OT: US BOMBS SYRIA

[jflores]

I wish one day we could just stay out of the whole middle east and let them handle their own affairs. Too bad some in Syria can't take Assad out and end his miserable existence.

Won't happen in probably our great-grandkids lifetimes (I'm only 35 with young children).

Even if we are energy independent, its not in the US national interest to leave the rest of the world's oil supply in the political sphere of Russia, Iran, China, and Venezuela.

 

[dinglefritz]

Saying "there are no good options" is a cop out. We have to lead from a position of strength or we allow guys like Assad and Putin to operate without fear of reprisal. Doing nothing is NOT a good option. Maybe showing that we are serious for a change will encourage some type of negotiated peace. The problem for me though in Syria is that our (Obama's) handling of the area allowed ISIS to gain territory and eradicate a huge number of peaceful residents (largely Christian) in the area. IF we take Assad down the vacuum would likely be filled by a Muslim theocracy and we know how that has worked out for us in the past. When Saddam used chemical weapons against a rebellious village I think it was Bill that bombed what was said to be an Aspirin factory. Saddam didn't use the gas again after that even though maybe the thing we bombed wasn't a chemical weapons factory. Unfortunately there were multiple intelligence reports that sometime during George II's term those weapons got moved to Syria. Bill showed he was a little bit serious and it had some of the desired effect. Dictators value one thing above all else and that is self preservation.

 

[DudznSudz]

Saying "there are no good options" is a cop out. We have to lead from a position of strength or we allow guys like Assad and Putin to operate without fear of reprisal. Doing nothing is NOT a good option. Maybe showing that we are serious for a change will encourage some type of negotiated peace. The problem for me though in Syria is that our (Obama's) handling of the area allowed ISIS to gain territory and eradicate a huge number of peaceful residents (largely Christian) in the area. IF we take Assad down the vacuum would likely be filled by a Muslim theocracy and we know how that has worked out for us in the past. When Saddam used chemical weapons against a rebellious village I think it was Bill that bombed what was said to be an Aspirin factory. Saddam didn't use the gas again after that even though maybe the thing we bombed wasn't a chemical weapons factory. Unfortunately there were multiple intelligence reports that sometime during George II's term those weapons got moved to Syria. Bill showed he was a little bit serious and it had some of the desired effect. Dictators value one thing above all else and that is self preservation.

That's one theory, yes, but it assumes everyone is acting 100% rationally, which they aren't, sometimes. As for Obama's "not doing anything" in Syria, he became president largely in reaction to years and years of endless, pointless war (of choice, with Iraq) in the Middle East. Nobody, including many Republican voters, wanted the US to get heavily involved in what appeared to be a Syrian civil war, and Obama read that accurately. ISIS gaining territory was definitely an outcome of that, but if you want to look for someone to blame for the rise of ISIS, look no further than Bush II. Destabilizing Iraq was seriously one of the dumbest things we've ever done, as a country.

One can argue that later, at a certain point, Obama should have become more involved in what was going on in Syria. I understand that argument.

 

[TheBeav815]

Saying "there are no good options" is a cop out. We have to lead from a position of strength or we allow guys like Assad and Putin to operate without fear of reprisal. Doing nothing is NOT a good option. Maybe showing that we are serious for a change will encourage some type of negotiated peace. The problem for me though in Syria is that our (Obama's) handling of the area allowed ISIS to gain territory and eradicate a huge number of peaceful residents (largely Christian) in the area. IF we take Assad down the vacuum would likely be filled by a Muslim theocracy and we know how that has worked out for us in the past. When Saddam used chemical weapons against a rebellious village I think it was Bill that bombed what was said to be an Aspirin factory. Saddam didn't use the gas again after that even though maybe the thing we bombed wasn't a chemical weapons factory. Unfortunately there were multiple intelligence reports that sometime during George II's term those weapons got moved to Syria. Bill showed he was a little bit serious and it had some of the desired effect. Dictators value one thing above all else and that is self preservation.

Bear in mind what we did to Russia in the Cold War. We never fought them directly, we baited them into spending at an unsustainable pace until they fell apart.

We can never destroy or depose every despot and saber-rattler out there. But we can collapse our country trying.

 

[jflores]

Saying "there are no good options" is a cop out. We have to lead from a position of strength or we allow guys like Assad and Putin to operate without fear of reprisal. Doing nothing is NOT a good option. Maybe showing that we are serious for a change will encourage some type of negotiated peace. The problem for me though in Syria is that our (Obama's) handling of the area allowed ISIS to gain territory and eradicate a huge number of peaceful residents (largely Christian) in the area. IF we take Assad down the vacuum would likely be filled by a Muslim theocracy and we know how that has worked out for us in the past. When Saddam used chemical weapons against a rebellious village I think it was Bill that bombed what was said to be an Aspirin factory. Saddam didn't use the gas again after that even though maybe the thing we bombed wasn't a chemical weapons factory. Unfortunately there were multiple intelligence reports that sometime during George II's term those weapons got moved to Syria. Bill showed he was a little bit serious and it had some of the desired effect. Dictators value one thing above all else and that is self preservation.

I think you should provide a good option then.

IMO, we should No Fly the crap out of Syria. However, I do that knowing that at some point, it may not be "enough" and it pushes the US into further commitment. The catch is, while you are collecting "tough guy" political brownie points with the No Fly Zone, you can rarely go back from military half measures to more "walk away" measures.

In Iraq, this process took more or less 13 years (1991-2003). In Syria, it might move quicker, it might be slower.

 

[DudznSudz]

Bear in mind what we did to Russia in the Cold War. We never fought them directly, we baited them into spending at an unsustainable pace until they fell apart.

We can never destroy or depose every despot and saber-rattler out there. But we can collapse our country trying.

That's not entirely accurate. Their system was unsustainable over the long term long before we tried to bait them into military spending that exacerbated their internal problems and hastened their downfall by, the last I read on the subject when an economic analysis of it was done, "about two weeks."

Anyway, good posts on the subject! Hope that we don't get involved in anything too nasty over the next however long this lasts.

 

[DudznSudz]

I think you should provide a good option then.

IMO, we should No Fly the crap out of Syria. However, I do that knowing that at some point, it may not be "enough" and it pushes the US into further commitment. The catch is, while you are collecting "tough guy" political brownie points, you can rarely go back from military half measures to more "walk away" measures.

In Iraq, this process took more or less 13 years. In Syria, it might move quicker, it might be slower.

That's absolutely true. The problem with military actions is that they have a very nasty habit of easily ramping themselves up beyond what makes sense.

 

[Toms Wife]

Saying "there are no good options" is a cop out.

No, it's reality. Saying, "there are no good options" in no way implies we should hand over leadership of the world to others. However, it would do the American people good to hear truth from our leaders...and then maybe our support of the decisions that do get made would have greater fortitude and depth that would last for the long haul.

One quick example, a lot of people were mesmerized by shock and awe. However, what did that get us?

 

[jflores]

No, it's reality. Saying, "there are no good options" in no way implies we should hand over leadership of the world to others. However, it would do the American people good to hear truth from our leaders...and then maybe our support of the decisions that do get made would have greater fortitude and depth that would last for the long haul.

One quick example, a lot of people were mesmerized by shock and awe. However, what did that get us?

Shock and awe was an overpromise, under deliver scenario.

The story of Iraq is really a teachable moment on two levels. One is that, the US cannot assume that freed of tyranny, people's around the world will blossom into a functioning government for one, or necessarily be friendly to the US for two, or even desire to fight for their own country for three.

The other major lesson is, there are no cheap wars. Don't sell wars as cheap, quick wars. You hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Make sure the American people understand that if they want to fix a problem, they have to desire to fix it whether its a $30 billion fix, or a $2 trillion fix. Then start putting hands up in the air on authorizations.

 

[dinglefritz]

I think you should provide a good option then.

IMO, we should No Fly the crap out of Syria. However, I do that knowing that at some point, it may not be "enough" and it pushes the US into further commitment.

In Iraq, this process took more or less 13 years. In Syria, it might move quicker, it might be slower.

Well I have to trust in our leaders to provide the options. THAT is why I voted for Trump. Obama drew a line in the sand and Trump just let Putin know that we would enforce it going forward. Taking out an airfield from which the chemical weapons were launched is one way to enforce a "no fly" zone and it lets Assad know there will be consequences. Perhaps it will motivate Assad to negotiate some type of meaningful cease fire. The unfortunate thing is that we (Obama) aligned ourselves with a Muslim rebellion in order to try to contain ISIS. Removing Assad should never have been part of the equation. At least Assad was a somewhat secular dictator that allowed the Christian minorities to largely live in peace. Yeah he's a brutal dictator but I think it has become apparent that the only way to rule Muslim countries is with force as it has been for hundreds of years. The Egyptian military's rule of Egypt is an example. The Middle East is a mess but we have no choice but to engage in it. The "Arab Spring" touted by the media and politicians was a joke.

 

[vic.valiant]

Good thread...Sparky you should be proud of all respondents.

Just a question here that I haven't see raised though its possible somebody has.

There seems to be little doubt that there was a chemical weapon used but are we sure that Assad is the one that used it or are we just assuming it is so?

It would not be the first time that ISIS has sacrificed innocents or eaten their own.

They may not get world sympathy but they do get world condemnation of Assad and a blown up airbase (which is important to Assad's war effort against ISIS?) as an added bonus.

I'm a Cruz guy but a Trump enthusiast and I don't think this is a good idea.

I just don't see the compelling interest for the US in this.

Go Blue!

 

[TheBeav815]

That's not entirely accurate. Their system was unsustainable over the long term long before we tried to bait them into military spending that exacerbated their internal problems and hastened their downfall by, the last I read on the subject when an economic analysis of it was done, "about two weeks."

Anyway, good posts on the subject! Hope that we don't get involved in anything too nasty over the next however long this lasts.

I don't disagree about their system being unsustainable. I would point out that ours certainly doesn't look sustainable, either.

We're running the debt ever higher while telling people what we gotta do is collect less tax revenue while spending more on the military. We will "pay" for this, we tell people, by eliminating minuscule programs that do not begin to offset the cost of just the military increase, let alone the spending we did before.

It would be like if you came to me and said you have $40,000 in credit card debt and I said, "Well first thing you should do is quit your job for one that pays less. After you do that, you're going to switch to a brand of toilet paper that costs a dollar less per pack. Then you'll buy a a second and third furnace for your house, because believe you me this credit card debt will seem like NOTHING if you're cold. You're welcome."

At some point we have to start collecting more money than we spend. We can quibble about what that should look like, but on a long enough timeline, people will say "I'm not gonna buy your debt any more because I don't think you're good for it."

 

[dinglefritz]

Shock and awe was an overpromise, under deliver scenario.

The story of Iraq is really a teachable moment on two levels. One is that, the US cannot assume that freed of tyranny, people's around the world will blossom into a function government for one, or necessarily be friendly to the US for two, or even desire to fight for their own country for three.

The other major lesson is, there are no cheap wars. Don't sell wars as cheap, quick wars. You hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Make sure the American people understand that if they want to fix a problem, they have to desire to fix it whether its a $30 billion fix, or a $2 trillion fix. Then start putting hands up in the air on authorizations.

And in hindsight we might have been better off with a contained and somewhat neutralized Saddam in power in Iraq than the Iranian satellite state that is left now. The beauty of history is that it is never wrong (assuming it isn't falsified by people with ulterior motives). The trillion dollar question is how do we move forward while remaining engaged in the world without repeating the mistakes of the past.

 

[jflores]

Well I have to trust in our leaders to provide the options. THAT is why I voted for Trump. Obama drew a line in the sand and Trump just let Putin know that we would enforce it going forward. Taking out an airfield from which the chemical weapons were launched is one way to enforce a "no fly" zone and it lets Assad know there will be consequences. Perhaps it will motivate Assad to negotiate some type of meaningful cease fire. The unfortunate thing is that we (Obama) aligned ourselves with a Muslim rebellion in order to try to contain ISIS. Removing Assad should never have been part of the equation. At least Assad was a somewhat secular dictator that allowed the Christian minorities to largely live in peace. Yeah he's a brutal dictator but I think it has become apparent that the only way to rule Muslim countries is with force as it has been for hundreds of years. The Egyptian military's rule of Egypt is an example. The Middle East is a mess but we have no choice but to engage in it. The "Arab Spring" touted by the media and politicians was a joke.

Then you probably don't particularly care for Trump's latest change of heart.

"http://thehill.com/policy/international/327660-tillerson-no-role-for-assad-in-syria"

The "Arab Spring" was supposed to be the natural evolution of the Bush administration turning Iraq into a shining beacon of democracy. Which shows how badly that policy circle regrets the initial invasion. For a number of years now, since we can't win at an acceptable cost, we've reverted to the realization we'd rather just let the dictators rule, if they leave us and the others like us, alone.

 

[TheBeav815]

And in hindsight we might have been better off with a contained and somewhat neutralized Saddam in power in Iraq than the Iranian satellite state that is left now. The beauty of history is that it is never wrong (assuming it isn't falsified by people with ulterior motives). The trillion dollar question is how do we move forward while remaining engaged in the world without repeating the mistakes of the past.

At risk of oversimplifying, I think you really can't go and destabilize a country you're not prepared to outright colonize.

 

[jflores]

At risk of oversimplifying, I think you really can't go and destabilize a country you're not prepared to outright colonize.

"You break it, you buy it" *is* the Powell doctrine.

Military circles have been repeating this for years now in the GWOT, as politicos look for cheap and easy ways to get at this thing (the Middle East).

 

[tarheelhusker]

First thought was the scene from Johnny Dangerously,"Ima gonna cutta you bells off and shove'em upa your icehole." Now, we gots a leader as crazy as Y'alls mo- fo's & he will bring it.
"Keep your friends close, your enemies closer." Sun Tzu, the Art of War.

 

[dinglefritz]

Then you probably don't particularly care for Trump's latest change of heart.

"http://thehill.com/policy/international/327660-tillerson-no-role-for-assad-in-syria"

The "Arab Spring" was supposed to be the natural evolution of the Bush administration turning Iraq into a shining beacon of democracy. Which shows how badly that policy circle regrets the initial invasion. For a number of years now, since we can't win at an acceptable cost, we've reverted to the realization we'd rather just let the dictators rule, if they leave us and the others like us, alone.

Saying that Assad has no role versus actually taking him out are two different things. Make Assad think you are going to "Saddam" him and maybe the guy comes to the table. Maybe not. Maybe somebody in his military takes him down and we get to push restart like they did in Egypt. Wishful thinking. The real question is how do we take down ISIS and still extricate ourselves from the Syrian mess?

 

[dinglefritz]

"You break it, you buy it" *is* the Powell doctrine.

Military circles have been repeating this for years now in the GWOT, as politicos look for cheap and easy ways to get at this thing (the Middle East).

My wife and I got to talk to Powell one on one for about 20 minutes at a mixer after a speech (I was one of the low level sponsors) he gave about 20 years ago. I was in the room with then majority leader Daschle, our governor and a bevy of other political types and everybody was afraid to go up and talk to the guy so I turned to my wife and said, hey let's go say hi. Eventually our governor came over and joined us. Very down to earth guy and he called that one correctly.

 

[mwulf]

This was on twitter..kinda funny/scary

Less than 2 years ago, the guy who decided to bomb Syria today was firing Lorenzo Lamas & Ian Ziering on a reality show.

 

[swissticuffs]

I don't really care either way. I just fail to see how this action furthers our interests.
Our history in the Middle East leaves me little hope for any progress to be made.

 

[jflores]

My wife and I got to talk to Powell one on one for about 20 minutes at a mixer after a speech (I was one of the low level sponsors) he gave about 20 years ago. I was in the room with then majority leader Daschle, our governor and a bevy of other political types and everybody was afraid to go up and talk to the guy so I turned to my wife and said, hey let's go say hi. Eventually our governor came over and joined us. Very down to earth guy and he called that one correctly.

Very cool guy. He wasn't happy about having to be the guy who delivered Iraq at the UN.

 

[jflores]

Good thread...Sparky you should be proud of all respondents.

Just a question here that I haven't see raised though its possible somebody has.

