rickyp wrote:freeman

What are our interests in the middle east? I would list the following: (1) maintaining supply of oil, (2) preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon, (3) preventing Islamic terrorists hostile to us from getting bases to strike us, from threatening the supply of oil, or destabilizing the region

Do these interests take precedence over a commitment to the establishment of greater democracy, the right to self determination or the protection of basic rights and liberties?

The reason the West has such little influence is that in the past concerns about democracy or civil liberties were always subverted by these strategic concerns.
People know hypocricy when they experience it ....

Yes, yes, quite right. It is the United States that has thwarted democracy in Libya, Egypt, Syria, and throughout the Arab world. Very well thought-out post!

I mean just look at how America is suppressing the rights of Christians in Egypt! How about all the lives the US is snuffing out in Syria! We MUST be stopped!

Why aren't we establishing democracy in the Middle East? Why can't we be more neo-con-ish?

Sure Fate.... thats what i'm saying.

http://pomed.org/wp-content/uploads/200 ... e-east.pdf

Turn to page three for a summary of middle eastern perceptions and the dllemma that western governments now face due to decades of policies that helped deny the aspirations of Middle Easterners....

You seem to think that current conditions in the Middle East exist, and attitudes towards the West exist without a historical context.... I suppose if one is able to ignore the historical record and the actual attitudes of the local populace to the historical record I suppose its possible to see the Syrian, Egyptian and Iraqis situations as simple. Rather than the complex and complicated mess that they are. Messes that decades of Western complicity with despots helped create. (Please note I say 'helped". Not unilaterally created....
I don't believe, like you seem to, that western powers can control events in the midlle east by their actions. Only influence them.
Your expectations of what can be accomplished by the US in Syria are wholly unrealistic.

rickyp wrote:Sure Fate.... thats what i'm saying.

http://pomed.org/wp-content/uploads/200 ... e-east.pdf

Turn to page three for a summary of middle eastern perceptions and the dllemma that western governments now face due to decades of policies that helped deny the aspirations of Middle Easterners....

You seem to think that current conditions in the Middle East exist, and attitudes towards the West exist without a historical context.... I suppose if one is able to ignore the historical record and the actual attitudes of the local populace to the historical record I suppose its possible to see the Syrian, Egyptian and Iraqis situations as simple. Rather than the complex and complicated mess that they are. Messes that decades of Western complicity with despots helped create. (Please note I say 'helped". Not unilaterally created....
I don't believe, like you seem to, that western powers can control events in the midlle east by their actions. Only influence them.
Your expectations of what can be accomplished by the US in Syria are wholly unrealistic.

Rickyp,

I was responding to what you posted, not what you wish you posted.

The elimination of Syria's chemical weapons became the focus of the Obama administration's response to the conflict in Syria after the administration accused Assad's regime of using them in August 2013.
Obama had previously said that using chemical weapons would cross a "red line," but in the days following the August 2013 attack, the White House didn't appear to have public or congressional support to act, putting Obama in an awkward position.
When Russia stepped in and proposed an international effort to identify and destroy Syria's arsenal, the United States seized on it.

This thread was all about what to do in Syria, especially regarding chemmical weapons.
Since the last of Syria's chemical weapons have now been destroyed on a US ship, its worth reviewing.
Whatever else the destruction of the chemicsls is a small victory.
I don't suppose it'll make the headlines on Fox news?

http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... le_fanfare

rickyp wrote:

The elimination of Syria's chemical weapons became the focus of the Obama administration's response to the conflict in Syria after the administration accused Assad's regime of using them in August 2013.
Obama had previously said that using chemical weapons would cross a "red line," but in the days following the August 2013 attack, the White House didn't appear to have public or congressional support to act, putting Obama in an awkward position.
When Russia stepped in and proposed an international effort to identify and destroy Syria's arsenal, the United States seized on it.

