How Bad is BHO gonna screw up in Syria?

• O-Trap

  

  gut;1496200 wrote:You take people out of the labor pool (which is why there is a real effect)....and then you pay people to make their tools....to blow shit up that people like...which enables people to profit from rebuilding what people want.
  
  Yeah, it's short-term. It's not rocket science - "stimulus" is a keynesian bastardization of supply & demand.

  Ah, gotcha. The jobs themselves are not stimulating to the economy sans the fact that people are being paid to do them. In that sense was what I meant by it being similar -- whether you're paying someone to do nothing or to do something unproductive, neither is productive.
• majorspark

  

  This whole Syria thing is rapidly descending into an unmitigated foreign policy disaster. It smarts of a lot of rash reactionary decision making. Its a train wreck. First we have Obama's public "red line" comment which set this train rolling down the tracks. Then we have a small step or two across the "red line" then a leap. The Brits bail within days. Kerry is out making the case for a military response then Obama comes out with a decision to respond with military force and will seek Congress's approval to do so.
  
  Fail number one you do not publicly draw lines that can only be enforced with a military response unless; Number one there is a great insurance of a military success, number two all military contingencies have been reviewed by the POTUS's immediate subordinate generals, number three any foreign support if needed must be assured, number four Congress needs to be solidly on board to back that line, and last and not least the American people need be convinced that their blood and treasure is worth the price of holding this line.
  
  The vast majority of the international community has signed on to outlawing the use of chemical weapons during warfare. Syria is not one of them. But if Obama wants to enforce an international treaty should he not have the support of the majority of the big signatories of that treaty to use military force to enforce it? A treaty is nothing more than a peace of paper after all. And if you take my fail number three international support is critical in this case. This is what makes Obama's walk back on his "red line" so disingenuous. The international community drew the "red line" and congress signed on via treaty so they are the party to it? If a nation signs a treaty they expect the other signatories to be equally involved in abiding by its obligations. We got France (maybe) with some support and Russia threatening indirect military support of Syria. So we act alone? That's not a treaty.
  
  If a nation is in a collective agreement with others one nation does not have sole authority to draw lines and speak for the collective parties without their mutual consent. That is the issue here. All this in the face of a war fatigued nation that would need some strong convincing only compounds the issue. Then you have John Kerry throwing out the idea that several Arab nations are willing to foot the whole bill. American soldiers are not mercenaries. Seriously think before you speak.
  
  That said there is a legitimate national and international interest in enforcing the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons used in war. That is totally lost in this clusterfuck.
• gut

  Yeah, it's a clusterfuck.
  
  Obama is struggling to decide what the popular choice is. He's literally flailing to pass the buck here.
• BoatShoes

  O-Trap;1496495 wrote:Ah, gotcha. The jobs themselves are not stimulating to the economy sans the fact that people are being paid to do them. In that sense was what I meant by it being similar -- whether you're paying someone to do nothing or to do something unproductive, neither is productive.

  In the New Deal millions of people were employed to build things that were undoubtedly productive and added to national wealth and prosperity. Rural schools were built. High school football stadiums that are still played in today were built. It financed masterpiece art works by William de Kooning and Jackson Pollack. Kids still swim in pools created by the PWA every summer. The Tennessee Valley Authority and Rural Electrification literally saved the south from still being in ruins from the Civil War.
  
  It is asinine to say that the output produced by these contracts was not "productive".
  
  "stimulus" is a stupid word really but these projects wherein the public and unemployed workers were the parties to the employment contract are perfectly capable of generating valuable wealth, capital accumulation and economic growth just as if it had been two private parties on both sides of the contract. Both sides, the public and the worker are better off via the mutual exchange and that is the same standard we use when we say that private exchange makes us all wealthier and better off.
  
  The whole point of Keynes' metaphor of digging gold to be used as money out of holes in the ground is that paying people to do something as absolutely stupid as that (which is actually what we did when we are on the gold standard if you think about it...except we let the private sector handle wasting all of that output on pulling a worthless metal out of the ground only to put it in another hole in the ground with guards around it) is still better than letting the unemployed sit around idle and wasting away.
• HitsRus

  

  This whole Syria thing is rapidly descending into an unmitigated foreign policy disaster.

  and last and not least the American people need be convinced that their blood and treasure is worth the price of holding this line.
  

