The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Imperializt Russia]

... I watched MSNBC last night, specifically All In With Chris Hayes, and he was right to say that the argument of "war or nothing" is a false choice. He suggested that we could support the refugee flood from Syria, and give them a faster path to citizen-refugee status here, as has Sweden. We could have not ordered the 200 Tomahawks or spent their hundreds of millions of dollars' worth on helping the UN take care of the refugees. That is a good idea. It won't satisfy those who argue that war is the only choice. Furthermore, Hayes stated that if our goal is a political settlement, the rebels will be just like the Republicans after the 1860 election. The Southerners demanded concessions from them if they didn't want seccession, and the Republicans and their supporters were against it, stating that it was surrender to a defeated enemy. The Syrian rebels will be like that if we ask them to set down their AK-47s or whatever weapons they have and negotiate with Assad for peace in their country. They won't want peace, they'll want to kill Bashar the butcher.

I respect Hayes' position; it's basically why I don't believe that intervention is really going to help us resolve this conflict in any way that's going to be to our liking. But it is very much in America's interest to try and stop chemical weapons from proliferating, and one of the ways to do that is to make certain that there are severe consequences for their use (if not for the regime ordering their use, then for the military units responsible for carrying out the orders for their use; flattening a few headquarters units and missile batteries would certainly instill a strong sense of responsibility in the minds of the survivors of such strikes, don't you think?).

There's been a lot of focus on Iran and Hezbollah; I'm not especially worried about either becoming emboldened by the failure of the West to uphold the "red line" against chemical weapons use. No, it's North Korea that bothers me most, because they're the one nation in all the world most likely to employ them should they ever elect to cross the DMZ in force. If they do, our response is going to have to be brutal — and that's not something that I want to see. I'd rather they stayed on their own side of the ceasefire line and left matters as they are; but keeping them there requires deterrence, and if we don't act here, I rather suspect that deterrence will slip a few notches.

All I can hope now — since I don't think we're actually going to act against Assad — is that it doesn't slip enough to loose the dogs of war.

ADDENDUM: In the meantime, yes: We should absolutely do everything that Hayes proposed in his on-air opinion piece. The refugee crisis resulting from this war is already staggering — and it's going to get worse. Likewise, in the wake of our failure to act and the massive offensive I expect to see Assad mount against the rebels (with Putin's help), I would like to see us move two combat brigades to Turkey and increase our naval presence in the Black Sea. The idea here is not to threaten Russia, but rather to make clear that no effort to destabilize and/or intimidate our allies in Ankara will be countenanced. If Russia is going to go to the mat to maintain the status quo in Syria, they need to understand that we will likewise go to the mat to maintain the status quo where it matters to us.

Do you seriously think that how the west responds to Syrian chemical weapon use is going to influence how chemical weapons would be used by the North Koreans in a prospective North-South conflict?

I recall you assessing yourself, their only real hope to push past the DMZ is to create absolute chaos at the frontline.
The best way to do that is probably to chemical shell the airbases and counter-missile batteries, to permit chemical Scuds to reach Seoul, all the while throwing tanks at the line and infiltrating their "special forces" group into the rear area to weaken the anti-tank line.

I'm personally not sure that Korea could win or even make a rapid Pusan-like push (in that they do eventually lose) without the widespread use of chemical weapons. In places, they're just too outgunned.

[Alien Space Bats]

Just how useful is Turkey as an ally? I agree that Ankara has exceptional regional leverage for a variety of reasons, but they've shown a distinct reluctance to use it to help the USA for a long time now.

Is an investment in continued alliance with Turkey cost-effective?

Turkey is immensely valuable as an ally, if only for the use of its airspace and its location as an electronic listening post.

And if Putin decides that his political future will be improved by taking a more confrontational position vis–à–vis the West, then I guarantee you he's going to put the screws to Turkey. After all, there's nothing Russia would love more than a Finlandized Turkey to provide them guaranteed access to the Mediterranean Sea and North Africa.

You may be right, I think that we're just using Iran and Hezbollah to show North Korea that if you do something wrong there will be repercussions for your actions

Iran understands that there are limits to just how much mischief it can get away with; I rather suspect Hezbollah does, as well.

North Korea? Not so much, I fear — and when "repercussions" are measured in hundreds of kilotons, that's a real problem.

Do you seriously think that how the west responds to Syrian chemical weapon use is going to influence how chemical weapons would be used by the North Koreans in a prospective North-South conflict?

I recall you assessing yourself, their only real hope to push past the DMZ is to create absolute chaos at the frontline.
The best way to do that is probably to chemical shell the airbases and counter-missile batteries, to permit chemical Scuds to reach Seoul, all the while throwing tanks at the line and infiltrating their "special forces" group into the rear area to weaken the anti-tank line.

