happy to condemn the attacks and talk about how terrible Assad is, etc. but real "discipline" is always left to the United States while our supposed friends and allies slink off to give us a thumbs up from a darkened corner. Just once, I would like to hear us say "Yeah, those attacks were bullshit. Great Britain, Germany, France; do something about it". Just one man's probably unpopular rant. :lol:

by **td11** » Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:41:56

Iran Plots Revenge, U.S. Says
Officials Say Intercepted Message to Militants Orders Reprisals in Iraq if Syria Hit

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 10230.html

Russia gave UN 100-page report in July blaming Syrian rebels for Aleppo sarin attack

...

The report itself was not released. But the statement drew a pointed comparison between what it said was the scientific detail of the report and the far shorter intelligence summaries that the United States, Britain and France have released to justify their assertion that the Syrian government launched chemical weapons against Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21. The longest of those summaries, by the French, ran nine pages. Each relies primarily on circumstantial evidence to make its case, and they disagree with one another on some details, including the number of people who died in the attack.

The Russian statement warned the United States and its allies not to conduct a military strike against Syria until the United Nations had completed a similarly detailed scientific study into the Aug. 21 attack. It charged that what it called the current “hysteria” about a possible military strike in the West was similar to the false claims and poor intelligence that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Russia said its investigation of the March 19 incident was conducted under strict protocols established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that governs adherence to treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. It said samples that Russian technicians had collected had been sent to OPCW-certified laboratories in Russia.

“The Russian report is specific,” the ministry statement said. “It is a scientific and technical document.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/2 ... rylink=cpy

Archived

All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics