"..in a very uncomfortable place.""You mean like the back of a Volkswagon?"
Zombie,Ha ha!Driftglass,Off topic but do you have any comments on the media campaign that is underway to legitimize intervention in Syria?It has all the old classics: Hysteria over NBC weapons. A rush to judgment before international inspectors have weighed in. The promise of military action without enough attention paid to the expected, probable outcome.This script is so familiar, I'm more than a bit worried I'm watching the next big strategic blunder in the making.-- Nonny Mouse
@Nonny MouseDefine intervention? Funny fact I was in the Navy prior to 9/11 and we were... bombing the shit out of Iraq, enforcing no fly zones, trade embargos, and boarding (this is a hostile action and can involve bloody close range combat). It was a fairly low casualty, cheap, and painless issue. I was in the military after 9/11 and had a front row seat to that cluster fuck.I'm not endorsing military action here or in the general sense of it. What I am saying is that I've seen well used military force to accomplish goals, and I've seen full blown fucking disasters. Which happens is entirely dependent on the administration and civilian leaders running things. Even non combat action this applies, the Navy could have unfucked Katrina in record time (we have a very good track record with this sort of thing, and the resources to do it), but it was a disaster because of Brown and Bush.I'm vastly more confident in the current administration than the prior one. Besides, we might just pull a rapid door kick operation with some targeted strikes, the fleet would be back sipping cocktails and chasing tail on the beach by dinner.We carried out a very effective intervention and containment on Iraq right till Bush went and fucked the entire thing up.
@OverclockIt isn't doubts about the capabilities of the US military that give me pause. It is lack of missions that lead to probable, desirable outcomes in terms of US national interest.I'm very suspicious of the great certainty both Sec Kerry and the US media are displaying with regards to who is responsible for the chemical attack in Syria. The administration has said that they will release proof that Assad is behind the attacks but prior to that happening the sabre rattling is premature.Then, even if Assad is proved to be behind gassing his own people, there still isn't any outcome in Syria that is desirable. The US military can, as you say, kick in the door and make the rubble bounce for a few days with little cost to the US, but I don't see a 2-3 day air war deciding the outcome of the Syrian civil war. I then worry that the absence of a decisive strike against Assad will create a lot of pressure on policy makers to do more. The danger of escalation is very real in my opinion. I just don't see why the US would want to be responsible for the outcome of the civil war in Syria or would prefer either the loyalists or the rebels at this point.I take your point about Obama. He resisted the possibility of expanding the mission in Libya, so perhaps he can manage this thing too, but I remain wary about the prospect.-- Nonny Mouse
No one wants war, but when a Govt is gassing its own people (Assuming that's what's happening) what do you do?While I can certainly agree with the sentiment from the anti war left, its times like these where the lack of a real plan to deal with a situation like this that lends credit to the pro war right.There were legitimate reasons to go to war before Bush, and there still is. However everything is now coloured in the "Bush fked up 2 wars, so this is a cluster fk in the waiting" glasses.
Much depends on how good the proof of Assad's responsibility is. I don't want to see the US intervene and then find out it was a false flag operation of some sort, especially if the US creates enough havoc to hand Syria over to the salafists amongst the rebels.-- Nonny Mouse
No one wants war, but when a Govt is gassing its own people (Assuming that's what's happening) what do you do?Well, that's the point.So much of America's international action for the last couple of decades seems to boil down to:1. Something horrible happens. Something MUST be done!2.bombing is something.3. Therefore, we must bomb.Is there any reasonable outcome from an aerial bombing? "Sending a Message" is pretty vague. What is the message? Who are we sending it to, and how does bombing something other than that person get the message to them?
Post a Comment