Risk reward. You proposed a solution with biblical shitloads of risk, and essentially no reward. Obama took a solution with no risk and a tangible reward. Again, you offer absolutely no evidence that any decision relating to the question of Syrian chemical weapons was mishandled, and no viable alternative choice that would have represented a better risk/reward ratio. You do not have a case.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Risk reward. You proposed a solution with biblical shitloads of risk, and essentially no reward. Obama took a solution with no risk and a tangible reward. Again, you offer absolutely no evidence that any decision relating to the question of Syrian chemical weapons was mishandled, and no viable alternative choice that would have represented a better risk/reward ratio. You do not have a case.[/quote]
Considering that the worst possible scenario is in play, it’s you who have no case. You have not presented anything that shows that removing some of Syria’s chemical arsenal made any improvement to the situation. It’s not possible that the Syrian problem be worse than it is right now.
[quote]CLINK wrote:
He got Bin Laden. Something Bush not only failed to do, but gave up on the search.
[/quote]
lol
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Risk reward. You proposed a solution with biblical shitloads of risk, and essentially no reward. Obama took a solution with no risk and a tangible reward. Again, you offer absolutely no evidence that any decision relating to the question of Syrian chemical weapons was mishandled, and no viable alternative choice that would have represented a better risk/reward ratio. You do not have a case.[/quote]
Obama screwed it up for years to get it into this position. You are now asking someone for a magic solution?
There are many things Obama could have done to prevent the current circumstances. His mistakes are legion. I cannot believe anyone defends him.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Risk reward. You proposed a solution with biblical shitloads of risk, and essentially no reward. Obama took a solution with no risk and a tangible reward. Again, you offer absolutely no evidence that any decision relating to the question of Syrian chemical weapons was mishandled, and no viable alternative choice that would have represented a better risk/reward ratio. You do not have a case.[/quote]
Considering that the worst possible scenario is in play, it’s you who have no case.[/quote]
Already addressed. Counter the point or leave it. Don’t just keep repeating things I’ve taken the time to address.
You should respond to the specific points raised in the very long post I just took the time to write, or you should decide that you don’t want anything to do with this discussion. Because it requires a hell of a lot more effort than this.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Risk reward. You proposed a solution with biblical shitloads of risk, and essentially no reward. Obama took a solution with no risk and a tangible reward. Again, you offer absolutely no evidence that any decision relating to the question of Syrian chemical weapons was mishandled, and no viable alternative choice that would have represented a better risk/reward ratio. You do not have a case.[/quote]
Obama screwed it up for years to get it into this position. You are now asking someone for a magic solution?
There are many things Obama could have done to prevent the current circumstances. His mistakes are legion. I cannot believe anyone defends him.[/quote]
This is the tail end of a very long argument. Go ahead and read it, and then address a specific point, or don’t. In which case you should find somebody else with whom to exchange vague generalities.
Edited in the name of civility. Hopefully it sticks.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Risk reward. You proposed a solution with biblical shitloads of risk, and essentially no reward. Obama took a solution with no risk and a tangible reward. Again, you offer absolutely no evidence that any decision relating to the question of Syrian chemical weapons was mishandled, and no viable alternative choice that would have represented a better risk/reward ratio. You do not have a case.[/quote]
Considering that the worst possible scenario is in play, it’s you who have no case.[/quote]
Already addressed. Counter the point or leave it. Don’t just keep repeating things I’ve taken the time to address.
You should respond to the specific points raised in the very long post I just took the time to write, or you should decide that you don’t want anything to do with this discussion. Because it requires a hell of a lot more effort than this.[/quote]
I am also still waiting for you to acknowledge the fact that you came into this discussion without knowing anything about the topic at hand, posted a bunch of garbled error, and then refused to acknowledge your solecisms. The claims you made at the outset of this discussion could not have been made by anybody who was even casually following the developments relating to Obama’s “red line” and Assad’s chemical weapons. The mistakes you made were fundamental, and betrayed a fundamental ignorance of the very matter on which you were attempting to opine. That you continue to refuse to acknowledge this should be a source of grave concern for you.
[quote]pat wrote:
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.
[/quote]
This is nonsense. There is nothing being taken out of context. Full paragraph, with my emphasis:
[quote]pat wrote:
And we have no way to verify whether or not [the Syrians] gave up all their chemical weapons or not. Maybe they used all they had. Initially they said they didn’t have any, so I don’t exactly trust them when they say they gave them all to Russia.
