Obama has Failed at Everything

[pat]

Here’s another good piece. It’s good because it saying what I am saying…

Fred Hiatt: Senators say John Kerry admitted U.S. failure in Syria

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:
He thinks I am right. I know I am.
[/quote]

He makes no argument whatsoever. He throws a single sentence in about the “red line,” pushing the same facile nonsense I’ve been pulling apart easily for a week now.

As for you being right: For reasons that have been painstakingly explained to you, you are not right, and, in fact, you do not even understand the facts of the situation to such an extent as might have allowed you to be right. You literally did not have the bare-bones “this is what happened” grasp of reality before you formed your opinion, and you proved this to me and everybody else with your own evidence and in your own words. And two of the better posters on international relations, one of whom is in almost every other instance my political and philosophical antipode, have weighed in and confirmed that you are not right. In case you’re wondering: Yes, it is legitimate to appeal to the people when “the people” A] Have followed along in the debate and read the specific arguments constituting it, and B] understand the relevant points and questions much better than the debater to whom the appeal is addressed.

So, you don’t get paid enough and neither do I. And I don’t enjoy debate that is not honest (this debate has been about as honest as a 60’s-era cigarette ad). And for all the words exchanged, there has been just about no engagement on the facts. Now it seems that we’ve entered the phase wherein you Google “Obama + Syria + Failure” and link to whatever unevidenced, flimsy, and/or tangential op-ed or article you can find, tossing other people’s badly-argued throwaway lines up in the hopes that they will stick. The point of contention between you and I is this:

[quote]

1. Obama warns against the use of chemical weapons.

2. Chemical weapons are used at Ghouta.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. The U.S. accepts the deal.

This is the timeline of relevant events. I contend that the rational and correct choice was made at each step along the way, and that the greatest possible benefit to American security and international interest was pursued and acquired with each new development. You contend that the situation was somehow mishandled by the Obama administration. Because they are reactionary and at the very least bipolar, diplomatic efforts like the one under present consideration are judged according to which choices were made under which circumstances. That is, we judge a side with regard to what it could control and how it used what it could control to pursue and win benefit: Its decisions, step by step, and the alternative decisions available to it.

So, go ahead. Choose a decision from that timeline and say which alternative choice Obama and his people should have made, and why, and how things would have turned out differently, and how this different result would have entailed greater benefit to American security interests. This is the necessary implication of your criticism: That something should have been done differently by the Obama administration given the circumstances at that point in time. So go for it: Which step, and why?[/quote]

If you want to answer the question, take your time and come up with an answer. If you will not or cannot point to a particular, specific point in that timeline at which an alternative choice was more rational and stood a reasonable chance of better serving American interests than the choice made by the Obama administration, then you do not have an argument to make and this debate should end abruptly.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[/quote]

Do you think that insulting me and falsely accusing me and personally attacking me is lending any strength to your claims?
Come on smh, I really thought you were better people than that. What possible good, what strength could it possibly give to your claims to insult me? I won’t return in kind. You’re clearly angry about something, I don’t have the strength to get all wound up about it. This is supposed to be fun. I sense you are not enjoying it all that much.

I am not going to address anything you took out of context, because clearly you didn’t see the difference between hyperbole and presentation of fact. You are acting as if hyperbole was a statement of fact. You take them out of context, not to present facts, but to disparage me personally.

So the only relevant part of your post is what obama should have done differently.

• He should have issued no threats, or follow through with the treats he issued with regards to Syria
• He should have left a security force in Iraq.
• He should not have called for Assad’s ouster if he were not going to back that up.
• If we were not going to get involved in Syria, then he should have declared neutrality. Not lead the world into believing we would do something and then do nothing.
• Obama either needed to act decisively or declare neutrality. Not draw silly red lines that really don’t mean anything at all. It’s weak ineffectual leadership.
• Obama needed to support the rebels early on if he were calling for Assad’s ouster, before they got overrun by terrorists. Now there are no ‘good guys’ to back. In fact they’d be better off with Assad at this point, because the caliphate is far worse than the dictatorship they had.

You’re problem is that you got caught up in the minutia of one tiny event in the context of a much larger problem. You proceeded to provide 8x5 glossy pictures with circles and arrows about where these chemical weapons were going, when in fact it didn’t matter all that much. It’s a tiny piece of a much larger puzzle.
Obama put his finger in the dike, while the whole damn was bursting. He screwed up.
So some of Assad’s chemical arsenal has been removed. Fat load of good it did. Look at the place. Look at the situation now.
I have stated from the beginning that this ‘red line’ issue was just one failure. You chose to drill down on that and just that. That’s just one tree in the forest of despair.

The only thing you have “proven” were the painful details of the disarmament process. It sure didn’t prove the ‘red line’ worked. There’s no way you can honestly say it did. No way. It was ‘Don’t use chemical weapons or else’. Then they used them anyway. That constitutes a failure. Where, who or what with regards to those weapons can’t change that fact.

So if you could put all your insults of me in one paragraph rather than spreading it out throughout the whole post, that would be appreciated.

[EDITED]

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
He thinks I am right. I know I am.
[/quote]

He makes no argument whatsoever. He throws a single sentence in about the “red line,” pushing the same facile nonsense I’ve been pulling apart easily for a week now.

