The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread

[Dscans]

It's almost like you don't want to comment on anything anymore, because who knows? We're all just trolls here.

But it'd make sense that Assad's (and his allies) only defense is to embarass the U.S. And with Obama's amateurish handling of the situation, that's not hard to do.

And I must say, as embarrassingly indecisive as Obama has been in handling this, I do like him weighing the options.

I don't think Obama is weighing any options, he's made up his mind and wants to attack Syria. They spent the entire weekend saying there was no political solution and then Russia seized on Kerry's offhand remark to make the US look like idiots. Obama has no choice but to go through the motions of looking like he's weighing options. Whats going to happen is the US is going to make so many demands at the UN that China and Russia refuse to go along with the US and we're back to square one, lobbing missiles. Obama is clearly not a soccer fan scheduling his address at 9PM.

I think he's smarter and better advised than W. was, so I gotta believe he wants the diplomatic solution on the table given the momentum against a strike. Fox News was on at the gym and they were theorizing, as Fox is want to do, that maybe this is a scripted act to make Putin look good as part of some larger deal to address Iran later. Seems dumb at first glance, but the government just happen to approve the huge Smithfield sale to China today, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that backroom deals are going down.

*wont

[Harry Lime]

I'm not sure I learned anything new after that address, but I guess it needed to happen

[broken iris]

I'm not sure I learned anything new after that address, but I guess it needed to happen

I was happy with what he said. It was measured and illustrated a sense of shared responsibility without punting the issue to Congress. It may have been nice to put more pressure directly on Putin to get Syria to allow a more permanent UN presence, but that would have been a risk he might not want to take at this point.

[broken iris]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini ... =twr&_r=2&

A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

And on 9/11 too. It really is shirtless bear wrestling in Siberia versus shirtless boogie boarding in Hawaii.


The only thing he didn't say "Hey America, you realize this is all just a way for them to distract you while they rush the immigration-amnesty bill and another debt ceiling increase through Congress, right?"

[Simple Torture]

Besides the God stuff, the last paragraph of Putin's op-ed is basically the thesis of one of my comp exam essays (that is, America isn't special or exceptional, just powerful and influential). I won't get all up in his face about stealing it, though, because, you know, naked bear wrestling.

[simple schoolboy]

How exactly did we manage to make the Russians the voice of reason?

[broken iris]

How exactly did we manage to make the Russians the voice of reason?

Well, it's not really reason as much as it is some Game of Thrones type shit over Iran. Americans play Poker, Russians chess.*

*credit to a freepr for that one...

[Harry Lime]

Putin is making us look like idiots. By us I mean Obama.

Besides the God stuff, the last paragraph of Putin's op-ed is basically the thesis of one of my comp exam essays (that is, America isn't special or exceptional, just powerful and influential). I won't get all up in his face about stealing it, though, because, you know, naked bear wrestling.

The man stole a superbowl ring. He's capable of anything.

[BurtReynolds]

http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-rejects-ass ... itics.html

gotta get your war on!

[harmless]

kerry rejects ass, huh?

[simple schoolboy]

I'm not sure I learned anything new after that address, but I guess it needed to happen

I was happy with what he said. It was measured and illustrated a sense of shared responsibility without punting the issue to Congress. It may have been nice to put more pressure directly on Putin to get Syria to allow a more permanent UN presence, but that would have been a risk he might not want to take at this point.

Punting to congress? Congress is usually the branch punting on its constitutional responsibilities. It's rather odd to punt on powers that one doesn't actually posses.

[broken iris]

I'm not sure I learned anything new after that address, but I guess it needed to happen

I was happy with what he said. It was measured and illustrated a sense of shared responsibility without punting the issue to Congress. It may have been nice to put more pressure directly on Putin to get Syria to allow a more permanent UN presence, but that would have been a risk he might not want to take at this point.

Punting to congress? Congress is usually the branch punting on its constitutional responsibilities. It's rather odd to punt on powers that one doesn't actually posses.

The President has the legal authority to launch strikes without Congressional approval, in this case Obama extended the olive branch to Congress and asked for a vote before he would strike (unlike the rest of his middle east adventures). It's political, but it also puts some burden of the congresspeople to man up and take a public stand on the issue rather than just yelling into the echo chamber.


And I noticed this on zerohedge this morning:

[simple schoolboy]

The president has the authority to launch strikes from...? The War Powers Resolution? It might be law, but its a bit difficult to see how it squares with the constitution. Such a claim sounds similar to that of the administration: all of the NSA activities are legal because the FISA court says so.

[broken iris]

The Kenyan mall tragedy is still playing out, but the Taliban does not like to be out done:

Two suicide bombers attack Pakistan church killing 85 people in deadliest-ever attack on country's Christians
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tians.html

[Fuck You Jobu]

The president has the authority to launch strikes from...? The War Powers Resolution? It might be law, but its a bit difficult to see how it squares with the constitution. Such a claim sounds similar to that of the administration: all of the NSA activities are legal because the FISA court says so.

The constitution was premised on the fact that it took weeks/months to prepare or respond to an attack.

Today it's in minutes and hours.

[psychobain]

[broken iris]

The president has the authority to launch strikes from...? The War Powers Resolution? It might be law, but its a bit difficult to see how it squares with the constitution. Such a claim sounds similar to that of the administration: all of the NSA activities are legal because the FISA court says so.

These two things are true, even if we don't want them to be. In a pluralist democracy, we cannot state something is illegal just because we don't like it, when it is the law. I agree they may not stand up to a challenge at the Supreme Court level, but for now they are not "claims" they are laws and all we can do against them is to vote accordingly at the ballot box and the checkout counter (when appropriate).

[simple schoolboy]

The president has the authority to launch strikes from...? The War Powers Resolution? It might be law, but its a bit difficult to see how it squares with the constitution. Such a claim sounds similar to that of the administration: all of the NSA activities are legal because the FISA court says so.

These two things are true, even if we don't want them to be. In a pluralist democracy, we cannot state something is illegal just because we don't like it, when it is the law. I agree they may not stand up to a challenge at the Supreme Court level, but for now they are not "claims" they are laws and all we can do against them is to vote accordingly at the ballot box and the checkout counter (when appropriate).

You sir are right in the sense that it is appropriate to cooperate with an unconstitutional entry and search of your home because it is in your interest to stay alive to do so. That, however does not make it right.

Which is exactly why I expect to get out of jury duty by accurately stating my belief in the appropriateness of jury nullification.

[broken iris]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... itely?lite

Endless Afghanistan? US-Afghan agreement would keep troops in place and funds flowing, perhaps indefinitely

The document doesn’t specifically say how many U.S. and NATO troops would remain in Afghanistan beyond 2014. Afghan officials tell NBC News they hope it will be 10 to 15 thousand. U.S. officials tell NBC News the number is closer to seven to eight thousand, with an additional contribution from NATO. Factoring in troop rotations, home leave, and breaks between deployments, the service of tens of thousands of American troops would be required to maintain a force of seven to eight thousand for a decade or longer. The anticipated costs would likely run into the billions quickly.

As a reminder:

“We are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. And I've set a timetable. We will have them all out of there by 2014. Gov. Romney doesn't have a timetable. I think he's wrong. That's what's at stake in this election.” - President Obama, Boulder, Colo., September 2012.

I realize situations in the theater can change and a permanent troop presence was highly likely, but this doesn't seem like something that will go over well with US Americans.

[Norah]

Loving the GOP response to the Iran deal tonight.