By Kathy Gilsinana in The Atlantic. (Yes, The Atlantic, which recently fired its newly hired conservative, Kevin D. Williamson, is highlighting Obama's failure as Syria gas-attacks its way onto the news front-burner this week.)
“We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,” declared then-Secretary of State John Kerry on Meet the Press in 2014. ... But there were two important and deadly loopholes. The first was that Assad did not declare everything—a reality that Kerry acknowledged publicly, including in a farewell memo to staff, in which he wrote that “unfortunately other undeclared chemical weapons continue to be used ruthlessly against the Syrian people.” The second was that chlorine gas, which has legitimate civilian uses, was not part of the deal....
But, despite that surprising headline, the article doesn't accept Trump's blaming of Obama:
President Trump has labeled the [recent gassing] “an atrocity,” blaming the Obama administration for declining to enforce its declared “red line” against chemical weapons use in 2013. But if anything, until this morning it looked like the Trump administration was more interested in extricating itself from Syria entirely. The attacks follow a strange few days in Washington, as the president stated his desire to get out of Syria “very soon;” his advisers insisted the U.S. was staying to finish the job of defeating the Islamic State; and the White House tried to resolve the contradiction by insisting that American troops would stay in Syria until ISIS was gone, an outcome that was rapidly coming to pass.
The article doesn't say what should be done, and of course, I don't know. I'll just say that if Assad had civilians gassed just as Trump was saying let's get out of Syria soon and his advisers were contradicting him and saying we need to finish the job, Assad seems to be weighing in on the side of the advisers and saying
Bring it on. Now, why would he do that?
Posts
205 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 205 of 205J Farmer,
As stated, when STRATEGIC interests demand that we act in a certain theater, at that juncture, we can and should be bold in espousing what you and I...well at least I feel is a better system of the world. Stop oppression. Get rid of dictators.
It is ridiculous to assert that I am anywhere near saying that I want a world war against anyone who believes differently than I do.
Nonsense! I will leave that to Islam who is rather strident on that in their religious texts.
WHERE we can make a difference, in an honorable fashion, we should.
But your side is more about power than principle as you showed with Clinton, signing off his wars without a quibble, defending his far worse than Trump's egregious behavior.
Essentially you said something horribly stupid and nonsensical: that America has ONLY been on the moral side of war once a long time ago.
Because...you are for rape rooms?
Of course you aren't. But you are snidely and dishonestly dismissive of the morality of any war which doesn't have a big (D) in charge of it.
Because of you want power and believe you are a moral marvel...who won't fight against rape rooms when offered the opportunity.
Sorry, not canonizing you, chum.
FIDO expresses the hard-wired conservative fear factor identified in a Yale Study that says chickenhawk-cuck is because science.
Make me, you retarded gnat.
Now, Inga. Gnats who are developmentally challenged deserve our sympathy, do they not? ;-)
Buwaya - Excellent Comment!
>The Kurds were once Russian (Soviet) allies, and the YPG (which the US has greatly
>aided), etc. were and may still be nominally communists.
What a mess!
My daughter's French teacher was from Syria, Christian. I hope her family is OK.
@FIDO:
As stated, when STRATEGIC interests demand that we act in a certain theater, at that juncture, we can and should be bold in espousing what you and I...well at least I feel is a better system of the world. Stop oppression. Get rid of dictators.
So tell us what strategic benefits we have gained from the Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libyan Wars. As for dictators and oppression, you ignore that much of our strategic position is built on partnering, supporting, and protecting dictators and oppressors. Whether it is the military dictator of Egypt, an absolute monarchies among the Gulf states, or president-for-life strongmen in places like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.
WHERE we can make a difference, in an honorable fashion, we should.
The US has global power projection capabilities. Where do you believe we can make a difference currently that we are not, and what could we be doing to make this difference?
But your side is more about power than principle as you showed with Clinton, signing off his wars without a quibble, defending his far worse than Trump's egregious behavior.
Okay, you're obviously arguing with a strawman here. If by my "side," you mean Democrats, then you don't have the first idea of my political worldview. For starters, I was 10-18 while Clinton was president and certainly "sign[ed] off his wars." I cast my first vote for President in 2000 for Pat Buchanan. Clinton's foreign policy is where the US really started going off the rails, and I opposed his interventions in the Balkans.
Essentially you said something horribly stupid and nonsensical: that America has ONLY been on the moral side of war once a long time ago.
That is not what I said. What I said, in response to another commenter brining up WWII/Cold War was: "What sinister piffle. It's okay when we gets hundreds of thousands of people killed and trillions of dollars of property destroyed because we were on the right side of a conflict once almost eighty years ago."
And I completely stand by my comment. Even if the US has "been on the moral side" in every single conflict it ever engaged in, that would say exactly zero about the morality, correctness, or advisability of any future military conflict.
So, in other words, if I ask, "Is it a good idea to destroy the government of Libya?" Saying, "We were the good guys in WWII!" is not an answer.
Of course you aren't. But you are snidely and dishonestly dismissive of the morality of any war which doesn't have a big (D) in charge of it.
Except I was critical of most of Obama's foreign policy, from his escalation in Afghanistan, to the drone campaign, to his supporting insurgents in Syria, and most of all the idiotic Libyan war. I judge wars based on whether they are necessary to protect vital American interests. That is it. And I have been consistent on that principle regardless of who has occupied the White House.
Because of you want power and believe you are a moral marvel...who won't fight against rape rooms when offered the opportunity.
Where are you getting this "when offered the opportunity" formulation. You speak as if the "opportunity" to invade Iraq was something that just fortuitously became available to us, as opposed to a country we targeted for invasion and occupation.
But, if I understand you correctly, you are for going to war in Iraq to stop rape but you wouldn't be for invading Eritrea to stop rape? And that's because the US does not have strategic interests in Eritrea? Okay, that's fine. But isn't that exactly what you complained of me doing earlier, being "more about power than principle?"
Post a Comment