.Lastly, Obama may be tempted to strike because he foolishly drew a “red line” over this issue and feels his credibility is now at stake. But following one foolish step with another will not restore that lost standing. U.S. power is most credible when it is used to protect vital U.S. interests
The only real difference between a US mission and a UN mission is the number of non-Americans searching for parking spaces for white trucks.
1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7.Is the action supported by the American people?
8.Do we have genuine broad international support?
2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Syria crossed an arbitrary line of using chemical weapons. I didn't realize we signed some sort treaty to take military actions when another country uses chemical weapon. Kerry supposedly said something along the line would you use chemical weapons against children. The answer no. But at the same time there are thousands and thousands children that are hungry, abused, sick, and etc. Kerry is not advocating we take actions to stop suffering of those children.
I think the Powell Doctrine (From Wiki) is a good template in determining if we should take any military action
Where any military action against Syria fails are, unless President Obama is fully committed,
If our objective is to stop use of chemical weapons, it's attainable - full strike against Syrian military assets that are related to chemical weapons (i.e. suspected chemical depots, missiles, cannons, aircrafts, throw in Command and Control too). But this will be a temporary fix as we have to deal with the outcome. If we attack Syria, the likely outcome is the balance shifting to the rebels. Unless we luck out and Syria maintains stability like Libya after the rebels won, we are obligated to reestablish stability in Syria.
"Frankly I'm beginning to think the best outcome is to have the Turks take over the whole artificial construct. "
Not a bad idea. The whole middle east map is already a British/French artificial construct.
I wonder why those in the mid east are always looking to the west to fix their problems... plenty of weapons in the hands of the big players in the area. Why is no one asking them to act?
In other news how about that Mylie Cyrus and Robin Thicke Performance!!!
In other news how about that Mylie Cyrus and Robin Thicke Performance!!!
Probably not covered on the Al-Jazeera America, although I'm sure they would have live coverage of any jay-walking US troops would do in Syria.
I wouldn't knock Al-Jazeera that much. I have read a lot of their (English) reporting and I'd say it's on par with BBC. It also has an international reputation of being more independent than most American media sources. Just because they didn't hold back on reporting the wars back in 2001 and 2003 to our satisfaction doesn't mean they aren't a reputable news source. For any complaints of anti-Americanism....well, not like our own news networks are any more kind to those they disagree with. Like any news outlet, read everything with a grain of salt.
I can recall when Iraq used Chemical Weapons against Iran back in the 80's....I do not recall our Nation getting involved in that dispute to "stop chemical weapon" attacks.
Keeping it simple, I see no real reason for us to become involved in Syria beyond sending the rebels more bullets and body bags. Personally I think we should sit back and watch this show.