28 replies to this topic

[Selena]

Because it's a thing.

 

Supposedly, it has the potential to blossom into another Iraq/Afghanistan situation. I don't think they'll commit to something like that, though. Chiefly because we ain't got no money anymore (not that we really did then, either, but it's worse now). So I imagine that if something were to happen, it would be another Libya incident -- just firing off cruise missiles from a safe distance and enforcing a no-fly zone.

 

But should we? Is it our duty? Are there serious ramifications for staying out of it?

 

This goes for both the US -- who'd inevitably lead a coalition -- and all involved allies.

 

 

 

Personally, I'm in favor of staying-the-fuck-out-of-it. Apart from rescuing Kuwait in Iraq War 1, I don't think any nation in the Middle East has ever truly benefited from us getting involved in any of their conflicts. Especially internal ones. We usually end up making things even worse. Or, worse yet, any nations we supply with weapons have a tendency to.... not reciprocate friendly feelings once their done sorting out their problems.

 

All the Arab nations in crisis need to work out their own issues. Having a third party "lay down the law" usually results in unstable governments. It needs to be a home-grown solution, because then it's been handled by people who actually live in that country and properly know its history and culture.

 

Big tough Americans value their freedom because their founding fathers bled for it -- as modern patriots all like to say when looking for a good sappy line about 'Merica. If France had outright invaded and "liberated" the Colonies, then man-handled the colonists into setting up a government as they saw fit, I doubt national pride would be as high as it is. In fact, we'd have probably started to hate France a lot sooner.

 

 

 

 

edit: AND WE HAVE NO MONEYYYYYY.

[JRPomazon]

The current administration has already done enough harm in concerns to our relations with the Arab world, leading a force into Syria would lead to WW3. We're tired and spread too thin as it is and at best we'd get the results of another Korean or Vietnam War. Our current leaders can not handle a war time situation and if Obama actually managed to launch an attack (without consulting congress as per usual) I would imagine he'd get impeached within weeks.

 

If we must involve ourselves, I believe that evening the odds would be our best bet. No, not supplying the rebels with our weapons or deploying troops but establishing no fly zone and other passive forms of action.

 

This is their conflict and their war and Syria is a nation that has never known a peace for extended periods since it's founding.

Edited by JRPomazon, 01 September 2013 - 01:07 AM.

[Sir Deimos]

Lupe Fiasco's sister?

[Nevermind]

It's a truly touch call. On the one hand you've got innocent civilians suffering because their governments are fucked up. On the other, you have both our nations sacrificing resources - as well as peoples' lives - at the end of which no real benefits will come. We were discussing this a little last night and my good friend and I are on totally opposite sides of the fence. Like you, Lena, he believes they should sort their own shit out and we should leave it well alone.

 

I'm more for sending people in. I believe that countries like ours who are better off should have some kind of duty to help out the people of those who aren't - especially considering a lot of our resources are coming out of these countries. The people who go in sign up willingly to that military service. They had a choice and made it. The civilians in those districts being bombarded don't. We shouldn't have to send people in, because this shit shouldn't be happening but it is, and while it is, we should do something.

 

The problem though, is what do we do to make it stop? If we get rid of Assad, then who do we replace him with? And why do we help rebels with ties to Al Qaeda? For the sake of humanity, we certainly can't sit by and let a government bomb its own civilians - all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing and all that. There just has to be a plan for it. An outcome that won't result in another world war and won't result in the country being left off worse than it is now. Otherwise no, we shouldn't go in.

[Egann]

Despite what everyone says, it's entirely possible for us to go to war. Just not a ground war.

 

Really, it comes down to the dynamics of how you pay for things. Mobilizing the National Guard--like we did for Iraq and Afghanistan--cost billions because we're pulling our trained specialists who are *not* taking out military payroll and putting them on the ground. Many billable hours.

 

By comparison, a Navy or Air Force strike? Basically these branches of the military have all the staff they need already on payroll and using them will not really cost that much more than what we already have to pay in upkeep.

 

Money is not the reason we aren't going to war. It's an excuse. The reason we won't go to war is because Obama doesn't want himself and by extension the Democrat party to be tarred with going to ANOTHER war on the eve of a midterm election. It would disaffect large swaths of the Democrat party base and they would lose the midterm in a landslide. He wants the Republican Congress to do that for him to patronize the Democrat party base. Expect A  LOT of hand-wringing. 

 

 

Where's the discussion of the Syrian rebels? Sadly lacking. I hate to have to say it, but if we let Saddam alone after he used VX on his own people, we will never ever go to war for the right reason.

[Selena]

Money is not the reason we aren't going to war. It's an excuse.

 
While money is not the primary reason to stay out of the war, it's still a really damn good reason. Afghanistan and Iraq are still massive expenditures, both of which have lasted far too long and strained the budget beyond any initial expectations. Even if you limit a Syrian campaign to long-distance strikes and air superiority missions, you're still going to burn through cash at an alarming rate if it's a decent-sized mobilization. Ordinance and fuel are two of the biggest expenditures on the books.
 