As for you being right: For reasons that have been painstakingly explained to you, you are not right, and, in fact, you do not even understand the facts of the situation to such an extent as might have allowed you to be right. You literally did not have the bare-bones “this is what happened” grasp of reality before you formed your opinion, and you proved this to me and everybody else with your own evidence and in your own words. And two of the better posters on international relations, one of whom is in almost every other instance my political and philosophical antipode, have weighed in and confirmed that you are not right. In case you’re wondering: Yes, it is legitimate to appeal to the people when “the people” A] Have followed along in the debate and read the specific arguments constituting it, and B] understand the relevant points and questions much better than the debater to whom the appeal is addressed.

So, you don’t get paid enough and neither do I. And I don’t enjoy debate that is not honest (this debate has been about as honest as a 60’s-era cigarette ad). And for all the words exchanged, there has been just about no engagement on the facts. Now it seems that we’ve entered the phase wherein you Google “Obama + Syria + Failure” and link to whatever unevidenced, flimsy, and/or tangential op-ed or article you can find, tossing other people’s badly-argued throwaway lines up in the hopes that they will stick. The point of contention between you and I is this:

[quote]

1. Obama warns against the use of chemical weapons.

2. Chemical weapons are used at Ghouta.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. The U.S. accepts the deal.

This is the timeline of relevant events. I contend that the rational and correct choice was made at each step along the way, and that the greatest possible benefit to American security and international interest was pursued and acquired with each new development. You contend that the situation was somehow mishandled by the Obama administration. Because they are reactionary and at the very least bipolar, diplomatic efforts like the one under present consideration are judged according to which choices were made under which circumstances. That is, we judge a side with regard to what it could control and how it used what it could control to pursue and win benefit: Its decisions, step by step, and the alternative decisions available to it.

So, go ahead. Choose a decision from that timeline and say which alternative choice Obama and his people should have made, and why, and how things would have turned out differently, and how this different result would have entailed greater benefit to American security interests. This is the necessary implication of your criticism: That something should have been done differently by the Obama administration given the circumstances at that point in time. So go for it: Which step, and why?[/quote]

If you want to answer the question, take your time and come up with an answer. If you will not or cannot point to a particular, specific point in that timeline at which an alternative choice was more rational and stood a reasonable chance of better serving American interests than the choice made by the Obama administration, then you do not have an argument to make and this debate should end abruptly.[/quote]

It’s painfully simple. Obama drew this ‘red line’ as a deterrent to use chemical weapons. Assad used chemical weapons anyway. The deterrent did not work and hence was a failure. What is so complicated about that? A deterrent was issued and it did not work.
What happened after that was just a bunch of posturing and face saving maneuvers which you bought into hook, line and sinker.

What should he have done differently in this case? Not issue the red line. Or he could have issued the the disarmament threat before Assad used them.
He could have issued a ‘no fly zone’ early on. He could have backed the rebels before they got overrun by terrorists. Or instead of pretending he cared, he could have simply declared neutrality wished them all the best of luck. Any of those would have been better than what he did.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Also: Two things cannot be “not related” to each other when they are mutually exclusive alternatives to each other. The disarmament deal and the follow-through strikes were mutually exclusive alternative responses to the selfsame event, and are thus, by logical necessity, related on a fundamental level.

Oh, and you’re going to have to show how a “change in calculus” is not entailed by the dispossession of a state’s weapons under threat of military force. This is something Syria didn’t want–a consequence–and yet it happened. So, nothing about the original nonspecific “threat” was violated, even by the simplistic and illegitimate measure you’re trying to use.[/quote]

It seems to me, obama is not very good at calculus.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:
It’s painfully simple. Obama drew this ‘red line’ as a deterrent to use chemical weapons. Assad used chemical weapons anyway. The deterrent did not work and hence was a failure. What is so complicated about that? A deterrent was issued and it did not work.[/quote]

This is your argument? “We said no chemical weapons, and then they were used?” This is not a mishandling of anything on Obama’s part, barring the possibility that he is one of the X-Men with mind-control powers and, for some inexplicable reason, neglected to exert them over Assad. Wishes are expressed, threats are issued, and then things are largely out of American hands. Small tyrants choose to ignore the threats of American presidents all the time (Iran, North Korea, the Taliban; there is a standing threat of war against any person, entity, or nation which attacks U.S. soil. This doesn’t ipso facto entail American mishandling in the September 11 attacks, and it doesn’t make Bush responsible for AQ’s stupid decision to attack New York City and the Washington, D.C.). The American president is judged on the choices he makes, not the things other leaders try to get away with. Obama’s handling of the situation is a function of the rationality of his decision-making at each step, given that step’s particular circumstances.

[quote]
What should he have done differently in this case? Not issue the red line.[/quote]

Chemical weapons are a red line in American international affairs, and the “red line” in this case provided a quick path to the confiscation of Syrian chemical stockpiles–the destruction of WMD that would otherwise right now be sitting in the middle of a wartorn shithole overrun by Jihadists. Your alternative provides no benefit over what actually happened, skirts no danger that actually befell us, avoids no cost that we actually paid, and makes it significantly less likely that a tangible concession would have been won (or, at least, obscures the pathway to that concession). You offer no evidence of mishandling, and no better alternative.

[quote]
Or he could have issued the the disarmament threat before Assad used them.[/quote]

In which case Assad could have been disarmed after his having used the chemical weapons. Which is what happened. Again, you offer no evidence of mishandling, and no better alternative.

