Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on October 28, 2008, 06:17:28 AM
-
So how does the McCain campaign respond to sporadic news reports that U.S. special forces carried out an attack in Syrian territory? Well a responsible campaign (i.e. the Obama campaign) would follow the White House's lead and offer no comment until they got more information. But instead the McCain campaign opts for blatant politicization. Here is McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb:
"Syria is a state sponsor of terror and a sanctuary for terrorists that target U.S. troops in Iraq, yet Barack Obama has pledged to meet personally and unconditionally with Syria's leaders during his first year in office. While John McCain has been demanding that Syria do more to crack down on terrorists moving from its territory into Iraq, Barack Obama allowed one of his closest foreign policy advisers to travel to Syria for discussions with the leaders of that rogue regime. Barack Obama opposed the surge, voted against funding for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and demanded the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. If Barack Obama had his way, U.S. forces would not have been in a position to launch this strike. So does Barack Obama support this action -- an action that would not even have been possible if his policies had been implemented?"
This is so absurd. Let me count the ways. First, McCain is once again demonstrating the recklessness and impulsiveness that makes one question whether he can in fact be commander in chief. There is only one proper response to this. The same response that the Obama campaign gave, which is that you just simply don't discuss a military operation if the White House and the military are refusing to comment. The issue is a sensitive one and a question of national security. You take your lead from them and wait until you have all the facts, instead of trying to score cheap political points.
Second, here is the McCain campaign accusing Senator Obama of supposedly not being willing to crossover into Syria, even though he has rightly not commented on it at all. But Senator McCain has previously mocked Senator Obama for being willing to go into Pakistan and go after high value Al Qaeda targets. The intelligence community tells us that the greatest threat to the homeland and the place where an attack would most likely be planned is on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. But the McCain campaign seems to be arguing that smuggling routes from Syria into Iraq are a higher priority target than terrorist training camps in Pakistan. That is an exact rehash of invading Iraq to fight terrorism, while taking your eye off of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We've tried it before. It didn't work.
Finally, there is the argument about not meeting with Syria. Here is the thing. Israeli PM Olmert has stated publicly that Israel should move to direct negotiations directly with the Syrians and the Israelis are currently in talks through a Turkish mediator. Ambassador Nick Burns, who was Bush's point man on Iran for three years, had a piece out this weekend arguing for direct talks with our enemies. Colin Powell, James Baker, the Iraq Study Group, and numerous Republican foreign policy experts have all called for talks with Syria. McCain is the odd man out on this one.
-
I'm shocked.
Because I find myself agreeing with you on this one. 8)
-
Why does Mccain even bother. Give up the race and donate whatever is left in the campaign bank to charity. ;D
-
That area is so tribal, culturally. It would be pretty much impossible for them to turn someone over to the US so a target strike is really the only option.
It's been said that their culture frowns on turning away fellow Muslims that have requested sanctuary. That could be true or just an excuse for excessive force and no negotiation.
-
That area is so tribal, culturally. It would be pretty much impossible for them to turn someone over to the US so a target strike is really the only option.
It's been said that their culture frowns on turning away fellow Muslims that have requested sanctuary. That could be true or just an excuse for excessive force and no negotiation.
I fail to see the long-term benefit of crossing into another land's territory and not only that - murdering civilians.
It will only create future enemies, prevent any cooperation or establishing of diplomacy.
Which means that the military spending has to remain high as a kite.
Clever.
-
Which means that the military spending has to remain high as a kite.
Do you accept this was/is actually one of the primary goals of the wars in Afghanistan and iraq?
-
I fail to see the long-term benefit of crossing into another land's territory and not only that - murdering civilians.
It will only create future enemies, prevent any cooperation or establishing of diplomacy.
Which means that the military spending has to remain high as a kite.
Clever.
Hedge,
Americans (in the majority) have a very complicated formula by which suffering is judged. Basically, it involves distance from America and the extent to which the majority relates to them. A dead Syrian, Afghani, Iranian, Bosnian, Iraqi, Hootsie, Nigerian or anyone else that isn't Jewish/Christian or has a ton of Oil doesn't count.