I'm personally not sure that Korea could win or even make a rapid Pusan-like push (in that they do eventually lose) without the widespread use of chemical weapons. In places, they're just too outgunned.

The consequences of Pyongyang even making the effort are too ghastly to contemplate (millions dead very, very quickly). I don't want them to even begin to imagine there's daylight to be had in moving south.

[Imperializt Russia]

Pretty sure they're aware of that anyway, else their rhetoric wouldn't be.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Do you seriously think that how the west responds to Syrian chemical weapon use is going to influence how chemical weapons would be used by the North Koreans in a prospective North-South conflict?

I recall you assessing yourself, their only real hope to push past the DMZ is to create absolute chaos at the frontline.
The best way to do that is probably to chemical shell the airbases and counter-missile batteries, to permit chemical Scuds to reach Seoul, all the while throwing tanks at the line and infiltrating their "special forces" group into the rear area to weaken the anti-tank line.

I'm personally not sure that Korea could win or even make a rapid Pusan-like push (in that they do eventually lose) without the widespread use of chemical weapons. In places, they're just too outgunned.

The consequences of Pyongyang even making the effort are too ghastly to contemplate (millions dead very, very quickly). I don't want them to even begin to imagine there's daylight to be had in moving south.

Nuclear Korea is best Korea.

[Shofercia]

And if they pass it, then Obama would also be fucked. Here's a semi-childish post I made earlier, but it's relevant:



On top of that, there's a time limit. Achieving any one of those objectives is impossible, given the restrictions and the time frame, thus giving Republicans the beautiful line: "Obama failed to achieve a single objective on the ground, in the time frame that he asked for, can we really trust a Democrat for president?"

Also, McCain, who's still butthurt that Obama creamed him, "helped", (when referring to McCain, the word "helped" must always be used with irony,) write that disaster. It's a sinker. On top of that, there's always the line "Obama, why didn't you listen to your generals?"

There's no way for Obama out of this one, without taking political damage. And recently Hillary "whoopsie" Clinton sounded off, saying that Assad used chemical weapons and should be gone, so she can no longer play it both ways. If I was a Democrat, I would oppose that disaster of a Resolution, because then I could say that "we, as a party, stood up to our President when he was wrong, while the Republicans sucked Bush's .... when it came to Iraq!" Won't save Obama, but it'll save the party. And Obama ain't going to be the one up for reelection in 2016.

I'm aware that the Senate Resolution is a pig. I'm aware that the Republicans wrote it to be a pig. I don't think, however, that things will get anywhere near as ridiculous with that resolution passed than they'll be if the resolution fails.

For one thing, the Administration can simply disavow all that nonsense, saying what everybody knows: That John McCain — a man who's never met a war he didn't like — decided that the Senate Resolution was a Christmas tree and loaded it with presents for himself. It can simply assert that it intends to pursue all of those goals through negotiation — as it has been all along.

As for Hillary's remarks, I don't know why anybody thinks that what she said was a mistake. For her to have said anything else would be so out of character for her as to be plainly dishonest, and Hillary doesn't benefit from pretending that her last name is "Romney".

In terms of Hillary, she could've, (and IMHO should've,) not said anything. Or made a comment about domestic issues, and asked "why are Republicans eager to help insurgents abroad, but don't want to deliver basic healthcare to fellow Americans at home?" Granted, that would've also thrown Blue Dogs under the bus, but I doubt that Landrieu, et al, would be a big loss for the Democrats.

About the Resolution, here's the thing: there's no line item veto, so Obama will have to sign all of it. If he signs something, he commits to it, or at least that's expected from the politicians, despite constant disappointment. The Resolution states: "if order to do this, you can use these". It's setting Obama up. Some pundits are already willing to scream: "Obama promised and didn't deliver!"

Disavowing is risky. Sure Obama can try, but then you're back in the Media Circus, dancing with the Republicans, and no longer above the fray. And that's not a good thing. Democrat wins rely on "Getting Out the Vote!" I think that was the name of the campaign, but you know what I mean. If Republicans merely portray Democrats to be as bad as Republicans, you'll have less voter turnout, and thus it'll be more likely that Republicans get more seats.

SCOTUS might be on board with this. Remember them overturning the Voting Rights Act? Or them deliberately hitting the Californian Proposition Process in Hollingsworth? I'm certain that there's a way to grant Gay Rights without attacking the Californian Proposition Process, such as pointing out that Proposition 8 is Unconstitutional, because... and leaving it at that. Instead, SCOTUS opted to say the equivalent of "since the Californian Government failed to defend the Proposition, it's worthless". I'm not liking Brown's reelection chances. He's going to be slaughtered. Even the rabidly liberal Erwin Chemerinsky implied that it was a mistake. Also means less votes in California for Democrats in the upcoming election.

