US Forces Ready To Strike Syria If Ordered 918
An anonymous reader writes "The Associated Press reports that 'U.S. forces are now ready to act on any order by President Barack Obama to strike Syria, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Tuesday. The U.S. Navy has four destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea positioned within range of targets inside Syria, as well as U.S. warplanes in the region, Hagel said in an interview with BBC television during his visit to the southeast Asian nation of Brunei. Hagel also predicted that U.S. intelligence agencies would soon conclude that last week's deadly attack on civilians in a Damascus suburb was a chemical attack by Bashar Assad's government.'" The New York Times has an informative map of the sites of the chemical attacks.
Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
...again.
Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we joined the UN as a permanent member of the security council. It's our job to protect the rights of foreign people from human rights violations.
I mean I suppose we could resign from our position, supposing you like the idea of China and Russia being in charge the security council.
Re:Tell me again (Score:4, Insightful)
Because otherwise they would be adding more bodies to the unemployment rolls. Plus weapons, unlike most other things, are still manufactured here, so they have to keep up the orders, and congress can't make up for all the slack on their own by JUST purchasing more equipment from their contracts than the military even asks for.
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
War is Peace.
It's all explained in the novel "1984".
This is a War on War. We are fighting to eliminate fighting!
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to human history.
Re:Yay! Wag the dog! (Score:1, Insightful)
You know, one doesn't have to be pro-NSA to imagine that the contemporaneous events really don't have anything to do with each other. The Syrian civil war started before Snowden. The NSA didn't order Assad's goons to use chemical weapons.
I'm usually against military action. (Score:4, Insightful)
But in this case, the use of chemical and/or biological weapons is a no no, and outlawed by the international community for a reason. It's time to destroy any such weapons since Syria's gov does not seem to have any restrain in the use of such weapons.
But at the same time, I do not believe the US should be the only entry into this skirmish (lets face it, it won't be a traditional war, most likely air strikes, drones, and cruise missiles). I believe that the League of Arab Nations should take care of this on their own, ideally with backing from the major super powers.
No different than Bush (Score:4, Insightful)
Team America: World Police Part 2 (Score:2, Insightful)
The US are members of NATO. Turkey, who has actually been attacked, has done everything they could to stay out of it, and are also members of NATO, but are doing what they can to help Syrians fleeing the war. Turkey is definitely proving the smarter of the two NATO members here.
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobel Peace Prize (Score:5, Insightful)
And again, President Obama, a recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize (for having done nothing at all), is putting people in harms way, getting involved in someone else's business, and in general being, ah, not peaceful. At least this gives him an excuse to indulge in his assassination drone fetish.
Re:As predicted in 2007, U.S. about to attack Syri (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure every major power around the world has plans to attack nations they consider a potential threat. Plans do not always mean implementation. They are there as a contingency in the event that an attack plan is needed, rather than attacking a nation adhoc.
Isn't that the military's job? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't the military always be ready?
Reminds me of a clip from Stargate SG-1:
Dr. Jackson: Uh, you should probably prepare to fire.
Maj. Marks: For the record, I'm always prepared to fire. I just have to press this button here.
Dr. Jackson: Right..I just—I thought that's what you're supposed to say, so...
Maj. Marks: I know.
again? (Score:4, Insightful)
US troops going in to another sovereign nation without a declaration of war by the Congress.
Remind me again why we even claim to have a constitution.
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
we will be damned for isolationism and disregard for human suffering if we do not act
Yes, it is too bad we were ordained by God to police the world. It would be so much better if there was some sort of organization that could represent the collective will of the nations of the world in situations like this. Maybe we could set up something like that. New York City might be a good place.
Re:Yay! Wag the dog! (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, one doesn't have to be pro-NSA to imagine that the contemporaneous events really don't have anything to do with each other. The Syrian civil war started before Snowden. The NSA didn't order Assad's goons to use chemical weapons.
