When President Obama bragged earlier that “The United States is and will remain the one indispensable nation in the world..” adding that “no other nation can do what we do,” we should have guessed some more war-mongering was coming..and sure enough. As AP reports, it appears Syrian airstrikes are on their way..but there’s a mind-blowing twist in U.S. foreign policy: "In an effort to avoid unintentionally strengthening the Syrian government, the White House could seek to balance strikes against the Islamic State with attacks on Assad regime targets.” In the words of the Guinness commercial, Brilliant.
As AP reports, ”The intelligence gathered by U.S. military surveillance flights over Syria could support a broad bombing campaign against the Islamic State militant group, but current and former U.S. officials differ on whether air power would significantly degrade what some have called a “terrorist army.” “Air power needs to be applied like a thunderstorm, not a drizzle,” Deptula said, entailing “24-7 overwatch with force application on every move of ISIL personnel.”
Further complicating the plans, any military action against Islamic State militants in Syria would also have the effect of putting the U.S. on the same side as Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose ouster the Obama administration has sought for years.
So first Iran and now Syria are best buddies with America?
Well we can’t have that..
“The U.S. is not cooperating or sharing intelligence with the Assad government, Pentagon and State Department spokesmen said. But the U.S. flights are occurring in eastern Syria, away from most of Syria’s air defenses. And experts expressed doubt that Syria would attempt to shoot down American aircraft that are paving the way for a possible bombing campaign against Assad’s enemies. In an effort to avoid unintentionally strengthening the Syrian government, the White House could seek to balance strikes against the Islamic State with attacks on Assad regime targets. However, that option is largely unappealing to the president given that it could open the U.S. to the kind of long-term commitment to Syria’s stability that Obama has sought to avoid.”
So to summarize: ”..the limited airstrikes in Iraq (which the Iraqi government did not ask for) now appear to be expanding into ‘24/7 carpet-bombing’ of ISIS targets in Syria (which the U.S. are not asking permission or forgiveness for) and in the interests of “fairness doctrine” America will bomb al-Assad’s military installations to maintain some ‘balance’ between the moderate terrorists, extreme terrorists (and national armies), and scary-as-shit terrorists..”
Is there something we missed?
“White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Monday tried to tamp down the notion that action against the Islamic State group could bolster Assad, saying, “We’re not interested in trying to help the Assad regime.” However, he acknowledged that “there are a lot of cross pressures here.”
“Cross-pressures" indeed. And all humanitarian.
So essentially just indiscriminate bombing of the entire country, then?
..and here I was thinking the whole point of the “war on terror" was to "stop terrorism”, NOT profilerate it via state terror.
Yep, this isn’t Orwellian at all.
People read one AP article (hell, read twenty), then speculate entire war plan. Now that is brilliant.
Because let’s never make the decision that maybe military action on a large scale is the only thing to stop the barbarism of groups like ISIS and dictators like Assad.
But then no, we’re working with some dichotomy where somehow doing nothing at all leads to peace. Let’s leave the world like that for a few decades and see where things lead.
I just don’t know who to take seriously anymore. Everyone is certain that intervention is a corporate conspiracy to perpetuate hatred for the west, inciting extremism, which in turn creates the very conditions for intervention, or some other such theory where it’s never the fault of foreign dictators, warlords, and psychopaths. If any of these were actually true, then people should be ousting their governments, dissolving corporate institutions, and starting over. But I don’t see anyone doing that, so what is it exactly that I’m missing here?
"we’re working with some dichotomy where somehow doing nothing at all leads to peace. Let’s leave the world like that for a few decades and see where things lead.
You’re substituting one false dichotomy for another, one that says either we do something or the world explodes- when, actually, the reason ISIS is what it is right now is because we funded and armed them when they were just “freedom fighters” attacking Assad because we felt we had to do something. Now, we “have” to bomb Assad, and the “freedom fighters” we were just arming. This same thing happened with the mujaheddin and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda because we “had to do something”.
What you’re missing, evidently, is everything. What you’re doing, is pounding your fists on the table and demanding that decades of meddling US foreign policy and the manner in which it’s been sold to the US public, should be neatly summarized by others, for you, so you can have an ‘understanding’ of events you’re already writing off as bullshit unless accompanied by a mass attempt at overthrowing the US government.