[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
You’re claiming that Assad was actually afraid of a U.S. strike? It was never going to happen. They are empty threats.[/quote]
There is no context within which these ^ claims are not utterly false. There is no context within which they do not betray fundamental ignorance of the simplest facts about the matter whereon you were trying to opine. These are not hyperbole. They are simply errors.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
lol! Really? That quagmire in Syria overrun with terrorists, 150,000+ dead bodies and 7 million people displaced (estimates vary), mired in a stalemate civil war, a hotbed of terrorist activity that has spilled over into Iraq, etc, etc, etc is not the worst case scenario?
If that ain’t it, I’d hate to see the worst.
So accepting a list of chemical weapons by the Assad regime and destroying those he let people know about, trusting he is telling the truth is right choice? Just trust Assad to tell us what he’s got.
I am sure he means well and all…
No cost to the U.S.? The cost of blood and treasure is going to be significant.
Obama issued a treat via a ‘red line’ should Syria use chemical weapons. The line was crossed Syria used chemical weapons, more than just the one time. The actual total is unknown. Obama negotiated with the Russians to remove a weapons stockpile designated by Assad.
How’s that a success? He issued a deterrent and Assad pissed all over it.
Was this the threat? “Remove you weapons stockpile or we will engage in strong negotiations with the Russians!”
I am sure Assad was quaking in his boots.
[quote]
We did it in Libya. Libya is in waaaay better shape than Syria. We didn’t ‘go to war’ in Libya, we solved a problem and it worked.
[quote]
[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.[/quote]
No, it’s really not. It got complicated, now we have 2 countries on the verge of collapse. We will not be able to extricate ISIS, which I guess they now just call themselves IS, from just Iraq. To eliminate the threat, it will require us taking care of them in Syria too.
In the beginning it was much simpler. Threats are simple. Do this and you’re fucked. But that’s not how it went down. Assad is still well armed, still killing his own citizens, now even launching attacks in Iraq. We could have weakened the Assad regime very early on, but now we have Assad and al qaeda to deal with. Oh but we got some of Assad’s chemical weapons so that makes it all better. Victory!
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Risk reward. You proposed a solution with biblical shitloads of risk, and essentially no reward. Obama took a solution with no risk and a tangible reward. Again, you offer absolutely no evidence that any decision relating to the question of Syrian chemical weapons was mishandled, and no viable alternative choice that would have represented a better risk/reward ratio. You do not have a case.[/quote]
Considering that the worst possible scenario is in play, it’s you who have no case.[/quote]
Already addressed. Counter the point or leave it. Don’t just keep repeating things I’ve taken the time to address.
You should respond to the specific points raised in the very long post I just took the time to write, or you should decide that you don’t want anything to do with this discussion. Because it requires a hell of a lot more effort than this.[/quote]
I am also still waiting for you to acknowledge the fact that you came into this discussion without knowing anything about the topic at hand, posted a bunch of garbled error, and then refused to acknowledge your solecisms. The claims you made at the outset of this discussion could not have been made by anybody who was even casually following the developments relating to Obama’s “red line” and Assad’s chemical weapons. The mistakes you made were fundamental, and betrayed a fundamental ignorance of the very matter on which you were attempting to opine. That you continue to refuse to acknowledge this should be a source of grave concern for you.[/quote]
You’re going to die waiting on that…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
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.
[/quote]
This is nonsense. There is nothing being taken out of context. Full paragraph, with my emphasis:
[quote]pat wrote:
And we have no way to verify whether or not [the Syrians] gave up all their chemical weapons or not. Maybe they used all they had. Initially they said they didn’t have any, so I don’t exactly trust them when they say they gave them all to Russia.
[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
You’re claiming that Assad was actually afraid of a U.S. strike? It was never going to happen. They are empty threats.[/quote]
There is no context within which these ^ claims are not utterly false. There is no context within which they do not betray fundamental ignorance of the simplest facts about the matter whereon you were trying to opine. These are not hyperbole. They are simply errors.
[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
lol! Really? That quagmire in Syria overrun with terrorists, 150,000+ dead bodies and 7 million people displaced (estimates vary), mired in a stalemate civil war, a hotbed of terrorist activity that has spilled over into Iraq, etc, etc, etc is not the worst case scenario?
If that ain’t it, I’d hate to see the worst.
[/quote]
[quote]
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.[/quote]
[quote]
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.[/quote]
[quote]
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.[/quote]
[Third time’s supposed to be a charm, right?]
You need to cut the intellectual dishonesty.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
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.
