No boots on the ground ...

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

he's a man of few words

Hall of Fame

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=911419&postcount=619

[tw]

Turkey demonstrates a problem we have created. Turk tanks sit just outside the Syrian village of Kobane (Kurdish name for that town). And will do nothing to rescue the town from ISIS. Turks refuse unless the US leads an attack completely with no fly zones.

This is the bull created by a America's previous 'world policeman' actions. We have no business involved in a war that Turk, Kuwaiti, Israeli, Jordanian, Iraqi, Saudi and Lebanese soldiers should be fighting.

Turkey is a glaring example of a problem in so many parts of the world. They must take responsibility for their own regions. The African Union is one example of nations attempting to do so. Many other nations have chosen to help under a UN flag. So many if not most nations in this world need to learn about an important word - responsibility.

Now, let's assume Turkey does move to defend Kobane. What happens if ISIS then attacks Turkey. Is the US, Canada, and much of Europe now obligated to attack ISIS under a NATO flag?

What happens if ISIS attacks Turkey without provocation as they have Iraq? Again, must NATO now declare war as required by NATO articles whereby an attack on one is an attack on all? Yes.

An intelligent ISIS would not. But intelligence is not always found in extremists.

[crweeks64]

tw, according to Panetta and Gates (Hillary too) we should not have been so quick to abandon Iraq. However, we are where we are. The whole Turkey/NATO thing is intriguing. Could Obama be brought into a conflict he has no intention of seriously being involved with in the first place? Wow!

[tw]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

tw, according to Panetta and Gates (Hillary too) we should not have been so quick to abandon Iraq.

We did not decide to leave. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, they all but demanded we leave. We defined what was required to stay. Both nations refused to provide those guarantees or cooperation. So both nations are now learning that their leader screwed up by all but forcing the US to leave. We did not make mistakes. They did.

Best way to avoid getting dragged into a war too early is to demand the 'powers that be' act responsibly. We did that in the Balkans, in Kuwait, in southern Sudan, and even learned a lesson; left Somalia to the AU and Kenya. By demonstrating restraint, cooperation from Iran even resulted. Also caused Assad to surrender all his chemical and biological weapons when Obama successfully used his 'crossing a red line' threat. Restraint gave a 'cross a red line' major significance. A solution properly executed so that we again avoided massacring American soldiers for no purpose.

Sometimes the 'powers that be' fail to take responsibility. Europe should admit same in the Balkans. Only then did the US get involved. After many massacres. We delayed; giving Europe plenty of time to solve the Balkans. Then the US response was so sudden, blunt, shocking, and therefore so successful. Milosevic even negotiated himself out of office. Because we delayed long enough, then the US led a complete and sweeping solution without any combat.

Same solution occurred in Haiti. Responsible use of military force meant no combat and a 100% final solution.

Yes we could get drawn in. But the longer we wait - ie give Turkey, the Saudis, et al time to take responsibility - then the easier and less expensive will be a final and hopefully successful solution.

We should never be drawn into any war until after the 'powers that be', without doubt, screw up. Only then do conditions to justify military deployment exist. Only then does our delayed and sudden response have maximum effect. Only then do we have expectations of success. Then we are not being drawn into a war on THEIR terms.

Yes we could get drawn in. But on OUR terms with best odds for success.

[Undertoad]

Also caused Assad to surrender all his chemical and biological weapons when Obama successfully used his 'crossing a red line' threat.

Well not "all".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29534926

The UN Security Council has been told that Syria has revealed for the first time the existence of four more chemical weapons facilities.

Three of the sites are for research and another is for production.

Correspondents say the announcement heightens concerns that the Syrian government has not been fully open about its chemical weapons programme.

[Griff]

We've danced to this song before.

[crweeks64]

tw, In my post (about not needing another Clinton or Bush) you claim that Obama is some kind of diplomatic genius. Where was that here?

[tw]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

tw, In my post (about not needing another Clinton or Bush) you claim that Obama is some kind of diplomatic genius. Where was that here?

I never said anything about diplomatic genius. Obama knew exactly what great leaders do. George Sr (mostly Sec of State Baker) did same in Desert Storm. Which is why America paid so little for that war. George Sr in Desert Storm, Kennedy in the Cubam Missile Crisis, and Obama in Assad's Red Line did what the American diplomatic corp does well WHEN empowered by their leader who grasps the strategic objective.

Essential to leadership (what is also called officer material) is to see a bigger picture. To think strategically. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy's 'all star' advisers (Stevenson, McNamara, Dillon, Rusk, Ball, Robert Kennedy, McCone, Bundy, Sorenson, Nitze, Gen Taylor, etc) advocated unilateral invasion. Only Kennedy saw the fallacy of that. Eventually the 'all stars' reached that same conclusion. As a result, we all exist today.

Kennedy had a soft underbelly that Obama has. But more important is an ability to see that bigger picture. We know Obama saw that bigger picture in an economic crisis that could have created 40% unemployment. In meetings where such vision was necessary, George Jr walked out without any direction and John McCain (challenged to make proposals) had no grasp even of the reason for it. In that meeting called by George Jr, once the President walked out, then Obama clearly demonstrated leadership that directed and empowered Bernanke, Geithner, and Paulson (George Jr's Treasury Secretary) to save our ass.

Leadership has many characteristics. Most critical is the ability to think strategically. George Jr could not. Cheney and Nixon were driven by power - not the relevant objectives. Gerald Ford never demonstrated it. History has demonstrated that both Truman and Eisenhower had a much better grasp than what was known at that time. Surprisingly, Reagan demonstrated it mostly in his first administration. That is the most important characteristic of a leader. To point a valid direction and empower the little people to implement a solution.