As far as the Syrians go, they're enemies by default. Christian fundamentalists just can't figure out a way to have a regime change without keeping the region stable.
-
I fail to see the long-term benefit of crossing into another land's territory and not only that - murdering civilians.
It will only create future enemies, prevent any cooperation or establishing of diplomacy.
Which means that the military spending has to remain high as a kite.
was the one t
Clever.
Damm I didn't know u were a Delta commando and in on that raid. ::) Anyway that idiot Kucinich was the one to aire this out after the AP broke the story. Funny, Syria really isn't saying a whole lot on this raid...wonder why. Maybe because we have been warning them that they ought to clean up their side of the border or we'd do it for them. Do u honestly think the McCain folks broke this story? The naivety on what we do and how we do it, on this board is amazing.
-
Do you accept this was/is actually one of the primary goals of the wars in Afghanistan and iraq?
I believe it to be a little more complex.
Cheney and Wolfowitz had a vision - to use military force, and every necessary mean to import 'good' regimes into various parts of the world.
I think they probably calculated with growing anti-americanism.
What would happen if Russia decided to bomb in Alaska, killing some insurgents but killing 8 US civilians in the mean time?
Make no mistake, I think Syria is a dictature. But that doesn't make killing sprees right - or strategically sound.
-
Damm I didn't know u were a Delta commando and in on that raid. ::) Anyway that idiot Kucinich was the one to aire this out after the AP broke the story. Funny, Syria really isn't saying a whole lot on this raid...wonder why. Maybe because we have been warning them that they ought to clean up their side of the border or we'd do it for them. Do u honestly think the McCain folks broke this story? The naivety on what we do and how we do it, on this board is amazing.
HH6,
Do you think it's appropriate for McCain to comment on the story, when the military, White House, and Obama all remained silent?
-
Dude....its out there already. The AP already reported on it. Its a story. The horse is already out of the barn and try as u might to say there was some sort of security violation, McCain said very little about the operation and more about Obama. Syria either knew about the raid or was told to shut the hell up because they have been aiding the AQI rat line into Iraq.
-
On Sunday U.S. Special Forces raided
Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal five miles inside the Syrian border with Iraq. Meanwhile on Monday missiles struck the Pakistani village of Manduta in South Waziristan and took out at least two senior Taliban commanders. This was the 19th Predator strike in Pakistan since the beginning of August. Seems like the war on terrorism is back on.
The raid in Syria was particularly noteworthy. If reports are correct, it was a pinpoint raid to capture Abu Ghadian, al-Qaeda’s man in Syria, who was the group’s chief coordinator funneling arms and insurgents into Iraq. If he was in fact captured alive he may provide a profusion of useful intelligence. The computers, cell phones and other items scoped up in the raid surely will.
This operation is similar to the raid Colombia conducted in March against guerilla headquarters in Ecuador. The raid was very successful; FARC number-two man Raul Reyes was killed, and evidence was seized demonstrating the FARC’s ties to Venezuela and revealing numerous details about the personnel and inner workings of the guerilla group. Several operations quickly followed the incursion, since intelligence of this nature must be exploited while it is still hot.
In the case of the raid in Syria, secondary targets may already be in the process of being struck, in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. It is possible that Monday’s missile attack in western Pakistan was the result of actionable intelligence collected in eastern Syria. Surely any bad guy who suspects there was anything at Sukkariyeh Farm that pertains to him has already at least attempted to go to ground.