[quote]
He could have issued a ‘no fly zone’ early on. He could have backed the rebels before they got overrun by terrorists. Or instead of pretending he cared, he could have simply declared neutrality wished them all the best of luck. Any of those would have been better than what he did.[/quote]

These are questions relating to American policy with respect to the larger civil war, not the specific question of Ghouta and its direct run-up and follow-up. None of them remotely imply a particular mishandling of the question of chemical weapons. They are much larger, more complicated, and more fraught than you’re presenting them. There is much debate about these questions among experts.

With regard to specific decisions made about the “red line”–this was my purpose in questioning your OP in the first place; I did not say that I disagreed with your whole list of failures, because I don’t–you haven’t offered any evidence of mishandling and you haven’t offered an alternative of greater service to American interests.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
It’s painfully simple. Obama drew this ‘red line’ as a deterrent to use chemical weapons. Assad used chemical weapons anyway. The deterrent did not work and hence was a failure. What is so complicated about that? A deterrent was issued and it did not work.[/quote]

This is your argument? “We said no chemical weapons, and then they were used?” This is not a mishandling of anything on Obama’s part, barring the possibility that he is one of the X-Men with mind-control powers and, for some inexplicable reason, neglected to exert them over Assad. Wishes are expressed, threats are issued, and then things are largely out of American hands. Small tyrants choose to ignore the threats of American presidents all the time (Iran, North Korea, the Taliban; there is a standing threat of war against any person, entity, or nation which attacks U.S. soil. This doesn’t ipso facto entail American mishandling in the September 11 attacks, and it doesn’t make Bush responsible for AQ’s stupid decision to attack New York City and the Washington, D.C.). The American president is judged on the choices he makes, not the things other leaders try to get away with. Obama’s handling of the situation is a function of the rationality of his decision-making at each step, given that step’s particular circumstances.
[/quote]
It’s the only one I need.
Fact: Obama issued a ‘red line’ as a deterrence for Assad to use chemical weapons.
Fact: Assad used chemical weapons.
The end.

[quote]

[quote]
What should he have done differently in this case? Not issue the red line.[/quote]

Chemical weapons are a red line in American international affairs, and the “red line” in this case provided a quick path to the confiscation of Syrian chemical stockpiles–the destruction of WMD that would otherwise right now be sitting in the middle of a wartorn shithole overrun by Jihadists. Your alternative provides no benefit over what actually happened, skirts no danger that actually befell us, avoids no cost that we actually paid, and makes it significantly less likely that a tangible concession would have been won (or, at least, obscures the pathway to that concession). You offer no evidence of mishandling, and no better alternative.

Or he could have issued the the disarmament threat before Assad used them.[/quote]

In which case Assad could have been disarmed after his having used the chemical weapons. Which is what happened. Again, you offer no evidence of mishandling, and no better alternative.

Demanding Assad hand over his chemical weapons, or else in a week like we did after the fact, could have in fact prevented the use. No slam dunk. But why did we demand it only after? That was an alternative.

[quote]

[quote]
He could have issued a ‘no fly zone’ early on. He could have backed the rebels before they got overrun by terrorists. Or instead of pretending he cared, he could have simply declared neutrality wished them all the best of luck. Any of those would have been better than what he did.[/quote]

These are questions relating to American policy with respect to the larger civil war, not the specific question of Ghouta and its direct run-up and follow-up. None of them remotely imply a particular mishandling of the question of chemical weapons. They are much larger, more complicated, and more fraught than you’re presenting them. There is much debate about these questions among experts.

With regard to specific decisions made about the “red line”–this was my purpose in questioning your OP in the first place; I did not say that I disagreed with your whole list of failures, because I don’t–you haven’t offered any evidence of mishandling and you haven’t offered an alternative of greater service to American interests.[/quote]

I was never hung up on the specific questions about the ‘red line’ and ghouta, you were.
I have repeated a hundred times that this silly ‘red line’ was one of many failures by the administration. You’re the one who wanted to parse that particular issue out at the molecular level. I have never been solely focused on it. You have.
You asked for alternatives I gave them. All of which would have served American interests better than they have been served. You don’t have to be an ‘expert’ to know that allowing Syria to turn to shit is a regional disaster with far reaching consequences. It was obvious, and even more obvious now.
You asked if I was referring to the ‘red line’ and I stated is was one of many failures. Then you went nuts on it. That’s hardly the only problem. Removing selected chemical weapons clearly didn’t solve any problems.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

So, you don’t get paid enough and neither do I. And I don’t enjoy debate that is not honest (this debate has been about as honest as a 60’s-era cigarette ad). [/quote]

3 Flintstones Winston Cigarettes Commercials

I see nothing dishonest here…

[pat]

- YouTube

These are just fun… What a different world. Nobody got cancer, men were men, women were women, people drank at work. Syria didn’t cross the ‘red line’

[pat]

Apparently Camel’s didn’t cause throat irritation…Good enough for me.

