Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?

[OmCheeto]

...
The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

I have the opposite opinion.

I'd take a healthy dose of sabre-rattling over sabre-wielding any day.

As long as the rattling has an effect, of course. Perhaps they should play re-runs of "Shock and Awe" for Assad, on Syrian TV.

Anyone remember that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NktsxucDvNI​

According to my googling, the sun set in Damascus about 1.5 hours ago.

Perhaps they should remind Assad that Obama didn't stop the drone strikes when he was first elected.

hmmmm... Obama's nearly a half hour late?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-syria

Maybe Barry's on the phone with Bashy, trying to work things out. That would be nice. I'm not in the mood for any more shock and awe.

 

[nsaspook]

Well, that wouldn't help much, since he would still have to hold true to his word...
If he would just say, "uhm, I re-examined our priorities... chemical weapons are just dandy as far as we're concerned" - then he would signal all other renegade countries that it's alright to do whatever they want, even if the US warns them - just as long as they don't directly harm US's interests.

The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

We've spent a week telling Assad these attacks are only a message, What are his possible 'positive' responses to that message? Will he say:

1. I'm sorry and swear to never do it again and continues the killings with other weapons.
2. Says nothing and continues the killings with other weapons.
3. Says we never used chemical weapons anyway and continues the killings with other weapons.

Warning, other weapons:

Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway's report contains images viewers may find extremely distressing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

The more likely 'negative' response only draws us closer into another war that we can't or don't want to win and nothing positive for the innocent people in Syria.

 

[OmCheeto]

Nice piece of sabre-rattling by John Kerry in The New Yorker.

JOHN KERRY’S CASE FOR BOMBING SYRIA
AUGUST 30, 2013
...

Both Obama and Kerry acknowledged the war-weariness of the American public and the widespread skepticism about any military action post-Iraq. But doing nothing in response to the gas attack would send the wrong message to potential aggressors, the President said, and that would constitute “a danger to our national security.” This, though, was Kerry’s moment. From anti-war protestor to public defender of a prospective U.S. bombing raid, he has come a long way. History would, he said, “judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction.”

Oh! The President is speaking. Ciao!

 

[nsaspook]

Oh! The President is speaking. Ciao!

I just don't see the President attacking Syria if Congress says no. The President has kicked the can down the street and has lost his power of personal sabre-rattling.

 

[OmCheeto]

I just don't see the President attacking Syria if Congress says no.

Agreed. I don't think he will attack Syria if congress doesn't approve it. I would say more about the decision^[1] congress is about to make, but I'd be way off topic.

The President has kicked the can down the street and has lost his power of personal sabre-rattling.

hmmm... Who was the last president to wage un-authorized air strikes against another country, without congress's approval?

Was that Nixon?

hmmm...

Barry doesn't strike me as being a Dick^[2]...

------------------------
[1]fools...
[2]For our compatriots who do not speak American as a first language, "Dick" is short for "Richard", as in, Richard "Tricky Dick" Milhous^[3] Nixon".
[3]Why is it that people always accentuate the middle name when trying to insult people?

 

[fargoth]

I have the opposite opinion.

I'd take a healthy dose of sabre-rattling over sabre-wielding any day.

As long as the rattling has an effect, of course.

So, if the sabre-rattling has not effect (as in this instance) - if you don't put your money where your mouth is, you'd lose all your sabre-rattling abilities.

 

[fargoth]

We've spent a week telling Assad these attacks are only a message, What are his possible 'positive' responses to that message? Will he say:

1. I'm sorry and swear to never do it again and continues the killings with other weapons.
2. Says nothing and continues the killings with other weapons.
3. Says we never used chemical weapons anyway and continues the killings with other weapons.

Warning, other weapons:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

The more likely 'negative' response only draws us closer into another war that we can't or don't want to win and nothing positive for the innocent people in Syria.

The action against Syria would not help these people.
But failing to act would jeopardise other innocent people all over the world.
The US is already taken only half seriously by the world's bullies (thanks to north korea)
What would Iran learn from the actions of the US if it fails to follow it's threats?
Why do you think no country gives a damn about UN resolutions, as long as they don't come from the security council?

 

[OmCheeto]

So, if the sabre-rattling has not effect (as in this instance) - if you don't put your money where your mouth is, you'd lose all your sabre-rattling abilities.

I think that's what spooky just said. Unfortunately, we don't live in a dictatorship, and Barry's hands are tied.

btw, has anyone checked out the targets yet?

I wonder what Rommel could have done with google Earth at his disposal.

hmmm...