There seems to be little doubt that there was a chemical weapon used but are we sure that Assad is the one that used it or are we just assuming it is so?

It would not be the first time that ISIS has sacrificed innocents or eaten their own.

They may not get world sympathy but they do get world condemnation of Assad and a blown up airbase (which is important to Assad's war effort against ISIS?) as an added bonus.

I'm a Cruz guy but a Trump enthusiast and I don't think this is a good idea.

I just don't see the compelling interest for the US in this.

Go Blue!

It was an air delivered munition for which the DoD showed the radar tracks of the plane leaving the airfield and heading to the target area.

There are only two air forces on that side of the aisle, Russia or Syria. Take your pick.

"The Pentagon on Thursday night released a graphic showing the flight track of Syrian aircraft as they left the Shayrat field on Tuesday and carried out the chemical attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib Province."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/...responses-to-syrian-chemical-attack.html?_r=0

 

[jflores]

Saying that Assad has no role versus actually taking him out are two different things. Make Assad think you are going to "Saddam" him and maybe the guy comes to the table. Maybe not. Maybe somebody in his military takes him down and we get to push restart like they did in Egypt. Wishful thinking. The real question is how do we take down ISIS and still extricate ourselves from the Syrian mess?

The easiest military answer is, ally with Russia and Assad to fight ISIS and then hand Assad back his country and go home.

I'm not sure that allying with Putin and Assad is politically palatable, with the general US populace.

The other "easiest" option is that you basically do the same thing, demand Assad step down, and hand the country over to Putin and whoever he deputizes to run New Syria. Also probably not palatable. Quite frankly, Russia is a big boy, if we are just going to use US forces to take care of their vassal state for them, that almost cannot be justified to the US public.

The "lack of a suitable host nation partner" that plagued us in Afghanistan and Iraq, is most certainly a worse situation here in Syria. (Thanks Gen. Petraeus for that bit of wisdom).

 

[DudznSudz]

I don't disagree about their system being unsustainable. I would point out that ours certainly doesn't look sustainable, either.

We're running the debt ever higher while telling people what we gotta do is collect less tax revenue while spending more on the military. We will "pay" for this, we tell people, by eliminating minuscule programs that do not begin to offset the cost of just the military increase, let alone the spending we did before.

It would be like if you came to me and said you have $40,000 in credit card debt and I said, "Well first thing you should do is quit your job for one that pays less. After you do that, you're going to switch to a brand of toilet paper that costs a dollar less per pack. Then you'll buy a a second and third furnace for your house, because believe you me this credit card debt will seem like NOTHING if you're cold. You're welcome."

At some point we have to start collecting more money than we spend. We can quibble about what that should look like, but on a long enough timeline, people will say "I'm not gonna buy your debt any more because I don't think you're good for it."

Yeah, that's mostly spot on. I would add this slight change to what you're saying though: running deficits is absolutely fine and part of the normal function of a large government. So, it isn't that we have to completely pay it down, or that we're in danger of not selling enough treasury bonds to float our currency, as it is still the dominant currency of the world market. It is fair to say though that the balance is out of whack and we're taking on too much "stupid" debt.

SO, if you want to raise enough revenue to start paying it down, I think you need two things: a reduction in spending and an investment in growing the economy so that tax revenue is better. In the first case, you're totally right, we spend way too much on the military and other crap like that. In the second case, paying for good education, a healthy workforce, infrastructure, and ensuring a stable, well-regulated business environment are all places where the government should be spending a lot of time and money. This is how we kicked so much ass post-WW2, and how we should still be kicking so much ass (look at the economies of other countries that follow that method, and by and large, they're doing pretty darn well). Spend on things that pay huge dividends, reduce costs on things that either aren't really all that necessary or that just incur more costs down the road.

 

[Huskerfan2112]

What a great thread. Well thought out points delivered in a civil manner. Good stuff everyone.

 

[huskerfan66]

This was a tit for tat.

Absent any other considerations, I'd support going "Full Hilary" and just grounding the dudes Air Force in its entirety.

However, at that point, it becomes a "now what". Have we accomplished what we came to do? You can kill all the folks you want, but you won't do it from the sky? Or at least have your Russian friends drop non-chemical bombs for you?