And one doesn't have to be a an expert in realpolitik to realize that no political decision exists within a vacuum. The Syrian civil war has indeed been going on for some time, yes, but American interest in this little conflict has been fairly negligible until very recently. That's mighty interesting.
Also, you seem to miss the forest for the trees: the NSA is merely a tool - a dangerous and powerful one, but a tool all the same - at the bidding of a widespread political power matrix which includes, but is not limited to, the current administration. You best realize.
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. I just want my country to stay out of other people's affairs.
If they're world affairs, like WWII, I get it, but Syria's internal politics are their own responsibility.
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
>So why now? Why not in Rwanda in the 90s? Why not in Burma in the 80s? Hell, why not when Assad Sr bombed the shit out Hama in 1982, killing 20 thousand of his own people?
Rwanda: no geopolitical advantage, UN deployed. NATO already knee deep in Kosovo.
Burma: minimal geopolitical advantage, Soviet supported dictator, UN deployed. Cold War active theatre.
Syria 1982: Iran/Iraq war, US already propping up Iraq. Act of war crushed Muslim brotherhood which was congruent to US geopolitical strategy in the region (secular Iraq) at the time.
Some of these moral dilemmas have good answers, but political white knights like to throw these reasons away as if "Well we shouldn't have been doing that". So what is it? Is the US limited or unlimited in it's power? Make up your damn minds!
You don't have to be okay with it, but please accept that the world is morally complex and going to war is rarely black and white. Also accept there are things in the present you cannot know.
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is ever perfect. No one ever has clean hands. Yet if we use that as an excuse to never change anything, nothing will ever be improved.
The people who like to hang on to 600 year old religious, racial, or tribal arguments as an excuse to continue war are the people who fuel the conflicts. They never solve them. They're toxic.
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we joined the UN as a permanent member of the security council. It's our job to protect the rights of foreign people from human rights violations.
I mean I suppose we could resign from our position, supposing you like the idea of China and Russia being in charge the security council.
The thing is, Russia will probably veto any action the UNSC attempts to make, because Syria under al-Assad is one of their biggest allies in the Middle East as well as a big purchaser of arms(essentially Syria is to Russia what Egypt is[was?] to the US). This would have 2 effects: it would help protect their ally/client, and it would force the US towards taking more unilateral action, which would further erode the US's image internationally, especially in the Middle East. The best course of action, as I see it, is that any reaction must include Middle Eastern forces. The most capable that I can think of would be Jordan or Saudi Arabia, maybe even Turkey. Give one of these states a critical role in any long-term operations, or use them to put boots on the ground. This is the only way(probably even with a UNSC resolution) to preserve the legitimacy of any kinetic/peacekeeping operations in Syria in the eyes of the Middle East.
Re:I'm usually against military action. (Score:5, Insightful)
After Iraq can we really take anything the US says about WMD seriously? I'm afraid US intelligence now has zero credibility.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
No 'ordainment by God' necessary. We're in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. It's just that we'll be condemned by different groups depending on our actions.
As for the 'collective will of the nations', I'd like to point out that the USA provides the lion's share of expeditionary support to forces in situations like this. We might not have more fighter planes than the rest of the world, but we have more aerial refuelers, more cargo airlift, more transport.
There's been rumors of Syria using chemical weapons for a while now, Barack Obama has reinforced the US policy of 'We'll go after anybody who uses CBRNE/NBC weapons', but has been waffling that Syrian weapon use has been unconfirmed. Well, if this is confirmation...
The idea is to save lives in the long run by putting limits on harsh regimes in that they don't want to risk the UN/USA coming down on them.
Re:Here we go... (Score:1, Insightful)
And no moral position to do so, either. I'm trying to figure out how we're better than Assad, when he kills a thousand people in a short period, and we kill many more times that fucking around in Iraq, in a longer period. And how much more heinous are chemical weapons than slaughtering innocent men, women and children at a wedding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike [wikipedia.org]
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most in the US would rather not be involved...