[/quote]
This is nonsense. There is nothing being taken out of context. Full paragraph, with my emphasis:
[quote]pat wrote:
And we have no way to verify whether or not [the Syrians] gave up all their chemical weapons or not. Maybe they used all they had. Initially they said they didn’t have any, so I don’t exactly trust them when they say they gave them all to Russia.
[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
You’re claiming that Assad was actually afraid of a U.S. strike? It was never going to happen. They are empty threats.[/quote]
There is no context within which these ^ claims are not utterly false. There is no context within which they do not betray fundamental ignorance of the simplest facts about the matter whereon you were trying to opine. These are not hyperbole. They are simply errors.
[/quote]
[/quote]
You have taken a turn for childishness and you have dug your heals into a position of unrepentant and egregious intellectual dishonesty in the face of overwhelming evidence of your own ignorance and error. You do not understand the basic facts particular to this matter, and you do not understand the norms by which informed people judge questions of this general kind. You refuse to weigh or engage counterpoints, opting instead to regurgitate facile bullshit that has been addressed a hundred times over. You refuse to acknowledge the impressive, enormous, this-would-be-funny-if-it-didn’t-represent-a-waste-of-my-time catalog of errors, misunderstandings, and piles of petrified horseshit that you’ve tossed into the cogwheels of this debate, and, just like in Proof of God thread, you refuse to give up when you have clearly lost (a refusal which does damage only to you).
In response to my posting a list of factual inaccuracies you pushed over the course of this argument, you posted a picture of a sinking ship. I am not availing myself of a rhetorical device when I say that I have no clue what this means: I literally have no clue what this means. I did not fabricate those quotes, and I did not force you to engage in a debate that has revealed itself to live a few miles over your head. If the sinking ship was some kind of subconscious admission of guilt and defeat, then I accept. Otherwise, this debate ceased advancing a long long while ago, and it is no longer serving a purpose for either of us.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Risk reward. You proposed a solution with biblical shitloads of risk, and essentially no reward. Obama took a solution with no risk and a tangible reward. Again, you offer absolutely no evidence that any decision relating to the question of Syrian chemical weapons was mishandled, and no viable alternative choice that would have represented a better risk/reward ratio. You do not have a case.[/quote]
Obama screwed it up for years to get it into this position. You are now asking someone for a magic solution?
There are many things Obama could have done to prevent the current circumstances. His mistakes are legion. I cannot believe anyone defends him.[/quote]
This is the tail end of a very long argument. Go ahead and read it, and then address a specific point, or don’t. In which case you should find somebody else with whom to exchange vague generalities.
Edited in the name of civility. Hopefully it sticks.[/quote]
Go ahead and insult me, you have before. I skimmed the topic. You are grossly wrong on so many points. As I said, I cannot believe anyone makes a defense of the man.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Risk reward. You proposed a solution with biblical shitloads of risk, and essentially no reward. Obama took a solution with no risk and a tangible reward. Again, you offer absolutely no evidence that any decision relating to the question of Syrian chemical weapons was mishandled, and no viable alternative choice that would have represented a better risk/reward ratio. You do not have a case.[/quote]
Obama screwed it up for years to get it into this position. You are now asking someone for a magic solution?
There are many things Obama could have done to prevent the current circumstances. His mistakes are legion. I cannot believe anyone defends him.[/quote]
This is the tail end of a very long argument. Go ahead and read it, and then address a specific point, or don’t. In which case you should find somebody else with whom to exchange vague generalities.
Edited in the name of civility. Hopefully it sticks.[/quote]
Go ahead and insult me, you have before. I skimmed the topic. You are grossly wrong on so many points. As I said, I cannot believe anyone makes a defense of the man.[/quote]
None of that was an insult to you.
But this is: Good argument. I yield to your evidence and prowess.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Risk reward. You proposed a solution with biblical shitloads of risk, and essentially no reward. Obama took a solution with no risk and a tangible reward. Again, you offer absolutely no evidence that any decision relating to the question of Syrian chemical weapons was mishandled, and no viable alternative choice that would have represented a better risk/reward ratio. You do not have a case.[/quote]
Obama screwed it up for years to get it into this position. You are now asking someone for a magic solution?
There are many things Obama could have done to prevent the current circumstances. His mistakes are legion. I cannot believe anyone defends him.[/quote]
This is the tail end of a very long argument. Go ahead and read it, and then address a specific point, or don’t. In which case you should find somebody else with whom to exchange vague generalities.
Edited in the name of civility. Hopefully it sticks.[/quote]
Go ahead and insult me, you have before. I skimmed the topic. You are grossly wrong on so many points. As I said, I cannot believe anyone makes a defense of the man.[/quote]
Why is he wrong?