 
* The average cruise missile -- the weapon of choice in long-range strikes -- costs over $1 million. If you decide to launch a massive volley in a "shock and awe" style attack, you can easily go through $100 million in a half hour. If you're being frugal, you space that $100 million out over a period of a couple weeks or months. But you're still gonna spend it.
 
* Standard air-to-ground missiles cost anywhere between $20,000 to $100,000. Arming 70 planes/drones with 6 of these at an average cost, which is a conservative estimate for a limited engagement, is going to run you $21 million. And you'll go through that pretty quick.
 
* A single PGU-14/B API round -- which is the 30mm depleted uranium round used by the A-10's cannon -- is about $26. That cannon fires over 4,000 rounds per minute. Which means that firing the A-10's cannon costs $104,000 per minute. And those planes are also armed with a ton of bombs and missiles.
 
 
War is expensive, even if you don't have anyone on the ground. A budgeted war is like buying a budgeted Lamborghini. It's still going to hurt you. If this conflict were to last more than a couple months, you're looking at yet another massive strain on the national budget. We can barely avoid government shutdowns as it is.
 
We're actively gutting our education, science, public welfare, and infrastructure programs for the sake of "balancing the budget." It's unacceptable for NASA to spend $1 billion on fairly extensive programs that help out science fields across the board. We can't build new bridges or new highways because we "don't have the money for it right now," which leads to lovely little bridge collapses like the one that happened here not long ago. It's unacceptable to invest in modern energy because it's too much of a strain on the budget. Our railway technology is 50+ years behind the other first world nations, but we can't afford to update it. It's unacceptable to provide Americans with even the most simplistic forms of universal healthcare. The elderly see their benefits reduced because their programs are "too expensive." There are places in the US that resemble third world countries, but we can't afford to help them.
 
But it's okay to spend billions on a military campaign to oust a regime that's thousands of miles away and poses no threat to the American people. 
 
 

The problem though, is what do we do to make it stop? If we get rid of Assad, then who do we replace him with? And why do we help rebels with ties to Al Qaeda? For the sake of humanity, we certainly can't sit by and let a government bomb its own civilians - all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing and all that. There just has to be a plan for it. An outcome that won't result in another world war and won't result in the country being left off worse than it is now.

 
And this is the primary reason we shouldn't get involved. The massive amount of money that will be spent on this campaign is an investment -- an investment that things will get better for Syrians, and that the country will grow more prosperous. More trade for everyone, and diplomatic ties are strengthened by our decision to help them. That's the Ultra Good 100% Completion Ending we want from this kind of situation.
 
But this is a really bad investment.
 
Egypt already went through one revolution, by their own hands, and now it's back in a state of chaos. If Syria were to end up in the same situation, assuming we could even get Syria stabilized under a new government to begin with, then any money and lives lost in this endeavor would have been wasted. Numerous countries in the Middle East have been caught up in revolving-door-revolutions since... well, since the British left. Sometimes it takes a couple decades, but chaos comes back to roost. There's a very good chance that anything accomplished in Syria will be undone a couple years later.
 
And that's assuming we succeed. If we bungle the campaign, then we end up with another Iraq and Afghanistan -- unstable cesspools of violence that can't be locked down by either our own forces or the local military.
 
There's also the unintended consequences (the 'destructive paragon' situation) of going in guns-a-blazing. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people back in the 80's, sure, but just as many civilians ended up dying in the most recent war because of our involvement -- either due to us misplacing a bomb or because they were caught in the crossfire from both sides. Innocents are going to die. But how many will we end up killing should we get involved, and how much blood do we want on our hands in order to bring a potentially-doomed new regime into power? The kids who witness Americans killing Syrians, even accidentally, grow up hating Americans. Iranians still harbor hatred for Americans because we armed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War (which also turned out disastrous for us in the long run).
 
 
 
 
Basically EEEEEE DON'T TOUCH IT.

[Fëanen]

On the one hand, no nation or group should be using these sorts of weapons, period. But what worries me is that these sorts of conflicts often boil down to tyrants vs. terrorists, so morally I'm disinclined to support anybody involved. So while I wish there was something we could do to help the innocents in the region, quite frankly our track record in the Middle East leads me to doubt that there's much we can do without the risk of sewing the seeds of more violence in 10-20 years time like we did in the Iran-Iraq war.

 

It's a horrible situation all around, and my heart goes out to the civilians who died. But I just don't know that we can do anything to genuinely protect the innocents of Syria. More likely we'd just be giving them a new set of people to give them grief down the line.

[Oberon Storm]

Ordering any type of strike without congressional approval is not at all likely to result in impeachment. The political reality is that such a reaction would set a dangerous precedent no one in Washington can afford. I also don't know what harm has been done in the middle east that can only be attributed to Obama.