Now, this won't shift the 2016 presidential election by much. But it can shift the House of Representatives even more to favor the "Party of No". The Republican strategy emerging here is simple: stay in power and disillusion the voters. And in order to do so, they need the House of Reps, so that they can keep on saying "no!" to the Democrat President, and then accuse the Government of being inept.

[Shofercia]

Just how useful is Turkey as an ally? I agree that Ankara has exceptional regional leverage for a variety of reasons, but they've shown a distinct reluctance to use it to help the USA for a long time now.

Is an investment in continued alliance with Turkey cost-effective?

Turkey is immensely valuable as an ally, if only for the use of its airspace and its location as an electronic listening post.

And if Putin decides that his political future will be improved by taking a more confrontational position vis–à–vis the West, then I guarantee you he's going to put the screws to Turkey. After all, there's nothing Russia would love more than a Finlandized Turkey to provide them guaranteed access to the Mediterranean Sea and North Africa.

There are quite a few things that Russia would love more than a Finlandized Turkey, but that's besides the point. Russia can get Med access via base in Cyprus for $6 billion.

You may be right, I think that we're just using Iran and Hezbollah to show North Korea that if you do something wrong there will be repercussions for your actions

Iran understands that there are limits to just how much mischief it can get away with; I rather suspect Hezbollah does, as well.

North Korea? Not so much, I fear — and when "repercussions" are measured in hundreds of kilotons, that's a real problem.

NK is also scared, because Russia and China are presenting a Unified Front, along with US/UK/France. If NK senses division, don't you think that would be more dangerous than someone in the Middle East using chemical weapons, possibly on accident?

[Rio Cana]

An article from September 01. Seems Syria wants dialogue with the US.

"We love the American people, we have millions of Americans of Arab origin including Syrians and we do not want wars with the United States," said the diplomat, who served as his country's envoy to the United Nations in New York from 2003 to 2006.

Entire article - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 55776.html

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

That's true, to some extent. I wish I could grab at the deaths-per-annum of other groups throughout the Holocaust, but I still think that, with Russia turning the tide of the war early in 1943 in Stalingrad, Germany's genocide was toned down by virtue of war distractions.

As far as Assad, I think that one optimal solution that may perhaps be obtained is a Syrian government organized akin to the one that ruled before the Arab Spring, only presided by members of one or more of Assad's political opponents. This could potentially be set into motion by the defection of one or more of Assad's significant aides, which could be caused without the presence of US troops. It really depends, though, on how Assad's advisers and other players act in response to the first US attack, rather than on how the US attacks.

Because, at this point, we know the scope in which Obama intends to attack. The only things unknown are when and where.

Part of that is wrong. Nazis were more concerned about killing people, than conducting a proper retreat. Trains with "lesser race prisoners" had right of way over trains with supplies, if I'm remembering my history class correctly. Only when Concentration Camps were Liberated, and Nazi Jails Purged, did our fellow human beings escape Nazi tyranny, and that required boots on the ground.

Now, here's the thing: Assad's winning, and majority of Syrians want this to be over. If Assad was to promise post-war amnesty for the basic soldiers of the other side, he'd get massive support, which would enable Assad to maintain popular support in a Middle Eastern country where he's from a minority group. How's a defector going to change that?

Yeah, that did require boots and mortars and all that stuff on the ground. The Jerries, though, would move their death camp prisoners when they knew there wasn't going to be a chance to hold that ground. So they'd either kill or ship away their prisoners, then destroy the camps to try to cover up the evidence (yeah, that would've helped, lulz). I think it's when the Allies started making up ground so fast the Germans couldn't deal with the logistics was when they started liberating people from the death camps.

That's also a possible outcome, and though it's not optimal, if the US can expedite that happening, then that could be a bittersweet ending to the civil war. Putin would still have an ally in the Middle East, Assad would still have his government and a platform to spew anti-West sentiments, and the US and others could claim that they helped pressure Syria into pushing an armistice across. I don't know, though, if the more Islamist of the rebels will lay down arms, ever.

[Shofercia]

Part of that is wrong. Nazis were more concerned about killing people, than conducting a proper retreat. Trains with "lesser race prisoners" had right of way over trains with supplies, if I'm remembering my history class correctly. Only when Concentration Camps were Liberated, and Nazi Jails Purged, did our fellow human beings escape Nazi tyranny, and that required boots on the ground.

Now, here's the thing: Assad's winning, and majority of Syrians want this to be over. If Assad was to promise post-war amnesty for the basic soldiers of the other side, he'd get massive support, which would enable Assad to maintain popular support in a Middle Eastern country where he's from a minority group. How's a defector going to change that?

