"Let me be perfectly clear...make no mistake about it": Syria Edition

[Aeson]

I responded to a post responding to me. I'm not Zev and the word Hitler hasn't been posted by me in this thread until now of course.

I am glad we can clear up this last point of contention as "DD was responding about something irrelevant to what he quoted"

[Aeson]

I'm not saying Syria will "go Hitler" as you put it.

You just invoked Hitler in your OP, specifically why you think Hitler felt he could invade Poland. It was obvious you were trying to draw parallels to try to blow Obama's statements out of proportion.

Using rhetoric to try to diffuse or prevent situations from developing does not equate to the situation with Hitler. There are a great many other factors involved ... and in this case virtually none of those factors are anything like what they were with Nazi Germany. As such, you deserve to be ridiculed for the Godwin in your OP.

I am saying that Hitler was led to believe that his reckless behaviour would pay dividends for him because of French and English unwillingness to act against him; to follow their own red lines.

The blatantly obvious part you aren't grasping here is that the situation is nothing like it was with Nazi Germany. Thus assessment of the statements and actions made by leaders should be completely different. Bluffing against Syria about how they treat their citizens is a very different thing than it would be against Syria who invades a neighbor.

That general observation about how nations (not just Hitler) behave is applicable here. When the Americans fail to follow through on their threats, dictators, not just in Syria but everywhere are more inclined to believe that they will not follow through on other threats, whether that assessment is correct in fact or not.

If that's the point you wanted to make, then make it. Bringing up Hitler just made you ridiculous.

I'll just note that my analysis in regard to Obama's statements ... what you claim you're talking about here ... has been the part of my statements you have avoided addressing...

[Zevico]

You're making assumptions about my views that sound nice in your head even after I've told you those aren't my views. Just because you've used the words "obviously" does not make your assumption about my views true or accurate.

Providing a bleak historical example of the consequences of empty threats--in this case, England and France's many empty threats prior to World War 2--may strike you as laughable, but to me it is not a laughing matter.

[DaShi]

Zev, you can't post arguments, and they say they aren't your arguments when they are torn apart. Well, you can, but you look even worse doing that.

[DinoDoc]

I am glad we can clear up this last point of contention as "DD was responding about something irrelevant to what he quoted"

If you aren't responding to a point I made, it would be less confusing for me if you'd refrain from quoting me.

[Aeson]

You're making assumptions about my views that sound nice in your head even after I've told you those aren't my views. Just because you've used the words "obviously" does not make your assumption about my views true or accurate.

It's quite obvious that you invoked Hitler for a reason. I would accept your apology if it was just stupidity on your part, and you really couldn't comprehend the implications of what you say. But in any case, it's obvious you were wrong to Godwinize your OP.

Providing a bleak historical example of the consequences of empty threats--in this case, England and France's many empty threats prior to World War 2--may strike you as laughable, but to me it is not a laughing matter.

It's a laughing matter because you are being absurd on so many levels. Obama is a little vague to some tin-pot dictator who can't even cover his own ass, and you're spouting off about how this has some comparison to Hitler and WWII.

The reality is that invading Syria on the grounds that have been established so far would be orders of magnitude more detrimental to our interests than simply being vague about where the line actually is. Just admit that and stop making yourself look like such a raving lunatic.

[Aeson]

If you aren't responding to a point I made, it would be less confusing for me if you'd refrain from quoting me.

Sorry if addressing more than one simplistic point at a time makes it difficult for you to follow.

You had said that bluffing leads to a loss of credibility, and thus shouldn't be done. I was explaining to you how there are actually reasons to bluff, and applying that logic to analyze this specific situation. In doing so, I addressed the stupid assertion in the OP that the loss of credibility in this situation is somehow analogous to pre-WWII by pointing out the ways in which they are nothing alike.

You chose to respond to that. No one forced you to.

[DinoDoc]

You had said that bluffing leads to a loss of credibility, and thus shouldn't be done.

I actually said that bluffing if you aren't prepared to do anything if it is called leads to a loss of US credibility and influence and thus shouldn't be done. Are you trying to pull a Ben by rejecting my point and substituting it with one of your own choosing to argue against?

I was explaining to you how there are actually reasons to bluff, and applying that logic to analyze this specific situation.

I agree that there are reasons to bluff but when you make clear and unequivocal statements like this (I’ve made it clear to Bashar al-Assad and all who follow his orders: We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or the transfer of those weapons to terrorists. The world is watching; we will hold you accountable. - President Barack Obama: March 21, 2013) and the bluff is called, the jig is up.

[Aeson]

I actually said that bluffing if you aren't prepared to do anything if it is called leads to a loss of US credibility and influence and thus shouldn't be done.

