The relation between deterence and peaceful compellence was addressed ad nauseum in Pat’s Syrian chemical weapons thread. Go read my and smh23m’s posts.
Great to have you & smh23 here, both know more and are more knowledgeable than a former United States Secretary of Defense. We are truly honored.
An argument by authority is a logical fallacy. It’s also frequently resorted to by those who are unequipped to have an informed discussion of the task at hand. You’ve demonstrated time and time again that you’re unqualified to discuss international affairs and national security policy. It isn’t because of the lack of letters behind your name, it’s because you’re wholly unwilling to learn the rudimentary basics of the subject at hand. If you want to stand by what you’ve posted, you’d logically have to accept everything Hilary Clinton has said on diplomacy.
First of all, the concept of credibility in international relations is nebulous at best. As for qualifying a decrease in American credibility, even more so. Even so, the course of events in Syria suggests that the Assad regime was impacted by the credible threat of American force.
smh_23 wrote: To reiterate a last time: The threatened strikes and the disarmament are one and the same matter, because the threatened strikes made possible the disarmament, and to have gone through with the strikes would have been to reject the disarmament deal. They were mutually exclusive alternatives, and the correct alternative was chosen. Choice by choice, the correct choice was made . . .
- Obama warns against the use of chemical weapons.
- Chemical weapons are used at Ghouta.
- The U.S., in concert with France and other (mostly Western) powers, signals its intention to launch punitive strikes on Syrian targets, contingent upon investigators’ confirmation of the attack.
- It becomes clear that that confirmation is forthcoming, and, as the West prepares to strike, Russia and Syria scramble to offer a deal in order to avert an attack. They offer the surrender of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile and Syrian accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention.
- The U.S. accepts the deal. [/quote]
http://www.columbiauniversity.net/itc/sipa/S6800/courseworks/FourFuncForce.pdf
Obama’s threat of military force in response to a violation of the chemical red line he established constituted an act of DETERRENCE. “Do not carry out action X, for if you do, I will strike you upon the head with this club.” Deterrence is always a peaceful exercise of force, and by definition it has failed when the threat of force has to be carried out.
When the treat of force is carried out, deterrence ends and COMPELLENCE begins. “I am now going to hit you over the head with this club and will not stop until you acquiesce to my demands.” In other words, compellence entails that actor A successfully compels actor B to carry out an action (or not to carry out an action) that it otherwise would not have. (or would have). Compellence does not necessarily require that violence be employed, but can be accomplished by the threat of it or through other means (economic sanctions). Ergo, it can take both peaceful and physical forms. Deterence failed and compellence began. The Obama administration’s deployment of military forces to the region coupled with clear signaling of its intent constituted an act of peaceful compellence, and a successful one at that when Assad reluctantly agreed to relinquish his chemical weapons arsenal.
Going back to the pistol analogy, American power was locked, cocked, off safety, and pointed at the Syrian regime, which compelled to yield its chemical weapons.
Lol, serious. Bismark, you seem nice enough, but come on man. How many times have you written some variation of “source?” in your posts? That’s an appeal to authority 9 times out of 10.
Note, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, but then again I don’t consider myself an expert on anything.
Edit: It took me 3 minutes to find this…
I like the academic angle Bismark brings. He brings diversity here.
Re: Syria, the reality is that the American public overwhelmingly rejected the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons” that Obama was arguing for. The Senate and House strongly opposed it and his bill died in Congress. Those are facts, not my opinion. I’m not some Obama worshiper but what was he supposed to do?
On top of domestic rejection, there was international rejection. The only support came from special interest groups and the Saudi’s and their lapdogs. Maybe he shouldn’t have said “red line” but it in the end chemical weapons were surrendered. Obama should get credit for respecting the will of Congress and Americans.
I’ve got no problem with it. It’s only about half the pie so to speak, but that’s better than nothing.
I’m not hopeful that someone that disagrees with me will actually address the substance of my post.
Maybe someone should contact Dr. Robert Gates.
So, the red line was a success story which, along with the destabilization of Libya by NATO & US forces lead by the Obama Administration and directly brought us to the situation we are now faced with: Russia challenging Nato states, Russia and Turkey almost coming to blows, Russian intervention in Syria, Russian intervention in Ukraine.
If the Russians were so damn terrified of a US strike, how come they never caved to any of our other threats? All it did was make them belligerent and there’s other posters on here who can testify as to why if they so choose.