Yeah, that did require boots and mortars and all that stuff on the ground. The Jerries, though, would move their death camp prisoners when they knew there wasn't going to be a chance to hold that ground. So they'd either kill or ship away their prisoners, then destroy the camps to try to cover up the evidence (yeah, that would've helped, lulz). I think it's when the Allies started making up ground so fast the Germans couldn't deal with the logistics was when they started liberating people from the death camps.

That's also a possible outcome, and though it's not optimal, if the US can expedite that happening, then that could be a bittersweet ending to the civil war. Putin would still have an ally in the Middle East, Assad would still have his government and a platform to spew anti-West sentiments, and the US and others could claim that they helped pressure Syria into pushing an armistice across. I don't know, though, if the more Islamist of the rebels will lay down arms, ever.

After the non-Islamists lay down their arms in Chechnya, the Russian Army went "weee!" and pwnd the rest very promptly. If Assad grants massive amnesty, and gives Kurds regional autonomy, then the war could be ended, and US could come out on top, by saying "while you guys were fighting, guess who was taking care of your Refugees?" Like you said, while not optimal, it's a win-win.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

I'm not liking Brown's reelection chances. He's going to be slaughtered. Even the rabidly liberal Erwin Chemerinsky implied that it was a mistake. Also means less votes in California for Democrats in the upcoming election.

Now, this won't shift the 2016 presidential election by much. But it can shift the House of Representatives even more to favor the "Party of No". The Republican strategy emerging here is simple: stay in power and disillusion the voters. And in order to do so, they need the House of Reps, so that they can keep on saying "no!" to the Democrat President, and then accuse the Government of being inept.

Isn't this the same state that voted for the Governator to return in 2007, and then voted for Obama a year later?

[Alien Space Bats]

In terms of Hillary, she could've, (and IMHO should've,) not said anything. Or made a comment about domestic issues, and asked "why are Republicans eager to help insurgents abroad, but don't want to deliver basic healthcare to fellow Americans at home?" Granted, that would've also thrown Blue Dogs under the bus, but I doubt that Landrieu, et al, would be a big loss for the Democrats.

About the Resolution, here's the thing: there's no line item veto, so Obama will have to sign all of it. If he signs something, he commits to it, or at least that's expected from the politicians, despite constant disappointment. The Resolution states: "if order to do this, you can use these". It's setting Obama up. Some pundits are already willing to scream: "Obama promised and didn't deliver!"

Disavowing is risky. Sure Obama can try, but then you're back in the Media Circus, dancing with the Republicans, and no longer above the fray. And that's not a good thing. Democrat wins rely on "Getting Out the Vote!" I think that was the name of the campaign, but you know what I mean. If Republicans merely portray Democrats to be as bad as Republicans, you'll have less voter turnout, and thus it'll be more likely that Republicans get more seats.

SCOTUS might be on board with this. Remember them overturning the Voting Rights Act? Or them deliberately hitting the Californian Proposition Process in Hollingsworth? I'm certain that there's a way to grant Gay Rights without attacking the Californian Proposition Process, such as pointing out that Proposition 8 is Unconstitutional, because... and leaving it at that. Instead, SCOTUS opted to say the equivalent of "since the Californian Government failed to defend the Proposition, it's worthless". I'm not liking Brown's reelection chances. He's going to be slaughtered. Even the rabidly liberal Erwin Chemerinsky implied that it was a mistake. Also means less votes in California for Democrats in the upcoming election.

Now, this won't shift the 2016 presidential election by much. But it can shift the House of Representatives even more to favor the "Party of No". The Republican strategy emerging here is simple: stay in power and disillusion the voters. And in order to do so, they need the House of Reps, so that they can keep on saying "no!" to the Democrat President, and then accuse the Government of being inept.

We'll probably want to discuss where this leads as far as 2014 and 2016 go in a different thread. What I will say, at least as far as the next election goes, is that foreign affairs probably won't be the biggest issue or even very much of an issue; foreign policy seldom is, unless the nation is either actually caught up in a full-fledged war (in which case the Administration actually tends to benefit from Americans wanting to "rally 'round the flag") or if something happens that results in complete and total National humiliation (such as the Iran hostage crisis). In year, when another 60,000 Syrians are dead and the number of people hiding in Jordanian and Turkish refugee camps has doubled, what we did this fall in the Middle East will scarcely matter to anyone; Republicans will simply tack it on to their parade of horribles and Democrats will ignore it. Larger issues will have emerged, and the political infighting over domestic issues will have so dramatically intensified that this simply isn't going to rate.

And that's just for 2014. By 2016, we're going to be so far beyond this event (politically speaking) that people will barely remember it happened.

[Rio Cana]

Found this article from July 2013 from the Voice of America on 'Alawistan'. It seems if Plan "A" does not pan out for the current Syrian President that he has a Plan "B". And it seems he has been receiving help from his allies when it comes to this plan.

