Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Bush's 'neo-conism' is not relevant in Afghanistan as that was a retaliatory war. Iraq is a whole different story as it had NOTHING to do with the true objectives as they relate to our national security interests....
I have been BEYOND consistent on this....
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
On Sunday, U.S. helicopters accompanied by a special forces team struck in Sukkariyeh, Syria, just over the border from Iraq. It was a raid with enormous implications for the war in Iraq and the broader war on terror. The target of the raid was a man named Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidih, better known in his circles as Abu Ghadiya. Since 2004, intelligence officials have been targeting Abu Ghadiya for his pernicious role in Iraq: helping fuel the Sunni insurgency by transporting foreign fighters, money, and weapons. Never before had Americans struck within Syria with such visible fingerprints. But officials believe that killing Abu Ghadiya justified that kind of action. One military official told me that the elimination of Abu Ghadiya represents a significant triumph over al Qaeda in Iraq. "The organization is pretty much finished now," he told me.
That is a big story. But it doesn't begin to capture the magnitude of the strike in Sukkariyeh. We have entered a new phase in the war on terror. In July, according to three administration sources, the Bush administration formally gave the military new power to strike terrorist safe havens outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Before then, a military strike in a country like Syria or Pakistan would have required President Bush's personal approval. Now, those kinds of strikes in the region can occur at the discretion of the incoming commander of Central Command (Centcomm), General David Petraeus. One intelligence source described the order as institutionalizing the "Chicago Way," an allusion to Sean Connery's famous soliloquy about bringing a gun to a knife fight.
The new order could pave the way for direct action in Kenya, Mali, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen--all places where the American intelligence believe al Qaeda has a significant presence, but can no longer count on the indigenous security services to act. In the parlance of the Cold War, Petraeus will now have the authority to fight a regional "dirty war." When queried about the order from July, deputy spokesman for the National Security Council Ben Chang offered no comment.
Strikes within Iran could be justified by the order, since senior al Qaeda leaders such as Saif al Adel are believed to have used that country as a base for aiding the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda affiliates in Iraqi Kurdistan. For now, however, any action inside Iranian territory will require at least sign off from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff because of Iran's capacity to retaliate inside the western hemisphere.
Why has the administration changed policy at this late date? For starters, the administration is genuinely worried about al Qaeda's resurgence, not just in Pakistan, but across Asia and Africa. Within the administration, there is growing frustration with security services that are either unable or unwilling to root out al Qaeda within their borders. Pakistan is perhaps the best example of this. And even friendly services, like the one in Kenya, have made maddeningly little progress in their fight against terrorism.
When the administration first proposed this approach, it met with internal resistance. The National Intelligence Council produced a paper outlining the risk associated with this change in policy such as scuttling the prospect for better security cooperation in the future. And Admiral William Fallon, who preceded Petraeus at Centcomm, opposed taking direct action against al Qaeda and affiliated targets in Syria. But with the clock winding down on the administration, it has a greater appetite for racking up victories against al Qaeda--and less worries about any residual political consequences from striking. Roger Cressey, a former deputy to Richard Clarke in the Clinton and Bush administrations, says, "[W]ith the administration in the final weeks, the bar for military operations will be lowered because the downsides for the president are minimal."
The big mystery now is whether the next administration will dismantle this policy or permit Petraeus to follow it to fruition. Obama has said nothing about Sunday's strikes in Syria (a silence that has rightly earned him taunting from the McCain campaign). On one level, this new policy conflicts with Obama's stated desire for opening up diplomatic channels to places like Tehran and Damascus. On the other hand, this is precisely the type of policy that he has repeatedly promised at least for Pakistan, whose territory is believed to host Osama bin Laden: If America has actionable intelligence on al Qaeda leaders, and the country housing those terrorist sits on its hands, we will act. His campaign rhetoric has now become the official war policy he will inherit. Is this a development that pleases him?
Eli Lake was the national security reporter for the now defunct New York Sun
OK -- while I'm just fine with this particular strike, since I don't for a moment trust Syria, I am totally not fine with the complete hand-over of Middle East foreign policy to the military! This in essence makes Petraeus or the JCOS our Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. We've let the damn CIA run US foreign policy for decades, and now we're literally letting some general somewhere unilaterally plunge us into who knows what?!
I'd MUCH rather have Petraeus making these decisions than Bush or anyone in his administration, but violating another country's sovereignty with open military action is not, repeat NOT something you ****ing delegate! Uh... it's called an act of war, Hellooooooo? Hezbollah did that in 2006, and it set off a really terrible war. Besides the obvious problems with lacking the broader political and intelligence context, not informing allies, and risk to other parties or nations, there's the issue of removing civilian control over the military in what is only partly a military decision, and that is a damn dangerous precedent.
ONLY Bush would do it this way. What a lazy, dumb ******-******.
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
I believe you started this thread, and used a very sarcastic title, didn't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divide Et Impera
I have - since DAY ONE - been all about the war in Afghanistan. I have also - since DAY ONE - been about us going after OBL wherever he may be regardless of permission from other countries. Our national interests and our national security trump all others strictly in regards to this. To insinuate otherwise is ludicrous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divide Et Impera
Back to the relevant discussion, are you seriously saying that you would allow another country to dictate whether or not we could strike against OBL within their borders (or other high value terrorist targets)? Can you even answer that question straight up?
Nope... I would not "allow" another country to "dictate" or otherwise prevent us from a strike againt bin Laden...
Of course, I would also not drop bombs in another country with the expressed purpose of getting bin Laden, without first consulting with that country...
