CC: Kim in NK.
Email diplomacy, FTW!
Two birds, one send.
How did Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s …“line in the sand”…work ?
How did that “deal” for Syria to destroy their chemical weapons work ?
Talk is cheap, takes money to buy whiskey !
Then what is the reason the Trumpiot is holding campaign rallies to this day?
I don’t have actual stats in front of me, but I’ve talked personally with a person who worked on the design of the B-2’s. He said that yes, they were expensive, but compared to missiles they could deliver much more munitions and thus were cheaper to implement.
“Low level peons” or not, the attack was on a military airfield, which is a legitimate target.
It’s a good thing that all of Syria’s chemical weapons were removed and destroyed.
Wait…what?..:smack:
Why do you post his full middle name in all-caps?
I don’t believe the goal was to maximize low-level peon casualties.
So if I found out when and where the next military strike was going to happen and informed those I knew would inform those we intended to target, you would have no problems with what I did…as long as our missiles hit their intended physical target?
Under a lot of the norms the international community has largely staked out both post-WWII and post-Cold War, the “appropriate” response would have been a UNSC resolution about 5 years ago condemning Assad’s actions and his use of chemical weapons, and eventually a peacekeeping mission. But the reality is China and Russia are 100% opposed to regime change like that. The other reality is, there is literally no way to go into Syria without making Syria worse; Assad is terrible, so are most of his enemies. It’s a no win scenario.
That being said, there’s a difference between launching missiles and “going into” Syria. There’s also both American self-interest and international norm reasons to punish countries that use chemical weapons. This isn’t fringe behavior by Trump, it’s actually probably what Bill Clinton would’ve done, it’s what Hillary Clinton has said should be done, and basically all the usual suspects in Europe have said they supported the U.S. action. I understand some people are worried this is going to lead to greater involvement in Syria, ground invasion, potential strife with Russia. I argue none of that is necessary, if anything I think Trump is just correcting Obama’s mistake, Obama was unwilling to impose costs on Assad for using chemical weapons, and thus emboldened both Russia and Assad to go ever further in their behaviors.
Now, no doubt, things could go sideways. Trump could decide he likes pushing the red button and fast forward a few years and we’re in Iraq War 3.0 but in Syria this time. That would be a huge mistake. A very limited missile strike, in which we warned both Syria and Russia before hand, is basically a “fine”, because it destroyed military hardware that Assad wants/needs to continue prosecuting his war. If he has to calculate the costs of that in to future chemical weapons strikes, maybe he decides not to go that route.
There’s actually little strategic or tactical reason Assad needs to use chemical weapons, he’s basically winning the war with Putin’s help using almost exclusively conventional weapons. I speculate his occasional use of chemical weapons is part of some sort of strategy to “feel out” how much he can get away with. In that context all Trump has done is drawn borders around his behavior. All of this relies on Trump rigorously holding to that standard and not going down a fucked path of thinking where he feels compelled to do more.
I’d cc the White House on that as well.
Hmmm the raid in Yemen, and now this missile strike. Both of which were leftover plans from the Obama administration, and in both circumstances intelligence and cool headedness prevailed. It seems to me the Obama admin left some big shiny red “DO NOT PUSH” buttons out for Trump to spot first thing in case of emergency.
Not quite. Obama never officially went to Congress. He read the tea leaves and before he had to do anything, Putin bailed him out with the WMD plan. But he was clear that he believed he didn’t really NEED to get Congress’s approval-- only that it would be better told so. But remember that he had a bigger blow before that when Britain snubbed him and opted out. He was all alone in the plan to bomb Syria. Well, I guess he had Kerry and McCain and Graham behind him.
I don’t know what the goal was, although I tend to agree with some others that it was diversionary tactic designed to raise Trump’s poll numbers. Did he even accomplish that?
I think there’s very little chance that the situation is now better after airstrikes. I was opposed to involvement (including Obama’s relatively small amount of involvement) in Syria for the past 8 years, and I’m still opposed. Just stay out. Foreign military involvement will make things worse, not better, in 99% of the cases.
It depends. Would “those I knew would inform those we intended to target” also potentially be in danger by the strike? Were they not the intended target? Do they have thousands of nuclear warheads? If you answered “yes” to all three of those questions, I might not be too upset with you if you gave them a heads up, even if it meant some mechanics were able to evacuate the strike zone beforehand.
I agree. But I wouldn’t call Obama’s involvement “relatively small”. We’ve been bombing them for over a year.
You guys are going to harsh Abu Ivanka’s buzz.
“…some mechanics were able to evacuate the strike zone beforehand” Sounds to me like you’ve got real info as to who got killed. Care to share?
He really ended the ever-loving shit out of the Iraq War.