Um ... bluffing already implies that you aren't going to (or can't) follow through on it if called. That's why it's called "bluffing".

Are you trying to pull a Ben by rejecting my point and substituting it with one of your own choosing to argue against?

Reading the actual meaning of a term into the use of the term is hardly rejecting your point. It seems you are the one who has a problem with your point.

"If POTUS had no intention of following through on his threat, he shouldn't have made it."

If taken literally, your statement simply means POTUS should never bluff. Clearly in this case the potential gains by bluffing far outweighed the possible losses.

I agree that there are reasons to bluff but when you make clear and unequivocal statements like this (I’ve made it clear to Bashar al-Assad and all who follow his orders: We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or the transfer of those weapons to terrorists. The world is watching; we will hold you accountable. - President Barack Obama: March 21, 2013) and the bluff is called, the jig is up.

Even if we accept that the jig is up ... so?

[Zevico]

It can affect credit, Aeson. That's the point.

How do the Iranians reconcile this statement and the proposition that the Americans are keeping "all options on the table", for example? How will that play into their assessments?

The more you bluff, the more other people think you're all bluff. It's not a healthy dynamic in a region filled with paranoid tin pot dictators and regimes.

Of course, it may be that this incident will not affect matters at all. And it may be that it will.

[Aeson]

It can affect credit, Aeson. That's the point.

It can also affect choices made. I've already address the potential harm to credibility. Sure, Obama could be viewed as weak if he doesn't back up his words. He would also have been viewed as weak if he doesn't make the threats at all.

The real difference between the first and the second is the first has a chance to prevent horrible things from happening.

It's unclear whether Obama has lost credibility over this. (Those who knee-jerkedly claim he has don't give him any credibility anyways, so it's impossible to lose it there.) It's unclear (and always will be) whether Obama's statements have kept any horrible things from happening. It's unclear whether the line was actually even crossed by the specific party it was leveled at.

What is abundantly clear is we should not get involved on the ground in Syria at this time, and there is potential to use rhetoric to achieve things even when the words can't be backed up.

Obama was right to use rhetoric to try to keep chemical weapons from being used. He's right to continue to try to use rhetoric to keep chemical weapons from being used even when it's clear someone used them to some small extent. If it becomes clear that a particular party is using chemical weapons, or becomes a big enough problem to warrant actual military response ... we will see what his response will be.

How do the Iranians reconcile this statement and the proposition that the Americans are keeping "all options on the table", for example? How will that play into their assessments?

"Keeping all options on the table" is as nebulous as it gets, and always necessarily a bluff to some extent. (Obama isn't going to glass over the entire ME for instance. That option is off the table for now and the conceivable future.)

The phrase is meaningless political mumbo-jumbo.

The more you bluff, the more other people think you're all bluff. It's not a healthy dynamic in a region filled with paranoid tin pot dictators and regimes.

If you never bluff, everyone knows exactly what they can get away with, and thus will always get away with as much as they possibly can. Also you paint yourself into corners where people can essentially dictate to you what your response will be.

(Also, bluffing paranoid people presents more potential than bluffing non-paranoid ones.)

The US has a well-documented history of military intervention into situations where our interests are involved (and sometimes when they're not). We've got that threat to back up our words covered. If Obama wasn't assassinating people with drones or special forces, didn't involve us in another pointless war, didn't continue the pointless wars he inherited ... then may it would make sense to call Obama a paper tiger.

Of course, it may be that this incident will not affect matters at all. And it may be that it will.

Of course. That's why comparing it to know situations that turned out horribly (to the tune of tens of millions dead) is jumping the gun a bit.

The obvious bits is that an invasion of Syria would be orders of magnitude more detrimental to our interests than simply wafflingor making a weaker response. (Like embargoes or wagging our finger while giving them the stink-eye.)

[Zevico]

He would also have been viewed as weak if he doesn't make the threats at all.

By whom? I don't think deciding not to make that threat would make him weak. I did not think him weak for declining to make it throughout the Syrian civil war, even though it had been ongoing for some time when he made it. People have been speculating about the possibility for some time.

It's unclear whether Obama has lost credibility over this.

It's quite possible.

It's unclear (and always will be) whether Obama's statements have kept any horrible things from happening.

Well, it's fairly clear they haven't prevented the Syrians from using chemical weapons.

It's unclear whether the line was actually even crossed by the specific party it was leveled at.

At this stage, there is evidence to indicate that it has, not least of which is the fact that the Administration has backtracked.

[Aeson]

By whom? I don't think deciding not to make that threat would make him weak.

It's a sure thing that if Obama had not addressed the use of chemical weapons at all, someone would have taken him to task on it by now. Probably the conservative wing of the media would have made a big stink of it shortly after chemical weapons were used. "Obama fails to prevent genocide" would be talked about for days on Fox and conservative talk radio.