Article which is titled 'Alawistan', Syria’s Once and Future State? - http://m.voanews.com/a/1693606.html

[New Chalcedon]

We'll probably want to discuss where this leads as far as 2014 and 2016 go in a different thread. What I will say, at least as far as the next election goes, is that foreign affairs probably won't be the biggest issue or even very much of an issue; foreign policy seldom is, unless the nation is either actually caught up in a full-fledged war (in which case the Administration actually tends to benefit from Americans wanting to "rally 'round the flag") or if something happens that results in complete and total National humiliation (such as the Iran hostage crisis). In year, when another 60,000 Syrians are dead and the number of people hiding in Jordanian and Turkish refugee camps has doubled, what we did this fall in the Middle East will scarcely matter to anyone; Republicans will simply tack it on to their parade of horribles and Democrats will ignore it. Larger issues will have emerged, and the political infighting over domestic issues will have so dramatically intensified that this simply isn't going to rate.

And that's just for 2014. By 2016, we're going to be so far beyond this event (politically speaking) that people will barely remember it happened.

Remarkably cynical. Depressingly accurate, but cynical.

(reference to earlier) While I take your point that Turkey is (at least potentially) a valuable ally, two considerations would weigh on my strategic thinking:

1) What has Turkey done for the USA since the end of the Cold War? AFAIK, the answer to that is "very, very little".
2) What will Turkey's reaction be to Russian muscling? I suspect that the answer to that is unchanged from the Cold War also, when the answer was "Go to America to make friends".

I can see the value in demonstrating American resolve, but doing so in a situation where all the outcomes are bad ones (particularly with Turkey bearing a share of that outcome, in the form of instability, refugees, etc. etc.) may not be the best way to do so.

Frankly, intervention in Sudan would have been a better way to display resolve. A sternly-worded note, followed up by interdiction of Omar al-Bashir's air capability and (if necessary) enforced mediation of the Darfur conflict would have been a much easier proposition - and yes, I'm well aware that al-Bashir was under China's wing. At least in Sudan, the lines were semi-cleanly drawn, there was a "good guy" side (the Darfur rebels) and there was a clear, unambiguous aggressor, a party guilty of human rights violations up to and including genocide.

Speaking of Sudan, I found it rather laughable when Kerry claimed that America doesn't stand by while this sort of shit happens. America stands by all the time, as does every other Great Power. And what's so special about this war that it merits US intervention? Chemical weapons? Maybe, but the Sudanese Army was inflicting genocide - why does that not merit intervention, but this does?

[Dangelia]

Found this article from July 2013 from the Voice of America on 'Alawistan'. It seems if Plan "A" does not pan out for the current Syrian President that he has a Plan "B". And it seems he has been receiving help from his allies when it comes to this plan.

Article which is titled 'Alawistan', Syria’s Once and Future State? - http://m.voanews.com/a/1693606.html

That will never happen, the Orthodox in the country won't allow it.

[Alien Space Bats]

"I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train..."

— Ozzy Osbourne

Rush Limbaugh has accused the Obama Administration of conspiring with al-Qaeda to stage the August 21st sarin attack on the Ghouta suburb of Damascus in an effort to frame Bashar al-Assad's regime for the purpose of giving the President the legal basis he needs to invade Syria.

<pause>

Alex Jones will be suing for copyright infringement any day now, I'm sure.

Now all I'm waiting for is to see Rush close the loop by asserting that Assad's chemical weapons were all shipped into Syria by Saddam Hussein in 2003 in order to embarrass the U.S. by making it impossible for us to find any WMD's in Iraq, and that Bush was right in invading Iraq all along.

I think I'm going to vomit now. I've likened the GOP to the Bolsheviks circa 1917, and FOX News (and the rest of conservative media) to Pravda, but I was never quite prepared to see Rush Limbaugh and RT on the same page.

[Imperializt Russia]

"I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train..."

— Ozzy Osbourne

Rush Limbaugh has accused the Obama Administration of conspiring with al-Qaeda to stage the August 21st sarin attack on the Ghouta suburb of Damascus in an effort to frame Bashar al-Assad's regime for the purpose of giving the President the legal basis he needs to invade Syria.

<pause>

Alex Jones will be suing for copyright infringement any day now, I'm sure.

Now all I'm waiting for is to see Rush close the loop by asserting that Assad's chemical weapons were all shipped into Syria by Saddam Hussein in 2003 in order to embarrass the U.S. by making it impossible for us to find any WMD's in Iraq, and that Bush was right in invading Iraq all along.

I think I'm going to vomit now. I've likened the GOP to the Bolsheviks circa 1917, and FOX News (and the rest of conservative media) to Pravda, but I was never quite prepared to see Rush Limbaugh and RT on the same page.

This isn't even a crazy train, he's living in a Nitrous Oxide bubble.

[New Chalcedon]

"I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train..."