  As far as the American people are concerned, there is a huge crediblity gap. It took month and months to get any (not all )information about what happened in Benghazi...but within a few weeks we have enough for him to engage the military in Syria?
  
  A chemical weapons attack in the Syrian civil war draws his attention, but a direct attack on our embassy leaving 4 AMERICANS dead is swept under the rug?
  
  Is it any wonder that people on both sides of the aisle are balking at this?
• majorspark

  

  HitsRus;1496711 wrote:A chemical weapons attack in the Syrian civil war draws his attention, but a direct attack on our embassy leaving 4 AMERICANS dead is swept under the rug?

  Not to mention 2 of those were killed by chemical weapons. Albeit crude weapons but the end result was the same they died of asphyxiation when they inhaled poison gas produced by the burning of diesel that was deployed to kill anyone remaining in the building.
• believer

  

  HitsRus;1496711 wrote:A chemical weapons attack in the Syrian civil war draws his attention, but a direct attack on our embassy leaving 4 AMERICANS dead is swept under the rug?

  
  What difference does it make?
  
  
• TedSheckler

  

  He did it! Obama united everyone......
  
  
  
  ...against him.
• HitsRus

  

  believer;1496872 wrote:What difference does it make?
  
  

  she's not talking about Syria, is she?
• gut

  Hillary is really fortunate she didn't feel a need to stay 2 more years as SecState to tee-up her POTUS run. Syria on the heels of Benghazi very well might have destroyed her chance to even get the Dem nomination.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  majorspark;1496682 wrote:This whole Syria thing is rapidly descending into an unmitigated foreign policy disaster. It smarts of a lot of rash reactionary decision making. Its a train wreck. First we have Obama's public "red line" comment which set this train rolling down the tracks. Then we have a small step or two across the "red line" then a leap. The Brits bail within days. Kerry is out making the case for a military response then Obama comes out with a decision to respond with military force and will seek Congress's approval to do so.
  
  Fail number one you do not publicly draw lines that can only be enforced with a military response unless; Number one there is a great insurance of a military success, number two all military contingencies have been reviewed by the POTUS's immediate subordinate generals, number three any foreign support if needed must be assured, number four Congress needs to be solidly on board to back that line, and last and not least the American people need be convinced that their blood and treasure is worth the price of holding this line.

  Agree on most of this. The comments seem to be ad libbed and caught everyone off. The administration has usually been good on their declaratory posture. In their National Security Strategies, the Nuclear Posture Review, and the Ballistic Missile Review, declaratory statements were really sparsed out, written in a very fine language. This off hand comment, the red line, threw all of that out of the window. It was a stupid comment that really limited the options for the U.S. You could see that as the 1st reports came out months ago of chem wepaons. The admin. was walking away from the Red Line. Suddenly, now, they have to do something. Otherwise, why make the statement? Credibility, really important in declaratory posture, is at stake now.
  
  I agree on the chain of events needed. The military has the plans, that is their job. But, still, they are really uneasy knowing they are already stretched thin in the region (Getting out of Afgh, and the shift to the Pacific). The other aspects, I think the admin did not account for how the memories of the Iraq War, and the lead up to that would play on getting support. The Brits saying no is a "whoa" as the entire debate wasn't about Syria, but about Iraq. From there, only the French are saying yes (reverse of 2003, odd).
  
  Along those lines, I think the Admin failed to understand the level of skepticism, thanks to Iraq on intelligence. The intelligence reports released were reports, they were just, "Here is our version of the evidence, trust us." That doesn't fly anymore, especially in the public eye and Congress. The admin has to release more intelligence findings and show, with full credibility, why action is needed.
  One thing the Bush admin was good at was selling, and good God did they really know how the get support for the Iraq war. The admin was totally caught off guard on the public selling of the policy. They just thought, we can strike, no problem. Wrong.
  
