Replies

Fiorina: ‘We must be prepared’ to use force on Russia

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3343351/posts

Fiorina: Us Should Secure No-fly Zone Around US Backed Anti-assad Rebels, ‘Be Prepared’ To Use Force

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3343338/posts

Fiorina Calls for War on Russia in Syria?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3343513/posts

Carly Fiorina: It’s time for the U.S. to impose a no-fly zone around American-backed rebels in Syria

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3343627/posts

To establish a no-fly zone is the equivalent of an act of war. When taking warlike actions it's a good idea to know why you are doing so and is probably also a good idea to identify your enemy.

Having identified an enemy it is a good idea to develop tactics, strategy and a policy leading to the accomplishment of national interests. Actually that is the process in reverse.

The first step is to identify American national interests. What interest do we have in Syria? What interest we have in the neighboring lands? What threat does the continued rule of Assad pose for the United States? What threat would emerge upon the takeover of Syria by Isis? Can we consider Syria in isolation? Do we not have to consider it because of its proximity to Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to have implications for United States interests beyond Syria's borders? Does it pose a threat to the world supply of oil? Would either al-Assad or Isis constitute a greater threat to Israel? Why should we care?

If we cannot consider Syria in isolation should we not also consider the intervention of Russia but not Russia alone rather acting in concert with Iran? Are we not facing a potential caliphate running from Teheran in Iran, through Baghdad in Iraq, through Damascus in Syria right to the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean? In short are we not looking at a new axis running essentially from the Crimea to the Mediterranean protected by Russian arms, including nuclear weapons, all in league with each other and all inimical to the interests of the United States?

If this caliphate or axis is a proximate possibility, is that danger greater or lesser than the danger posed by Isis in the region? Is the real enemy Iran, the country we have just funded, the country we have just ensured will get the atomic bomb, the country that is now in league with Russia as a client state being supplied with Russian weapons? Have we not in effect borrowed money from China to give to Iran so they can spend it in Russia to get weapons with which to kill us?

Some other non-regional questions include, what do our European allies want us to do? What can we economically afford to do? How effective will our carriers be with short range airplanes aboard and heightened danger from land-based missiles? Are we likely to get into a war because one of our allies, for example Israel, triggers one? If we are sucked into the such a war will it be in our interest? Will we be ultimately forced to put boots on the ground? Will the American public tolerate that? When these questions are addressed, much less answered, we can begin to talk about what victory would look like and at the end of the reasoning process, that is after strategy is considered, we can begin to talk about no fly zones.

When are we going to address these issues?

Both ARE wrong.

I am NOT convinced that the Syrian “rebels” are in fact a better option than Assad.

And Assad sucks.

But look, if Obama supports a foreign rebel, they’re likely to be bad. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Bad.

He supported the rebels fighting against Qadaffi in Libya.
Bad.

He supported the liberal opposition to Netanyahu in Israel.
Bad.

He supports the current government in Iran. Bad.

His track record, no doubt governed by his boss Valerie, is abysmal.

So protecting the rebels—as Obama was “pledged” to do—is a stupid idea.