...
Rommel is regarded as having been a humane and professional officer. His Afrika Korps was never accused of war crimes, and soldiers captured during his Africa campaign were reported to have been treated humanely. Orders to kill Jewish soldiers, civilians and captured commandos were ignored.
...

 

[fargoth]

We've spent a week telling Assad these attacks are only a message, What are his possible 'positive' responses to that message? Will he say:

1. I'm sorry and swear to never do it again and continues the killings with other weapons.
2. Says nothing and continues the killings with other weapons.
3. Says we never used chemical weapons anyway and continues the killings with other weapons.

Warning, other weapons:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

The more likely 'negative' response only draws us closer into another war that we can't or don't want to win and nothing positive for the innocent people in Syria.

I guess you mean to say the US should do more than just sending a message.
I would disagree - if the US would topple Assad's regime, it would only change the victims from Sunnis to Alawites.
And would most probably push Syria into a taliban-like regime.

 

[amonraa]

Here's why not everyone is convinced and some stepped back and others decided not to involve in dragging the region to hell.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnes...supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

And regardless who did it, targeting the regime would be like committing suicide to the whole region or put in other words, handing in the region to Al Qaeda affiliated groups and other Jihadists who will first thing do is hit Israel.

 

[fargoth]

Here's why not everyone is convinced and some stepped back and others decided not to involve in dragging the region to hell.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnes...supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

And regardless who did it, targeting the regime would be like committing suicide to the whole region or put in other words, handing in the region to Al Qaeda affiliated groups and other Jihadists who will first thing do is hit Israel.

If the story you have posted would turn out to be true, it would make an outside attack unnecessary.
But if Assad is to blame, there are only talks about sending a message, and not getting really involved in a way which would shift the balance of powers.

 

[nsaspook]

The action against Syria would not help these people.
But failing to act would jeopardise other innocent people all over the world.
The US is already taken only half seriously by the world's bullies (thanks to north korea)
What would Iran learn from the actions of the US if it fails to follow it's threats?
Why do you think no country gives a damn about UN resolutions, as long as they don't come from the security council?

Out of all the things happening in the world that needs to be fixed, Syria as a gateway to mass destruction worldwide is pretty low on my list.

 

[fargoth]

Out of all the things happening in the world that needs to be fixed, Syria as a gateway to mass destruction worldwide is pretty low on my list.

Just out of curiosity, could you share that list?

 

[nsaspook]

I guess you mean to say the US should do more than just sending a message.
I would disagree - if the US would topple Assad's regime, it would only change the victims from Sunnis to Alawites.
And would most probably push Syria into a taliban-like regime.

I don't think we should do anything. The Assad regime is about as good as it can get in Syria today.

 

[fargoth]

I don't think we should do anything. The Assad regime is about as good as it can get in Syria today.

I partly agree, there is no need to shift the balance of power - and no one is planning to do that.

But we disagree on the necessity of preserving the deterrence powers of the US's threats in this part of the world.

 

[jim hardy]

(in response to "He could admit the mistake." )

"Well, that wouldn't help much, since he would still have to hold true to his word...

Why ?
Anybody can make a mistake but it takes a fool to defend one.

If he would just say, "uhm, I re-examined our priorities... chemical weapons are just dandy as far as we're concerned" - then he would signal all other renegade countries that it's alright to do whatever they want, even if the US warns them - just as long as they don't directly harm US's interests.

That's indeed how geopolitics works, isn't it ?
Forcibly imposing our standards on the world is vigilantism.

The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

That one I agree with. As Flip Wilson's character Geraldine used to say: "Don't let your mouth write a check your body can't cash".

I can preach to my neighbor that he shouldn't sin
but I can rightfully shoot at him only in self defense.

 

[nsaspook]

Just out of curiosity, could you share that list?

Here's a few http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/27/10_conflicts_to_watch_in_2013

 

[OmCheeto]

I was going to request that my first post in this thread be deleted, as I really don't have a clue what is going on over there.

But...

​

It seems I'm not alone.

And they are there.

So much for my theory of "Being on the Front Line of reality" theory...

 

[nsaspook]

But we disagree on the necessity of preserving the deterrence powers of the US's threats in this part of the world.

That's my problems with 'threats', it works until someone like Assad calls your bluff. Ok, we want to make a example of Assad but he's just the wrong person to kick in the shin as he has nothing to lose by kicking us in the groin.

 

[fargoth]

Why ?
Anybody can make a mistake but it takes a fool to defend one.

The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)

That one I agree with. As Flip Wilson's character Geraldine used to say: "Don't let your mouth write a check your body can't cash".

We both agree Obama shouldn't have threatened with a military action.
And I think we both agree that an empty threat is worse than no threat.