Most in the US are hopelessly confused. Go read the comments on any main stream site on an article about Syria.
Obama's going to attack Syria because he's a damned liberal. Obama's going to attack Syria because he's not a liberal. Obama's going to attack Syria without a Congressional declaration of war because he's a damned liberal. Obama's going to attack Syria without a Congressional declaration of war because he's not a liberal. Obama should attack Syria. Obama shouldn't attack Syria. Obama is too wimpy to attack Syria because he's a damned liberal.
And around and around it goes. The only common thread is "damned liberal." Talk radio has been hammering on that phrase for years, and it's the only thing that has stuck. Everything else is wildly confused. Presumably because talk radio hasn't yet told their listeners what to think.
Wait a few weeks. The Powers That Be will figure out who is going to get paid besides the munitions companies, and then most of the country will be in favor of the attack that happens, because the box the little man lives inside told them to.
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
Syria is a majority Sunni country with a Shia dictatorship. Saudia Arabia (which is arguably a dictatorship of an extremely conservative Sunni-derived sect, Wahhabi) and Qatar (also a Wahhabi state) are providing the Syrian rebels with money and arms; Iran and Iraq (Shia countries) are supporting the Syrian government.
Russia has a naval base in Syria and has been protective of Iran. The US & UK have major military and economic assets in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
This has all the ingredients of a "Sarajevo" incident (and I mean 1914 and not 1992).
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Al Qaeda are a bunch of posers. We are there to keep the Russians and Chinese out, period. It's a matter of interests. This whole idea of 'principles' or 'morality' is nothing but a bunch of fluff to sell a war. I don't think anybody really has to play that angle anymore. All that 'guiding light' bullshit went out the window in 2001.
Assumptions assumptions (Score:5, Insightful)
While does everybody here assume regime used chemical weapons ? Isn't it possible that the "rebels" used chemical weapons to motivate other countries to help them ? I mean if you're losing the "war", it kinda makes sense, unless you believe that those so called rebels over there are morally superior to whoever.
1. There is no proof regime used chemical weapons.
2. Why would regime use chemical weapons ? They're "winning" already..
3. Why would regime use chemical weapons ? The rulling party there is NOT stupid, whatever you may think of them. You think they wouldn't know it would come to this (worldwide condemnation) ?
4. The ruling party have majority of peoples votes. Why would they undermine that ?
5. Why would they allow UN to come inspect the site then shoot at them ? If they wanted to make it impossible for UN team to investigate, there certainly are better ways then using a sniper guy to shoot at them. That tactic is more likely to be used by "rebels".
The people forcing the attack on Syria to happen are the same war mongers that where advocating the attack of Syria months before this chemical bs. Now they're on fire. All over the media.
The same people that where blabbering about Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. I wouldn't put any trust in them.
And I'll tell you this people. The world is starting to get sick (and I'm not talking about European puppet Governments, rather.. the people) of American war mongering, so better keep out of it and deal with your problems instead of going around bombing countries and interfering in other countries business.
Also, will the US and UK exterminate the rebels if it's proven that they used chemical weapons ?
Just my wishful thinking that there's some unbiased justice in the world.
Not only that (Score:5, Insightful)
But he was specifically chosen and elected because we were tired of warmongering. McCain was defeated by casting him as someone who would start wars all over the place. So, the election and subsequent actions of Obama have proven that the people have NO SAY in the tenor or outcomes of their government anymore.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
Here we go again. ("Congress shall have Power...to declare War")
At least Bush tried to build a case and sought Congressional approval to blast into his ill-advised conflicts. Obama? Nah...too much work.
Will there ever be anyone we can we vote for to end this cycle?
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
The moral argument is a bullshit argument and you know it. If the US actually cared, they would have been in Rwanda. Or another half dozen countries over the past few decades. The US is happy to sit by and watch full blown genocide at massive scales if there is no strategic reason for being there.
