It’s a strange day indeed when I find myself on the same page with U.S. military leadership, yet it seems even US military leaders are not keen on attacking Syria, and appear to share some of my concerns.
Apparently Obama, the Nobel Peace Laureate, is determined to start a war, has no coherent goal, no coherent strategy, and is not listening to his military experts.
Close your eyes, close your mind, man the torpedos and damn the consequences. Full speed ahead to Iraq 2.0.
Unintended consequences…no coherent strategy…
Former and current officers, many with the painful lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan on their minds, said the main reservations concern the potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria.
Some questioned the use of military force as a punitive measure and suggested that the White House lacks a coherent strategy.
From the Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff prior to the invasion of Iraq:
…retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, [noted] that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan.
More unintended consequences…
Marine Lt. Col. Gordon Miller, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, warned this week of “potentially devastating consequences, including a fresh round of chemical weapons attacks and a military response by Israel.”
“If President [Bashar al-Assad] were to absorb the strikes and use chemical weapons again, this would be a significant blow to the United States’ credibility and it would be compelled to escalate the assault on Syria to achieve the original objectives,” Miller wrote in a commentary for the think tank.
No less than the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff is warns against attacking Syria…
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned in great detail about the risks and pitfalls of U.S. military intervention in Syria.
“As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that use of force will move us toward the intended outcome,” Dempsey wrote last month in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”
“this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war”
The recently retired head of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. James Mattis, said last month at a security conference that the United States has “no moral obligation to do the impossible” in Syria. “If Americans take ownership of this, this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war,” said Mattis, who as Centcom chief oversaw planning for a range of U.S. military responses in Syria.
Not only no coherent strategy, it appears there is no coherent goal, and Obama is not listening.
“What is the political end state we’re trying to achieve?” said a retired senior officer involved in Middle East operational planning who said his concerns are widely shared by active-duty military leaders. “I don’t know what it is. We say it’s not regime change. If it’s punishment, there are other ways to punish.” The former senior officer said that those who are expressing alarm at the risks inherent in the plan “are not being heard other than in a pro-forma manner.”
He’s listening Hurria! Obama will go to Congress as he should and this will add time for the UN inspection team report to the UNSC. A wise move.
The coalition of the willing was pretty thin: France, Turkey, Israel, Jordan (reluctantly) and Palau [ 🙂 ].
Oui, the only hope now is that he will lose the vote in Congress, and it is difficult to have confidence in that.
One bit of speculation is that Obama’s looking for leverage in the upcoming budget fracas. The White House hope seems to be, if I didn’t read this too hastily, that they can convince enough of the GOP war hawks to agree to an increase in revenue and a removal of some of the sequester on social programs in exchange for removing the military from the ravages of sequester. In this game, the Syrian rebels get to be the useful idiots.
More like stunned by the defeat in the UK. Leading fear that if he goes it alone without the UK and dodgy “intell,” he hands the House grounds for impeaching him.
I don’t know, Marie. I hope you are right.
And if he does this, I will get firmly behind any attempt to impeach him. I’m very done with all this BS.
Name the two foreign powers that are most eager for a US strike on Syria?
Now go a bit woo-woo and name the two foreign powers that were comfortable with GWB and aren’t keen on (one tends to be openly hostile) Obama?
Precisely.
AG
Noticed that somebody at dKos finally also connected those dots. It’s not as if the GOP crazies haven’t been openly talking about impeachment — it’s where they hoped their obsession with Benghazi and the IRS non-scandals would lead.
What the POTUS said today:
What’s to stop him from bombing Syria?
Nothing. Nothing at all.
There’s always something even if we don’t want to think about such possibilities.
Sorry, Marie, but that was too cryptic for me. What possibilities were you referring to?
There’s the one that is traditional in many countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, etc. but not in the US.
A military coup d’état? Lovely.
Sorry, I’m a bit thick, Marie. Please be more specific.