We disagree on the importance of keeping the power of threats.. If you lose the ability to use military action threats - you lose a lot of influence on what's happening in the world..
I think this power is necessary for the US to keep it's status as a superpower, and it's important to it's allies as well.

 

[nsaspook]

It seems I'm not alone.

And they are there.

They practice the words of Arnaud Amalric

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

 

[fargoth]

That's my problems with 'threats', it works until someone like Assad calls your bluff. Ok, we want to make a example of Assad but he's just the wrong person to kick in the shin as he has nothing to lose by kicking us in the groin.

But he does, he still thinks (and maybe correctly) that he can win this war - kicking the US in the groin would certainly make him lose, and he knows that.

 

[Borg]

Here's a few http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/27/10_conflicts_to_watch_in_2013

I know it's a serious threat but still - the Philippine http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/27/10_conflicts_to_watch_in_2013?page=0,12 couldn't come up with a better acronym? :rofl:

 

[OmCheeto]

They practice the words of Arnaud Amalric

Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

This reminds me of Golda's purported quote:

השלום יבוא כאשר הערבים יאהבו את ילדיהם יותר מאשר הם שונאים אותנו

----------------------
There's a rule about speaking English in this forum. But, given the availability of google translate, I think we might only get half an infraction...

 

[nsaspook]

There's a rule about speaking English in this forum. But, given the availability of google translate, I think we might only get half an infraction... [/SIZE]

I should get one for the incomplete quote.

Yes, you can't figure out who's killing whom without a program.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/31/217574150/president-obama-to-speak-on-syria

It seems Obama has effectively shifted the responsibility of potential interference with Syria to Congress, rather than making it a decision of his own.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It seems Obama has effectively shifted the responsibility of potential interference with Syria to Congress, rather than making it a decision of his own.

As, according to the Constitution, he should.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

As, according to the Constitution, he should.

Precisely. I'm all for his decision, and am glad that he ignored the opinions of some of his senior advisors.

 

[OmCheeto]

Precisely. I'm all for his decision, and am glad that he ignored the opinions of some of his senior advisors.

His senior advisors wanted him to violate the constitution? What news channel are you watching? Not that I watch TV. It rots your brain, or so I've heard.

 

[jim hardy]

His senior advisors wanted him to violate the constitution? What news channel are you watching? Not that I watch TV. It rots your brain, or so I've heard.

CFR
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139457/andrew-j-tabler/syrias-collapse

To stop Syria’s meltdown and contain its mushrooming threats, the United States needs a new approach, one that starts with a partial military intervention aimed at pushing all sides to the negotiating table...

The United States should start by deterring the regime from using its most lethal tools, namely surface-to-surface missiles and chemical weapons. Such deterrence will require taking out the bombs filled with sarin gas that, according to The New York Times, were placed last year “near or on” Syrian air bases...

Second, to protect Syrians in opposition-controlled territory from attacks by the regime’s Scud missiles and fixed-wing aircraft, the United States should establish 50- to 80-mile-deep safe areas within Syria along its borders...


Third, Washington needs to work directly with opposition forces on the ground in Syria ...

sure 'nuff, that's been the mantra.

 

[Vanadium 50]

His senior advisors wanted him to violate the constitution? What news channel are you watching? Not that I watch TV. It rots your brain, or so I've heard.

Front page of Friday's Washington Post.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Given that this week in the UK parliament voted against the prime ministers proposal for military intervention I was surprised to discover via the news that Obama could have pushed through his proposal without congress.

 

[Vanadium 50]

CNN reported today that the President is considering acting even if Congress votes no. That, in my view, would be very bad: Congress has the sole power to declare war. One can argue that the President's authority as Commander-In-Chief allows him to take military action without Congressional approval in certain cases - such as repelling an attack - but to have Congress vote not to strike and have the President do so anyway would cause a Constitutional crisis.

Additionally, should this come to pass, it is entirely possible that the commanding general of Centcom will refuse an order to attack under the grounds that the order is unlawful. That would make a political mess that will take years - maybe even decades = to sort out.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't know that it would cause a constitutional crisis, there are legal justifications:

In its legal justification for action in Libya, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argued that Congress' authority to declare "war" was limited by the definition of war. "This standard generally will be satisfied only by prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period," the OLC wrote.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57600702/can-obama-strike-syria-without-congress-consent/

Regardless, I do think it would make Obama look really bad, both nationally and internationally. He doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about his national image lately though.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
He doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about his national image lately though.

I don't know why your comment brought an old post to mind, but it did.

And I'd counter with the fact the congress doesn't seem to give a shaving cream about their image lately, either.