 

If it all was as simple as Assad using gas on civilians I might say, "Absolutely! Consequences should be harsh!" But it is not that simple. Eggan pointed out past uses of chemical weapons we ignored. Selena has pointed out potential costs. Others have asked are the rebels really any better or is it just the Mujahideen all over again? Are we helping and support our future killers?

 

We just got out of one unjustified and unneccessary war in Iraq. Abuses by the NSA on our own citizens have just been revealed. ARguments can be made against the use of unmanned drones. Killing American citizens without trial. Even if it was just as simple as punishing someone using chemical weapons do we hold any moral high ground here at all?

[Selena]

Impeachment won't happen.

 

The issue is only partisan because politicians make it that way. The same Republicans that were all gung-ho about the other wars are now set to vote against this one, purely because the president is from the "enemy" party. The traditionally anti-war Democrats are set to approve it, purely because the order came from a president in their party. The same situation would be happening if this were McCain -- it would just be mirrored. There are some independent dissenters, but this is how things usually go.

 

Obama is being criticized for "buckling" and letting congress decide this issue. At the same time, people would have been pissed off if he'd just gone in without approval at all. There is literally no way for a president to win in this specific situation. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. ...It's kind of like marketing the XBox One!

[Egann]

War is expensive, even if you don't have anyone on the ground. A budgeted war is like buying a budgeted Lamborghini. It's still going to hurt you. If this conflict were to last more than a couple months, you're looking at yet another massive strain on the national budget. We can barely avoid government shutdowns as it is.

 

Aren't you in danger of a bit of exaggeration? The government hit the debt limit some time ago and we haven't seen mass shutdowns of vital infrastructure.

 

Still, you can wage war on a budget. The original Gulf War totaled less than $100 billion, and the US paid about $60. Iraq has totaled several trillion. The way you wage the war dictates how much it's going to cost in terms of munitions and payroll. When you consider that we have a significant inventory of cruise missiles and munitions, you'll get the picture that we can spend a couple now and replace them later when we can afford it. It's not like Russia and China are going to invade because we're down three cruise missiles from max inventory.

 

It's not like that's going to happen, either, but the point of having an inventory is to use it when you need it and replace it when you can afford it. 

 

Still, there are smarter ways to do things. You don't hit tyrants in the military. You hit them below the belt in their tax-bases so they can't afford their military infrastructure. The way I'd do this is deploy two aircraft carriers to the region, hem and haw about for a bit, then announce a refugee program where citizens of Syria can leave and get visas in other nations until Syria's government stabilizes. You'd have locked down most of the military in anticipation of a strike, and the people who would leave given the choice tend to be the well-paid highly educated type the government needs to tax.

 

Syria would suddenly no longer be able to afford their military and if you played your cards right from here you might get one branch of the Syrian military to turn against another (one is going to get a funding cut, and inter-branch feuds are common in the Middle East.) Let the Syrian rebels do the hard stuff after their military is in shambles after a civil war. Costs? Insignificant.

 

Unfortunately, President Obama has no experience in the military, and his cabinet has missed such obvious hints as a terrorist attack happening on the eleventh anniversary of 9-11. The chances of him pulling off a policy this astute? Zero.

[Veteran]

 

It's quite refreshing to find Britain staying out of these things for once.

 

I mean, the planet finds us quite irrelevant nowadays, it's nice to finally humour them.

[arunma]

I'll say more when I'm not posting from my phone (OK, I'm in my living room, but exceeding lazy). I just saw a CNN report that Russia - who opposes American intervention - is meeting with US congressmen before the legeslative session begins to lobby them to vote against military action. Question: what are US congressmen doing even listening to what a foreign lobby has to say?

[Oberon Storm]

Well... This is an international issue. I don't see why the opinions of other nations should be discounted. The decision to seek congressional approval, some think, was made in part because of the result of the UK's vote.

[Twinrova]

Unfortunately, President Obama has no experience in the military, and his cabinet has missed such obvious hints as a terrorist attack happening on the eleventh anniversary of 9-11. The chances of him pulling off a policy this astute? Zero.

 

Ah yes, I forgot we have such an expert on war strategy here on LA.

[Egann]

 

Unfortunately, President Obama has no experience in the military, and his cabinet has missed such obvious hints as a terrorist attack happening on the eleventh anniversary of 9-11. The chances of him pulling off a policy this astute? Zero.

 

Ah yes, I forgot we have such an expert on war strategy here on LA.

 

Well, if football exists to scream "Go for it" on 4th down and 12, why not? Now be a good lass and fetch me a Guinness.

[JRPomazon]

 

 

Unfortunately, President Obama has no experience in the military, and his cabinet has missed such obvious hints as a terrorist attack happening on the eleventh anniversary of 9-11. The chances of him pulling off a policy this astute? Zero.

 

Ah yes, I forgot we have such an expert on war strategy here on LA.

 

Well, if football exists to scream "Go for it" on 4th down and 12, why not? Now be a good lass and fetch me a Guinness.

