View Full Version : U.S. Special Forces may be the answer in Syria
Dog Pound Zulu
09-08-2013, 18:04
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnists-blogs/guest-columnists/u-s-special-forces-may-be-the-answer-in-syria/article_63a15e93-9c8f-5a24-9a6d-e959416e8d20.html
U.S. Special Forces may be the answer in Syria
BY KEVIN GRAY | Posted: Sunday, September 8, 2013 12:00 am
I have been adamant over the past two years that the U.S. should not remain idle during the Syrian civil war, not only as thousands of
lives are lost, but as regional stability is threatened and an outcome beneficial to American interests becomes increasingly less likely.
Though saddened by the terrible event that forced a more active American approach, I am glad that the debate has come to the forefront.
However, I’m afraid retaliatory and punitive air strikes (the targets to which have already been shown on the cable news networks with
odd specificity, apparently operating under the assumption that no one watches CNN in Damascus) will be a perfunctory effort and
ultimately serve only as a preventative measure against the loss of U.S. credibility.
In his statements on Aug. 31, President Obama outlined what he would hope to accomplish and the way in which he would have it
accomplished: “We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But
I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior and degrade
their capacity to carry it out.”
The question of the efficacy of potential air strikes has been commented upon by many more qualified to do so than myself, but it is
hard to see the merits even supposing the desired effect is achieved. Holding the Assad regime accountable neither benefits the rebels
nor furthers American interests. If a response from the U.S. that is limited in duration and scope would act as a deterrent against future
chemical attacks, then surely it should follow that the threat of such a response would do the same (which obviously it did not).
In fact, as Foreign Policy’s Peter Feaver suggests, it is even conceivable that a limited U.S. response is precisely the outcome the
Assad regime is hoping for, potentially calculating “that Obama’s manifest desire not to intervene in the civil war will yield a tepid U.S.
strike that Assad can easily withstand. Defying the United States and living to boast about it might be the game-changer Assad needs to
demoralize the rebels into making major concessions.”
follow that the U.S. should continue its policy of non-intervention in Syria? Not necessarily. An option which has not
been thoroughly explored is the insertion of U.S. Army Special Forces.
SF is always the answer. Anything, anytime, anyplace.
In this case, the powers- that- be might want to ask for an opinion before planning any operations...
Trapper John
09-08-2013, 18:18
And what mission in Syria might that be? FID? UW? DA? I just don't see it. :confused:
Can anyone draw up an outline of a mission that has an achievable objective appropriate for SF in Syria?
And what mission in Syria might that be? FID? UW? DA? I just don't see it. :confused:
Can anyone draw up an outline of a mission that has an achievable objective appropriate for SF in Syria?
Facilitating MAD.
Trapper John
09-08-2013, 18:26
Facilitating MAD.
Yep, that's what I thought :D
I'm thinking more like Sherman's march to the sea.....slash and burn, etc....
UW, with whom...Al Qaida surrogates.
DA....no.....you'd need Bn+ DA in that AO....
Training AQ in Jordan...beauty...how the hell do you vet whom you train...like the Zeta's or some of our fine friends in Astan.
Supposedly it is done for us....
loser all the way round.
Remington Raidr
09-08-2013, 20:44
Job One is to make the POTUS look good. Deaths or permanent injuries are not even in the equation.
Peregrino
09-08-2013, 21:10
Job One is to make the POTUS look good. Deaths or permanent injuries are not even in the equation.;)
You might want to consider using the sarcasm font for that one. "Winky" is likely to be misinterpreted. With negative results.
mark46th
09-08-2013, 21:36
So much for opsec. This government hasn't learned the "Speak softly and carry a big stick" that Teddy Roosevelt put so eloquently. They are swaggering bullies, nothing more than paper tigers....
SF is always the answer. Anything, anytime, anyplace.
In this case, the powers- that- be might want to ask for an opinion before planning any operations...
Can I just add a :lifter to that post...very well said, IMVSHO.
This Country would be/will be better run if an SF Man were President.