- YouTube

[pat]

Choose the brand that doctors chose:

- YouTube

[pittbulll]

you can’t forget

Marijuana Commercial from the 70s

good shit

[pat]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
you can’t forget

Marijuana Commercial from the 70s

good shit[/quote]

I started a thread in GAL on the good old days called “What a Different World”
Feel free to dig up old stuff and add to it. I think it can be a fun little thread.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:
Fact: Obama issued a ‘red line’ as a deterrence for Assad to use chemical weapons.
Fact: Assad used chemical weapons.
The end. [/quote]

For the last time, this is not evidence of mishandling on Obama’s part. Diplomacy and war are bipolar and reactionary: Presidents handle and mishandle foreign affairs with sole respect to the decisions they make, and the decisions they make are inescapably informed by prior decisions made by others over whom little actual control is had. Heads of State are presented with alternatives, and they earn commendation or condemnation as a function of their success in choosing the alternatives that lead to the furtherance of some American interest, the avoidance of some threat to American security, or the winning of some desirable concession.

This is why both Bismark and I drew an analogy to you playing tennis without a racquet. These are elementary points. You are trying to apply an uninformed and facile framework, and it simply won’t work. If you were to look into the diplomatic successes of history, you will find concessions made, threats ignored, surprises sprung, goalposts shifted…because a bi-or-multi-polar conflict entails elements that cannot be controlled, and success and failure are products of rational and beneficial reaction to the uncontrolled, not control of the uncontrolled. I have shown, again and again, that each decision made was rational and led in the direction of a tangible concession won at no cost to the United States.

[quote]
Demanding Assad hand over his chemical weapons, or else in a week like we did after the fact, could have in fact prevented the use. No slam dunk. But why did we demand it only after? That was an alternative. [/quote]

We demanded it after because that was when it became diplomatically feasible to demand it. I said earlier in this discussion that international relations are better suited for the somewhat calloused than for the bleeding hearts: The Ghouta attack opened the field of diplomatic possibilities in a way that hadn’t previously been possible, by providing a concrete justification for intervention and confiscation. Prior to Ghouta, the Syrians had said that they would sign and ratify the CWC on the condition that Israel also ratify it. This status quo remained unbroken until Ghouta, at which point the fact of Assad’s having used chemical weapons granted an urgency that overrode the question of Israeli accession and transformed the threat of disarmament from a positive conditional threat (generally fraught, difficult, and unnecessarily dangerous) to a negative conditional threat.

Furthermore, your alternative entails a much worse risk/reward ratio from an American perspective. The risks in issuing positive conditional threats are great, and the threats themselves are infinitely more constrictive on the threat-maker, which is why leaders, diplomats, and the governments they represent are much more careful about telling other countries that they “must do X” than they are about telling other countries that they “cannot do Y.” Were we ready, in 2012, to give Syria a week to yield to a positive threat, after which point we could be forced into the extremely shady and murky and fraught conflict by our own hand? No–not politically and not diplomatically. That’s the risk.

And reward? Again, these are matters for the somewhat calloused: The reward entailed by your proposition, as opposed to what actually happened, is only that Ghouta would not have happened. All other results are equal, if things worked out perfectly (which is a huge “if”). In terms of American security interests, this–the lives of ~1500 foreign civilians–is of little direct benefit, and could not possibly justify the tight corner that such a threat would have put us in at the point in time that it would have put us in it.

Simply put, you fail to show that any mishandling led to U.S. detriment at any step in the decision-making process, and you fail to provide any viable alternative choice that would have been likely to have occasioned a more beneficial set of concessions and outcomes–a better risk/reward ratio–than was occasioned in reality.

I was never hung up on the specific questions about the ‘red line’ and ghouta, you were.

You said something I took issue with, and I attacked it. If you didn’t want to stand by it, you could have said so from the start. I’m not here to critique your entire view of the world, and I happen not to disagree with everything you believe–far from it. It’s just that I wanted to fight this particular issue out, because I see it popping up often, and it happens to be dead wrong.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
you can’t forget

Marijuana Commercial from the 70s

good shit[/quote]

I started a thread in GAL on the good old days called “What a Different World”
Feel free to dig up old stuff and add to it. I think it can be a fun little thread.[/quote]

I chose those words because I happened to have been looking through all those ads yesterday. They are pretty unbelievable.

[pittbulll]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
you can’t forget

Marijuana Commercial from the 70s

good shit[/quote]

I started a thread in GAL on the good old days called “What a Different World”
Feel free to dig up old stuff and add to it. I think it can be a fun little thread.[/quote]

I will check it out thanks

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Fact: Obama issued a ‘red line’ as a deterrence for Assad to use chemical weapons.
Fact: Assad used chemical weapons.
The end. [/quote]

For the last time, this is not evidence of mishandling on Obama’s part. Diplomacy and war are bipolar and reactionary: Presidents handle and mishandle foreign affairs with sole respect to the decisions they make, and the decisions they make are inescapably informed by prior decisions made by others over whom little actual control is had. Heads of State are presented with alternatives, and they earn commendation or condemnation as a function of their success in choosing the alternatives that lead to the furtherance of some American interest, the avoidance of some threat to American security, or the winning of some desirable concession.

This is why both Bismark and I drew an analogy to you playing tennis without a racquet. These are elementary points. You are trying to apply an uninformed and facile framework, and it simply won’t work. If you were to look into the diplomatic successes of history, you will find concessions made, threats ignored, surprises sprung, goalposts shifted…because a bi-or-multi-polar conflict entails elements that cannot be controlled, and success and failure are products of rational and beneficial reaction to the uncontrolled, not control of the uncontrolled. I have shown, again and again, that each decision made was rational and led in the direction of a tangible concession won at no cost to the United States.

