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

[PLATO]

Iraq wasn't a close Russian ally. Why would Russia allow a resolution to pass against one of it's allies?

As Dinner points out Iran have also dug in over it. Syria isn't just one little country you can walk in and ****kick, the wider consequences are potentially very dangerous. Which would explain why Obama has chosen to take the path he has.

Russia would likely support a resolution to bring an ongoing operation under UN control if it was currently under NATO control. It only makes sense as they have some measure of control through the UN and none through NATO.

Iran is the great wild card in the ME right now. I see it as unlikely that they will go directly against U.S. forces over Syria. If they widen the conflict to the point that the U.S. gets involved on the ground, then they will not come out the winners...and they know that. Their only hope would be to make it painful enough that the operation would lose all support from the U.S. electorate.

[PLATO]

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.

I actually think it is prudent to make sure on the intel. One of the big lessons of Iraq, imho, was to make damn sure before you start shooting. Once we are sure, then we will know the mettle of this President.

[DaShi]

Russia would likely support a resolution to bring an ongoing operation under UN control if it was currently under NATO control. It only makes sense as they have some measure of control through the UN and none through NATO.

What?

[PLATO]

What?

What, What?

[Hauldren Collider]

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.

This is Aeson in a nutshell. I advise you to just ignore him.

[DaShi]

I actually think it is prudent to make sure on the intel. One of the big lessons of Iraq, imho, was to make damn sure before you start shooting. Once we are sure, then we will know the mettle of this President.

No, you don't. You ripped into Obama on even less.

[DaShi]

What, What?

You're now claiming that NATO should move into Syria then ask the UN and Russia if it's OK? And you believe that Russia just going to go along with it?

[PLATO]

You're now claiming that NATO should move into Syria then ask the UN and Russia if it's OK? And you believe that Russia just going to go along with it?

No, that's not what I am claiming at all. I see your confusion.

I am saying that IF NATO established the safe zones and once they were made somewhat secure, that it would follow form that NATO would go to the UN to get a resolution to turn over control of these zones to the UN. I am saying that under those circumstances that the Russians would most likely go along with that resolution.

[DinoDoc]

I actually think it is prudent to make sure on the intel. One of the big lessons of Iraq, imho, was to make damn sure before you start shooting. Once we are sure, then we will know the mettle of this President.

In the history of intelligence analysis, how many reports reach the level of "certainty"?

[Sava]

wow this thread became quite the slap fight

[Aeson]

If nothing is done in response, in what situation (friend or foe) would anyone take seriously warnings from Obama again on anything?

In a situation where the friend or foe isn't an abject moron, and the stakes are actually of consequence. This obviously is not yet a situation that threatens US interests enough to warrant a military response, and so we're not going to find an excuse to start bombing/invading yet. But we actually don't want chemical weapons being used (it's not nice), so we'll try other means to keep it from happening.

If we get to the point where we feel it does threaten our interests, everyone knows the bombs will fly. Everyone also knows we'll have some sort of poorly reasoned logic to whitewash it if our interests aren't entirely admirable.

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.

Leaders draw lines all the time. Then they back down from them all the time. It's essentially what politicians do on a daily basis. They certainly don't act to the full extent of what conjectures could be drawn from their statements, except when they're genocidal maniacs.

Bush said, "you're either with us, or against us" ... how many nations did he invade for not joining his coalition? Yet he certainly was not just a paper tiger. Neither is Obama. (They are both flawed in that they're overly aggressive militarily in fact.)

[Aeson]

This is Aeson in a nutshell. I advise you to just ignore him.

And then spend the rest of your life posting at every opportunity about how you were impotent enough to not be able to handle someone on an internet forum ... like HC does.

[PLATO]

In the history of intelligence analysis, how many reports reach the level of "certainty"?

Probably quite a few I would think. That is not to say that this issue could obtain "certainty", but before we commit the U.S. military, I think we should exhaust a reasonable amount of effort to try and get as close as we can.

[PLATO]

No, you don't. You ripped into Obama on even less.

I think you are probably talking about Benghazi. Yes, I ripped him there good. There is a difference between letting terrorist hang out by the pool while we just watch and committing major military assets to secure chemical weapons in a hostile situation.

That being said, I suspect I already know what Obama would do if he had hard intel with a high level of confidence. He would probably do just what he is doing now...nothing.

[kentonio]

I am saying that IF NATO established the safe zones and once they were made somewhat secure, that it would follow form that NATO would go to the UN to get a resolution to turn over control of these zones to the UN. I am saying that under those circumstances that the Russians would most likely go along with that resolution.

How do you think the US would react if Russia decided to deal with the violence in Mexico by imposing a no fly zone over it? Why do you think Russia will react any differently if the US tries to do that over Syria without it's approval?

That being said, I suspect I already know what Obama would do if he had hard intel with a high level of confidence. He would probably do just what he is doing now...nothing.

Oh gosh, you don't like Obama? You've kept that hidden pretty well. Obviously he wouldn't do anything, which is why he didn't kill Bin Laden when he got the chance and didn't intervene in Libya.