— Ozzy Osbourne

Rush Limbaugh has accused the Obama Administration of conspiring with al-Qaeda to stage the August 21st sarin attack on the Ghouta suburb of Damascus in an effort to frame Bashar al-Assad's regime for the purpose of giving the President the legal basis he needs to invade Syria.

<pause>

Alex Jones will be suing for copyright infringement any day now, I'm sure.

Now all I'm waiting for is to see Rush close the loop by asserting that Assad's chemical weapons were all shipped into Syria by Saddam Hussein in 2003 in order to embarrass the U.S. by making it impossible for us to find any WMD's in Iraq, and that Bush was right in invading Iraq all along.

I think I'm going to vomit now. I've likened the GOP to the Bolsheviks circa 1917, and FOX News (and the rest of conservative media) to Pravda, but I was never quite prepared to see Rush Limbaugh and RT on the same page.

........wait, wat?

You're joking, right?

<checks calendar>

Damn, it isn't even April 1....

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

"I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train..."

— Ozzy Osbourne

Rush Limbaugh has accused the Obama Administration of conspiring with al-Qaeda to stage the August 21st sarin attack on the Ghouta suburb of Damascus in an effort to frame Bashar al-Assad's regime for the purpose of giving the President the legal basis he needs to invade Syria.

<pause>

Alex Jones will be suing for copyright infringement any day now, I'm sure.

Now all I'm waiting for is to see Rush close the loop by asserting that Assad's chemical weapons were all shipped into Syria by Saddam Hussein in 2003 in order to embarrass the U.S. by making it impossible for us to find any WMD's in Iraq, and that Bush was right in invading Iraq all along.

I think I'm going to vomit now. I've likened the GOP to the Bolsheviks circa 1917, and FOX News (and the rest of conservative media) to Pravda, but I was never quite prepared to see Rush Limbaugh and RT on the same page.

Being a registered Republican, I kind of want to run for office for the sole purpose of being one of the scant few Republican officials to lay the smackdown on Rush Limbaugh.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

"I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train..."

— Ozzy Osbourne

Rush Limbaugh has accused the Obama Administration of conspiring with al-Qaeda to stage the August 21st sarin attack on the Ghouta suburb of Damascus in an effort to frame Bashar al-Assad's regime for the purpose of giving the President the legal basis he needs to invade Syria.

<pause>

Alex Jones will be suing for copyright infringement any day now, I'm sure.

Now all I'm waiting for is to see Rush close the loop by asserting that Assad's chemical weapons were all shipped into Syria by Saddam Hussein in 2003 in order to embarrass the U.S. by making it impossible for us to find any WMD's in Iraq, and that Bush was right in invading Iraq all along.

I think I'm going to vomit now. I've likened the GOP to the Bolsheviks circa 1917, and FOX News (and the rest of conservative media) to Pravda, but I was never quite prepared to see Rush Limbaugh and RT on the same page.

........wait, wat?

You're joking, right?

<checks calendar>

Damn, it isn't even April 1....

I think Rush Limbaugh's calendar is stuck on February 29th. Because he might be right one day every four calendar years, and off his rocker every other day.

[Alien Space Bats]

"I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train..."

— Ozzy Osbourne

Rush Limbaugh has accused the Obama Administration of conspiring with al-Qaeda to stage the August 21st sarin attack on the Ghouta suburb of Damascus in an effort to frame Bashar al-Assad's regime for the purpose of giving the President the legal basis he needs to invade Syria.

<pause>

Alex Jones will be suing for copyright infringement any day now, I'm sure.

Now all I'm waiting for is to see Rush close the loop by asserting that Assad's chemical weapons were all shipped into Syria by Saddam Hussein in 2003 in order to embarrass the U.S. by making it impossible for us to find any WMD's in Iraq, and that Bush was right in invading Iraq all along.

I think I'm going to vomit now. I've likened the GOP to the Bolsheviks circa 1917, and FOX News (and the rest of conservative media) to Pravda, but I was never quite prepared to see Rush Limbaugh and RT on the same page.

........wait, wat?

You're joking, right?

<checks calendar>

Damn, it isn't even April 1....

I forgot the link.

[New Chalcedon]

Well, the "briefing" that a number of people (including ASB, if I'm not mistaken) anticipated would sway lawmakers in favour of the proposed AUMF has happened....

.....and it doesn't seem to have changed any. In fact, shortly after leaving the briefing, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), one of the most conservative Democrats left in the Senate, announced that he'd vote "nay" to an AUMF, stating that "all diplomatic options must be exhausted first". In the House, people as diverse as Carol Shea-Porter (moderate D-NH) and Elijah Cummings (liberal D-MD) have announced opposition as well, in some cases after hearing the briefing.