The Syrian government condemned the strike as “serious aggression” and a “war crime.” Hezbollah decried the “blatant violation of the sovereignty of an Arab state,” sensibly not addressing the legitimacy of their predilection for aggression against non-Arab states. Iran, sensing that it could be a candidate for a similar raid, expressed grave concern. The charge that this was an act of aggression might hold up in the abstract, but raids of this type can be justified a number of ways, either as “hot pursuit” or as an act of “anticipatory self-defense” if the pursuit is not quite hot enough. A better justification is found in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), which mandated that, inter alia, “all States shall…deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens; and prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens.” The resolution pledged that the member state would “take all necessary steps in order to ensure the full implementation of this resolution.” In 2007 President Bush declared his intent to take cross-border defensive action against the insurgent networks, stating that the United States would “interrupt the flow of support [for insurgents in Iraq] from Iran and Syria” and “seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
The U.S. raid was a well-planned surgical strike that took the fight into a terrorist sanctuary produced by Syrian incompetence or complicity. This was not hot pursuit but cold calculation. It was not anticipatory self-defense since the threat was not anticipated but already manifest. Syria’s inability to keep terrorists from using their territory as a base of operations (if not complicity in hosting them) obligated the United States to act. Violent non-state groups cannot operate across international borders from countries lacking either the means or motivation to stop them and expect the convention of state sovereignty to protect them. Nor can Syria expect the United States to do nothing while insurgents move and operate openly within easy reach of the forces with whom they are at war
-
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), which mandated that, inter alia, “all States shall…deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens; and prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens.” The resolution pledged that the member state would “take all necessary steps in order to ensure the full implementation of this resolution.” In 2007 President Bush declared his intent to take cross-border action
Good post. Shows how Bush isn't basing his policies on international law - but expects other countries to follow these resolutions.
No where in that resolution is there any green light for foreign states to break the sovereignity of another country. If a country is a haven for terrorists- then there will be a proper sanction for it.
-
There isn't any time for sanctions. These guys are coming across the border and trying to get into Bagdad. They train and finance the insurgency. Sanctions are by and large a waste of time, especially on something like this.
-
I believe it to be a little more complex.
Cheney and Wolfowitz had a vision - to use military force, and every necessary mean to import 'good' regimes into various parts of the world.
I think they probably calculated with growing anti-americanism.
What would happen if Russia decided to bomb in Alaska, killing some insurgents but killing 8 US civilians in the mean time?
Make no mistake, I think Syria is a dictature. But that doesn't make killing sprees right - or strategically sound.
It would be a horrible incident of course. The US has a do as I say not as I do policy.
-
There isn't any time for sanctions. These guys are coming across the border and trying to get into Bagdad. They train and finance the insurgency. Sanctions are by and large a waste of time, especially on something like this.
Most of the suicide bombers in Iraq stem from Saudiarabia, why not go after them too?
-
Most of the suicide bombers in Iraq stem from Saudiarabia, why not go after them too?
Because they're are "friends"... ::)
-
Most of the suicide bombers in Iraq stem from Saudiarabia, why not go after them too?
I suspect they come into (infiltrate) Iraq differently. These people in syria where using those locations as bases/safe havens for insurgents.
-
Because they're are "friends"... ::)
That country is a joke. Their like fcuking medieval apes - don't allow their women to vote, to dress normal, or to even walk around freely.
-
That country is a joke. Their like fcuking medieval apes - don't allow their women to vote, to dress normal, or to even walk around freely.
Sounds like a justifiable reason (based on reasons after the WMD mistake in Iraq where given) to invade them. ;D
-
They come in from Syria through the Western desert. Up until the last 6 months, AQI had major smuggling networks there, but all have been rolled up by the Marines operating there. Its been very hard for AQI to get into Iraq. Plus, this raid was designed to get AQI's number 2 guy. If they actionable intel, they will go after anybody anywhere. Raids like this are much harder in Pakistan due to terrain. If the Pakistani/Afghan border was much more flat or similar to this, we'd see more raids with Delta and other organizations. Ozmo....read Kill Bin Laden....will illustrate what these guys do, and how they plan raids etc. Plus it also shows how much Afganistan sucks.
-
My point is:
If USA can work up good relations with a dictature like Saudi Arabia, then Syria should be possible as well in order to get cooperation to kill off the terrorists.
It may even improve democracy in Syria.
-
My point is:
If USA can work up good relations with a dictature like Saudi Arabia, then Syria should be possible as well in order to get cooperation to kill off the terrorists.
It may even improve democracy in Syria.