If anything, the removal of the chemical weapons was a ploy to buy the Russians time in Syria because they never wanted to give Syria up. Their actions have proven it. Do we dare strike against Assad if he were to use chemical weapons now? Do we dare strike against Assad now at all (like we did against Qaddafi & his forces)…I say not. The best we can hope for is to arm so-called moderate rebels and send them in to be pulverized by the more powerful Russian forces for absolutely no reason but needless slaughter.
Opinions on this alliance:
Chinese troops likely to be positioned in Pakistan: agency
By KHAAMA PRESS - Sun Mar 13 2016, 10:21 am
•
Chinese troops will be positioned in Pakistan to protect the 3,000-km-long China-Pakistan Economic Corridor that connects the Gwadar Port in Balochistan to China’s Xinjiang region, NDTV reports.
Besides, Pakistan has raised three independent infantry Brigades and two additional artillery regiments to protect the highway, security agencies have told New Delhi. A Brigade consists of least three regiments, each with about a 1,000 soldiers.
The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor or CPEC starts from the restive Pakistani province of Balochistan, runs along the Makaran Coast turning north to connect Lahore and Islamabad, passes through Gilgit-Baltistan in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and then runs into the Karakoram Highway, ending at Kashgar in the Xinjiang region of China.
Although China’s People’s Liberation Army or PLA will be positioned to protect the highway, its presence in Pakistan is a cause of concern for India. New Delhi has earlier objected to the presence to Chinese troops in the Gilgit-Baltistan area and a substantial portion of the additional forces being raised in Pakistan and the Chinese PLA are likely to be deployed in that area of PoK.
“We are closely watching these developments,” a top government official told NDTV, adding, “We have a fair idea of the number of Chinese troops that are likely to be positioned in Pakistan.”
There are indications that Pakistan is seriously attempting to annex this region into a fifth province of Pakistan, government sources said.
Pakistan’s moves to annex Gilgit-Baltistan have led to massive protest in the region and brutal crackdowns on the local population.
The first phase of the CPEC is likely to be functional by December 2016 and it is expected to be completely ready in three years, giving China direct access to the Indian Ocean and beyond.
The corridor is likely to be used, among other things, to transport fuel and petroleum products from the Gulf region into China. Its will shorten the route for China’s energy imports from the Middle East by about 12,000 km.
Chinese President Xi Jinping had agreed to build the highway and committed a whopping US dollars 46 billion for the project, during his visit to Pakistan last April
The Chinese are investing a billion dollars or so in Pakistan. So what happens when the Taliban or ISIS attack their troops?
And yet I was right all along as verified by Leon Panetta… A ‘change in calculus’ was not referring to vigorous finger wagging.
Oh, those were not reeeeeaaaal chemical weapons, just chlorine gas canisters. They don’t count because it has other industrial uses, like keeping Assad’s pool clean. Just because the government were dropping them on the civilian population doesn’t mean they were using chemical weapons. They were just using a chemical as a weapon which is different than chemical weapons.
I oft wondered if obama passed calculus…
Obama stated prior to the Ghouta attack that "We have been very clear to the Assad regime … that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
To any reasonable person, it’s clear that the above statement is an implicit threat of force. The logic that the United States should have bombed Syria to prove to Syria that we were willing to bomb it is nonsensical.
Deterence failed. No one denies that. Tin pot dictators miscalculate. However, the resulting explicit threat of force was credible enough for the Assad regime to relinquish its chemical weapons. The United States threatened military action and Syria responded. That’s compellence in action, and the result was the least bad outcome one could hope for in the jihadist beehive.
P.S.: I’d love to see a strong, evidenced argument that bombing the Assad regime would have been the best course of action, especially vis-a-vis ISIL.
It may have not been the best course of action. Look at Libya. Getting rid of Qaddafi opened a whole new can of worms & helped ISIS spread. Plus weapons were funneled from Libya to ISIS in Syria.
What I am saying is it is not worth opening your mouth if you do not back up your threat. Everyone gets on GWB because he lumped Libya & North Korea & Iran into the expanded “Axis of Evil” & prompted both N.K & Iran to seek out nukes. Why not criticize Obama for verbally attacking Russia’s ally, and by doing so, prompting Russia to take action against the Ukrainians & the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels.
I always thought we should have cut Assad a deal for 2 reasons: 1. just because he tortured and killed his own people is not a good enough of a reason for the US not to have a country as an ally. There is a list of American allies who did just that during the Cold War. 2. Assad would be our ally now, not Russias…but then again, Qaddafi switched sides and you see where it got him.