 

 

Egann, Rova, knock it off. We don't need to lock yet another thread in this section because people can't manage to get along.

[Twinrova]

Hey, all I did was point out the hilarity of Egann knowing how to solve the problem with Syria better than the fucking president. This isn't the first time he's dirtied a thread with his ego.

[Selena]

 

 

 

Okay.

 

 

So, in relevant developments, Russia and China have both "promised" retaliatory action if the US takes action in Syria -- especially if there's any kind of ground deployment. This has some people worried about things spiraling quickly out of control, especially if Iran gets involved as well. As CFS pointed out, this is very much an international affair that could involve more that just us and Syria. Which is why the Russians are trying to talk us down from any military action. One of their bigger sticking points, of course, is that the rebels are supposedly have at least minor ties to al-Qaeda.

 

Which you would think would be one of our sticking points, too, but Americans have a tendency to automatically support any country that's attempting to revolt against a seemingly tyrannical regime. "We like revolutions, too. Let's be friends!" For better or worse. ...Often for worse. The Syrian rebels don't exactly seem to be the kindest, noblest folks on the planet once you scrape through a layer or two of revolutionary zeal. Pity the civilians caught in the middle.

 

Today, a panel of US senators agreed to take military action. This isn't the "real" vote, but it involves key figures, and it could easily be a sign of imminent approval from the rest of the political peanut gallery. So the threat has just gone up a level or two.

 

 

 

I highly doubt that Russia and China will make good on their "promises" to get involved, much like we didn't make good on our threats when Russia invaded Georgia a few years back. All superpower parties involved know that if they were to directly tangle with each other, something horrific could happen. And none of them genuinely want that. That part, I think, is all just gorilla chest-beating. If any countries were to use this instability as an excuse to unleash claws, it would be Israel and Iran.

 

There's potential that it could get out of control, but the chances are slim. Either way, getting involved is bad juju. But we won't back down now that Russia and China are telling us to. "Matter of honor and pride" and all that. Nobody puts Uncle Sam in the corner. Even if Uncle Sam ends up shooting himself in the foot.
 

 

 

Aren't you in danger of a bit of exaggeration? The government hit the debt limit some time ago and we haven't seen mass shutdowns of vital infrastructure.

 

 

 

Straw can break a camel's back as easily as a boulder, and our "camel" has been carrying an excessive amount of stuff for a very long time. If this were our only military operation, it would be less a problem, but even though we've scaled back on our other conflicts, money is still pouring into Afghanistan and Iraq. People in the military get a copy of The Art of War, but everyone in power seems to forget one of the least dramatic but most important rules of warfare -- a nation that's constantly at war is going to fuck itself over. ...Which is obviously paraphrasing, but you know. War costs money. Nations are not made of infinite money. Any nation at war for too long is going to wreck itself. Superpowers kill themselves through mismanagement, and wars -- even ones that were meant to be minor conflicts -- are often a vital part of that process. You can only juggle your debt for so long, especially when you're constantly adding to it.

 

But.

 

Even if that prospect is entirely ignored, then every billion spent in Syria is one less billion spent on our own people. And the people who need that billion could give a rat's ass about what happens to a bunch of foreigners who have decided to fight amongst each other on their own soil. The US is still inherently broken, and we're more worried about fixing other countries instead of our own.

 

I haven't heard one valid reason why we need to be in Syria other than "those poor Syrian people!" or "we have to enforce the Geneva conventions!" But for however much I pity the Syrians for their plight, it's not our responsibility to intervene (especially since we could end up making it worse). And, as a nation, we've gone to great lengths to skip around the Geneva conventions on our own, and we've ignored plenty of infringements since they were signed.

 

Nobody wants us there except the Syrian rebels, who have questionable motives and ethics, and our involvement could potentially cause an international incident on the rare chance that someone makes good on their growling.

 

The risks outweigh the rewards. Money better spent elsewhere. Time to quit bleeding what blood is left in the US Empire.

[arunma]

Hey, all I did was point out the hilarity of Egann knowing how to solve the problem with Syria better than the fucking president. This isn't the first time he's dirtied a thread with his ego.

Actually I'm OK with discussions on whether we're allowed to criticize the President for his lack of military experience. But, and not to sound too cliche, you've got to discuss ideas not people. Egann may have a point. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with his argument and think it's just more groundless Republican criticism of the President. Doesn't make it an illegitimate argument.

[arunma]

Well... This is an international issue. I don't see why the opinions of other nations should be discounted. The decision to seek congressional approval, some think, was made in part because of the result of the UK's vote.

I agree. But it's the President's role to engage other countries, not Congress'. Letting Russia talk to US senators is an end run around the President and undermines our executive. Just saw that Boehner refused to meet with the Russians. I've got to say, of all prominent Republicans in the federal government, he's the best of the worst.

Edited by arunma, 04 September 2013 - 07:00 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

 

Hey, all I did was point out the hilarity of Egann knowing how to solve the problem with Syria better than the fucking president. This isn't the first time he's dirtied a thread with his ego.

