Obama and the Syria conundrum

[Energon]

Perhaps this changes the picture, if the US can be shown "a mechanism to implement" the proposal.

US official to 'Post': Russia proposal to put Syria chemical arms under global control will go ignored | JPost | Israel News

As I mentioned earlier in order to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons one of two requirements would have to be met: full scale invasion or cooperation from the Syrian government. This seems to be a move toward the latter.

Now, how will the issue move?

Hopefully this will be a way out for everyone. Assad doesn't really need his chemical weapons to fight his opposition and the only reason the United States got involved was because we made chemical weapons a big talking point. If that "red line" element is removed then there's no need for an American intervention (which would be an utterly useless endeavor anyways).

 

[nrupatunga]

@Energon If usa do not strike syria, then usa govt may be cheered domestically, but will this be seen in good light or some sort of "weakness" of usa geo-politically?? Iran/Assad will try to trumphet the latter version in west asia. Also what stops assad from re-building chemical stockpile latter.

One thing for sure if usa pulls off the strike, then the most pis**d people will be gcc.

 

[Bilal]

Face it people the day of usa rule on this world are over...the power nexus has shifted to china,russia and india more so to india and china i will say by 2017 these will be the ruling forces on world politics
1.China
2.India
3.Russia
4.Japan/south korea/north korea

yes one more thing assad,iran hezbollah alliance will be supported by the above countries against
1.Saudi Arabia
2.Turkey
3.Qatar/pakistan
4.UAE

 

[Bilal]

China and Assad's army along with iran's hezbollah are fighting a war against sunni dominated saudi arabia,qatar,alqaeda

 

[The Messiah]

I wonder why you've clubbed pakistan with qatar ? It would take couple of days to level qatar with conventional weapons.

 

[Energon]

@Energon If usa do not strike syria, then usa govt may be cheered domestically, but will this be seen in good light or some sort of "weakness" of usa geo-politically?? Iran/Assad will try to trumphet the latter version in west asia. Also what stops assad from re-building chemical stockpile latter.

One thing for sure if usa pulls off the strike, then the most pis**d people will be gcc.

Let me take your questions one at a time.

1. This fear of being perceived as "weak" is actually a fallacious and overblown issue. Bashar Assad rules over a pile of rubble and most of the people in his country don't even recognize his authority. What possible disaster could emanate if this tin pot dictator were to brag about an imaginary "victory" against America? The same goes with Iran, bragging rights aren't going to solve their endless string of problems ranging from pathetic economic conditions to heavy internal dissension due to repression. The United States has an overwhelming military advantage over every other nation on the planet and that is an empirical and indisputable fact. If Assad or the Iranian establishment were delusional enough to forget this fact (which I don't think they are) and end up doing something genuinely stupid (like directly attack American assets), then that's on them. Either way there is no reason whatsoever for the US government to bomb another country to merely prove a point.
2. Assad doesn't need chemical weapons to fight his civil war. At this point he has the conventional means to win. He is better off getting rid of all the chemical weapons and the ire of the United States along with it.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Text of President Obama's Syria Speech

 

[pmaitra]

Does Obama, Kerry, and McCain, care about this? Link: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/west-asia-africa/20816-syrian-crisis-192.html#post787094

Or are they more concerned with the Saudi and Israeli lobbies?

To be specific about McCain, is he still seeing the apparition of being shot down by a superior Soviet/Chinese/Vietnamese missile? Or is he going to acknowledge that it is important to keep Christian majority Americans informed about the plight of Christians, which is real and current, and not make a hullabaloo about what might happen to the Saudis or Israelis in the future?

These questions are to all, but specifically, I'd like @W.G.Ewald and @Energon to reflect on it.

 

[nrupatunga]

Let me take your questions one at a time.

1. This fear of being perceived as "weak" is actually a fallacious and overblown issue. Bashar Assad rules over a pile of rubble and most of the people in his country don't even recognize his authority. What possible disaster could emanate if this tin pot dictator were to brag about an imaginary "victory" against America? The same goes with Iran, bragging rights aren't going to solve their endless string of problems ranging from pathetic economic conditions to heavy internal dissension due to repression. The United States has an overwhelming military advantage over every other nation on the planet and that is an empirical and indisputable fact. If Assad or the Iranian establishment were delusional enough to forget this fact (which I don't think they are) and end up doing something genuinely stupid (like directly attack American assets), then that's on them. Either way there is no reason whatsoever for the US government to bomb another country to merely prove a point.
2. Assad doesn't need chemical weapons to fight his civil war. At this point he has the conventional means to win. He is better off getting rid of all the chemical weapons and the ire of the United States along with it.

This is not the Q of whether usa is far far superior in terms military hardware vis-a-vis syria/iran. This is about perceptions and message sent to the region of west asia. After saying that assad will be punished for crimes against humanity, if now usa backtracks for whatever reason(logical or not), this will seen as a "backtrack" by usa in west asia. It may not matter for usa public, but the bragging iran/assad may do locally, will put across a message locally. And it matters as to how usa govt would be looked from various players and public in the region. Hence israel for every soldier/civilian killed will do the same 3-4 times. Its not the ability to act, but the "act" itself matters.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Does Obama, Kerry, and McCain, care about this? Link: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/west-asia-africa/20816-syrian-crisis-192.html#post787094

Or are they more concerned with the Saudi and Israeli lobbies?