-
My point is:
If USA can work up good relations with a dictature like Saudi Arabia, then Syria should be possible as well in order to get cooperation to kill off the terrorists.
It may even improve democracy in Syria.
Sure...Syria isn't really bitching all that much are they. They have been told this is the way it will be and if they don't like it, police their side of the border. I can say with some measure of certainty that AQI's problems getting folks into Iraq have not all been because we're kicking their ass. I think Syria got a wake-up call when Israel kicking in their door last year with the airstrikes. I think they are making an effort. I think they would much rather play ball as opposed to having Israel run wild all over their airspace. I'd ask u hedge to look at the media play this story is getting and how much Syria is bitching and then draw ur own conclusions. This was a raid with US SOF troops entering Syrian territory, not some drown strike. They were told either prior to or while it was happening. I believe they allowed it to happen. AQI in Syria is to much of a problem. Plus this is a Bathist regime, with secular ties to the folks who used to run Iraq. They aren't ideaolgical mates with AQI.
-
HH6, You got plenty of insight in the Iraq/Afghanistan situation.
How do you view the idea of focusing the resources on Afghanistan instead?
-
Syria Raid Signals Bold, New U.S. Stance
Monday, October 27, 2008 7:20 PM
Article Font Size
WASHINGTON — Bold U.S. raids into Pakistan and Syria show the stark choice the Bush administration is putting to both friends and adversaries in its final weeks: Clamp down on militants and terrorists or we'll do it for you.
Raids like the one in Syria on Sunday hold the potential to kill or capture wanted al-Qaida terrorists or other militants, but they also risk killing civilians and angering foreign governments and their citizens.
Selective U.S. military action across the borders of nations friendly and unfriendly reflects increasing willingness to embrace what U.S. commanders consider a last resort: violating the sovereignty of a nation with whom the U.S. is not at war.
It's a demonstration of overt military strength that the U.S. has been reluctant to display in public for fear it would backfire on U.S. forces or supporters within the governments of the nations whose borders were breached.
Now, senior U.S. officials favor judicious use of the newly aggressive tactics, seeing more upsides than down. They reason that whatever diplomatic damage is done will be mitigated when Bush leaves office and a new president is inaugurated.
The raid in Syria also comes about a week before a presidential election that sees John McCain, the candidate of President George W. Bush's Republican Party, lagging behind Democrat Barack Obama. Such a show of strength could boost McCain's standing among some voters.
A new administration could, in fact, help mend fences with Syria, where the government has already said it is looking forward to a better relationship with the next U.S. president, said Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In Pakistan, however, special operations raids could box in the new American president by inflaming an already outraged public.
"Public opinion is already very strongly against the U.S. and 'anti' any U.S. role or interference," Cordesman said. "It's not clear that you are not building up a broad public resistance that will bind the next administration."
The target of Sunday's raid in Sukkariyeh, Syria, just over the Iraq border from Husaybah was a man known as Abu Ghadiyah, the leader of the most prolific network to move al-Qaida associated foreign fighters into Iraq.
The U.S. operation was precipitated by intelligence that he was planning an imminent attack in Iraq, a senior U.S. official told The Associated Press. U.S. intelligence picked up similar reports last spring. The information ? not detailed enough to take action on ? was followed by the killings of 11 Iraqi policemen just over the border from Abu Ghadiyah's Syrian compound. He personally led the attack, the official said.
"The trip wire was knowing an attack was imminent, and also being able to pinpoint his location," the official said.
Abu Ghadiyah, the nickname for Badran Turki Hishan Al Mazidih, was among those killed, a U.S. counterterrorism official confirmed Monday. All the officials spoke anonymously to discuss sensitive intelligence about the raid.
The attack was carried out at 4:45 p.m., timed to coincide with the customary afternoon rest period. A ground attack was chosen over a missile strike to reduce the chances of hurting civilians not associated with Abu Ghadiyah's network, the official said.
Syria said troops in four helicopters attacked a building and killed eight people, including four children.