Holly
mark46th
09-08-2013, 21:46
Don't forget- Most of the public thinks Special Forces is really the SEALs...
As good as all of you guys are at doing what you do, I don't want to see anyone put in harm's way over Syria. I have equated this situation to POTUS' game of Chicken. I don't think he thought anyone would dare to disagree with him, and now he is stuck trying to save face.
jMO that the military as a whole will be better used in future crises that arise from the debacle POTUS has created by diminishing the presence and power that the US has historically wielded.
Stratfor's latest article ref: Syria also mentions this policy.
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/syria-renewed-focus-arming-rebels [Sorry link allows members only I think].
It discusses a shift of the situation to pentagon control and how that might mean a shift in forces used (to SF) to achieve US objectives. I'll be curious to see how much more of this chatter appears and what opinion is about this as an option. :munchin
Trapper John
09-09-2013, 06:06
Can I just add a :lifter to that post...very well said, IMVSHO.
This Country would be/will be better run if an SF Man were President.
Holly
And if that were the case, an SF mission in Syria wouldn't even be fleeting thought. :D
A Dilemma for Syria's Minorities
http://www.aina.org/news/20130907123349.htm
"The Obama administration -- with the backing of key Republicans in Congress -- is poised to embark on a strategy that entails punitive airstrikes on Syrian government positions and stepped-up lethal aid to moderate elements of the Syrian opposition.
So far, however, the Syrian opposition has been unable to win significant support from the country's ethnic and religious minorities. Without such support, the opposition is unlikely to prevail even with stepped-up U.S. assistance. Moreover, the inability of the Syrian rebels, who are almost all Sunni Muslim Arabs, to win over the country's Kurds, Alawites and Christians raises the question of whether their victory is even desirable.
Over the last year, I have met with Kurdish, Christian and Alawite representatives as part of an effort to help prepare them to negotiate for their communities in a post-Bashar Assad Syria. I have been struck by the sense of unease they all feel about what may follow in Syria. (By most estimates, each group is about 11% of Syria's population, although Christian numbers have dropped in recent years and Kurdish numbers have risen.)......"
So just who are we going to help? Somebody who if they win are going to declare open season on +/- 33% of the population?
medic&commo
09-09-2013, 06:27
Don't forget- Most of the public thinks Special Forces is really the SEALs...
Aren't we all the same, just different branches of the military? :confused:
And thanks Holly for that vote of confidence.
m&c
Trapper John
09-09-2013, 06:45
A Dilemma for Syria's Minorities
http://www.aina.org/news/20130907123349.htm
So just who are we going to help? Somebody who if they win are going to declare open season on +/- 33% of the population?
And that is EXACTLY why there is a no win scenario in Syria or any other muslim dominate country, IMO. Not exactly tolerant of minorities are they?
Can anyone draw up an outline of a mission that has an achievable objective appropriate for SF in Syria?
The primary mission of the United States Army Special Forces is to train, organize and direct indigenous forces in the conduct of unconventional warfare.
The Israeli's have an expression for it, roughly translated from the Hebrew:
"to create a new reality."
It is within the capability and mission of Special Forces to develop the rebels into an armed force capable of overthrowing the government of Assad.
PedOncoDoc
09-09-2013, 08:44
The primary mission of the United States Army Special Forces is to train, organize and direct indigenous forces in the conduct of unconventional warfare.
The Israeli's have an expression for it, roughly translated from the Hebrew:
"to create a new reality."
It is within the capability and mission of Special Forces to develop the rebels into an armed force capable of overthrowing the government of Assad.
Achievable, yes....but desirable? :confused:
mark46th
09-09-2013, 08:57
" I have been struck by the sense of unease they all feel about what may follow in Syria."
Someone remembers Pol Pot?
Syria is a "Hearts and Minds" mission SAC style (now ACC).
Richard
" I have been struck by the sense of unease they all feel about what may follow in Syria."
Someone remembers Pol Pot?
As long as the press fails to report it to the low info voter in the US "Well, it never happened."
