Posted on 08/26/2014 10:27:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
How intelligible is American foreign policy? Not very as Guy explained in his post yesterday: “During last summer's debate,” he wrote, “we were discussing strikes against the Assad regime. Today, we're talking about entering the country to defeat ISIS, which is intent on overthrowing the Assad regime and expanding its Islamist caliphate. The butcher we threatened to bomb last year now stands to benefit from our anti-ISIS campaign.”
This of course makes any discussion of expanding military airstrikes into Syria all the more complicated. On the one hand, if the president approves intervention, he could insulate and embolden Syrian President Bashar al-Assad even more -- a known despot. On the other hand, if we do nothing, ISIS’ dream of an Islamic caliphate stretching from Iraq’s northern border across all of Syria isn’t wholly out of the question. Neither of these outcomes, in other words, is particularly desirable.
For now, however, the New York Times confirmed yesterday that the president is slowly but surely inching towards military intervention:
President Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there, but a mounting concern for the White House is how to target the Sunni extremists without helping President Bashar al-Assad. Defense officials said Monday evening that the Pentagon was sending in manned and unmanned reconnaissance flights over Syria, using a combination of aircraft, including drones and possibly U2 spy planes. Mr. Obama approved the flights over the weekend, a senior administration official said.
The flights are a significant step toward direct American military action in Syria, an intervention that could alter the battlefield in the nation’s three-year civil war. Administration officials said the United States did not intend to notify the Assad government of the planned flights. Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly called for the ouster of Mr. Assad, is loath to be seen as aiding the Syrian government, even inadvertently.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean the president has made up his mind about what to do yet, either:
Mr. Obama met Monday with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and other advisers to discuss options, but the White House said Mr. Obama had not yet decided whether to order military action in Syria. The White House made clear that if the president did act, he had no plans to collaborate with Mr. Assad or even inform him in advance of any operation.
“It is not the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser. “Joining forces with Assad would essentially permanently alienate the Sunni population in both Syria and Iraq, who are necessary to dislodging ISIL,” he said, using the group’s alternative name, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
Not surprisingly, this might be a bit of a problem (via The Guardian):
Syria has declared it is ready to help confront the rising threat from the Islamic State group but warned the US against carrying out air strikes on its territory without the consent of Damascus, saying any such attack would be considered an aggression. Walid al-Moallem, the Syrian foreign minister, said his government was ready “to co-operate and co-ordinate” with any side, including the US, or join any regional or international alliance against Isis. But he said any military action inside Syria should be co-ordinated with the Syrian government. “Any strike which is not co-ordinated with the government will be considered as aggression,” he said.
So, as far as I can tell, the current administration is only leaving themselves with two outs: (1) Do nothing militarily and risk more Syrian government losses to ISIS forces as they expand their caliphate. Or (2) conduct limited military airstrikes in the region unilaterally, thus possibly aiding Assad and fanning the flames of mistrust between Washington and Damascus.
What a mess.
Ping
The fact is, ISIL is the new nation to be bombed.
Syria that was is no more.
Dealing with Assad in the matter is pretty much irrelevant fiction.
Does Assad have billions in gold stashed away? Obomba will drop bombs in a second if there’s some gold to be grabbed.
Now, why would Assad ever distrust us?
Seriously, everyone who isn't ISIS should be working together against them.
What would be wrong with letting them fight it out in Syria, then we wipe out the winner. Makes no sense for us to bomb Syria to in essence help Assad. Let the Russians intervene.
ONce we pulled out of Iraq, we were left with no good options anywhere. And as we watch ISIS move closer and then into Jordan, we’ll sit back and let it happen or we put soldiers there.
There are no good options here, none.
thats really stretching it. I guess Bush could simply claim the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and Kurd Iraqi were the legit government, thus the invasion don’t need Congressional approval because we were working in concert with the legit government
The answer is simple:
Carpet bomb EVERY-SINGLE-PLACE that they rear their ugly heads, and continue until they either unconditionally surrender, or are all killed off.
For the west, it's either going to be death by jihad, or kill the heathens by crusade. There is no in-between compromise.
Bush did it the right way, the constitutional way. He got Congress to vote approval of his actions the whole step of the way. Those votes were a de jure declaration of war. The Constitution gives the power of declaring war to Congress and Congress voted twice, once in 2001 and later in 2002. Remember, a declaration of war does not have to be headed Declaration of War. It only has to give the authorization, and the ones in 2001 and 2002 did.
A lot of our policy makers are still fixated on the fantasy of a moderate Syrian resistance. Most of them switched to ISIS and I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the current ISIS hostages were simply grabbed when the “moderates” switched sides.
To stand with the Christians in Syria is to side with Assad.
It's mind-numbing how US policy has gone so horribly wrong. And it isn't just an Obama thing.
It started in 1973, when we didn’t take the hint from the Arab Oil Embargo.
We’ve been over-flying Syria with drones for years. What is needed is airborne elint and joint operations AWACs, etc. for forward air control of the battle space.
Armed drones are very effective, but limited, we need Spectre gunships, forward bases for longer loiter times and maintenance. Lots of other air assets are being moved in place but it takes time.
No point projecting drones if you can’t follow on heavy. There will be many more teams inserting but they need overwatch and support.
There are many good choices for FOBs such as al Qaim and al Taqqadum. The 3rd MAW (Marine Air Wing) was at al Qaim and al Taq has a long runway for fixed wing. Both have excellent bunkered hangars and are very defensible.
The Pentagon was given the green light a month ago and they aren’t playing. We have learned a lot from Afghanistan.
The 11th MEU is coming, the Peshmerga is firming up. We will look and listen until we can go heavy.
If ISIL runs, we will see them, if they hide, we will see them. This won’t be like Iraq, we have all weather/24-7 surveillance now, everywhere.
Forgot to mention that Iran has an air corridor over Iraq and Syria, 3-7 flights a day. Israel and Turkey overfly Syria and all of those forces have to be coordinated.
Theater command is still being worked out with the Brits, they really want at ISIL.
No matter who we bomb, we create more enemies so it makes no sense to bomb anyone. We don’t know what we are doing there so stay home and watch.
There are others in the world with much more at stake than us.
After ISIS makes the fruit basket turnover others will step in to mitigate the damage and go forward.
One reason unions strike is to let off steam. ISIL is now venting.
Why the de jure work around instead of a Constitutional formal declaration of war? Bush did not measure up nor has Obama.
There are objectives that are desirable and obtainable.
The current objective is to draw boundaries between ISIL and the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Shia in the south. The bombing has been worth while in that very limited objective.
Iraq is partitioned. There is no more Iraq in the old sense.
Ditto Syria but the boundaries are more tenuous. I expect ISIL will turn on Aleppo again when the status in former Iraq becomes more stable.
Then no wonder Iraq won't fight. They have nothing to fight for. Who will supply the ground troops - endless dead Americans and endless billion bucks?
I did not know that the template for a declaration of war is in the constitution. And you do know what de jure means. If Congress authorizes the President to lead the military in hostilities, that is a declaration of war, no matter what anyone might call it. A Declaration of War is not some certificate with a gold fringe around the edges with Declaration of War printed in Gothic letters as a heading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.