This thread was all about what to do in Syria, especially regarding chemmical weapons.
Since the last of Syria's chemical weapons have now been destroyed on a US ship, its worth reviewing.
Whatever else the destruction of the chemicsls is a small victory.
I don't suppose it'll make the headlines on Fox news?

http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... le_fanfare

How much of the rise of ISIS is a result of the Obama administration's refusal to support somewhat moderate secular forces in Syria from the beginning of the conflict?

rickyp wrote:This thread was all about what to do in Syria, especially regarding chemmical weapons.
Since the last of Syria's chemical weapons have now been destroyed on a US ship, its worth reviewing.
Whatever else the destruction of the chemicsls is a small victory.
I don't suppose it'll make the headlines on Fox news?

http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... le_fanfare (emphasis added)

I think you could host your own TV show. I'd call it "The Oh, Really Factor."

From your article:

Plus, "serious questions" remain about whether Syria declared all of its chemical weapons and whether the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is still using chemical weapons against its people, the president said.

There have been several reports that the Syrian government may still be using chlorine gas in opposition areas.

Whatever they admitted having has been destroyed. Great.

Now, how many thousands of people have been slaughtered over there?

Look around the globe. Where has "smart power" and "leading from behind" made life better--well, except for in the halls of power in the Kremlin, Iran, China, and North Korea.

I'm sure ISIL is very worried following President Obama's words about the murdered American journalist, James Foley. Positively frightening! And, he followed his powerful rhetoric with . . . a return to the golf course.

Out of interest, what do you think Obama should be doing at this point ? Ideally I'd like an answer which doesn't rely on vague platitudes like "showing leadership" or whatever. How far are you willing for him to go in tackling ISIS ? Boots on the ground ? Cooperation with Iran ?

I'm not saying that the current approach is the right one necessarily, but if you're going to criticise then it would help to have an alternative course of action in mind. Fact is that these decisions are extremely difficult to make and at this point all the options are likely to be bad ones.

Sassenach wrote:Out of interest, what do you think Obama should be doing at this point ? Ideally I'd like an answer which doesn't rely on vague platitudes like "showing leadership" or whatever. How far are you willing for him to go in tackling ISIS ? Boots on the ground ? Cooperation with Iran ?

I'm not saying that the current approach is the right one necessarily, but if you're going to criticise then it would help to have an alternative course of action in mind. Fact is that these decisions are extremely difficult to make and at this point all the options are likely to be bad ones.

Sass, I will tell you what I would do, and would like the same courtesy of what you would do.

I would commence air assaults with B-117/B-2 attack to destroy any air defense installations of radar sites.
I would send in drones to kill any suspected ISIl leaders.
I would arm the Kurds.
I would place 2 divisions in Kurd territory and destroy ISIL completely.
I would give Assad 10 days to step down from power or face those 2 divisions heading into Syria. I would place a naval Battle group in the Med and have it loaded with MANY Tomahawk and Harpoon hard target warheads.

To me that would be a good start.

What say you?

To answer DF's question...

Over 170,000 civilians

Sassenach wrote:Out of interest, what do you think Obama should be doing at this point ? Ideally I'd like an answer which doesn't rely on vague platitudes like "showing leadership" or whatever.

This is, if unwittingly, disingenuous. ISIS/ISIL is not a new threat. So, it's not a "vague platitude" to note that as recently as January Mr. Obama dismissed them as "jayvee." He said they were not a serious threat. Even now, he has said the "danger" to the Christians and other religious minorities was past after the bombing raids near Mt. Sinjar. A few days later, dozens of them were slaughtered, their wives and children carried off.

His policy has resembled that of an ostrich.

How far are you willing for him to go in tackling ISIS ? Boots on the ground ? Cooperation with Iran ?

Sorry, but I have to begin with what he should NOT do: play politics. He's so worried about placating his base that he rushes out to foreswear boots on the ground. The reality is the "advisers" are "boots on the ground." He sent them. To say we have no "boots on the ground" is not quite right.