And that is EXACTLY why there is a no win scenario in Syria or any other muslim dominate country, IMO. Not exactly tolerant of minorities are they?
Which seems like it is such a no-brainier decision that even our political leaders could understand and make the right one. I am hoping public opinion will sway these guys with 8 of 10 citizens being against action.
Obama authorizes the use of Vice President Joe Biden's double-barrel shotgun to fire a couple of blasts at Syria - The Peoples Cube
What's shaping up to happen is Russia coercing Syria to give up some chem weapons so that the whole thing gets dropped, turning Kerry and Obama into the "heroes who won Armaggedon without sacrificing American lives".
Other than the four in Benghazi.
Trapper John
09-09-2013, 11:56
The primary mission of the United States Army Special Forces is to train, organize and direct indigenous forces in the conduct of unconventional warfare.
The Israeli's have an expression for it, roughly translated from the Hebrew:
"to create a new reality."
It is within the capability and mission of Special Forces to develop the rebels into an armed force capable of overthrowing the government of Assad.
What PedOncDoc said :D
Trapper John
09-09-2013, 12:02
" I have been struck by the sense of unease they all feel about what may follow in Syria."
Someone remembers Pol Pot?
You bet! :lifter
Oh, BTW, Dusty, you get the prize - that's the most likely outcome of all of this IMO.
Pat, what prizes do we have for Dusty??
You bet! :lifter
Oh, BTW, Dusty, you get the prize - that's the most likely outcome of all of this IMO.
Pat, what prizes do we have for Dusty??
Agree 100%, very well said again Dusty Sir. Indeed this administration would love to just forget all about the 4 dead Americans, so Hill can continue on her path to her manicures and pedicures, and the transgender cabanna boys she keeps chained up for pleasure... :rolleyes:
POS'S ALL OF 'EM
But back to Syria, one can only hope that SF Men would be in charge of anything having to do with it. That way, it would get done right. Period.
JMVSHO
Holly
...Benghazi...
Anybody ever read this? Start on p18.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf
Richard
Trapper John
09-09-2013, 14:24
But, but what about that horrid video that defamed the prophet Muhammad? No mention of that in the ARB report. What, you mean the Administration proffered a falsehood on the populace just before an election? Now, just why would they do that? Unbelievable, just unbelievable.
But, but what about that horrid video that defamed the prophet Muhammad? No mention of that in the ARB report. What, you mean the Administration proffered a falsehood on the populace just before an election? Now, just why would they do that? Unbelievable, just unbelievable.
How can you be talking about (Benghazi) when Syria's happening?
Trapper John
09-09-2013, 14:43
How can you be talking about (Benghazi) when Syria's happening?
Your right, what difference does it make at this point anyway?
mark46th
09-09-2013, 14:51
"What's shaping up to happen is Russia coercing Syria to give up some chem weapons so that the whole thing gets dropped, turning Kerry and Obama into the "heroes who won Armaggedon without sacrificing American lives"." Dusty
Assad will give us the weapons that Sadaam stashed with him and keep his own stockpile intact....
Syria is a "Hearts and Minds" mission SAC style (now ACC).
Richard
I say air drop 'em Hachettes and PCP… that might make for some good “Muslim on Muslim” crime!
TacOfficer
09-09-2013, 15:27
"What's shaping up to happen is Russia coercing Syria to give up some chem weapons so that the whole thing gets dropped, turning Kerry and Obama into the "heroes who won Armaggedon without sacrificing American lives"." Dusty
Assad will give us the weapons that Sadaam stashed with him and keep his own stockpile intact....
What really caught my attention today was that USSR's Putin ( I know its 2013), put forth the idea of Syria surrendering chemical weapons. I wish I knew what the pay back for Putin will be for giving Obama and Kerry a face saving out.
The short term scenario concerning Russia that I envisioned was Obama launching missiles with little effect. Russia completing their sale of air defense components to Syria to protect the children from the Imperialist crusaders followed by taking a defensive posture at or near their naval base located in Syria.