[quote]
Demanding Assad hand over his chemical weapons, or else in a week like we did after the fact, could have in fact prevented the use. No slam dunk. But why did we demand it only after? That was an alternative. [/quote]

We demanded it after because that was when it became diplomatically feasible to demand it. I said earlier in this discussion that international relations are better suited for the somewhat calloused than for the bleeding hearts: The Ghouta attack opened the field of diplomatic possibilities in a way that hadn’t previously been possible, by providing a concrete justification for intervention and confiscation. Prior to Ghouta, the Syrians had said that they would sign and ratify the CWC on the condition that Israel also ratify it. This status quo remained unbroken until Ghouta, at which point the fact of Assad’s having used chemical weapons granted an urgency that overrode the question of Israeli accession and transformed the threat of disarmament from a positive conditional threat (generally fraught, difficult, and unnecessarily dangerous) to a negative conditional threat.

Furthermore, your alternative entails a much worse risk/reward ratio from an American perspective. The risks in issuing positive conditional threats are great, and the threats themselves are infinitely more constrictive on the threat-maker, which is why leaders, diplomats, and the governments they represent are much more careful about telling other countries that they “must do X” than they are about telling other countries that they “cannot do Y.” Were we ready, in 2012, to give Syria a week to yield to a positive threat, after which point we could be forced into the extremely shady and murky and fraught conflict by our own hand? No–not politically and not diplomatically. That’s the risk.

And reward? Again, these are matters for the somewhat calloused: The reward entailed by your proposition, as opposed to what actually happened, is only that Ghouta would not have happened. All other results are equal, if things worked out perfectly (which is a huge “if”). In terms of American security interests, this–the lives of ~1500 foreign civilians–is of little direct benefit, and could not possibly justify the tight corner that such a threat would have put us in at the point in time that it would have put us in it.

Simply put, you fail to show that any mishandling led to U.S. detriment at any step in the decision-making process, and you fail to provide any viable alternative choice that would have been likely to have occasioned a more beneficial set of concessions and outcomes–a better risk/reward ratio–than was occasioned in reality.

I was never hung up on the specific questions about the ‘red line’ and ghouta, you were.

You said something I took issue with, and I attacked it. If you didn’t want to stand by it, you could have said so from the start. I’m not here to critique your entire view of the world, and I happen not to disagree with everything you believe–far from it. It’s just that I wanted to fight this particular issue out, because I see it popping up often, and it happens to be dead wrong.[/quote]

I do stand by it and I did state it from the start, I said it was one of many failures. Go back and look.
As for the rest, all this posturing does nothing to deter the actual facts, that issuing a ‘red line’ threat failed.

There is no wall of words that is going to change that actual fact.

The fact that Assad gave up a portion of his chemical weapons stash did not have much effect in the deterioration of the Syrian problem. I also stated this from the beginning. This disarmament issue is a very small thing. So they gave up some chemical weapons, big deal. They had already used them in Ghouta and other regions, though not fully confirmed as well as Ghouta.

We called for Assad’s ouster, but only with words. We did not implement a recommended no-fly zone. We did not back the rebels, the actual voice of the people before it was overrun by terrorists. We did not stem the flow of terrorists into the area. We didn’t even attempt to defund them. Any of these and many more actions could have been taken to slow, stop or at least mitigate the disaster that has followed. Now it’s too late. The no-fly zone could have given the resistance time to maneuver. American assistance to the rebellion could have prevented the terrorists from picking up the cause so that they can create a caliphate.
The situation is out of control and it’s going to take a much larger effort to contain it than it would have.
Rather than broker a deal with our trusted ally the Russians, we should have taken out those chemical weapons sites.
The biggest mistake of all is obama pretending to care when he didn’t. He could have simply said it’s their problem and wish them luck. Being luke warm about it just made matters worse.
I think you are to concerned about the details of this one event which in the end is minor. Obama failed to take decisive action in Syria and now it’s a huge problem.
I don’t know what you are trying to prove. Chemical weapons were removed? Okay, so what? It’s highly unlikely they are all gone. The problem spilled over into Iraq and we are close to another war.

Like I said this smacks of the mistakes made before WW2 and Vietnam. The allies stood by and watched a situation deteriorate until the problem was so large that it could not be contained. Kennedy sent advisors to Vietnam to assist the South Vietnamese. Both shortly after became full scale conflicts.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Fact: Obama issued a ‘red line’ as a deterrence for Assad to use chemical weapons.
Fact: Assad used chemical weapons.
The end. [/quote]

For the last time, this is not evidence of mishandling on Obama’s part. Diplomacy and war are bipolar and reactionary: Presidents handle and mishandle foreign affairs with sole respect to the decisions they make, and the decisions they make are inescapably informed by prior decisions made by others over whom little actual control is had. Heads of State are presented with alternatives, and they earn commendation or condemnation as a function of their success in choosing the alternatives that lead to the furtherance of some American interest, the avoidance of some threat to American security, or the winning of some desirable concession.

This is why both Bismark and I drew an analogy to you playing tennis without a racquet. These are elementary points. You are trying to apply an uninformed and facile framework, and it simply won’t work. If you were to look into the diplomatic successes of history, you will find concessions made, threats ignored, surprises sprung, goalposts shifted…because a bi-or-multi-polar conflict entails elements that cannot be controlled, and success and failure are products of rational and beneficial reaction to the uncontrolled, not control of the uncontrolled. I have shown, again and again, that each decision made was rational and led in the direction of a tangible concession won at no cost to the United States.