Actually I'm OK with discussions on whether we're allowed to criticize the President for his lack of military experience. But, and not to sound too cliche, you've got to discuss ideas not people. Egann may have a point. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with his argument and think it's just more groundless Republican criticism of the President. Doesn't make it an illegitimate argument.

 

 

Actually... It kind of does make it illegitimate. And when someone does make such an argument they should be called out on it. I, for one, have no idea what he was talking about. What terror attack on 9-11's eleventh anniversary? And what does Obama's lack of military experience matter? Neither of the previous two presidents had any, and I do not personaly feel protecting Alabama and Texas from Charlie counts. And this is also coming from someone who, as far as I know, doesn't have any more military experience then Clinton, Bush, or Obama.

 

Of course there is a thing called tact, and Rova could have used it. But then I can hardly claim to be a saint in that area.

 

 

 

Well... This is an international issue. I don't see why the opinions of other nations should be discounted. The decision to seek congressional approval, some think, was made in part because of the result of the UK's vote.

I agree. But it's the President's role to engage other countries, not Congress'. Letting Russia talk to US senators is an end run around the President and undermines our executive. Just saw that Boehner refused to meet with the Russians. I've got to say, of all prominent Republicans in the federal government, he's the best of the worst.

 

 

There is nothing that says members of congress cannot meet and discuss important international matters, or even get advice on demostic issues, from representatives of foreign nations. In fact I am pretty sure they do it routinely. Right now the ball is in Congress' court. They're the ones the Russians should be speaking to. I'm pretty sure they are still trying to convince the president as well.

[Jasi]

My overall feeling on Syria is pretty much the same as Selena's—we absolutely should not get involved. If we do, it will be laughable. That said I think that we probably will get involved, which is sad. I think most of the American populace is sick and tired of Team America: World Police. I think it's stupid that we have the UN and we have the Geneva Conventions, which are supposed to be an international peacekeeping organization and international law, respectively, but it continues to be solely America's burden to enforce what the UN recommends because European countries that designed the laws that are being broken don't want to get involved in other people's affairs. You can't have it both ways. Either we have international law or we don't. Apparently we don't actually have international laws, so America should stop enforcing them. Ugh. It's infuriating.

 

Now in the spirit of responding to Egann's statements in a more thorough way:

 

 

You don't hit tyrants in the military. You hit them below the belt in their tax-bases so they can't afford their military infrastructure. The way I'd do this is deploy two aircraft carriers to the region, hem and haw about for a bit, then announce a refugee program where citizens of Syria can leave and get visas in other nations until Syria's government stabilizes. You'd have locked down most of the military in anticipation of a strike, and the people who would leave given the choice tend to be the well-paid highly educated type the government needs to tax.

 

Yeah okay there are some major holes in this war strategy, as I see it.

 

1) What country is going to volunteer to take in all these refugees? Us? We're going to fly tons of refugees to the other side of the planet? Who's paying for that? And the closer countries probably aren't particularly willing to host tons of refugees either. Anytime there are huge groups of refugees, there's the problem of where to put them. Basically, how can you be so sure that all these places are willing to take in Syrian refugees, especially with all the xenophobia toward Middle Easterners that is rampant in European/North American countries?

 

2) Citizens in the middle of a war- and tyranny-plagued country don't typically get to just up and leave when they feel like it. See also: North Korea, Soviet Russia, Cuba, etc. Just because we "announce a refugee program" doesn't mean that the Syrian government lets people leave.

 

3) What makes you think that rich people would be the ones to leave? I mean I kind of see what you're saying, since they're the only ones that would be able to afford the hypothetical one-way plane ticket to the United States and then pay for housing, but on the other hand ostensibly these are the people that have the most to lose by leaving Syria, especially if (as you're suggesting) they are the ones that are making tons of money in Syria and therefore paying tons of taxes. 

 

Sorry Egann, I'm not sure how "astute" that policy really would be. 

 

(And of course Obama himself doesn't need military experience; that's what cabinets are for.)

[arunma]

Actually... It kind of does make it illegitimate. And when someone does make such an argument they should be called out on it. I, for one, have no idea what he was talking about. What terror attack on 9-11's eleventh anniversary? And what does Obama's lack of military experience matter? Neither of the previous two presidents had any, and I do not personaly feel protecting Alabama and Texas from Charlie counts. And this is also coming from someone who, as far as I know, doesn't have any more military experience then Clinton, Bush, or Obama.
 
Of course there is a thing called tact, and Rova could have used it. But then I can hardly claim to be a saint in that area.