This would have forced Obama’s hand and embarrassed the US. Putin just may be savvy enough to know it’s better to have Obama in his dept, than to embarrass the US to such an extent that POTUS escalates the conflict just to keep his ego from being bruised. :munchin
Peregrino
09-09-2013, 17:35
Putin just may be savvy enough to know it’s better to have Obama in his dept, than to embarrass the US to such an extent that POTUS escalates the conflict just to keep his ego from being bruised. :munchin
The amateurs we have running our foreign policy are clueless. Just because Putin is ruthless, doesn't mean he's also stupid. Makes me wish our own leaders were as worthy of cautious respect. Of course if they were, we wouldn't be in this mess now - would we?
Utah Bob
09-09-2013, 17:50
Wel, I fully support the use of Special Forces in Syria.
As long as they're French. ;)
Wel, I fully support the use of Special Forces in Syria.
As long as they're French. ;)
Or Russian SPETZNAZ like these guys trained in the "Swirling E-Tool Of Death" technique taught by giduck dynasty.
TacOfficer
09-09-2013, 19:09
Or Russian SPETZNAZ like these guys trained in the "Swirling E-Tool Of Death" technique taught by giduck dynasty.
Say what you want, they're wearing the right boots for the sh*t they're likely to step in. :p
What really caught my attention today was that USSR's Putin ( I know its 2013), put forth the idea of Syria surrendering chemical weapons. I wish I knew what the pay back for Putin will be for giving Obama and Kerry a face saving out.
The short term scenario concerning Russia that I envisioned was Obama launching missiles with little effect. Russia completing their sale of air defense components to Syria to protect the children from the Imperialist crusaders followed by taking a defensive posture at or near their naval base located in Syria.
This would have forced Obama’s hand and embarrassed the US. Putin just may be savvy enough to know it’s better to have Obama in his dept, than to embarrass the US to such an extent that POTUS escalates the conflict just to keep his ego from being bruised. :munchin
I disagree, this is not what Obama wants. Kerry putting his foot in his mouth and making this offer completely upset Obama's agenda. I believe that Obama wants to attack. I have heard different theories like he want's to save face, he want's to take U.S. voters away from his failed domestic policy but the one that reeks of conspiracy but has a lot of evidence to support it and makes sense, is the Saudi's want the war, and are leveraging influence on Obama to make it happen. Whatever they have that he wants it's pretty big.
I think Putin jumped on this mistake not to help Obama, but because he is so much better at international relations than Obama ever will be (think of chess, Putin is 4-5 moves ahead, and Obama is trying to figure out why he made his last move). Putin want's to knock down Obama, they do not like each other at all and he is enough of a megalomaniac to push it as far as he needs too. Putin jumped on this offer because he knows Assad will never give them up but they can slow roll this for weeks if not months and gather more international support to block military intervention.
This is not over I predict before the year is out we will launch missiles into Syria with or without congressional or international support.
Peregrino
09-09-2013, 19:43
Entire post.
Hmmmmm. That is some serious food for thought.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/?hp=ar
Obama to hold Syria interviews with 6 TV networks
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN |
9/7/13 3:24 PM EDT
President Obama will sit for interviews Monday with six TV networks as he makes his case to the nation for military intervention in Syria.
Obama will tape interviews Monday afternoon with anchors from ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as with PBS, CNN and Fox News, the White House said.
The interviews will be conducted by ABC's Diane Sawyer, CBS's Scott Pelley, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Fox's Chris Wallace, NBC's Brian Williams and PBS's Gwen Ifill.
The interviews will air that night, ahead of Obama's Tuesday speech on Syria
Even with Russian offer on the table he is still on a full court press to get support. I saw one report that said Boehner and his office are actually helping Obama, by giving them talking points that would resonate with Republicans and get them on there side. That is the Republican leadership working with the Democrats to manipulate the people of the U.S. into going to war.
Trapper John
09-09-2013, 20:14
Hmmmmm. That is some serious food for thought.