Of the top half dozen or so powers in that country, virtually none of them are friendly to us. Is the US supposed to fight a real ground war to evict Assad and turn the country over to whom? ISIS? Russia? Iran? Al Nusrah? By virtue of Russia being there, we will never own *all* of it, but probably more importantly, we won't even own the more valuable parts of it.

Trump, Obama, McCain, all those guys wrestling with that basic question over the years.

No offense jflores, this is more than fit for tat. World is taking notice. That is all.

 

[jflores]

No offense jflores, this is more than fit for tat. World is taking notice. That is all.

This was strategic messaging. Mission accomplished (the world did take notice). The strike was not that big and a military tit for tat.

"A military official said the attack was at the more limited end of the military options presented to Mr. Trump on Thursday by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The official said the strike was intended to send a signal to Mr. Assad about the United States’ intention to use military force if he continues to use chemical weapons."

In addition, not only did we selected a limited strike option, we warned those on the receiving end of it. Planning was done to ensure low losses even among Syrian personnel.

"Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said Russian forces had been notified in advance of the strike. “Military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield,” he said. No Russian aircraft were at the base, military officials said."

Also note this:

"Mr. McMaster said the missile strikes would not eliminate Mr. Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons, but would degrade it. He said the United States military had specifically sought to avoid hitting what it believes is a facility containing more sarin gas at the airfield."

Degrade is a very fuzzy and sometimes reviled term in the military targeting world. One of the Warrants who is well known in the targeting community likes to give a speech about how degrade is the most BS military objective ever, because it allows commanders to cause even the slightest damage to something, and still claim mission success (and hence their political masters).

The Syrian people understand this:

"Alaa Alyousef, a 27-year old resident of Khan Sheikhoun, said Friday the U.S. missile attack "alleviates a small part of our sufferings," but he worries it will be like "anesthetics," to save face. AlYousef said the U.S. is capable of "paralyzing" Syrian warplanes.

"What good is a strike on Shayart air base alone while we have more than 15 other air bases," he said. "

This strike was clearly more than a pin prick, but the photos also show a clearly limited strike against certain key points. This was not "Rolling Thunder".

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/...responses-to-syrian-chemical-attack.html?_r=0

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...te-photos-show-major-damage-to-airfields.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...ost-completely-destroyed-after-us-strike.html

 

[TheBeav815]

Yeah, that's mostly spot on. I would add this slight change to what you're saying though: running deficits is absolutely fine and part of the normal function of a large government. So, it isn't that we have to completely pay it down, or that we're in danger of not selling enough treasury bonds to float our currency, as it is still the dominant currency of the world market. It is fair to say though that the balance is out of whack and we're taking on too much "stupid" debt.

SO, if you want to raise enough revenue to start paying it down, I think you need two things: a reduction in spending and an investment in growing the economy so that tax revenue is better. In the first case, you're totally right, we spend way too much on the military and other crap like that. In the second case, paying for good education, a healthy workforce, infrastructure, and ensuring a stable, well-regulated business environment are all places where the government should be spending a lot of time and money. This is how we kicked so much ass post-WW2, and how we should still be kicking so much ass (look at the economies of other countries that follow that method, and by and large, they're doing pretty darn well). Spend on things that pay huge dividends, reduce costs on things that either aren't really all that necessary or that just incur more costs down the road.

That's what frustrates me so much when the screams of "socialism" echo across the hilltops, people seem to have no concept that these things were all done in the US in the mid 1900s and that they gave rise to far-reaching prosperity. We look back on the 50s-70s now like some sort of golden age. This is the image people conjure when they reference MAGA, but they seem to have no idea that the policies that made it great were the very things they're now taught to decry as evil:

1) High taxes on top earners and on big business profits
2) Heavy government investment domestically
3) A powerful, innovative, but much more fiscally constrained military
4) Strong labor and a strong middle class

The labor snake ate its own tail eventually and made itself an easy target. Once enough unions became bloated, corrupt, and politically-tied, it was easy to assail them as part of a problem to be solved. But the baby of strong wages and good benefits was thrown out with that bathwater. And what do you get from strong wages? Tax revenue.

