Running one's mouth sometimes leads to Trouble.

[cthulu2016]

The time to game out hypothetical potential results of running one's mouth is before running one's mouth.

Once the idea of "punishing" Assad for probably having done "the unthinkable" was plopped on the table this week, everybody who looked at it quickly recognized that it is not a good plan.

To intervene in a civil war where you do not even know which side you want to win is folly.

To attack military assets of one side in a civil war with the public stance that you do not seek to affect the outcome is bizarre.


Thus drawing a line in the sand was a poor idea unless one was certain the line would not be crossed.


Were we certain the line would not be crossed?

If we were certain than we were wrong in our assessment. If we were NOT certain, then why were we drawing a line in the sand?



Never deliver an ultimatum without considering BOTH scenarios that follow from it.

This is a good place for a provocative anecdote. In John Frankenheimer's last film, an HBO movie about LBJ, Robert McNamara is gung ho for deeper involvement in Vietnam. LBJ trusted adviser Clark Clifford repeatedly tells LBJ to not go deeper into Vietnam War, and that we will get embroiled in a disaster that America cannot afford to walk away from. Eventually, over years, McNamara realizes how bad the position and says they should not agree to the Military's request for more. Clark Clifford says we should because America cannot afford to leave. LBJ explodes... You were the one against this from the start? How can you be against pulling out now? Clifford says (paraphrasing here) that his argument against getting involved was that we would get embroiled in a disaster that America could not then afford to walk away from... and it all came to pass. Including the part about, in Clifford's view, not being able to afford to walk away from it.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Disagree. Someone asked Obama when he would act in regard to Syria, and he said

chem weapons. There is nothing inherently wrong with that--although I often wish he hadn't. Had he said "genocide" or "nukes" or "gas chambers"--also nothing inherently wrong with that. The hard part is deciding what to do when the line is crossed--and gaining cooperation. Having no line (meaning you'll tolerate anything) for war crimes isn't a moral stance, either. We rightfully beat ourselves up for waterboarding, invading Iraq, etc.--we didn't take enough action to remedy our misdeeds, even now. But that shouldn't prevent us from exerting influence elsewhere that might save lives and suffering. The only question is, what to do now?

[cthulu2016]

5. re: "The hard part is deciding what to do when the line is crossed"

You decide what to do if the line is crossed before drawing the line.

That's what makes it a line.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Do you have proof that Obama hasn't considered what to do when he made that statement?

He said it a year ago, but the situation on the ground there is different and ever-shifiting.

[GeorgeGist]

10. Did you miss the part about 'running ones mouth'?

woosh

[FSogol]

2. So, now Obama is in trouble for NOT attacking Syria?

[cthulu2016]

4. You seem to have assumed, while typing, that you were saying something

But you were not.

[FSogol]

9. Says you. ODS is curable, I think.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. The diplomacy of bluster has it's drawbacks and this is a great example.

[TwilightGardener]

8. I don't think it's "bluster" to say you won't tolerate a leader nerve-gassing people in their beds.

Same as it's not bluster to say we won't allow another Holocaust, for example.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. So, we'll kill people for good "Strong Leader" PR?

As for "stopping another holocaust" our record on holocausts is pretty revealing. See, Indians Wars, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Cambodia, (to name a few) for reference.

[TwilightGardener]

12. I don't want anyone killed--and don't care how Obama "looks" if he strikes/doesn't strike Syria.

But I also don't believe we should be necessarily constrained in future situations by whatever actions (right, wrong, whatever) we took in the past. To say that we did bad-thing-X in the 40's or 90's means that we can't do might-be-right-Y today is silly. Not saying any kind of intervention is right, mind you. Just not buying the "we're fatally flawed, we should just shut up and sit down and let other countries handle it" argument.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. "Right" to do what?

War is always paraded as "right", "just", "necessary". The Assad side is "right" in fighting Islamic extremists. Iran is "right" in backing Assad. The rebels are "right" in attempting to overthrow Assad. The Saudis are "right" in backing them.

The Wehrmacht had "Gott mit Uns" on their belt buckles just to prove they were right.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? Gandhi

[TwilightGardener]

14. In this case, "right" would be an action that keeps an innocent population from

being wiped out while also not killing them or breaking their badly-needed things. That's a tall order, though.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. That's not a "Tall order"? That's a fantasy.

Just as much as "bringing democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan were fantasies.

As I see it, at best, it's another futile gesture to bring "stability" to the ME. So far, our policy has brought anything but stability. Certainly not democracy, justice, or humanity. And, most certainly, not peace. Syria has been flooded with refugees from Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine after our (and, our allies) "help".

We have become a menace to peace with our good guy/bad guy, ally/enemy diplomacy(?).

[MelungeonWoman]

7. Eleventy dimensional chess???