I think he was not trying to insult you, but rather asking for a more substantive post. Saying that he is “grossly wrong on some many Points”( Big Banana ) doesnt make him wrong. So again why is he wrong?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
A cursory look at the casualties inflicted would suffice. The first generation nuclear weapons detonated above Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 caused between 150,000, and 250,000 deaths. I don’t know why you are so insistent upon arguing from the hip against a position that isn’t controversial among analysts, that is, the threat posed by chemical weapons is largely overstated.
The term WMD is a normative bete noir that lacks analytical rigor. Employing it to stoke fear amongst an ignorant populace often leads to the justification of bad foreign policy, case in point, the Iraq war.[/quote]
So, contact the countries involved in the OPCW and tell tell them you think the treaty’s wrong.
[/quote]
I never asserted that. Chemical weapons should be banned because they are inherently indiscriminate area weapons. I did assert that they have been erroneously lumped into the WMD classification, a term which itself is flawed. The fact that you’re comparing chemical weapons with biological and nuclear ones in terms of their capacity to inflict massive casualties is demonstrative of your own misunderstandings regarding their nature.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]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. You do not have the shadow of a case here.[/quote]
You can try as you might. They were not the same, they were different. Different threats issued at different times for different reasons. It was not tied together, except that they had made a fool of him by using them with a looming empty threat hanging over their heads. Had obama insisted that Syria not use and turn over there chemical weapons, then you’d have a point. But he didn’t. The fact that they used them in spite of the threat shows they have no regard or fear of the American threat.
Despite all of that, and the multiple failures in Syria and Iraq, the reserves have been called up and leaves cancelled in my area. War is looking more and more imminent because he was unwilling to do what it took to keep the peace.
[/quote]
You are arguing from intuition (as opposed to structured reasoning). This isn’t an attack upon your intellect, but rather upon your method. As SMH stated earlier, you are indeed attempting to play tennis without a racket. You began the Syria argument with little to no understanding of basic international relations, much less contextual knowledge of the Syrian chemical disarmament deal.
One of your glaring errors throughout this argument has been your muddled understanding of the employment of force in world politics. While the reasons actors employ force are myriad, producing such a list would be far too descriptive and provide little analytical utility. Instead, four general categories encompassing all of these provide a valuable conceptual framework. These include defense, deterrence, compellence, and swaggering.
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.[/quote]
Read this:
[/quote]
A rag of an op-ed. Which demonstrates what, exactly? Don’t slap up an opinion piece which mirrors your own. Address the specific assertations I made in my post.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]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. You do not have the shadow of a case here.[/quote]
You can try as you might. They were not the same, they were different. Different threats issued at different times for different reasons. It was not tied together, except that they had made a fool of him by using them with a looming empty threat hanging over their heads. Had obama insisted that Syria not use and turn over there chemical weapons, then you’d have a point. But he didn’t. The fact that they used them in spite of the threat shows they have no regard or fear of the American threat.
Despite all of that, and the multiple failures in Syria and Iraq, the reserves have been called up and leaves cancelled in my area. War is looking more and more imminent because he was unwilling to do what it took to keep the peace.
[/quote]
You are arguing from intuition (as opposed to structured reasoning). This isn’t an attack upon your intellect, but rather upon your method. As SMH stated earlier, you are indeed attempting to play tennis without a racket. You began the Syria argument with little to no understanding of basic international relations, much less contextual knowledge of the Syrian chemical disarmament deal.
One of your glaring errors throughout this argument has been your muddled understanding of the employment of force in world politics. While the reasons actors employ force are myriad, producing such a list would be far too descriptive and provide little analytical utility. Instead, four general categories encompassing all of these provide a valuable conceptual framework. These include defense, deterrence, compellence, and swaggering.
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.[/quote]
Read this:
[/quote]
A rag of an op-ed. Which demonstrates what, exactly? Don’t slap up an opinion piece which mirrors your own. Address the specific assertations I made into post. [/quote]
But that’s hard!
[quote]pat wrote:
[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]
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.[/quote]
You adopted my use of deterrence but continue to ignore the successful act of peaceful compellence that followed its violation, which is decidedly more difficult to achieve. Power is when state A makes state B do something it otherwise would not have done (or vice versa). The Assad regime’s relinquishment of its chemical weapons arsenal is just that.
Was the surrender of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal an undeniable diplomatic and strategic victory for US foreign policy toward Syria, or not? I don’t want you to respond with the state of Syria as a whole, which only God himself could have prevented.