Plus, the US is not the world police, regardless of the propaganda. Honestly, I was in the States last week and was kind of amazed that the military commercials are all about how you're "protecting the world's interests". Not American interests. Not self defense. There's not even any vague shallow attempt at sounding like a defense force.
But let's be clear: it is a defense force. Defense force for American corporate interests abroad.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Team America: World Police Part 2 (Score:4, Insightful)
"Turkey is definitely proving the smarter of the two NATO members here."
Turkey has to live with the results of its actions.
The US takes near zero casualties in modern war so "it's only money" and the government can borrow or confiscate all of that it wants.
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
why all of a sudden are we hating on the people we know we would all love to be?
Because they've won the game. Because there's no more room at the table. Because instead of encouraging us to join them, they're rigging the system to eliminate competition, crush innovation, and starve us out. Because those who have made it are exhibiting every sign of wishing to treat us as serfs, because they're better than us (obviously, because they have more money). Because class warfare has been ongoing for two generations, and as Warren Buffet has pointed out, rich people are conducting that war, and they are winning. Because they're buying legislation, buying favors, and buying the most effective propaganda machine ever created. Because for the first time since the founding of the nation, we are worse off than our parents. Because we owe more money and make less money, inflation-adjusted. And because the youngest working generation is the least working generation, because there are more people and fewer jobs.
Capitalism has failed. Its purpose is to allow the accumulation of capital in order to use it. It's not being used. It's being hidden in overseas banks, dodging taxes, as if taxes are some horrifying thing. It's being pumped into an enormously inflated stock market, desperately chasing fewer and fewer shares in companies that actually do anything. There are more millionaires and billionaires than ever before in history, and they are more risk averse than ever before in history. People who could afford to lose 99.99% of their money and would still never have to work a day in the rest of their lives are terrified of losing money.
That's why they're rich parasites, and that's why we hate them.
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
> Ooh. A shiny new war. Goody.
No. This war has a great deal of mileage already.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
I said nothing about lesser or greater people. That's all in your head. Nor did I say anything about Slashdot being calm and collected, or even correct. The only thing I know for certain is Slashdot opinion is different. It rarely if ever tracks mainstream opinion.
And no, we don't sound remotely like the comments on mainstream news site articles. Nobody on Slashdot is posting "God bless George W. Bush", not even in irony. But it's being posted in all seriousness on Syria-related articles claiming the invasion of Iraq was an excellent decision, and then trying and failing to draw some sort of parallel to Syria with that belief. And that's where the confusion shows up. It's not just "those stupid liberals" who think George Bush is still in office. Republican partisans are so heavily conditioned to respond with militant belligerence to anybody claiming the US armed forces shouldn't go somewhere that they're demanding the US invade Syria solely because Putin said they shouldn't, and referencing George W. Bush in their arguments, as if Mr. Mission Accomplished were still Commander in Chief.
Seriously, go read some other sites. My attempt to convey the utter confusion swirling around pales in comparison to the real thing.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no invasion and no bloodlust here.
Nevertheless, it's the same rhetorics again and again. "We have proof" without actually presenting it.
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
I said excuse, not cause. And I listed two other common excuses, and never claimed any to be a sole cause.
You are a troll, neither cute nor naive.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
What if the US just did nothing?
That's exactly what the US should do. Why is this the problem of a country half a world away? Where are Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel when there is a war on their borders? Those 5 nations plus any other regional countries who want to see the war end, such as Saudi Arabia, are plenty powerful enough to handle the war themselves. So why are they looking to us? They don't need us or want us, and they take any opportunity to remind us of that fact also.
But anyone reading with any sense of humanity has to have some sort of emotional response to this?
Yeah, you would think that people in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel would have a moral problem with that behavior happening across their border.
However, if we don't get involved Al Quada will make up the opposition and form another Afghanistan.