No kidding, very good MaxTab - very, very good. I have been trying to figure out who has what to gain (or lose) if the Hassad regime is toppled. Syria has been a proxy war from the start. Russia/Iran want the current regime in power. Destabilizing Syria is not in their interests at all. So how do the Saudis benefit? Do they fear the Russia/Iran axis? Wouldn't destabilization in Syria threaten them? Why wouldn't they back Hassad? Something is missing here, but I think you are on to something with that thought,Bro. Worth a walk down that path, IMO. Turkey must figure into this too. How does the Sunni/Shia issue figure into this?
No kidding, very good MaxTab - very, very good. I have been trying to figure out who has what to gain (or lose) if the Hassad regime is toppled. Syria has been a proxy war from the start. Russia/Iran want the current regime in power. Destabilizing Syria is not in their interests at all. So how do the Saudis benefit? Do they fear the Russia/Iran axis? Wouldn't destabilization in Syria threaten them? Why wouldn't they back Hassad? Something is missing here, but I think you are on to something with that thought,Bro. Worth a walk down that path, IMO. Turkey must figure into this too. How does the Sunni/Shia issue figure into this?
Saudi Arabia and Qatar want a natural gas pipeline to go from them through Syria to Turkey and then right to Europe. It would be worth 100's of Billions of dollars. Syria denied them but made a joint agreement with both Iran and Russia for a pipeline. Isn't it interesting that Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab countries have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily. So not only would we be the Air Force for Al Qaeda, we would be the mercenaries for Saudi Arabia.
Also Syria and Iran are Shia, and the rebels and Saudi Arabia are Sunni which is a whole other nightmare, just look at Iraq. If they start a war it could very easily end up with two of Saudi Arabia's chief enemies trying to bomb each other into oblivion, Shia Syria and Iran against Israel, and Saudi Arabia and Qatar (where Al Jazeera is from) don't have to shed any blood, just spend money. but if they get a Sunni Government in they will be able to make it up 1000 times over with the natural Gas Pipeline.
Saudi has backed AQ for years.
That statement implies that it is the Saudi "government" - the government isn't.
Richard
That statement implies that it is the Saudi "government" - the government isn't.
Richard
Well maybe not publicly.
Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. ... As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/dont-show-obama-report-about-who-really-behind-syrian-chemical-attacks
I'm not sure about this report as I am not familiar with this web site. But You can't believe that the Saudi Royalty do not support either directly or indirectly AQ.
TacOfficer
09-09-2013, 21:21
I suppose I wasn't clear or I didn't present my thought well enough. I don't believe Obama is seeking a way out of the Syria without force. He is committed to military action and cannot resolve the fact that any introduction of third party intervention will benefit at least one side. He fails to realize he's being played. IMHO this is not the proxy war of the 21st century the US wants any part of. I'm sure the thought of the Sunnis and Shiite's battling in American/infidel blood would please many in parts of the Kingdom. If the Saudis want a war, they can have at it and we'll be happy to train and equip them for just compensation.
Obama probably doesn't even realize the opening Putin is giving him, let alone thank him. He does not have the capacity to duel with Putin on an international diplomacy stage and will continue to paint himself in a corner. The Saudi's seem to have taken a page from the cold war, in which they are leveraging strategic resources to manipulate proxies for there own agenda.
The gas line thru Syria, is news to me but, jeeze. Please tell me our administration can work that to our advantage? Please.
Your last two posts...
I think this just might be spot on. I was reading about the gas line issue somewhere else in the not so distant past before all this mess arose. I think the Saudis are the puppet masters right now WRT POTUS, and Putin capitalizing on POTUS' mistakes. His foreign policy skills suck, needless to say. But this idea of the Saudi involvement has real merit. Follow the money trail.
Within a week or two, the press will say, "See? That's why he won the Peace Prize!"
Paragrouper
09-10-2013, 06:00
Within a week or two, the press will say, "See? That's why he won the Peace Prize!"
I don't know Dusty, the media may have to dredge up Benghazi just to draw attention away from this cluster fuck.