Honestly, in the time it took you pick out that .gif and act all exasperated for us, did it occur to you that all of these situations in which we “need to act on a large scale” are situations that we were actively meddling in years before?
Of fucking course not. But then I guess maybe you should have just “read more AP articles.”
Ahahah “people read one AP piece” buddy you have no idea what you’re talking about datablossom — I ask you, since you’re so levelheaded and insightful — indiscriminate bombing of the entire nation, then? Or “targeted surgical strikes” on both Assad and IS forces? Any innocents are unfortunate “collateral damage”…sound about right?
That’s the foreign policy you advocate, it clearly is—evident by your America: World Police attitude “lets leave the world like that” as if we’re the only ones keeping this planet in a balance. As if the world is in a balance!
"barbarism! dictators! we must do ~something~” I never knew how truly black and white the world was. I need to thank this guy for enlightening me.
You can condescend all you like. I don’t claim to know as much as most people, and I’m no scholar. I’m just a pragmatic scientist. That doesn’t seem to mean much, even after centuries of progress.
You can put words into my mouth all you like as well. Whatever you may think is evident, you don’t know my mind. As for the whole ridiculous “carpet bombing” thing, I’ll just say that to this point, operations against ISIS have had no civilian casualties (that I’m aware of, sorry if my layman’s knowledge gives you the urge to condescend again).
Finally, I’ll end with this. For over three years (fuck, it’s a tragedy I’ve been following events in Syria since I was in high school) the world has more or less enacted a non-interventionist policy with Syria. Today there are over a quarter million dead people. 1 in 100 Syrians. You may live in whatever fantasy land of grey you like, “buddy”, but my moral constitution tells me that when someone starts piling up bodies, they’re the ones who are in the wrong.
I’ll ask what I’ve asked before: At what point is enough enough? 1 million dead Syrians? 10 million? If you want to continue the reactionary pacifist policy, fine. The omission of an action yields the same results as the commission of another action. When you have the knowledge and ability to stop murder and decide to not intervene, you have acted in a way that yields the same results as if you committed the murder yourself.
So what moral prerogative are you attempting to answer with non-intervention? ‘Cause my dumbass would very much like to know…
I accept your humble admission that you know next-to-nothing when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, military adventurism, and subsequent blowback.
Operations against the Islamic State, thus far limited to ‘surgical’ strikes, have yielded few [if any] civilian casualties. Unfortunately it’s impossible to determine from 6,000 miles away whether the 70 militants killed on August 10th were, indeed, all IS forces. With the death of James Foley, it is evident that although the continental U.S. is not in danger, Americans abroad face growing threats by IS forces due entirely to intervention. Read their pamphlets, watch their videos. They had no interest in attacking U.S. personnel until Obama stepped up his wanton military intervention (contrary to his own words in 2012) — you see these events don’t take place within a vacuum and a part of the [righteous] outrage comes from the blatant hypocrisy and indifference emanating from Capitol Hill.
I’m legitimately proud of you for following the events of Syria since 2011, but for all of your attentiveness you would think you might have stumbled upon a history book in the meantime. You would at least know that Syrian history actually dates back a few thousands years prior to 2011 (I was pretty shocked, too—these people have their own culture it seems). As long as your “moral constitution” guides you, we don’t need foreign and economic advisers I really don’t know why the Obama administration hasn’t approached you for input. I am going out on a limb here and assuming that it will surprise you to learn that Assad has higher favorability ratings than our own Dear Leader. Of course, such a truth neither justifies nor warrants totalitarian tactics, but as you admitted yourself, people rarely care what their leaders are up to or else they would revolt — which is exactly what certain members of the FSA did (barring those who were instigated, armed, and financed by Turkey, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United States).
To fight monsters, we created monsters.
We don’t actually “stop murder,” we facilitate it. We encourage it, supplying any and every extremist who happens to think differently from legally-legitimate rulers. Why, just imagine if Canada had sent a sortee of Mounties to march on the White House for President Obama’s tacit approval of brutal police tactics which have left thousands of innocent Americans dead, beaten, or homes destroyed. What an outrage! Some foreign meddlers think they can just waltz into our country and tinker with elements they don’t like?!
Google and research the concept of blowback; here are some links to get you started. You’re fresh out of high school, so I can’t continue to fault you on your ignorance or your moral relativism.
Posted 2 hours ago With 43 notes