 
By terror attacks on the 9/11 anniversary, I assume Egann was referring to the Benghazi embassy attack which killed a US ambassador.  The president's (not necessarily Obama in particular) military experience does matter, as does most of his life experiences whether they be business, politics, etc.  I trust a former military member to command the US military more than a non-military person.  I voted Obama because he has a D in front of his name, but all other things being equal (which makes this an academic question), I'd vote for an ex-military candiate over someone who's never been in the military.  Mind you, an argument can be wrong without being illegitimate.  An illegitimate argument has obvious logical fallacies.  A wrong one is just based on an inaccurate premise.  I don't like Egann's disrespect for our President, but that's the price you pay for free speech.  And I think it falls within the rules of this place...more or less.  Feel free to lodge a complaint if you disagree, and I'll see if a smackdown must be lain.
 

Anyway, returning to the political discussion...

 

There is nothing that says members of congress cannot meet and discuss important international matters, or even get advice on demostic issues, from representatives of foreign nations. In fact I am pretty sure they do it routinely. Right now the ball is in Congress' court. They're the ones the Russians should be speaking to. I'm pretty sure they are still trying to convince the president as well.

Well, here's the thing, the President has the power to command the military, appoint ambassadors, and direct the state department (which explicitly deals with other governments).  All Congress can do is ratify treaties, and even then only the Senate does this.  It's pretty clear to me that the President is charged with representing America to other nations.  By meeting with Russian officials, Congressmen are providing a backdoor to influencing US policy and making the President look weak.  That's not good for anyone.  If Russians know that they can overrule our President by meeting with lesser-ranking members of his government, he loses stature in their eyes.  That's no good.  Even John Boehner, when he's not being a boner, refuses to criticize the President while he's abroad.  We've got to present a united front when we're talking to other countries; that's why we have an executive.  If nothing else, as a matter of propriety I think any Congressman who's approached by a Russian official should tell him, "up yours commie, go talk to my President."

 

As for the ball being in Congress' court; technically it always should have been.  The Constitution gives the President the power to make war, but the power to declare war rests with Congress.  If you ask me, a formal declaration of war should have been necessary for Korea, Vietnam, both Iraq wars, and Afghanistan.  President Obama is returning to Constitutional separation of powers after a departure that began with Truman.  Still doesn't mean that foreign officials should get to talk to anyone but the President or his Secretary of State.

[Egann]

Superpowers kill themselves through mismanagement, and wars -- even ones that were meant to be minor conflicts -- are often a vital part of that process. You can only juggle your debt for so long, especially when you're constantly adding to it.

 

I'm more worried about the precedent we'd be setting by ignoring it. Establishing that a tyrant can use WMD's within their own borders without reprisal drastically increases the appeal of a WMD to them. Historically one of the major reasons dictatorships fall is because to repress the people, they must have a very large military machine. With WMD's you can conceivably coerce a nation with an army of one person. I don't think the reaction necessarily needs to be "war" but we need to do something.

 

A lot of the "war" part of the budgets were just plain stupidity because Bush 43--like Obama--also lacked military experience. He sold the Iraq war to us as a hunt for WMDs, but in retrospect based on what he's said after leaving office, I think it's pretty clear he wanted to INSTALL a democracy in the Middle East. That is a suicidal idea for a war. Our military was not designed to be a police agency for years on end and by and large these people aren't culturally ready for democracy.

 

Of course the smart thing to do with war is to not wage it at all. We're a superpower: you can probably substitute military action with an economic policy.

 

 

 

Yeah okay there are some major holes in this war strategy, as I see it.

 

1) What country is going to volunteer to take in all these refugees? Us? We're going to fly tons of refugees to the other side of the planet? Who's paying for that? And the closer countries probably aren't particularly willing to host tons of refugees either. Anytime there are huge groups of refugees, there's the problem of where to put them. Basically, how can you be so sure that all these places are willing to take in Syrian refugees, especially with all the xenophobia toward Middle Easterners that is rampant in European/North American countries?

 

2) Citizens in the middle of a war- and tyranny-plagued country don't typically get to just up and leave when they feel like it. See also: North Korea, Soviet Russia, Cuba, etc. Just because we "announce a refugee program" doesn't mean that the Syrian government lets people leave.

 

3) What makes you think that rich people would be the ones to leave? I mean I kind of see what you're saying, since they're the only ones that would be able to afford the hypothetical one-way plane ticket to the United States and then pay for housing, but on the other hand ostensibly these are the people that have the most to lose by leaving Syria, especially if (as you're suggesting) they are the ones that are making tons of money in Syria and therefore paying tons of taxes. 

 

Sorry Egann, I'm not sure how "astute" that policy really would be. 

 

(And of course Obama himself doesn't need military experience; that's what cabinets are for.)

As you actually took the time of day to respond to it, I'll tell you something interesting. I didn't make that up. If you ignore Eritrea and Soviet support, that's verbatim what happened in the Ethiopian Civil War. Mengistu drove a large portion of the Ethiopian population into exile and (when the Soviets finally withdrew their support) enough of the military defected and supported the rebels to overthrow the regime.

 

I expect the same thing will happen to Syria whether we plan it to or not. Using nerve gas on your own people does stuff like driving people into exile, so making it official policy will just make it happen faster.