While the Govt may not have officially backed them, many of the rich upper class folks have while the Govt turned a blind eye. To me that is the same damn thing.
Some Saudis did at one time - but now? There have been major on-going "follow the money trail" programs conducted against such support since 2001.
Familial politics vs governmental politics; there can be a venn diagram of overlapping interest(s), especially in a society like Saudi Arabia's, but it doesn't necessarily equate to either government policy or acquiesence on their part.
Riichard
Well, they've found a way to pay for Syria
'Obama to Cut Military Pay Raise Nearly in Half'
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/09/Obama-To-Cut-Military-Pay-Raise-Nearly-In-Half
"...Obama said even though he is "strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service members," the U.S. is still recovering "from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare" and that America has to stay "on a sustainable fiscal course."
The Navy Times says Congress may override Obama's pay order but would need $580 million to offset the difference in 2014. By comparison, Obama spent $1,010,354,195 on Syrian humanitarian aid for fiscal years 2012 and 2013.........."
Well, they've found a way to pay for Syria
'Obama to Cut Military Pay Raise Nearly in Half'
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/09/Obama-To-Cut-Military-Pay-Raise-Nearly-In-Half
"...Obama said even though he is "strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service members," the U.S. is still recovering "from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare" and that America has to stay "on a sustainable fiscal course."
The Navy Times says Congress may override Obama's pay order but would need $580 million to offset the difference in 2014. By comparison, Obama spent $1,010,354,195 on Syrian humanitarian aid for fiscal years 2012 and 2013.........."
No surprise. He's not running for office.
I'd like to thank each and every one of the geniuses who voted for this guy. Splendid decision. :rolleyes:
Excerpt from editorial by Norman Podhoretz
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323595004579062811443943666.html
According to Mr. Podhoretz, Obama's seemingly amateurish efforts at foreign policy are a part of his plan to reduce America to a second rate player in the world scene.
......Since he had enough support for the policies that this objective entailed, those constraints were fairly loose, and so he only needed a minimum of rhetorical deception in pursuing it. All it took was to deny he was doing what he was doing by frequently singing the praises of the free-enterprise system he was assiduously working to undermine, by avoiding the word "socialism," by invoking "fairness" as an overriding ideal and by playing on resentment of the "rich."
But foreign policy was another matter. As a left-wing radical, Mr. Obama believed that the United States had almost always been a retrograde and destructive force in world affairs.Accordingly, the fundamental transformation he wished to achieve here was to reduce the country's power and influence. And just as he had to fend off the still-toxic socialist label at home, so he had to take care not to be stuck with the equally toxic "isolationist" label abroad.
This he did by camouflaging his retreats from the responsibilities bred by foreign entanglements as a new form of "engagement." At the same time, he relied on the war-weariness of the American people and the rise of isolationist sentiment (which, to be sure, dared not speak its name) on the left and right to get away with drastic cuts in the defense budget, with exiting entirely from Iraq and Afghanistan, and with "leading from behind" or using drones instead of troops whenever he was politically forced into military action.
The consequent erosion of American power was going very nicely when the unfortunately named Arab Spring presented the president with several juicy opportunities to speed up the process. "First in Egypt, his incoherent moves resulted in a complete loss of American influence, and now, thanks to his handling of the Syrian crisis, he is bringing about a greater diminution of American power than he probably envisaged even in his wildest radical dreams.
For this fulfillment of his dearest political wishes, Mr. Obama is evidently willing to pay the price of a sullied reputation. In that sense, he is by his own lights sacrificing himself for what he imagines is the good of the nation of which he is the president, and also to the benefit of the world, of which he loves proclaiming himself a citizen.
The problem for Mr. Obama is that at least since the end of World War II, Americans have taken pride in being No. 1. Unless the American people have been as fundamentally transformed as their country is quickly becoming, America's decline will not sit well. With more than three years in office to go, will Mr. Obama be willing and able to endure the continuing erosion of his popularity that will almost certainly come with the erosion of the country's power and influence?