It boggles the mind. People generally want the same things if you ask them on an individual basis. And then they elect these nutbags who do none of those things and say, "But you've gotta re-elect me because this time I'm gonna do the things, and we can't let those other guys win!!!"

 

[huskerfan66]

This was strategic messaging. Mission accomplished (the world did take notice). The strike was not that big and a military tit for tat.

"A military official said the attack was at the more limited end of the military options presented to Mr. Trump on Thursday by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The official said the strike was intended to send a signal to Mr. Assad about the United States’ intention to use military force if he continues to use chemical weapons."

In addition, not only did we selected a limited strike option, we warned those on the receiving end of it. Planning was done to ensure low losses even among Syrian personnel.

"Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said Russian forces had been notified in advance of the strike. “Military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield,” he said. No Russian aircraft were at the base, military officials said."

Also note this:

"Mr. McMaster said the missile strikes would not eliminate Mr. Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons, but would degrade it. He said the United States military had specifically sought to avoid hitting what it believes is a facility containing more sarin gas at the airfield."

Degrade is a very fuzzy and sometimes reviled term in the military targeting world. One of the Warrants who is well known in the targeting community likes to give a speech about how degrade is the most BS military objective ever, because it allows commanders to cause even the slightest damage to something, and still claim mission success (and hence their political masters).

The Syrian people understand this:

"Alaa Alyousef, a 27-year old resident of Khan Sheikhoun, said Friday the U.S. missile attack "alleviates a small part of our sufferings," but he worries it will be like "anesthetics," to save face. AlYousef said the U.S. is capable of "paralyzing" Syrian warplanes.

"What good is a strike on Shayart air base alone while we have more than 15 other air bases," he said. "

This strike was clearly more than a pin prick, but the photos also show a clearly limited strike against certain key points. This was not "Rolling Thunder".

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/...responses-to-syrian-chemical-attack.html?_r=0

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...te-photos-show-major-damage-to-airfields.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...ost-completely-destroyed-after-us-strike.html

I agree. We could have done much more if we wanted. As Sherriff Buford T Justice said in Smokey and the Bandit, "That's an attention getter"

 

[schuele]

I've felt for a long time that it's a mistake to try to keep these not-really-countries like Iraq and Syria together as single entities that only seem viable if they are under the iron fist of a brutal dictator. The opposite finally happened in the Balkans, and it's been a very positive move. I realize it would be far more difficult and complicated to bring peace to the Middle East, but there were warring factions in the Balkans who despised each other for centuries. They still despise each other, but the killing has stopped.

I just don't see how you rid the region of ISIS until the people expected to do the heavy lifting on the ground have some assurances that something better awaits them post-ISIS. Sovereign homelands might or might not accomplish this, but it sure as Hell seems worth trying.

 

[jflores]

I've felt for a long time that it's a mistake to try to keep these not-really-countries like Iraq and Syria together as single entities that only seem viable if they are under the iron fist of a brutal dictator. The opposite finally happened in the Balkans, and it's been a very positive move. I realize it would be far more difficult and complicated to bring peace to the Middle East, but there were warring factions in the Balkans who despised each other for centuries. They still despise each other, but the killing has stopped.

I just don't see how you rid the region of ISIS until the people expected to do the heavy lifting on the ground have some assurances that something better awaits them post-ISIS. Sovereign homelands might or might not accomplish this, but it sure as Hell seems worth trying.

We have a very "us" centric view of the problem too. For us, ISIL is probably the highest priority threat.

Turkey, our ally, however, probably views an independent Kurdistan as a bigger national threat than the Syrian Civil War or ISIL.

 

[schuele]

We have a very "us" centric view of the problem too. For us, ISIL is probably the highest priority threat.

Turkey, our ally, however, probably views an independent Kurdistan as a bigger national threat than the Syrian Civil War or ISIL.

Oh sure, I definitely understand that. But at some point I have to wonder if Turkey would view a rogue nation of Kurds with absolutely nothing left to lose a bigger threat than an officially independent Kurdistan?