 

By terror attacks on the 9/11 anniversary, I assume Egann was referring to the Benghazi embassy attack which killed a US ambassador.  The president's (not necessarily Obama in particular) military experience does matter, as does most of his life experiences whether they be business, politics, etc.  I trust a former military member to command the US military more than a non-military person.  I voted Obama because he has a D in front of his name, but all other things being equal (which makes this an academic question), I'd vote for an ex-military candiate over someone who's never been in the military.  Mind you, an argument can be wrong without being illegitimate.  An illegitimate argument has obvious logical fallacies.  A wrong one is just based on an inaccurate premise.  I don't like Egann's disrespect for our President, but that's the price you pay for free speech.  And I think it falls within the rules of this place...more or less.  Feel free to lodge a complaint if you disagree, and I'll see if a smackdown must be lain.

 

See the section above addressed to Lena. I don't care what party someone is in. If their policies are stupid, I'm going to call them out. Thusfar, Obama has covered his lack of military experience better than Bush has because he hasn't really changed much. He hasn't sent us into any new wars or pulled us out of the ones we're in.

 

Chances are this is because Obama has some advisers or connections in the Democrat party who don't want to be tarred with a military defeat like pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan would create (that was a major reason we stayed in Vietnam) but it really doesn't matter; if you don't know what you're doing with the military, doing nothing is probably the best option. It just doesn't give me a lot of faith in the president's ability to use the military on demand.

Edited by Egann, 06 September 2013 - 12:03 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

By terror attacks on the 9/11 anniversary, I assume Egann was referring to the Benghazi embassy attack which killed a US ambassador.

I forgot about Benghazi, but I still don't understand what that has to do with Obama's lack of military experience. And what about hints his cabinet missed? Did we have anything specific enough to act on? Should we have been more alert? Maybe, but it isn't easy to protect every embassy when funding for such things have been cut. On top of that this was 1 years after 9-11. I do not think it's completely unextected that we may have started to relax a little. Not that that is a good thing, but this could have happened to any president.

And I'm not really expecting you, arunma, to be able to get in Eggan's head and answer these questions.

The president's (not necessarily Obama in particular) military experience does matter, as does most of his life experiences whether they be business, politics, etc.  I trust a former military member to command the US military more than a non-military person.  I voted Obama because he has a D in front of his name, but all other things being equal (which makes this an academic question), I'd vote for an ex-military candiate over someone who's never been in the military.

So I guess the Joint Cheifs only purpose is pass orders down their respective branches. They are not their to advise and counsel at all.

Let's get rid of the national security avisor and council, too. At least when we have an ex-military president. They're not really needed then.

I'm being flippant, but the point is then when the president is lacking in experience in militay or even bussiness he has a lot of people to lean on. Woodrow Wilson and Franklne Roosevelt combined had zero military experience, but still managed to get us through the world wars. Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon had plenty of experience, but... Well... Vietnam...

Military experience can be a good thing, but it does not really follow that it inherently make a president better equiped to do his job.

Mind you, an argument can be wrong without being illegitimate.  An illegitimate argument has obvious logical fallacies.  A wrong one is just based on an inaccurate premise.  I don't like Egann's disrespect for our President, but that's the price you pay for free speech.  And I think it falls within the rules of this place...more or less.  Feel free to lodge a complaint if you disagree, and I'll see if a smackdown must be lain.

You are the one that characterized his argument as baseless. I would say that makes it illegitimate, and it should not be taken seriously. At the same time it should be pointed out.

From my point of view not only is his comments about Obama's lack of military experience baseless, but it looks like Egann is trying to pass himslef off as some great military strategist. Any body not doing or considering exactly what he suggests is obviously stupid. And he did this wihtout any military experience of his own just before he called Obama out on his lack of military experience.

No. His statement should not be taken seriously, and they should not be given the same weight as all other arguments.

If I am stepping on a moderator's toes please stop me.
 

Well, here's the thing, the President has the power to command the military, appoint ambassadors, and direct the state department (which explicitly deals with other governments).  All Congress can do is ratify treaties, and even then only the Senate does this.  It's pretty clear to me that the President is charged with representing America to other nations.  By meeting with Russian officials, Congressmen are providing a backdoor to influencing US policy and making the President look weak.  That's not good for anyone.  If Russians know that they can overrule our President by meeting with lesser-ranking members of his government, he loses stature in their eyes.  That's no good.  Even John Boehner, when he's not being a boner, refuses to criticize the President while he's abroad.  We've got to present a united front when we're talking to other countries; that's why we have an executive.  If nothing else, as a matter of propriety I think any Congressman who's approached by a Russian official should tell him, "up yours commie, go talk to my President."

By meeting with the Russians they are arguably hearing all sides. While I am against action in Syria I like that some members of congress are seemingly willing to listen to everybody before making a final decsion. My personal opinion is that this doesn't effect Obama's stature either way. Even if in the end they vote against action it doesn't really mean anything discussed in these meetings were a factor. Even if it was who cares? Anybody made of rediculous amounts of money can influence members of congress. Even presidents. What does that say about us?