No doubt he will either deny that anything has gone wrong, or failing that, he will resort to his favorite tactic of blaming others—Congress or the Republicans or Rush Limbaugh. But what is also almost certain is that he will refuse to change course and do the things that will be necessary to restore U.S. power and influence.
And so we can only pray that the hole he will go on digging will not be too deep for his successor to pull us out, as Ronald Reagan managed to do when he followed a president into the White House whom Mr. Obama so uncannily resembles.
Remember how I said Boehner was giving the WH talking points?
But Obama said it's important to "keep the pressure on." Roughly quoting the late President Ronald Reagan, he said: "It's not enough just to trust. I think we're going to have to verify."
The president also brushed off comments made earlier by Bashar Assad in which he threatened that there could be "repercussions" if the U.S. attacks.
Assad's military capabilities are "not significant relative to the U.S. military," Obama said.
His ignorance of there ability to attack our allies Israel (maybe he doesn't care), or even to attack the U.S. is absolutely amazing. Yes head to head we would obviously win, but they have learned a lot from Afghanistan and Iraq and our southern border is wide open, and has been for a long time.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/obama-backs-off-red-line-opens-door-to-diplomatic-track-on-syria/#ixzz2eUoC4dIL
In another article...
Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said the proposal came only because Assad feels the threat of military force and that Congress should continue considering Obama’s request for legislative backing. But the two said the proposal should be given a chance — and a test of its sincerity — by being committed to writing in a U.N. Security Council resolution.
“We should not trust, and we must verify,” the pair said in a joint statement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/john-kerry-in-london-campaigns-for-world-to-support-military-strike-against-syria/2013/09/09/e8ad7a72-193d-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_print.html
Interesting talking points don't you think.
How can you be talking about (Benghazi) when Syria's happening?
I was listening to Glen Beck this morning, and I heard an interesting theory.
The reason this will be a very very small, limited attack (from kerry) is that they know the rebels aren't going to win and too many people know that AQ and Jihadists are fighting for them so they want these "limited" strikes to be used as cover for them destroying evidence of weapons running from....wait for it...Benghazi into the rebels hands. They don't want Assad going on T.V. showing proof of U.S. weapons especially if they are Surface to Air missiles, or who know's what else that they were given, that should not be in the hands of AQ. It would blow the lid of off Benghazi and what was going on there, and explain why they didn't want the military involved during the attack a year ago. They wanted to keep that knowledge in the CIA or in the grave.
I'm not saying I 100% believe this but it is food for thought, and explains why he has such a hard on for military action even if it "doesn't accomplish" much.
I don't know Dusty, the media may have to dredge up Benghazi just to draw attention away from this cluster fuck.
No worries in the media about collateral or US Military deaths. They're concerned solely with whether Obama gets out of a "bind".
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world/middleeast/surprise-russian-proposal-catches-obama-between-putin-and-house-republicans.html?hp&_r=1&
WASHINGTON — President Obama woke up Monday facing a Congressional defeat that many in both parties believed could hobble his presidency. And by the end of the day, he found himself in the odd position of relying on his Russian counterpart, Vladimir V. Putin, of all people, to bail him out.
The surprise Russian proposal to defuse the American confrontation with Syria made a tenuous situation even more volatile for a president struggling to convince a deeply skeptical public of the need for the United States to respond militarily in yet another Middle Eastern country, this time in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons. It could make the situation even more precarious. Or it could give Mr. Obama an escape from a predicament partly of his own making.
In effect, Mr. Obama is now caught between trying to work out a deal with Mr. Putin, with whom he has been feuding lately, or trying to win over Republicans in the House who have made it their mission to block his agenda. Even if he does not trust Mr. Putin, Mr. Obama will have to decide whether to treat the Russian proposal seriously or assume it is merely a means of obstructing an American military strike.
“Putin knows that everyone wants an out, so he’s providing one,” said Fiona Hill, a former national intelligence officer and co-author of “Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin.” “It seems like a bold idea that will get everyone, including Obama, out of a bind that they don’t want to be in.”
