Global Events & Politics Überthread

[cajunrevenge]

No Russians killed. We actually care about the lives of people from countries that are capable of waging war on us.

[Julio3000]

The significance of this ?


The Associated Press
‏Verified account @AP

BREAKING: French defense minister says Russia was warned ahead of joint US, UK, French military attacks on Syria.

We don't want to inadvertently start a shooting war with another nuclear power.

[sturg33]

So dissapointed. I get that some type of action needed to be taken but there better have been substantial proof that assad was responsible for the chemical weapons.

What's the difference between anyone in Washington anymore?

Nothing at all. But we can't vote for unicorns!

[nsacpi]

a lot of teeth gnashing over what seems a rather restrained response by France, UK, and US.

[thethe]

a lot of teeth gnashing over what seems a rather restrained response by France, UK, and US.

Happy about the coordination with our traditional allies. I'm just not sure what we accomplished. Trump needs to clarify what we actually accomplished.

[nsacpi]

Happy about the coordination with our traditional allies. I'm just not sure what we accomplished. Trump needs to clarify what we actually accomplished.

a lot of it is just symbolic...and I'm ok with that...Syria is a quagmire and I think we should limit our involvement

[Runnin]

Happy about the coordination with our traditional allies. I'm just not sure what we accomplished. Trump needs to clarify what we actually accomplished.

We gave the military some practice, but I agree, the one off bombings are a waste. The world knows Trump only did this now because he's backed into a corner with growing scandals.

No sentence should begin with "Trump needs to clarify....".

[thethe]

We gave the military some practice, but I agree, the one off bombings are a waste. The world knows Trump only did this now because he's backed into a corner with growing scandals.

No sentence should begin with "Trump needs to clarify....".

I can't believe you think this is serious. That's sad

[Runnin]

I can't believe you think this is serious. That's sad

I'm guessing you think the Libby pardon has nothing to do with his current situation.

[thethe]

I'm guessing you think the Libby pardon has nothing to do with his current situation.

I can at least see some rationale there. Thinking the Syria strikes are about Trump feeling pressure is absurd

[Hawk]

Perhaps I spoke too soon about Bolton's influence.

[thethe]

Is Saudi Arabia running our foreign policy?

[Krgrecw]

We gave the military some practice, but I agree, the one off bombings are a waste. The world knows Trump only did this now because he's backed into a corner with growing scandals.

No sentence should begin with "Trump needs to clarify....".

Trump only did this because obama was a pussy and obama let Syria get away with it last time.

[Hawk]

I didn’t like Obama’s approach to Syria - but I’m not sure Trump’s is any better, yet. The whole thing screams mission creep, which is kind of ironic given the reason we don’t already have significant BOG is primarily because of residual fears from Iraq. There is no plan that doesn’t start with Assad. You either depose him or accept him. Destroying a few caches of chemical weapons is just more theater.

I’ve long pined for a solution that involves Putin throwing Assad under the bus in exchange for concessions from the Western allies. Although, given the current political climate, I don’t know what those concessions would look like anymore.

[Julio3000]

I didn’t like Obama’s approach to Syria - but I’m not sure Trump’s is any better, yet. The whole thing screams mission creep, which is kind of ironic given the reason we don’t already have significant BOG is primarily because of residual fears from Iraq. There is no plan that doesn’t start with Assad. You either depose him or accept him. Destroying a few caches of chemical weapons is just more theater.

I’ve long pined for a solution that involves Putin throwing Assad under the bus in exchange for concessions from the Western allies. Although, given the current political climate, I don’t know what those concessions would look like anymore.

Yeah, that's about right, IMO. I'm a little more forgiving of Obama's passive approach (wrt to, say, military strikes if not to the political process) than you probably are, but I agree in large part. Tangentially, I think involvement in Libya was a significant miscalculation which poisoned a few wells, to the detriment of the Syria situation.

I think the Iraq hangover does overshadow everything that's happened there, and I'm not altogether sure that's a bad thing. Being in another "you break it, you buy it" situation as the primary guarantor of a post-Assad Syria wouldn't be a happy place.

Yesterday's events have a pretty limited upside, and a significant risk of mission creep and blowback. They don't move the regime and don't take anything off the table except temporary discouraging them from gassing civilians...maybe. Really, if they decided to use CW again, what would we do? Our options short of significant escalation are limited, and escalation is unappetizing. This was, I think, the point of the news coverage suggesting that Mattis was trying to rein in other elements as they planned a response...that the clearest thinkers in proximity to power were pretty lukewarm on a significant military response.

I think the Russians may have overplayed their hand in hoping for a grand bargain. I'd be content to concede that they've "won" in Syria, but it's worth asking exactly what the prize is.

[57Brave]

What was in it for France and UK ?

[Runnin]

I didn’t like Obama’s approach to Syria - but I’m not sure Trump’s is any better, yet. The whole thing screams mission creep, which is kind of ironic given the reason we don’t already have significant BOG is primarily because of residual fears from Iraq. There is no plan that doesn’t start with Assad. You either depose him or accept him. Destroying a few caches of chemical weapons is just more theater.

I’ve long pined for a solution that involves Putin throwing Assad under the bus in exchange for concessions from the Western allies. Although, given the current political climate, I don’t know what those concessions would look like anymore.

I think "mission creep" would be a step up in organization and planning. A week or so ago Trump informed us and his aides that he was finished with Syria.

[nsacpi]

Yeah, that's about right, IMO. I'm a little more forgiving of Obama's passive approach (wrt to, say, military strikes if not to the political process) than you probably are, but I agree in large part. Tangentially, I think involvement in Libya was a significant miscalculation which poisoned a few wells, to the detriment of the Syria situation.

I think the Iraq hangover does overshadow everything that's happened there, and I'm not altogether sure that's a bad thing. Being in another "you break it, you buy it" situation as the primary guarantor of a post-Assad Syria wouldn't be a happy place.

Yesterday's events have a pretty limited upside, and a significant risk of mission creep and blowback. They don't move the regime and don't take anything off the table except temporary discouraging them from gassing civilians...maybe. Really, if they decided to use CW again, what would we do? Our options short of significant escalation are limited, and escalation is unappetizing. This was, I think, the point of the news coverage suggesting that Mattis was trying to rein in other elements as they planned a response...that the clearest thinkers in proximity to power were pretty lukewarm on a significant military response.

I think the Russians may have overplayed their hand in hoping for a grand bargain. I'd be content to concede that they've "won" in Syria, but it's worth asking exactly what the prize is.

if we want to be really cynical about it we can play spoiler and use Syria to bleed the Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah.

[thethe]

if we want to be really cynical about it we can play spoiler and use Syria to bleed the Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah.

The relationship between MBS and the West is driving this policy.

[nsacpi]

The relationship between MBS and the West is driving this policy.

we have our interests...he has his...they do not entirely coincide