The attacks in Syria are not against a person, but rather a country... I don't believe it wise to first consult with the country that you are about to attack...
Can you possibly see the difference there DEI? It's subtle I know, but someone of your intellect should be able to grasp it!
__________________
:82:
Last edited by 82CardsGrad; October 28th, 2008 at 09:06 PM.
The attacks in Syria are not against a person, but rather a country...
No, they were very specifically against one select high-value AQ operative, not against Syria.
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
No, they were very specifically against one select high-value AQ operative, not against Syria.
True... But, the U.S. has also accused Syria of a number of terror-aiding activities, and this attack was perhaps aimed at an AQ target, but was no doubt intended to keep Syria honest...
The targets reportedly were construction workers and were civilians, including five people from one family, local residents reported to news agencies. Terrorists have used the nearby border crossing to transport weapons, money and guerillas to help Sunni opposition to the Iraqi government, backed by the U.S.
The Bush administration has charged Syria with not preventing Al Qaeda terrorists from infiltrating into Iraq.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe we have accused the governments of Afghanistan & Pakistan of the sort of terror supporting activities as we have Syria...
We have certainly all but accused ISI of aiding and tipping off terrorists.
Fact remains, you're wrong in what you said -- we indeed went after one particular man and his transport center. Sure, it sends a message -- and not just to Syria -- but the target was the goal.
Israel blows up their reactor foundation, someone -- Israel with the Saudis is one theory -- blows up Mugniyeh in suburban Damascus, someone -- rumor is Saudi-funded Lebanese Sunnis -- blow up a car bomb next to the Mukhabarat headquarters, Iran publically chews Assad out for cozying up to the Europeans, we attack a Syrian village -- the risk is one of these days, Syrians are going to get seriously chapped at being humiliated when they imagine themselves becoming a leader of the ME. Could even end up destabilizing Assad's Regime, and that would be a massive case of be careful what you wish for.
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
We have certainly all but accused ISI of aiding and tipping off terrorists.
Fact remains, you're wrong in what you said -- we indeed went after one particular man and his transport center. Sure, it sends a message -- and not just to Syria -- but the target was the goal.
Israel blows up their reactor foundation, someone -- Israel with the Saudis is one theory -- blows up Mugniyeh in suburban Damascus, someone -- rumor is Saudi-funded Lebanese Sunnis -- blow up a car bomb next to the Mukhabarat headquarters, Iran publically chews Assad out for cozying up to the Europeans, we attack a Syrian village -- the risk is one of these days, Syrians are going to get seriously chapped at being humiliated when they imagine themselves becoming a leader of the ME. Could even end up destabilizing Assad's Regime, and that would be a massive case of be careful what you wish for.
Just don't see it that way... We are far more willing (as we should be) to collaborate with Pakistan, partner with Pakistan, and aide Pakistan where appropriate...
I believe Pakistan is not a country where we would want to pull off these unilateral attacks (unlike Obama)... Syria is...
So, since you are in full avoidance mode, if OBL is sitting right across the border in Pakistan neener-neenering our troops and Bush calls Kadari and asks for permission to take him out and Kadari answers in one of these two ways:
1) Eh, we really can't get there to help you out. Maybe next time. (This indicates inability)
2) No! You cannot take him out, period!!!! (This indicates unwillingness)
How do you suppose we respond? Do we let OBL go? This is a serious question.
Huh? Just because you don't like my answers does not at all mean I am avoiding the question...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divide Et Impera
if OBL is sitting right across the border in Pakistan neener-neenering our troops and Bush calls Kadari and asks for permission to take him out and Kadari answers in one of these two ways:
1) Eh, we really can't get there to help you out. Maybe next time. (This indicates inability)
2) No! You cannot take him out, period!!!! (This indicates unwillingness)
How do you suppose we respond? Do we let OBL go? This is a serious question.
IMO, we get while the getting's good....
You must have missed this post of mine above - though that we be a surprise to me given your superior intellectual capabilities:
"Nope... I would not "allow" another country to "dictate" or otherwise prevent us from a strike againt bin Laden...
Of course, I would also not drop bombs in another country with the expressed purpose of getting bin Laden, without first consulting with that country..."
So no... we don't let him go... We first inform Kadari of our intentions. And regardless of his response, we take the MFer out!
Uh, OK. Then we are saying the same thing. And this has been Obama's position all along as well.
We ask for permission or help and if either is denied, we act.
I think I get it now. You are just disagreeing with me because you feel that is your natural order even if we are saying the same thing. That's very McCainey of you....
Uh, OK. Then we are saying the same thing. And this has been Obama's position all along as well.
We ask for permission or help and if either is denied, we act.
I think I get it now. You are just disagreeing with me because you feel that is your natural order even if we are saying the same thing. That's very McCainey of you....
I'm sure you can take the time to produce it, however I have not seen any commentary from Obama that suggested he would speak with Musharraf or Kadari before dropping bombs...
So no - I really don't think we are saying the same thing at all...
His ENTIRE premise has ALWAYS been that if they are "unwilling or unable to act". That's a direct quote. Are you seriously taking that as Obama makeing that determination through some kind of psychic divination?
You can try to dissemble all you want, but your position is EXACTLY what Obama's position is. Don't fret. There's plenty of room on the bandwagon....
His ENTIRE premise has ALWAYS been that if they are "unwilling or unable to act". That's a direct quote. Are you seriously taking that as Obama makeing that determination through some kind of psychic divination?
You can try to dissemble all you want, but your position is EXACTLY what Obama's position is. Don't fret. There's plenty of room on the bandwagon....
Linear Mode