But, she said, it may be an idea that derails a strike for now without solving the underlying problem. Indeed, the Senate quickly postponed plans for a vote authorizing an attack.
“It just adds to the uncertainty and makes a vote soon a little more difficult,” said Howard Berman, a Democrat and former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “It just gets dragged out and causes the Congress to say let’s wait to see what happens with this before they vote.”
All of which had White House speechwriters revising their drafts before Mr. Obama addresses the nation Tuesday night in what is shaping up as one of the most challenging moments of his presidency. He hoped to explain why it was necessary to retaliate for a chemical weapons attack that, according to United States intelligence, killed more than 1,400 in Syria, but also reassure Americans the result would not be another Iraq war.
Now Mr. Obama needs to also explain why Congress should still vote to authorize such a strike in the face of a possible diplomatic solution and what if any conditions would satisfy him enough to order American destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea not to act, at least for now. And he has to win over a public that by significant margins opposes American military action.
“Their path to success is really, really tough,” said Joel P. Johnson, who was a counselor to President Bill Clinton. “I don’t think there’s any question that they went into this eyes wide open, knowing how tough this was going to be, and volatile and unpredictable, and probably will be hour to hour until there’s a vote.”
The twists and turns in the Syria debate have whipsawed the nation’s capital and by some accounts imperiled Mr. Obama’s presidency. Democrats are mystified and in some cases livid with Mr. Obama for asking Congress to decide the matter instead of simply ordering one or two days of strikes and getting it over with.
By most estimates, the Republican-controlled House would reject authorizing such an attack if the vote were held now, and it is not clear whether the Democrat-led Senate would approve it. Few presidents have lost such a major vote on war and peace in the almost century since the Senate rejected Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations.
In their private moments, Mr. Obama’s allies said even the argument that his presidency would for all intents and purposes be over did not sway some unsympathetic Democrats, frustrated over how few victories there have been to hang on to in Mr. Obama’s fifth year in office.
Although Mr. Obama’s decision to ask for a Congressional vote has come to be seen as a strategic mistake, White House officials consider that hypocritical second-guessing from lawmakers who want to have it both ways. “One of the things we heard with near unanimity was a desire by Congress to have its voice heard and its vote counted,” said Antony Blinken, a deputy national security adviser to Mr. Obama.
Some Democrats argue that their colleagues worry too much. Even if Mr. Obama lost the vote, they argue, this would not be the decisive moment many anticipate. “Yes, it’ll take some wind out of his sails temporarily,” said Matt Bennett, a former aide to Mr. Clinton. “But our sense is it’s not going to be long lived.”
The Russian proposal came days after Mr. Obama returned from a tense trip to St. Petersburg, where Mr. Putin hosted a meeting of the Group of 20 and rallied opposition to any American strike on Syria.
Mr. Obama cautiously embraced Russia’s plan on Monday to avert a strike by having President Bashar al-Assad of Syria turn over chemical weapons to the international community, but it remained uncertain whether it would succeed. Russia has tried to intervene before other American-led military actions. But none of the moves proved meaningful.
Snip
That statement implies that it is the Saudi "government" - the government isn't.
Very true.
...Putin jumped on this offer because he knows Assad will never give them up but they can slow roll this for weeks if not months and gather more international support to block military intervention.
‘Putin shipping Assad more weapons to crush rebels’
http://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-shipping-assad-more-weapons-to-crush-rebels/
‘We Just Got Played’: Shep Smith’s Brutal Summary of What Just Happened in the Syria Conflict
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/10/we-just-got-played-shep-smiths-brutal-summary-of-what-just-happened-in-the-syria-conflict/
Can you say slow roll.
entire quote; but specifically: How does the Sunni/Shia issue figure into this?
The Sunni / Shia thing apparently figures a great deal in this, IMHO. If the muslims can't find kaffir (Christians, Jews, Hindus) to kill, they will gladly commit mayhem and murder on those muslims not of their sect, or those muslims not deemed "muslim" enough, or... well, you get the general idea.