 

[GretnaShawn]

First thought was the scene from Johnny Dangerously,"Ima gonna cutta you bells off and shove'em upa your icehole." Now, we gots a leader as crazy as Y'alls mo- fo's & he will bring it.
"Keep your friends close, your enemies closer." Sun Tzu, the Art of War.

Like him or hate him, Trump can make a statement. This was a statement to Assad. China is not on your side.

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

That's what frustrates me so much when the screams of "socialism" echo across the hilltops, people seem to have no concept that these things were all done in the US in the mid 1900s and that they gave rise to far-reaching prosperity. We look back on the 50s-70s now like some sort of golden age. This is the image people conjure when they reference MAGA, but they seem to have no idea that the policies that made it great were the very things they're now taught to decry as evil:

1) High taxes on top earners and on big business profits
2) Heavy government investment domestically
3) A powerful, innovative, but much more fiscally constrained military
4) Strong labor and a strong middle class

The labor snake ate its own tail eventually and made itself an easy target. Once enough unions became bloated, corrupt, and politically-tied, it was easy to assail them as part of a problem to be solved. But the baby of strong wages and good benefits was thrown out with that bathwater. And what do you get from strong wages? Tax revenue.

It boggles the mind. People generally want the same things if you ask them on an individual basis. And then they elect these nutbags who do none of those things and say, "But you've gotta re-elect me because this time I'm gonna do the things, and we can't let those other guys win!!!"

I've said it before and I'll say it again beav. I freaking hate your politics, HATE!!, but I really enjoy reading your takes about politics.

 

[GretnaShawn]

 

[jflores]

I've said it before and I'll say it again beav. I freaking hate your politics, HATE!!, but I really enjoy reading your takes about politics.

The biggest problem I have with the whole "Oh man, we bombed this sh*t hole country, everyone is going to run scared now!" thing is that its waaaaaay overdone. I get it, new sheriff in town, he's willing to shoot in some cases. Got it. Message sent.

This is a country where everyone and their mother is chucking ammunition down range in some form or fashion. It has little ability to threaten an external power such as us. It has no nuke weapons.

Chucking some TLAMs into Syria is an entirely different set of calculus than any US intentions with China or North Korea.

And China and North Korea know it.

 

[jflores]

A fiscally constrained military is probably not terribly feasible. In the 1950's we didn't have decades worth of vets on retirement benefits.

We do now. Former SECDEF Gates famously said that the DoD was basically a benefits agency, that occasionally went to war.

So unless folks are willing to just throw the retired vets overboard, those outlays are going to be a substantial premium that is paid to the DoD, on top of all the other expensive hardware we actually use to fight. The only way to significantly chop the DoD budget is to basically throw out benefits for old vets (keep warfighting ability), or throw out warfighting capacity (lose benefits) or if you want to do both, significantly chop both (although neither would be done particularly well).

This is the same exact mechanism that prevents the entire federal budget from shrinking drastically. Social Security and Medicaid take up such large portions of revenue, you can shuffle little pieces around here and there in the other line items, but you are starting with a pretty big bill before you actually pay for education or roads or whatever.

 

[DudznSudz]

A fiscally constrained military is probably not terribly feasible. In the 1950's we didn't have decades worth of vets on retirement benefits.

We do now. Former SECDEF Gates famously said that the DoD was basically a benefits agency, that occasionally went to war.

So unless folks are willing to just throw the retired vets overboard, those outlays are going to be a substantial premium that is paid to the DoD, on top of all the other expensive hardware we actually use to fight. The only way to significantly chop the DoD budget is to basically throw out benefits for old vets (keep warfighting ability), or throw out warfighting capacity (lose benefits) or if you want to do both, significantly chop both.

This is the same exact mechanism that prevents the entire federal budget from shrinking drastically. Social Security and Medicaid take up such large portions of revenue, you can shuffle little pieces around here and there in the other line items, but you are starting with a pretty big bill before you actually pay for education or roads or whatever.

That's a really good point, and an excellent argument for increasing taxes on certain segments of the population.

 

[Bugeater]

I've said it before and I'll say it again beav. I freaking hate your politics, HATE!!, but I really enjoy reading your do takes about politics.

Do I detect a blossoming "bro-mance?"