  Another problem is timing for them. Naturally, the longer after the strike, the less the public will support it, not in their minds. Now, support is no longer in support of the strike. The President should have addressed the nation in prime time with all the evidence and said, I will seek support of the allies, and Congress to strike in a manner of days, just like Desert Fox in 1998. Instead, he waited and now it is a mess.
  

  The vast majority of the international community has signed on to outlawing the use of chemical weapons during warfare. Syria is not one of them. But if Obama wants to enforce an international treaty should he not have the support of the majority of the big signatories of that treaty to use military force to enforce it? A treaty is nothing more than a peace of paper after all. And if you take my fail number three international support is critical in this case. This is what makes Obama's walk back on his "red line" so disingenuous. The international community drew the "red line" and congress signed on via treaty so they are the party to it? If a nation signs a treaty they expect the other signatories to be equally involved in abiding by its obligations. We got France (maybe) with some support and Russia threatening indirect military support of Syria. So we act alone? That's not a treaty.

  Since Syria isn't a party to the treaty, hard to make that argument. But, I agree, it needs to be a point in the overall justification for a strike. Say, in order to strength the rule of international law, we need to back up the Chemical Weapons Convention and through force, get Syria to give up weapons and sign and ratify the treaty.
  

  If a nation is in a collective agreement with others one nation does not have sole authority to draw lines and speak for the collective parties without their mutual consent. That is the issue here. All this in the face of a war fatigued nation that would need some strong convincing only compounds the issue. Then you have John Kerry throwing out the idea that several Arab nations are willing to foot the whole bill. American soldiers are not mercenaries. Seriously think before you speak.
  
  That said there is a legitimate national and international interest in enforcing the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons used in war. That is totally lost in this cluster****.

  I doubt troops will be involved, and I'm fine with the Arab states footing any bill, it is their area. Frankly, they should be doing more with strikes, but since we have the cruise missiles, falls to us.
  
  I agree on your last point, the CWC and international law is at risk, which is why a strike is needed. Problem again, Syria isn't a member of the treaty and one flaw in law is how do you force another sovereign country to adhere to the norms if they are not a member? Force and sanctions are the only means to coerce.
  Hopefully, whatever outcome, Syria will, down the road give up their weapons and sign, and ratify the treaty.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  FWIW, my view is a limited strike, cruise missiles in target command control areas, like Desert Fox.
  We should also support the rebels, the ones we know, the Free Syrian Army, with weapons, logistics equipment and funds.
• tk421

  

  From what I've seen on twitter and other sites, vast majority of calls to congressional members have been absolutely against intervention. I have serious doubts that Congress is going to vote to get into another useless war. Obama probably knows this, he is looking for a way out without looking anymore foolish. He can pass the blame for not intervening onto Congress.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Again, no war. All that is needed is cruise missiles strikes that are in retaltiaion for chemical weapons usage. It shows that any usage of the weapons will result in the use of force.
  It is like Desert Fox in 1998 when we launched cruise missiles.
  No further action is needed unless Syria uses the weapons again.
• tk421

  

  Congress won't vote for even that, not if they want to win an election in 2014. Obama may not need to worry about that anymore, but his Democratic buddies sure do. Again, the vast vast majority of calls/letters what not to Congress has been negative, to go ahead and do it anyway will cost Obama and the Democrats a huge amount. Americans are tired of fighting. Period.
• majorspark

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1497193 wrote:Again, no war. All that is needed is cruise missiles strikes that are in retaltiaion for chemical weapons usage. It shows that any usage of the weapons will result in the use of force.
  It is like Desert Fox in 1998 when we launched cruise missiles.
  No further action is needed unless Syria uses the weapons again.

  Firing cruise missiles into another sovereign nation is an act of war. There can be unintended consequences. And things can get out of hand. What if there is retaliation against Israel by Syria or Iran? Or against US interests in the middle east? I will agree with you this is unlikely and is just chest thumping. But you and I both know history is strewn with these types of miscalculations and war ensued. There is a fair amount of risk in this there is no guarantee of a "clean" punitive action.
• tk421

  

  http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20130908_ap_5a2178a2b97241cfa771a3ea7ef5590c.html
  

  The White House asserted Sunday that a "common-sense test" dictates the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack that President Barack Obama says demands a U.S. military response. But Obama's top aide says the administration lacks "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" that skeptical Americans, including lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week, are seeking.