Now, how far would I go? I would do whatever it takes to kill every one of them or send them so far into hiding that they can't find their way out. I would bomb them, use special forces, and send in Marines if needed. I am NOT in "favor" of this, but I don't think we have a choice. The "ostrich" approach will not work, and ISIS cannot be negotiated with.

Iran? No. We don't need them and I would not want to cooperate with them militarily.

I'm not saying that the current approach is the right one necessarily, but if you're going to criticise then it would help to have an alternative course of action in mind. Fact is that these decisions are extremely difficult to make and at this point all the options are likely to be bad ones.

Yes, they are difficult. We need a leader, not a campaigner or a golfer. Sadly, we did not elect a leader.

bbauska wrote:To answer DF's question...

Over 170,000 civilians

Yes, and we "had" to take out Qaddafi because 10-20K "might" die.

Obama's response is feeble and hard to watch.

Ray Jay wrote:How much of the rise of ISIS is a result of the Obama administration's refusal to support somewhat moderate secular forces in Syria from the beginning of the conflict?

Who knows? Would attacks on Assad's forces have helped ISIS? Would we have been able to tell the 'somewhat moderate' from the extremists? Would supplying weapons have just led to the wrong people getting them?

Sass, I will tell you what I would do, and would like the same courtesy of what you would do.

I would commence air assaults with B-117/B-2 attack to destroy any air defense installations of radar sites.
I would send in drones to kill any suspected ISIl leaders.
I would arm the Kurds.
I would place 2 divisions in Kurd territory and destroy ISIL completely.
I would give Assad 10 days to step down from power or face those 2 divisions heading into Syria. I would place a naval Battle group in the Med and have it loaded with MANY Tomahawk and Harpoon hard target warheads.

To me that would be a good start.

What say you?

In truth I don't really know what should be done. I don't really have a problem with admitting as much. There are issues with each of your proposals that I can see just off the top of my head.

ISIS has no air defence capability to speak of, and certainly has no air power that it can deploy, so there aren't any targets that can be hit.
Drone strikes are only effective where there's really good intelligence available for targeting. This is almost certainly not the case at present, although in theory I'd have little problem with it.
Arming the Kurds is fine to a point, but it's something that has to be treated weith caution. The Kurds have territorial claims on Turkey, which is a NATO member. Arming them could in theory end up causing even more problems. Certainly they do need support though.
Placing divisions in Iraq is not so simple as it sounds. The issue of course is that they may well need then to remain in Iraq for an indeterminate period. You break it, you own it. Are you willing to see American forces acting once more as an occupying army in Iraq, with all that this entails ?
Invading Syria is the exact same problem only multiplied tenfold. Those divisions copuld almost certainly topple Assad, but then what ?
The last point is rather odd since you already have a battle group in the area.

My personal view is that the ISIS problem in Iraq is likely to recede as quickly as it arrived. They've taken a huge amount of territory in a short space of time but this is in part down to the fact that most of that territory is worthless desert that's mostly indefensible. ISIS will find it even harder to hold that territory than the Iraqi government did. I think the best thing Western forces can do right now is firstly provide air power to assist Kurd/Iraqi forces to push back at ISIS (with special forces involved of course) and secondly to pressure the Iraqi government into ditching Maliki and his rampant sectarianism and replacing it with a more inclusive government that enables the sunni minority in Iraq to feel they have a stake in the country. This won't be easy, but seems achievable. Certainly it looks like a better option than to send in another full blown invasion force.

Well, use of air power to support Iraqis and Kurds seems clear and is being done. ISIS militants, according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/20/world/mea ... index.html), have been cleared from Mosul dam, the destruction of which would have been catastrophic. In general, we should be using local allies to be boots on the ground while we support them with air power, tomahawk missiles, drones and a few advisors and special forces. Right now, what is being done is appropriate. We don't need another ground war.

is anyone else wondering why ISIS did not destroy the Mosul dam?