This is standard operating procedure for both parties and their sheep.

You of course would have jumped on the Obama bashing bandwagon the second an article about it hit the internet.

Well, it's fairly clear they haven't prevented the Syrians from using chemical weapons.

That actually isn't clear.

You could say that is it clear that it didn't prevent the use of chemical weapons in every possible instance by whatever party was actually responsible for the use of chemical weapons (that still being unclear).

We will likely never know if there were cases where chemical weapons would have been used, but weren't due to Obama's rhetoric. And certainly we can never be certain that there weren't such cases.

At this stage, there is evidence to indicate that it has, not least of which is the fact that the Administration has backtracked.

Obama recently made a similar statement to one he made in August of last year. Clearly his statement in that regard was not necessarily evidence that the Administration feels the line had been crossed, as there are obviously other reasons that have brought him to make such statements in the past (prior to chemical weapons being used).

The evidence that has been released to the public is not clear at all. Reading the evidence that may or may not exist which has not been made public via statements Obama has made is essentially just going with your preconceived biases and pretending they are something other than that.

[DinoDoc]

Even if we accept that the jig is up ... so?

If nothing is done in response, in what situation (friend or foe) would anyone take seriously warnings from Obama again on anything? This is why leaders are usually reluctant to draw "red lines" as laying them out forces them to take action when the line they publicly and repeatedly set out is violated. The standard of proof being demanded from the Admin now (demanding certainty and a chain of custody) indicate that they don't want to or would rather not take any action in response to this. Hence my reason for saying that it would have been better if he had not commented on the situation at all.

[PLATO]

1) There really aren't any pro-US rebels. The best we'll get is people who don't actively want to kill Americans and attack Israel vs ones which do want to do both of those things.
2) Terrible idea as they'll just eventually end up in the hands of people like the Taliban just like when Reagan flooded Afghanistan with weapons.
3) Do you not remember what happened in Bosnia? Assad already has proven he doesn't give a crap what anyone else says so what happens when he attacks a "safe area"? We'd either have to go full on invasion or ignore it like what happened in Bosnia neither of those are good options especially since neither Russia nor China would let the UN set up such safe areas so really it would only be based upon the US's unilateral demands which, naturally, many other nations would oppose simply as a matter of sovereignty. No one wants the US making unsanctioned declarations about other people's territory.
4) This might, I repeat, might be possible if either Turkey or Iraq agree to give us basing rights (I already know Iraq will not) but they'd have to worry about attacks, even terrorist attacks, from Iran and Syria so I doubt even our Turkish friends would be keen with the idea. Lebanon is Assad's butt buddy so they're out and that just leaves Cyprus where the UK does have a small base but it's not huge and certainly couldn't host a large force. Maybe Jordan might want to help but I some how doubt it; it's one thing to train rebels secretly and another to host the big bad evil foreign imperialists if you know what I mean.
5) Sure, why not. We're already a big relief aid supplier and we might get some limited good will out of this.
6) It wouldn't get past Russia or China.
7) The problem is you'll get sucked in just as soon as Assad fires artillery into your self declared "safe zone" so either you put boots on the ground (who will become magnets for terrorists just like the Lebanon bombing under Reagan) or you just steer clear.

Our best option is very limited air strikes to show our symbolic disapprove, drop some food and medical supplies, and then call it a day. No weapons for Muslim fundamentalists and no boots on the ground nor the creation of any unsanctioned "safe areas" which we'd have to defend.

1.) Sadly, you may be right here, but it looks like the AQ based rebels are the most cohesive rebel units. Why would we let the worst scenario play out?
2.) Maybe, but Syria's arsenal is likely to end up in the hands of the Taliban's allies as it is. Again, why not pick the lesser of the evils?
3.) Yes I do remember. We had 100 lightly armed Dutch ground troops trying to stop an army without air support. This is not the scenario I am talking about. More like the Libya scenario where there was massive and aggressive air sorties. I am not talking about a UN resolution to set up the safe areas. A NATO operation to do this is likely to get support if the U.S. takes the lead.
4.) Yes, I think Turkey would be key. Given the problems the revolution is causing them and the animosity they have against Assad, I believe that they would be on board if the mission was NATO led. Incirlik could handle the entire operation.
5.) Generally a good idea no matter what else I think. problem is the regime shooting at them. Control of the air would have to happen first.
6.) Russia and China would be all over getting U.S. forces deescalated and replacing them with UN forces...particularly if we allowed Russian and Chinese allies to take the lead.
7.) I have confidence enough in our air power to make it painful enough to Assad to not do to much shelling of "safe zones"