I'm going to bring up a point that ASB made earlier, namely that the Administration's "damning evidence" against Assad would be released at the briefings:

You're ignoring the satellite imagery and communications intercepts. Those are the damning evidence; and at the very least, they'll be released to various members of Congress between now and September 9th.

I pause for my esteemed colleague's reply, now that it's clear that the evidence isn't all that damning - for if it was, it'd have changed at least a few Democrats' minds.

EDIT: Also, this seems to ring true, and I'd like peoples' opinions, particularly ASB's:

But there's another calculation at play that bears discussing: the effects of gerrymandering. Republicans crammed so many House Democrats into so few districts, that the vast majority of Democratic seats are VERY Democratic. So those Democrats don't have to worry about their general elections. But with anti-war sentiment running high in progressive circles, particularly in these primarily urban districts, primary challenges are a possibility. And if things go downhill in Syria, those who voted for the war authorization would almost be guaranteed challenges.

[New Chalcedon]

........wait, wat?

You're joking, right?

<checks calendar>

Damn, it isn't even April 1....

I forgot the link.

Oh God, you're not joking.



<madness mantra> It's only Rush Limbaugh...It's only Rush Limbaugh...It's only Rush Limbaugh...It's only Rush Limbaugh...

....who'm I fooling? There're the legions of dittoheads, too.

[God Kefka]

On the whole I would say that it is ill-advised for the United States to get involved in the events of Syria, 2013. At least not on a direct level whereby sizable commitment of ground troops have to be deployed…

Firstly it would not make sense for the USA to get involved from the perspective of their own self-interest. Firstly their record has shown that interventions/wars in the Middle East in which they get directly involved (with perhaps the exception of the 2004 Gulf War) have tended to turn out messier and harder to get out of than the respective policy makers initially expected. Given the poor record of wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan and the complexities of the politics in Syria, it seems to me that to get involved in Syria could very well lead to a similar ‘’quagmire.’’ ‘Such a quagmire is something that is to be averted at all cost the at present for the United States is currently, along with a great host of other nations, having to deal with economic difficulties and other domestic matters. It would be ill-advised to let the promise of a ‘’rapid intervention’’ suck the country into yet another long and unending war with death tolls, high economic costs, and limited achievement.

Increasing military interventions in the Middle East would also to further damage their popularity in the area and increase the risks of domestic terrorism by foreign parties, the rise of fundamentalism in other parts of the world, and other problems... through the creation of more enemies (it is generally a given that people do not take it well when one arrives to, on purpose or by accident, drop bombs over people’s homes… be it in the name of a ‘’just’’ intervention or not). However, given the current perspective on the Americans by a great many deal of people living in the Middle East right now (small wonder since the USA has repeatedly waged wars of aggression, justified or unjustified, there)… one does have to wonder if the USA has any more substantial popularity to actually lose in the region outside of the citizens living in their allied countries!

There is always the possibility that the USA could intervene without deploying ground troops and only through the use of selective air strikes/the ‘’Libyan method’’(I focus specifically on the USA even though other countries such as France have been clamoring to intervene for I feel it is only sensible to assume that given the present material realities of the international balance of power, the United States would have to be the country to shoulder the overwhelmingly majority of any responsibility and effort should any intervention take place)… but one has to ask… how much of a difference can that affect on the ground? The record of effecting changes through air strikes alone has been shaky and the only real example, arguably still in process, is the action involved in Libya. Nevertheless, compared to the deployment of ground troops (which has an overwhelmingly bad record in the Middle East), I would support this course of action over the other. However, the ‘’Libyan Method’’ has another drawback and that is that the USA (and indeed any other intervener who uses a similar method in conjunction with American airstrikes) would only have limited effect to affect regime change on the ground after the conclusion of the conflict. Of what use is an intervention, even one where minimal American and Western lives are lost, if the result is but another authoritarian and human rights abusing regime lead by former rebels disguised as freedom fighters (or real freedom fighters corrupted by power)? None I say and so intervention of this kind has that kind of real danger as well. Certainly it remains to be seen if the new government in Libya where this method has been tried, will produce such an unfortunate event. It may.

What further strategic benefits could bring by getting involved in Syria? Surely Russia would be antagonized and relations between Russia and the USA are of great importance? Surely the USA already has a great number of allies in the Middle East already (ex Israel and Turkey) and even in the remote possibility that they install a stable, pro-US Syrian government they could gain little in relation to all that they would have lost in the process? I contend that the USA has little to gain. And certainly not with respect to natural resources for the Syrians do not possess much in that area of strategic use to the USA or their constituent interests…

On the whole I have to say that it is unwise for the USA to get involved. They are unlikely to make strategic gains for themselves but are likely to incur huge losses. If they use air strikes exclusively then they have no way of ensuring that conflict would resolve in a way that has advanced any common Syrian citizen’s interest...