Demanding Assad hand over his chemical weapons, or else in a week like we did after the fact, could have in fact prevented the use. No slam dunk. But why did we demand it only after? That was an alternative. [/quote]

We demanded it after because that was when it became diplomatically feasible to demand it. I said earlier in this discussion that international relations are better suited for the somewhat calloused than for the bleeding hearts: The Ghouta attack opened the field of diplomatic possibilities in a way that hadn’t previously been possible, by providing a concrete justification for intervention and confiscation. Prior to Ghouta, the Syrians had said that they would sign and ratify the CWC on the condition that Israel also ratify it. This status quo remained unbroken until Ghouta, at which point the fact of Assad’s having used chemical weapons granted an urgency that overrode the question of Israeli accession and transformed the threat of disarmament from a positive conditional threat (generally fraught, difficult, and unnecessarily dangerous) to a negative conditional threat.

Furthermore, your alternative entails a much worse risk/reward ratio from an American perspective. The risks in issuing positive conditional threats are great, and the threats themselves are infinitely more constrictive on the threat-maker, which is why leaders, diplomats, and the governments they represent are much more careful about telling other countries that they “must do X” than they are about telling other countries that they “cannot do Y.” Were we ready, in 2012, to give Syria a week to yield to a positive threat, after which point we could be forced into the extremely shady and murky and fraught conflict by our own hand? No–not politically and not diplomatically. That’s the risk.

And reward? Again, these are matters for the somewhat calloused: The reward entailed by your proposition, as opposed to what actually happened, is only that Ghouta would not have happened. All other results are equal, if things worked out perfectly (which is a huge “if”). In terms of American security interests, this–the lives of ~1500 foreign civilians–is of little direct benefit, and could not possibly justify the tight corner that such a threat would have put us in at the point in time that it would have put us in it.

Simply put, you fail to show that any mishandling led to U.S. detriment at any step in the decision-making process, and you fail to provide any viable alternative choice that would have been likely to have occasioned a more beneficial set of concessions and outcomes–a better risk/reward ratio–than was occasioned in reality.

I was never hung up on the specific questions about the ‘red line’ and ghouta, you were.

You said something I took issue with, and I attacked it. If you didn’t want to stand by it, you could have said so from the start. I’m not here to critique your entire view of the world, and I happen not to disagree with everything you believe–far from it. It’s just that I wanted to fight this particular issue out, because I see it popping up often, and it happens to be dead wrong.[/quote]

I do stand by it and I did state it from the start, I said it was one of many failures. Go back and look.
As for the rest, all this posturing does nothing to deter the actual facts, that issuing a ‘red line’ threat failed.

There is no wall of words that is going to change that actual fact.

The fact that Assad gave up a portion of his chemical weapons stash did not have much effect in the deterioration of the Syrian problem. I also stated this from the beginning. This disarmament issue is a very small thing. So they gave up some chemical weapons, big deal. They had already used them in Ghouta and other regions, though not fully confirmed as well as Ghouta.

We called for Assad’s ouster, but only with words. We did not implement a recommended no-fly zone. We did not back the rebels, the actual voice of the people before it was overrun by terrorists. We did not stem the flow of terrorists into the area. We didn’t even attempt to defund them. Any of these and many more actions could have been taken to slow, stop or at least mitigate the disaster that has followed. Now it’s too late. The no-fly zone could have given the resistance time to maneuver. American assistance to the rebellion could have prevented the terrorists from picking up the cause so that they can create a caliphate.
The situation is out of control and it’s going to take a much larger effort to contain it than it would have.
Rather than broker a deal with our trusted ally the Russians, we should have taken out those chemical weapons sites.
The biggest mistake of all is obama pretending to care when he didn’t. He could have simply said it’s their problem and wish them luck. Being luke warm about it just made matters worse.
I think you are to concerned about the details of this one event which in the end is minor. Obama failed to take decisive action in Syria and now it’s a huge problem.
I don’t know what you are trying to prove. Chemical weapons were removed? Okay, so what? It’s highly unlikely they are all gone. The problem spilled over into Iraq and we are close to another war.

Like I said this smacks of the mistakes made before WW2 and Vietnam. The allies stood by and watched a situation deteriorate until the problem was so large that it could not be contained. Kennedy sent advisors to Vietnam to assist the South Vietnamese. Both shortly after became full scale conflicts.

Again, you are widening your stance to include objections with which I am not taking issue. We are talking about the alleged mishandling of the chemical weapons question.