To be specific about McCain, is he still seeing the apparition of being shot down by a superior Soviet/Chinese/Vietnamese missile? Or is he going to acknowledge that it is important to keep Christian majority Americans informed about the plight of Christians, which is real and current, and not make a hullabaloo about what might happen to the Saudis or Israelis in the future?

These questions are to all, but specifically, I'd like @W.G.Ewald and @Energon to reflect on it.

Obama, Kerry, McCain... and you can add the little ****** Lindsay Graham. Listen to them talk and you know their primary concern is their own images and places in the hierarchy of political power. They are always posturing and preening to the camera; their words are incredible. Listening to them gets me into a rage. You have no idea how much I hate liars like them and Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Stephanie Powers.

 

[Ash]

This war is all about the supply of oil and gas to Europe. Syria , Iran and Iraq entered into a pact to build 3 pipelines , 1 gas and 2 oil through Syria to the Eastern Med port, cutting the cost to supply Europe. Pro U.S. gulf states obviously didn't like this because it affects their business. They would rather have a pro Western Govt. in Syria. This concerns Russia though, because if a Pro -Western Govt. is in charge of Syria, Europe will rely less on the Russain state entity Gasprom for Gas, affecting the business of Gasprom. Therefore all the players have a vested interest in who goverrns Syria.Didn' the Russians invade Geogia on the pretence that Russians living in Georgia were being victimised. The real reason was that Georgia provided a all season port for the shipping of Russian gas to Europe.

The chemical weapons issue and who was reponsible for it is just a catalyst to get a result to the civil war

 

[amoy]

This war is all about the supply of oil and gas to Europe. Syria , Iran and Iraq entered into a pact to build 3 pipelines , 1 gas and 2 oil through Syria to the Eastern Med port, cutting the cost to supply Europe. Pro U.S. gulf states obviously didn't like this because it affects their business. They would rather have a pro Western Govt. in Syria. This concerns Russia though, because if a Pro -Western Govt. is in charge of Syria, Europe will rely less on the Russain state entity Gasprom for Gas, affecting the business of Gasprom. Therefore all the players have a vested interest in who goverrns Syria.Didn' the Russians invade Geogia on the pretence that Russians living in Georgia were being victimised. The real reason was that Georgia provided a all season port for the shipping of Russian gas to Europe.

The chemical weapons issue and who was reponsible for it is just a catalyst to get a result to the civil war

Wow, your views sound similar to a Chinese analyst's. Below is his drawing (understandable though marked in Chinese)

The green one is Iran-Iraq-Syria corridor u mentioned (or so-called Shia crescent?)

The yellow one is from Baku to Ceyhan of Turkey, which's competing with Gasprom but can be cut off by Russia through Georgia.

Great minds think alike :thumb:

 

[Energon]

Does Obama, Kerry, and McCain, care about this? Link: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/west-asia-africa/20816-syrian-crisis-192.html#post787094

Or are they more concerned with the Saudi and Israeli lobbies?

To be specific about McCain, is he still seeing the apparition of being shot down by a superior Soviet/Chinese/Vietnamese missile? Or is he going to acknowledge that it is important to keep Christian majority Americans informed about the plight of Christians, which is real and current, and not make a hullabaloo about what might happen to the Saudis or Israelis in the future?

These questions are to all, but specifically, I'd like @W.G.Ewald and @Energon to reflect on it.

I don't think Christianity or McCains POW experience have anything to do with this. Lobbying on the other hand is definitely a factor. But at the end of the day this is more about McCain's philosophy than anything else. McCain believes that the United States is the de facto "world leader" and whenever anything bad happens it's up to the US to intervene in order to assert it's role as the leader.
Needless to say this is a ludicrous notion which a majority of the American people have now come to reject.

 

[Energon]

This is not the Q of whether usa is far far superior in terms military hardware vis-a-vis syria/iran. This is about perceptions and message sent to the region of west asia. After saying that assad will be punished for crimes against humanity, if now usa backtracks for whatever reason(logical or not), this will seen as a "backtrack" by usa in west asia. It may not matter for usa public, but the bragging iran/assad may do locally, will put across a message locally. And it matters as to how usa govt would be looked from various players and public in the region. Hence israel for every soldier/civilian killed will do the same 3-4 times. Its not the ability to act, but the "act" itself matters.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, this "backtracking" issue is a moot point. The United States has nothing of value to contribute in the Syrian civil war. The only reason the US got dragged into this mess was due to the chemical weapons "red line" comment. This was not about human rights, it was a technicality limited only to chemical weapons. Once the chemical weapons are removed from the equation the US can extricate itself from this mess. Withdrawing from the Syrian quagmire is in the best interests of the United States and the benefits of not bombing Syria far outweigh the supposed pitfalls of looking "weak" in front of the regional players.
And again, the effects of bragging are vastly overstated. What palpable difference does it make if Assad and Iran start bragging locally? For one they have bigger problems of their own. Frankly what people "think" of us in the local region is not really our problem, what people do is. If Iran comes to the conclusion that Obama's decision not to bomb Syria means the US is powerless which then gives them the impetus to attack Israel or something along those lines then the consequences would be disastrous for them.