  We're supposed to just take their word for it. Yeah, right.
• majorspark

  

  tk421;1497179 wrote:From what I've seen on twitter and other sites, vast majority of calls to congressional members have been absolutely against intervention. I have serious doubts that Congress is going to vote to get into another useless war. Obama probably knows this, he is looking for a way out without looking anymore foolish. He can pass the blame for not intervening onto Congress.

  You are right. There are huge amounts of public pressure against this. I don't think Obama is looking for a way out as much as he boxed himself in with reactionary political statements. Both Obama and Biden are on record saying Bush had no authority to attack a sovereign nation that does not involve an actual or imminent threat to the nation. And Biden going as far as to say it was an impeachable offense and he would personally take it upon himself to lead the effort. With all Obama's Syria foreign policy blunders I mentioned above he really had little choice. With all the risks involved in committing an act of war given his and Biden's previous statements if anything goes wrong their political careers would be over.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  So, we should do nothing?
  And, if another country uses chemical weapons, then what? Do nothing as well?
  Or, if say Iran decides to probe its influence in other areas, why should they not take our threats seriously?
  
  This is all about credibility in deterrence theory. If there is no action, then there is no reason for any country to take our threats seriously.
  
  And, yes, a strike would be technically an act of war, but then again, Israel has struck Syria several times with no recourse yet. And, Iran has not gave any indication of recourse.
  
  The ghosts of Iraq has cast a long shadow over U.S. foreign policy, but in order to retain credibility, we have to act in a limited fashion. The public is tired of war, I get that, but then again the country has no concept of national security issues.
• tk421

  

  You can't explain why you need to do something when everything is "classified". The American public are not going to take the government's word ever again, unless we are directly attacked again like 9/11.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  tk421;1497400 wrote:You can't explain why you need to do something when everything is "classified". The American public are not going to take the government's word ever again, unless we are directly attacked again like 9/11.

  I completely agree. Release all the data that is known, except for the HUMINT capability.
• majorspark

  

  The big winner in all of this is going to be the Russians. Nations in the Middle East are going to see that having the Russians on your side can be an effective way of countering US influence. Putin has a hard on for restoring Russian influence in the Middle East. Also the Russians are not going to lose their naval base in Tartus, Syria. A rebel victory would be a problem for them. The weapons will continue to flow to the Syrian government.
  
  Romney was mocked as a foreign policy dunce for suggesting the Russians were our number one geopolitical foe. Where is Hillary's reset button?
• gut

  ptown_trojans_1;1497374 wrote: This is all about credibility in deterrence theory. If there is no action, then there is no reason for any country to take our threats seriously.

  We disagree that this calls for unilateral action.
  
  I also don't see this as diminishing the threat of the US acting in the future if it feels it's national security is threatened. Without debating the national security threat with Iraq, one thing Bush did there was demonstrate the US would not subject such a decision to UN authority.
  
  I'm not sure of the efficacy of a foreign policy that relies on the "credibility" of US unilateral intimidation
• HitsRus

  

  Again, no war. All that is needed is cruise missiles strikes that are in retaltiaion for chemical weapons usage. It shows that any usage of the weapons will result in the use of force.

  For the sake of arguement...let's say I agree with you.
  
  He'd already staked out the 'redline'. The response should have been swift, unambiguous, and unapologetic. If it is a limited strike, and "no war"...then you don't need to ask anybody's permission to carry out what has been already articulated...that is...the United States would not sit back idley when chemical weapons were being used. Instead we got this amateurish, mamby pamby attempt at consensus building. Seriously, you don't do this kind of stuff if you don't know in advance that you have the full backing of your key allies.
• Mulva

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1497374 wrote:So, we should do nothing?
  And, if another country uses chemical weapons, then what? Do nothing as well?

  Correct.