If I mention the range of historical precedents for thwarting the will of a single head of state, someone will get the wrong idea that I’m advocating one of more of them. Just noting that there are always options, but more often than not going along with war is easier because the lives of those without power and wealth are easily dismissed.
And by the way, I now have exactly the same visceral reaction to the sight of him, and the sound of his voice as I did with George W. Bush.
Me too. And I was surprised at how quickly after his inauguration in 2009 that I couldn’t bear to listen to him.
.
Because? Because the world opinion is against Obama, worse than Bush. He is isolated. Who would have thought that possible? An attack would have made his visit to G20 in Moscow this week impossible, now he might have some useful conversation at the G20.
Another good reason is a US Air Strike Is Against International Law. Even Rumsfeld’s Old Europe tells off Obama’s adventure. The risks involved should not be underestimated. “A shot heard ’round the world” if he would attack. What is his goal, he said it’s about “humanitarian” reasons and NOT REGIME CHANGE. It will earn Obama 5 pinochios.
But why would he today publicly move from “no decision made” to “have decided to attack?” Why is he emulating GWB?
.
Doesn’t want to give away the executive prerogative to attack Syria as CoC. Already hear the cries from right-wing Repugs …
Once giving the option to Congress for a decision, the president can’t take it back, see UK and Cameron. So Obama keeps the executive decision to himself and takes time to listen and observe the developments in Syria. A risky but a wise option because Obama is isolated in the world. Perhaps, during the G20 conference a concensus can be reached to force a political solution which will involve a division of Syria into three cantons approximately reached in the military stalemate of today.
Glenn Greenwald – Obama, Congress and Syria
Not odd Glenn. Almost as guaranteed as the sign will rise tomorrow, when Obama gives a speech, Democrats and liberals swoon and chant, “me loves me President.”
As for the G20 redrawing the maps of the ME, that smacks of more western arrogance and hubris. And what’s in it for Putin and Russia?
And we know that if a President from the other tribe were to pull this same crap, the same lib/progs would be having fits of outrage. “We’re anti-war when it’s not our war.”
iirc, they also weren’t keen on attacking Libya, Iraq, and Kosovo.
More like a standard preemptive CYA when things go badly through the stupidity of the order and/or the military screw-ups.
Marie, I don’t remember all this cautionary stuff from the military brass during the ramp-up to the aggression against Iraq. I sure don’t remember any serious military brass talking (very realistically) about a lack of coherent goals or strategy the way they are doing now. In fact, my memory is that the military were pretty gung-ho about attacking Iraq.
This article does give some indication that there were at least a few US military officials who were not on-board with W’s plans for invading Iraq:
Some Top Military Brass Favor Status Quo in Iraq
I always saw Iraq as a 3-phase war. The first phase was Poppy Bush’s attack. Phase 2 was the “containment” phase that included sanctions and periodic bombings. Advocating for maintaining that phase became the “dovish” position among American policymakers by the start of the current sorry century.
That was not even remotely close to what is going on now.
I was mere addressing the more narrow point regarding what the military brass around the start of the previous decade were thinking in Iraq – or at least a significant faction. The notion that the brass were gung-ho about Iraq would have seemed a bit false even back then, although the “dovish” position in Iraq hardly did those unfortunate enough to reside in Iraq any favors.
Obviously, this is a different proposed war, “humanitarian” mission, or whatever else one may call it. Obviously, too, is that today’s military officials are embedded in a much different context – one in which the military has endured over a decade of quagmire. If there is more opposition being voiced today among the brass, all the better.
Not as vocal but they seemed not to be gung-ho. Didn’t GHWB sound a note of caution as well?
Somehow in real time I missed this Pew Poll. egads, support for bombing Iraq was off the charts and strongest among the youngest (those born between 1973 and 1984).
.
From a number of sources: Russia’s early radars detect launch of two ballistic rockets in Mediterranean – Defense Ministry
[Did not reach the Syrian coastline and landed in sea – Oui]
.