[crweeks64]

xoxoxoBruce, he rightly refused to do it by executive order. I was just pointing out that if Obama was the diplomatic genius some people think he is we would have had an agreement the way he wanted it. They were all too quick to give up the fight. That is an option too but I don't know that many people are happy it came out that way including his own former Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

I was just pointing out that if Obama was the diplomatic genius some people think he is we would have had an agreement the way he wanted it. They were all too quick to give up the fight.

Do you realize how long this business of US troops coming under Iraqi courts was hashed over? It started before anybody knew who Obama was.

We've got to realize we can't have our own way all the time, without killing everyone there. Especially since we've become the bully rather than the savior. Unfortunately we were the last to know, but now even the nuke-'em-and-take-their-oil crowd knows the truth.

[Happy Monkey]

You're blaming him for not being "the diplomatic genius some people think he is"?

"Some people" have unrealistic expectations.

[crweeks64]

xoxoxoBruce, now THAT is a bad attitude. We can all debate whether we should have been there or not. Yes, I was aware how long they attempted to work on it. Obama is the one who had it in his lap for three and a half years and couldn't get it done. The truth whether people like it or not is that he didn't want to get it done. However, some people are entirely ok with that.

To describe us as the "bully" rather than the "savior" is an affront to everyone of our brave men and women who gave life or limb in a job not many of us could do. Besides, it is just plain wrong.

Lastly, if you "nuke em" there would be little or no possibility of taking their oil.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

xoxoxoBruce, now THAT is a bad attitude. We can all debate whether we should have been there or not. Yes, I was aware how long they attempted to work on it. Obama is the one who had it in his lap for three and a half years and couldn't get it done. The truth whether people like it or not is that he didn't want to get it done. However, some people are entirely ok with that.

You don't know what Obama wanted, and neither does anyone else except him, so you're talking out your ass. While you've got your crystal ball out ask how to force Iraq into an agreement they don't want.

To describe us as the "bully" rather than the "savior" is an affront to everyone of our brave men and women who gave life or limb in a job not many of us could do. Besides, it is just plain wrong.

Affront to our brave men and women? Get fucking real. Our brave men and women follow orders, they have no say in the matter, the politicians and brass make policy. The grunts may not even know why they are doing, what they are doing, while they are doing it. Last I heard orders don't come with justifications or explanations.

Oh they get affronted all right, big time, by the politicians and brass that are misusing them as cannon fodder in stupid situations they should never be put in.

But probably this unkindest cut is the assholes who wave their little Chinese made US flag, yelling USA, USA, Booyah, Booyah, while allowing these brave men and women to be sacrificed for political and corporate gain.

Lastly, if you "nuke em" there would be little or no possibility of taking their oil.

Actually you can but it makes it much more difficult. But the nuke-em and take their oil crowd don't know or care about logistics... or even logic for that matter. That's the governments job/problem.

[piercehawkeye45]

Hello everyone....

Will we eventually have boots on the ground in Iraq or Syria? Possibly. However, we will not be able to "degrade and destroy" ISIS without them. Using only airstrike and local "allies", we will only be able to contain ISIS from expanding. Our strategy will likely change to containment.

With independent US an Iranian support, the Kurds and Iraqi Shia should be able to provide a buffer to prevent ISIS from spreading east. These groups will fight their homeland until death however will not be able to go too far into Sunni Arab territory.

The Syrian side is fucked. The FSA was always a joke and any moderate Islamic group, i.e. Islamic Front, is gone. We will need to rely on Lebanon, Jordan, and Assad from to prevent further ISIS expansion west but like in Iraq, they will not be able to take ground from ISIS. Only Turkey is capable of that and they will not.

Our only hope is to somehow change the table so the Sunnis under ISIS control reject and overthrow them. The Sunni Iraqis got burnt after we left so I have serious doubts that an "inclusive" Iraqi government will be helpful. Again, the Syrian side is fucked.

That only leaves the option of breaking up the Middle East along more natural borders (Sunnistan!) which has myriad problems of its own. Summary: the Middle East is screwed for a long time...whether or not we get further involved.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Will we eventually have boots on the ground in Iraq or Syria? Possibly. However, we will not be able to "degrade and destroy" ISIS without them. Using only airstrike and local "allies", we will only be able to contain ISIS from expanding. Our strategy will likely change to containment.

Our strategy is to kick the asses of regional powers to take responsiblity. Turkey's tanks still sit over Kobane watching Kurds suffer and die. Due to misplaced hatred of Kurds. And a refusal to move until America invades Syria. They still don't get it.

However Jordan's King Abdullah is saying what every Middle East nation should have been saying when George Jr told them we will massacre 5000 Americans for them. From CBS News:

The leader believes to fight the extremists in ISIS, the Muslim world must come together. "This is a Muslim problem. We need to take ownership of this. We need to stand up and say what is right and what is wrong."

... [King Abdullah] said he is not working alone in the fight. Arab and Muslim leaders around the world are beginning to work together, but he was unwilling to give details.

Well, duhhhhh.

Meanwhile wacko extremists such as Paul Bremer, Cheney, and Tea Party extremists are publically advocating American forces be deployed for another twenty plus year war in Middle East wars. Wars empower extremists. They are preaching what their rhetoric tells them - reality be damned.

Same rhetoric proved Bremer's CPA Order #1 and CPA Order #2 would create peace ... and those 5000 dead Americans that resulted. Only wacko extremists see solutions in military deployments and the resulting destruction of the American economy. The informed know that is not our problem. That we should only provide support functions such as air strikes and supplies.

Slowly, Middle East countries are unlearning what George Jr and Cheney told them. They must take responsiblity for their region.

That includes Israel - another country that refuses due to their wacko extremist Netanyahu. He will do anything to create conflict to advance extremists at the expense of moderates. Another example of someone with contempt for resoluton and the resulting peace. His latest target - a mosque.