And, also again, international relations is a sum of decisions, and good diplomacy is diplomacy wherein rational decisions are made in pursuit of tangible concessions and goods, with consideration for risks and costs. If you are going to show that the chemical weapons diplomacy was mishandled, then you must choose a particular decision (with its attendant particular circumstances) and show how and why it was mishandled, and which viable alternative decision would have provided greater benefit at less risk. You have not come remotely close to doing any of this, and your last post represented what I assume was a chosen-on-the-fly alternative that you came up with on the spot. The thing is, these questions are complicated, and the alternative you chose:

1. Offered essentially no strategic benefit over what actually happened;

2. Offered much more risk than what actually happened;

3. Was extremely unrealistic, given the complexities of the debate over the CWC pre-Ghouta

Again, you do not have a case without a particular mishandled decision and a viable alternative to that particular mishandled decision. That you are struggling to come up with both of these is not a good sign for you: You should not be criticizing anything without the raw materials of a valid criticism, and you don’t have those at all.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Fact: Obama issued a ‘red line’ as a deterrence for Assad to use chemical weapons.
Fact: Assad used chemical weapons.
The end. [/quote]

For the last time, this is not evidence of mishandling on Obama’s part. Diplomacy and war are bipolar and reactionary: Presidents handle and mishandle foreign affairs with sole respect to the decisions they make, and the decisions they make are inescapably informed by prior decisions made by others over whom little actual control is had. Heads of State are presented with alternatives, and they earn commendation or condemnation as a function of their success in choosing the alternatives that lead to the furtherance of some American interest, the avoidance of some threat to American security, or the winning of some desirable concession.

This is why both Bismark and I drew an analogy to you playing tennis without a racquet. These are elementary points. You are trying to apply an uninformed and facile framework, and it simply won’t work. If you were to look into the diplomatic successes of history, you will find concessions made, threats ignored, surprises sprung, goalposts shifted…because a bi-or-multi-polar conflict entails elements that cannot be controlled, and success and failure are products of rational and beneficial reaction to the uncontrolled, not control of the uncontrolled. I have shown, again and again, that each decision made was rational and led in the direction of a tangible concession won at no cost to the United States.

Demanding Assad hand over his chemical weapons, or else in a week like we did after the fact, could have in fact prevented the use. No slam dunk. But why did we demand it only after? That was an alternative. [/quote]

We demanded it after because that was when it became diplomatically feasible to demand it. I said earlier in this discussion that international relations are better suited for the somewhat calloused than for the bleeding hearts: The Ghouta attack opened the field of diplomatic possibilities in a way that hadn’t previously been possible, by providing a concrete justification for intervention and confiscation. Prior to Ghouta, the Syrians had said that they would sign and ratify the CWC on the condition that Israel also ratify it. This status quo remained unbroken until Ghouta, at which point the fact of Assad’s having used chemical weapons granted an urgency that overrode the question of Israeli accession and transformed the threat of disarmament from a positive conditional threat (generally fraught, difficult, and unnecessarily dangerous) to a negative conditional threat.

Furthermore, your alternative entails a much worse risk/reward ratio from an American perspective. The risks in issuing positive conditional threats are great, and the threats themselves are infinitely more constrictive on the threat-maker, which is why leaders, diplomats, and the governments they represent are much more careful about telling other countries that they “must do X” than they are about telling other countries that they “cannot do Y.” Were we ready, in 2012, to give Syria a week to yield to a positive threat, after which point we could be forced into the extremely shady and murky and fraught conflict by our own hand? No–not politically and not diplomatically. That’s the risk.

And reward? Again, these are matters for the somewhat calloused: The reward entailed by your proposition, as opposed to what actually happened, is only that Ghouta would not have happened. All other results are equal, if things worked out perfectly (which is a huge “if”). In terms of American security interests, this–the lives of ~1500 foreign civilians–is of little direct benefit, and could not possibly justify the tight corner that such a threat would have put us in at the point in time that it would have put us in it.

Simply put, you fail to show that any mishandling led to U.S. detriment at any step in the decision-making process, and you fail to provide any viable alternative choice that would have been likely to have occasioned a more beneficial set of concessions and outcomes–a better risk/reward ratio–than was occasioned in reality.

I was never hung up on the specific questions about the ‘red line’ and ghouta, you were.

You said something I took issue with, and I attacked it. If you didn’t want to stand by it, you could have said so from the start. I’m not here to critique your entire view of the world, and I happen not to disagree with everything you believe–far from it. It’s just that I wanted to fight this particular issue out, because I see it popping up often, and it happens to be dead wrong.[/quote]

I do stand by it and I did state it from the start, I said it was one of many failures. Go back and look.
As for the rest, all this posturing does nothing to deter the actual facts, that issuing a ‘red line’ threat failed.

There is no wall of words that is going to change that actual fact.

The fact that Assad gave up a portion of his chemical weapons stash did not have much effect in the deterioration of the Syrian problem. I also stated this from the beginning. This disarmament issue is a very small thing. So they gave up some chemical weapons, big deal. They had already used them in Ghouta and other regions, though not fully confirmed as well as Ghouta.

We called for Assad’s ouster, but only with words. We did not implement a recommended no-fly zone. We did not back the rebels, the actual voice of the people before it was overrun by terrorists. We did not stem the flow of terrorists into the area. We didn’t even attempt to defund them. Any of these and many more actions could have been taken to slow, stop or at least mitigate the disaster that has followed. Now it’s too late. The no-fly zone could have given the resistance time to maneuver. American assistance to the rebellion could have prevented the terrorists from picking up the cause so that they can create a caliphate.
The situation is out of control and it’s going to take a much larger effort to contain it than it would have.
Rather than broker a deal with our trusted ally the Russians, we should have taken out those chemical weapons sites.
The biggest mistake of all is obama pretending to care when he didn’t. He could have simply said it’s their problem and wish them luck. Being luke warm about it just made matters worse.
I think you are to concerned about the details of this one event which in the end is minor. Obama failed to take decisive action in Syria and now it’s a huge problem.
I don’t know what you are trying to prove. Chemical weapons were removed? Okay, so what? It’s highly unlikely they are all gone. The problem spilled over into Iraq and we are close to another war.