 

[nrupatunga]

Does Obama, Kerry, and McCain, care about this? Link: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/west-asia-africa/20816-syrian-crisis-192.html#post787094

Or are they more concerned with the Saudi and Israeli lobbies?

To be specific about McCain, is he still seeing the apparition of being shot down by a superior Soviet/Chinese/Vietnamese missile? Or is he going to acknowledge that it is important to keep Christian majority Americans informed about the plight of Christians, which is real and current, and not make a hullabaloo about what might happen to the Saudis or Israelis in the future?

These questions are to all, but specifically, I'd like @W.G.Ewald and @Energon to reflect on it.

To the bolded point you made, maybe one can say west more or less has given up on orthodox christianity not now but for some time now. Maybe they have done so because orthodox christianity is much more of an "eastern" belief than either catholic/protestants are. If you read the book "From the Holy Mountain: A Journey among the Christians of the Middle East - By William Dalrymple" you can see how orthodoxy is more or less left to suffer by west. If they had really wanted to protect christians in west asia, they could done a lot for them. But they don't. I had also posted the review of the book in the book review thread here and here

 

[nrupatunga]

As I mentioned in my earlier post, this "backtracking" issue is a moot point. The United States has nothing of value to contribute in the Syrian civil war. The only reason the US got dragged into this mess was due to the chemical weapons "red line" comment. This was not about human rights, it was a technicality limited only to chemical weapons. Once the chemical weapons are removed from the equation the US can extricate itself from this mess. Withdrawing from the Syrian quagmire is in the best interests of the United States and the benefits of not bombing Syria far outweigh the supposed pitfalls of looking "weak" in front of the regional players.
And again, the effects of bragging are vastly overstated. What palpable difference does it make if Assad and Iran start bragging locally? For one they have bigger problems of their own. Frankly what people "think" of us in the local region is not really our problem, what people do is. If Iran comes to the conclusion that Obama's decision not to bomb Syria means the US is powerless which then gives them the impetus to attack Israel or something along those lines then the consequences would be disastrous for them.

Basically you are saying "I sitting in america, why should i care for what some idiots across the oceans feel about us". Though what you have said/feel maybe correct, but the "perception" (esp public opinion) about potus in west asia/islamic nations would be different. This will effect the way they would deal with usa. Also by not striking syria, gcc nations would feel betrayed by usa. As gcc has lot at stake if they fail to dislodge assad. Also usa public may just not care as to what happens in syria, but that may not the same with govt (though they may not say so, directly to the public )

I had mentioned the following in my previous post

It may not matter for usa public, but the bragging iran/assad may do locally, will put across a message locally. And it matters as to how usa govt would be looked from various players and public in the region.

But If the above thing is fine for usa, both public and govt, then well it should be fine then.

 

[Energon]

Basically you are saying "I sitting in america, why should i care for what some idiots across the oceans feel about us". Though what you have said/feel maybe correct, but the "perception" (esp public opinion) about potus in west asia/islamic nations would be different. This will effect the way they would deal with usa. Also by not striking syria, gcc nations would feel betrayed by usa. As gcc has lot at stake if they fail to dislodge assad. Also usa public may just not care as to what happens in syria, but that may not the same with govt (though they may not say so, directly to the public )

I had mentioned the following in my previous post


But If the above thing is fine for usa, both public and govt, then well it should be fine then.

When I say "we" I mean the American entity.

Let me ask you this, what exactly is it you think will happen if the POTUS' reputation were to be damaged by not attacking Syria? What precisely will change in the way the nations you refer to in the region operate vis a vis the United States?

 

[W.G.Ewald]

WSJ op-ed writer Elizabeth O'Bagy fired for resume lie - Mackenzie Weinger and Kate Brannen - POLITICO.com

The Syria researcher whose Wall Street Journal op-ed piece was cited by Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain during congressional hearings about the use of force has been fired from the Institute for the Study of War for lying about having a Ph.D., the group announced on Wednesday.

"The Institute for the Study of War has learned and confirmed that, contrary to her representations, Ms. Elizabeth O'Bagy does not in fact have a Ph.D. degree from Georgetown University," the institute said in a statement. "ISW has accordingly terminated Ms. O'Bagy's employment, effective immediately."

The people whose judgements we look to for guidance are all posers, as far as I am concerned.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

When I say "we" I mean the American entity.

Let me ask you this, what exactly is it you think will happen if the POTUS' reputation were to be damaged by not attacking Syria? What precisely will change in the way the nations you refer to in the region operate vis a vis the United States?

Surely by now the world has figured out that the President of the United States is an empty suit.

The fact that he can make errors which may cause the deaths of many people is just very unfortunate.

 

[Energon]

Surely by now the world has figured out that the President of the United States is an empty suit.

The fact that he can make errors which may cause the deaths of many people is just very unfortunate.

How is he an empty suit?