That's pretty pie-in-the-sky, there's no proof that would happen. Al Qaeda seems pretty powerless lately. I don't think they are going to be taking over any countries. Maybe sharia Islamists in general, but not Al Qaeda. But the real question: why do we care what the future government of Syria looks like? Isn't that more of a concern for Syria and Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel? Why do we have some sort of right to dictate what should happen with a future Syrian government?
The Syrian government is only targeting liberal activitists and citizens defending themselves and ignoring the Islamic militants from foreign countries fighting in Jihad on purpose.
I don't think the government cares about the politics of the opposition, and there are Islamists on both sides. What the government cares about are that fighters are either attacking them or defending them. That's about all they care about at this point.
If we do get involved and play our cards right we stop Al Quada, and help the liberal and citizen oriented people wanting freedom, stop the killing dictator, and hopefully Lebanon and Iraq stabilize and we stop Hezbollah who is not fighting onside and we stop the 7 million refugees who left who are draining neighboring countries.
Good god man, where are you going with this? Instead of launching a few cruise missiles at some strategic targets and other launchers, now you're talking about vanquishing the evil Al Qaeda, supporting the freedom-loving and righteous liberals (let's ignore the conservative Islamists among the rebels for this narrative), taking out the brutal despotic murderous thug Assad, and while we're at it let's go ahead and stabilize the noble freedom-loving countries of Lebanon and Iraq. Oh, and we'll also take out the fascist, god-hating abomination that is Hezbollah, because why the hell not? I'm sure Iran will just hang out and watch. And then we can transport the good people that fled back to their homes on beds of rainbows and clouds. Did I leave out any adjectives that clearly and unambiguously delineate who is evil and who is righteous?
I don't think this situation is as black-and-white as you clearly think it is. This is a regional conflict, this is not some holy war between the forces of evil and righteousness. Both sides have committed terrible acts (should we talk about the rebels carving out and eating organs again?), there is not a clear path and frankly there is no reason why it should be the US, of all countries, that needs to swoop in and save the day. The neighbors of Syria and other regional countries bear the major responsibility for policing their own neighborhood.
If they set up a government or organization that decides to directly attack us, then you have my permission to launch the bombers and send in the troops. If they aren't attacking other countries, then it is a regional problem that needs to be solved with a regional solution.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's already spilled out of Syria into Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, who is our NATO ally.
And what are Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey doing about it?
Re:I'm usually against military action. (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. I will trust the UN result if they've got good evidence (the UN inspectors in Iraq had it pretty much correct), but not the US only. The US is already claiming publicly that the case is conclusive for chemical weapons use by the regime. Based on what? I give Medecines sans Frontieres some honest credit, but they aren't scientific experts on chemical weapons, and they've only said that the medical effects were consistent with chemical weapon use. There's nothing about who did it if so.
Maybe the US will offer up some possibly misinterpreted satellite intelligence? No, sorry, there's no fricking way I'm buying fuzzy nonsense like those "mobile biological weapons labs on trucks" [wikipedia.org] from the Iraq war again. No dice. I want to see the rockets and canisters that were used (some photos have turned up so far -- getting close, but the UN needs possession of them), have it clearly demonstrated they were made in Syria by the regime, have all the chemical and medical evidence of the agent used, and, finally and most importantly, have very clear evidence of who fired them. Short of that, I'm considering it a trumped-up excuse if there isn't clear evidence of what happened *AND* who did it.
This is especially the case because of the utterly bizarre timing of this thing -- fired into a neighbourhood in Damascus itself while the UN inspectors were arriving in the same city? Those are the ingredients for a fantastic conspiracy theory. I mean, what the hell, Assad, if you were the one to pull this? You couldn't wait a couple of weeks? Or bomb some remote corner of the country instead? The whole thing is fishy. It would be horrible if the real lesson from the intelligence mistakes in Iraq is that someone has to go into the country in question and plant WMD on the regime, so that you don't look like an idiot after the war is done.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
If only the president would ask Congress first, as the Constitution requires for non-immediate threat issues. Approval, not notification.