[Egann]

CFS, if you feel so inclined please PM me.

 

 

EDIT: Hmm. Recent update says it's possible the rebels gassed their own grunts to set the Assad regime up. I'm not sure I believe it because British intelligence seems to think this is not the first time this has happened.

 

That said,I stand corrected on the refugee business. My strategy's kinda a moot point because people have already left. 6.5 million people already displaced with over a third in Lebanon. There's not much left to do.

Edited by Egann, 06 September 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[Selena]

Here's the thing about presidents and military experience. There are only a handful of presidents who had extensive command experience before their election. I can think of less than ten off the top of my head. Plenty have been in the military, and some were even mid-level officers, but there's a very big difference between someone who takes orders and someone who gives orders to a large force. To say that a low level officer is qualified to be commander-in-chief of all US forces is like saying that a sales associate is qualified to be CEO of a major retail corporation.

 

Most presidents had legal or political backgrounds -- and this includes presidents who saw us through the most destructive wars in US history.

 

National leaders don't need to have extensive military experience. If they don't have any experience in these matters, then they're meant to assemble a panel of advisers. Presidents don't really have that much say in day-to-day military affairs, anyway. They only really pipe in when it comes to controversial decisions -- whether to go to war, whether to stay out of it, whether to launch an immensely dangerous operation, etc. They technically have the authority to be the supreme dark overlord of the military, but few ever use that power to its fullest extent.

 

Same with classic monarchs. It's not like Elizabeth I was straddling the bow of the British flagship and barking out orders when the Spanish Armada was defeated. Some of the most successful national leaders in history have had next to no military experience. Advisers are there for a reason.

 

 

 

I'm more worried about the precedent we'd be setting by ignoring it. Establishing that a tyrant can use WMD's within their own borders without reprisal drastically increases the appeal of a WMD to them. Historically one of the major reasons dictatorships fall is because to repress the people, they must have a very large military machine. With WMD's you can conceivably coerce a nation with an army of one person. I don't think the reaction necessarily needs to be "war" but we need to do something.

 

 

The use of chemical weapons is awful, but we have a very unstable precedent when it comes to intervention -- especially since our credibility was damaged by the Iraq War. We pick and choose which Geneva violations or genocides we want to deal with. We ignored Saddam back when he was actually using chemical weapons. We ignore the violent unrest that's dominated various African countries for the last few decades. We go after Saddam on the mere idea of him having WMDs in the latest war. And now we suddenly care about Syria. We're all over the map when it comes to getting involved or staying out. The mixed reports about the use of Sarin aren't helping matters -- though jury's out on which side is really responsible.

 

It's not really about Syria or enforcing international law, anyway. Syria's just going to be the stage of a big proxy war between various other powers (Russia, Iran, the US, Israel, etc.). A proxy war that we're only really getting into because we're trying to assert our dominance, even if our resources would be better utilized elsewhere.

 

It's less about Syria and more about showing Iran that we're serious about clamping down on "aggressive" states with WMDs. Which pisses Iran off, thus why they're making (mostly empty) threats. Which pisses off Israel and gets them all riled up. Which makes everyone nervous. Which makes Russia come in and tell the US to knock it off. Which makes the US upset because we already broke up with you, Russia, and you can't tell us what to do. And then everyone gets even more nervous.

 

And then Britain packs up its stuff and pretends it never heard anything about this Syria fellow.

[Veteran]

And then Britain packs up its stuff and pretends it never heard anything about this Syria fellow.

And then the Russians call us 'just a small island' causing Cameron to Love Actually the shit out of them!

Dispassionately, which comes very easy to me, this whole thing is an entertaining study in international politics. I got to use Love Actually as a verb! Great times we're living in.

[Toan]

It's not really about Syria or enforcing international law, anyway. Syria's just going to be the stage of a big proxy war between various other powers (Russia, Iran, the US, Israel, etc.). A proxy war that we're only really getting into because we're trying to assert our dominance, even if our resources would be better utilized elsewhere.
 
It's less about Syria and more about showing Iran that we're serious about clamping down on "aggressive" states with WMDs. Which pisses Iran off, thus why they're making (mostly empty) threats. Which pisses off Israel and gets them all riled up. Which makes everyone nervous. Which makes Russia come in and tell the US to knock it off. Which makes the US upset because we already broke up with you, Russia, and you can't tell us what to do. And then everyone gets even more nervous.
 
And then Britain packs up its stuff and pretends it never heard anything about this Syria fellow.

It's worth noting that Russia has a huge stake in this whole business, in that Syria is their only naval port left in the Mediterranean; if the region goes to shit and their favorable alliance with the al-Assad's is tarnished, they'll no longer have a foothold into the Mediterranean. Which would explain why they would care considerably about the fate of Syria.