[Alien Space Bats]

Let me start with this:

Also, this seems to ring true, and I'd like peoples' opinions, particularly ASB's:

But there's another calculation at play that bears discussing: the effects of gerrymandering. Republicans crammed so many House Democrats into so few districts, that the vast majority of Democratic seats are VERY Democratic. So those Democrats don't have to worry about their general elections. But with anti-war sentiment running high in progressive circles, particularly in these primarily urban districts, primary challenges are a possibility. And if things go downhill in Syria, those who voted for the war authorization would almost be guaranteed challenges.

The risk of Democrats getting primaried by other Democrats over support for the AUMF is being grossly overestimated by a Beltway media that is congenitally incapable of viewing Democrats and Republicans as anything other than mirror images of one another (eg., "Both Parties have become more radical in recent years", "Neither Party seems capable of compromise", "Both Parties are being overly ideological and obstructionist", etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum).

The thing is, Democrats aren't like Republicans; there isn't any real danger of left-wing antiwar radicals rising up to challenge mainstream Democrats who toe the Party line rather than catering to the grass roots. Just because Republicans are at risk of being "tarred and feathered" (and I'm going to use that phrase in the future to describe what the Tea Party does to "RINO's", since it fits in with their motif better than any other term I can come up with) doesn't mean that a parallel situation exists among Democrats as well.

Beyond that — and again I'd prefer to discuss the 2014 election in a different thread — I'll repeat what I said earlier: Democrats (and, for that matter, Republicans) are (both) going to be more motivated by domestic issues come 2014 that they will be by foreign policy. Syria may seem like big news now, but where will it rate in another 14 months, after all of the crap that we're likely to see from GOP-run States (TRAP laws, union busting, voter suppression, etc.) and the Republican House (playing chicken with the budget, playing chicken with the debt, stalling appointments, manufacturing "scandals", and "repealing" Obamacare for the 69th time) between now and then?

---

Now, I started with that so I could listen with one ear to the latest news while writing what follows:

Well, the "briefing" that a number of people (including ASB, if I'm not mistaken) anticipated would sway lawmakers in favour of the proposed AUMF has happened....

.....and it doesn't seem to have changed any. In fact, shortly after leaving the briefing, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), one of the most conservative Democrats left in the Senate, announced that he'd vote "nay" to an AUMF, stating that "all diplomatic options must be exhausted first". In the House, people as diverse as Carol Shea-Porter (moderate D-NH) and Elijah Cummings (liberal D-MD) have announced opposition as well, in some cases after hearing the briefing.

I'm going to bring up a point that ASB made earlier, namely that the Administration's "damning evidence" against Assad would be released at the briefings:

You're ignoring the satellite imagery and communications intercepts. Those are the damning evidence; and at the very least, they'll be released to various members of Congress between now and September 9th.

I pause for my esteemed colleague's reply, now that it's clear that the evidence isn't all that damning - for if it was, it'd have changed at least a few Democrats' minds.

At this hour, I can't yet link the "A" block from Al Sharpton's show on MSNBC, Politics Nation, but the Reverend just addressed this very question less than 10 minutes ago, as did Ed Schultz on The Ed Show, just beforehand: It's not that Democrats don't believe the President (in fact, the consensus from them is that they do, in fact, believe that Assad was behind the chemical attack on Ghouta; the intelligence appears to have convinced them). No, the problem seems to be that Democrats aren't buying the rest of the Administration's argument (either in the sense that they either don't believe that we can deter further chemical attacks by the Assad regime with military strikes, or that they don't see how the Administration's chosen course of action is going to result in regime change [which in fact it's not intended to do anyway] — or both). This has got Democrats balking, in that they don't want a wider war and apparently don't believe that the Administration will be able to guarantee that their proposed strikes won't get us into one.

This explains Sen. Manchin's remarks about wanting to "exhaust" diplomatic options. You don't say that you want to pursue a diplomatic solution if you believe that there wasn't any sarin attack, or that the sarin was unleashed by the rebels; no, you say that if you agree with the Administration that Assad gassed his own people, but you don't see military force as an answer to that problem.

So no, this hasn't changed my position on the issue. I think that when — not if — Congress refuses to authorize force, Assad will go crazy slaughtering his own people (in my view, he launched the attack on Ghouta on the basis of a calculation that the West would do nothing about it) and Putin will supply him all the arms and support he needs to do it with both hands. The West will scream in horror but do nothing, while Jordan and Turkey get inundated with refugees. What follows from there depends on how hard Russia wants to push its diplomatic advantage and how pissed off it gets if the world fails to show it the proper "respect" in the wake of its victory (as well as whether or not it thinks that partisan rancor has left Washington completely paralyzed and unable to defend its own interests, allowing Moscow to reshape the planet to its liking while America is "otherwise occupied").

[The Picti]

No boots on the ground here either..................