Like I said this smacks of the mistakes made before WW2 and Vietnam. The allies stood by and watched a situation deteriorate until the problem was so large that it could not be contained. Kennedy sent advisors to Vietnam to assist the South Vietnamese. Both shortly after became full scale conflicts.

Again, you are widening your stance to include objections with which I am not taking issue. We are talking about the alleged mishandling of the chemical weapons question.

And, also again, international relations is a sum of decisions, and good diplomacy is diplomacy wherein rational decisions are made in pursuit of tangible concessions and goods, with consideration for risks and costs. If you are going to show that the chemical weapons diplomacy was mishandled, then you must choose a particular decision (with its attendant particular circumstances) and show how and why it was mishandled, and which viable alternative decision would have provided greater benefit at less risk. You have not come remotely close to doing any of this, and your last post represented what I assume was a chosen-on-the-fly alternative that you came up with on the spot. The thing is, these questions are complicated, and the alternative you chose:

1. Offered essentially no strategic benefit over what actually happened;

2. Offered much more risk than what actually happened;

3. Was extremely unrealistic, given the complexities of the debate over the CWC pre-Ghouta

Again, you do not have a case without a particular mishandled decision and a viable alternative to that particular mishandled decision. That you are struggling to come up with both of these is not a good sign for you: You should not be criticizing anything without the raw materials of a valid criticism, and you don’t have those at all.[/quote]

I’m lost. What are you talking about now? I have given you everything you have asked for.

First of all, let’s be clear the worst case scenario has and is happening. So any other alternative certainly wouldn’t have made it worse and had higher potentiality to make it batter. To say that there would have been no strategic benefit is false because the worst possible outcome has happened. So if the worst possible outcome has happened, then more decisive and focused decisions wouldn’t have fared worse and would have likely fared better.

How should have he handled it? What do I think the viable alternatives are?

1. If you are going to do nothing, say nothing. No ‘red line’, just nothing.

2. If it were me, the crossing of the red line would have resulted in the targeting of known chemical weapons with missile strikes and the threat of more targeted strikes on the regime if he didn’t turn himself in pronto along with an immediate no-fly zone.

3. Pick the most U.S. friendly part of the resistance bolster it and help put them in power as interim governance.

The issues aren’t as complicated as you think. Since the worst possible scenario has unfolded, targeted strikes to disarm the chemical weapons would not have fared worse. Plus the vested interest of the U.S. would have at least to some degree stemmed the flow of terrorists into the country.
I think you think it’s complicated because we have to somehow balance keeping people happy while responding to the crisis. I do not think it’s mandatory to keep them happy, I’d rather scare the shit out of them. That’s far better diplomacy when it comes to situations like Syria.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:
First of all, let’s be clear the worst case scenario has and is happening. So any other alternative certainly wouldn’t have made it worse and had higher potentiality to make it batter.[/quote]

The worst case scenario is absolutely not happening. Your inability to think clearly about the specific argument that you and I are having, and have been having since the very beginning, is making this next to impossible for you. We are talking about chemical weapons. Assad’s chemical weapons are being turned into sand in Finland as I type these words. This is not remotely close to a worst-case scenario.

1. If you are going to do nothing, say nothing. No ‘red line’, just nothing.

I have been over this a dozen times. You are being willfully ignorant, and you need to actually read what’s being written to you. Nobody was going to “do nothing.” The chemical weapons are in Finland and Germany right now precisely because Obama was moving to make good on his threat. By logical necessity, if he was going to strike, then he was not going to “do nothing.” He did not strike only because he was offered a Russo-Syrian deal designed to preclude–and therefore existentially contingent upon, and therefore directly evidencing Obama’s move to launch–American strikes. In accepting the said deal, Obama made the obvious and correct choice, winning the concession of the Syrian chemical stockpile–a stockpile of WMD in a deteriorating, war-torn, Jihadist haven–at no cost to the United States.

And he never even went back on his word. This is what Obama said about the “red line”:

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.

Change his calculus. Like forcing the concession of the surrender of a WMD stockpile under threat of military force. Like preparing to strike a foreign country and agreeing not to only at the nothing-else-in-return offer of a stockpile of WMD that would otherwise have remained within the borders of a destabilizing Middle Eastern shithole. So, again, even by the facile and illegitimate measurement you’re using–a measurement that I’ve painstakingly shown to be nonsensical, and vastly inferior to the measurement by which people who know what they’re talking about judge diplomatic affairs–even by this measurement, you’ve got no case whatsoever.

[quote]
2. If it were me, the crossing of the red line would have resulted in the targeting of known chemical weapons with missile strikes and the threat of more targeted strikes on the regime if he didn’t turn himself in pronto along with an immediate no-fly zone […]Pick the most U.S. friendly part of the resistance bolster it and help put them in power as interim governance. [/quote]

Go to war, oust a tyrant, and put a faction of our choice in power? What could fuckin go wrong, am I right? Think this over and then tell me why nobody thought any of this was a good idea other than tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum of the venerable upper chamber.

[quote]
The issues aren’t as complicated as you think.[/quote]

Yes they are, and they are much, much, much more complicated than you think. This last sentence is the most important one I’ve written in this entire debate, and it’s been evidenced again, and again, and again.