The U.S. official confirmed that women and children were at the house, but he said "they were protected at the objective and left behind." He did not specifically address whether any women and children were among the casualties. He said "several" men were killed and identified them as Abu Ghadiyah's body guards.
The cross-border action from U.S. positions inside Iraq comes at a touchy time in U.S.-Iraqi relations. The two sides are negotiating an agreement to extend the legal basis for American forces in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31.
Opponents led by Iran worry that a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq is an invitation to the Americans to use Iraq as a staging ground for attacks against its neighbors. The Iraqis insist they will not allow that.
The attack comes at time when Syria has been working to improve its image in the world. And periodically, U.S. commanders have noted that Damascus has worked harder to clamp down on the use of its country by terrorists.
Bush secretly approved a separate directive three months ago allowing special operations forces to cross the Afghan border to conduct raids inside Pakistan.
Just one such raid has been carried out, according to a senior Pakistan government official. Helicopter-borne U.S. special forces conducted a raid Sept. 3 inside Pakistan. Islamabad has complained bitterly about the move, which it says killed two dozen people, including civilians, and violated its sovereignty.
The raid capped nearly a year of debate among the CIA, U.S. special forces and commanders in Iraq about how to handle the Syrian tributary of the Iraq foreign fighter problem, according to a former intelligence official and a current U.S. military official who deals with Iraq.
The United States has been asking Syria to hand over, capture or kill Abu Ghadiyah for months or years. The U.S. Treasury Department claims he ran a resupply operation on the Syrian border.
Syria rebuffed the U.S. request, saying it was monitoring Abu Ghadiyah's activities, said two U.S. military officials with direct recent knowledge of U.S. intelligence in western Iraq.
The raid came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.
Syria called the raid a "serious aggression," and its foreign ministry summoned the charges d'affaires of the United States and Iraq in protest.
The U.S has become frustrated with the use of Pakistan's northwestern tribal areas as a safe haven for militants over the nearly seven years since the Taliban was rousted from Afghanistan for harboring Osama bin Laden.
U.S. forces, including the CIA, continue to conduct missile attacks inside the border region but is doing so in closer coordination with the Pakistan government, a Pakistani official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence matters.
On Monday, suspected U.S. missiles killed 20 people at the house of a Taliban commander near the Afghan border on Monday, the latest volley in a two-month onslaught on militant bases inside Pakistan, officials said.
Missile attacks have killed at least two senior al-Qaida commanders in Pakistan's wild border zone this year, putting some pressure on extremist groups accused of planning attacks in Afghanistan ? and perhaps terror strikes in the West.
-
Thats where this thing is headed. We will be focusing all our efforts there but its a different war and a different endstate. We will need to decide what is good enough. We have to decide what is acceptable. Democracy won't work...they don't care. There are very few educated people, so rebuilding is harder....we have to decide what to do about the situation drug etc. I understand far more about Afghanistan then Iraq anyway and hope to debate this topic. Iraq is over gents...its all headed to Afghanistan. Its a mess...we may be able to get it to the level of a 3rd world country but more likely we'll do our best to kill as many Taliban/AQA folks and settle for that.
-
There are plenty of great books to educate yourself on this. I would suggest reading as much as u can. Our other big problem is that few of our Nato allies actually do anything over there. The Commonwealth nations all contribute but after that, nobody is willing to do anything. Most try and get assigned to the North, where things are and have been safe. Interestingly enough many SOF units, from countries that don't admit to or identify with the GWOT, are all there playing around. Oddly the German SOF units, stationed there, never carried out any mission and are being pulled out. I saw several units there, that I'm sure, don't admit to playing.
-
You and Obama are on the same page on this issue, when it comes to what to focus over there then?
How is your impression of his ability to understand 'real' politics - that you and others get to see the effects of.
Does he have any hands on ability?
-
Aren't Syria and Jordan are enemies of official US policy? I don't know if those governments could stay in power if the officially recognized Israel's right to the land.
The UN and British created this mess, where are they when it's time to clean up?
-
We train much of the Jordainian military...the current king is a graduate of our Armor Advanced course at Ft Knox and I think our Ranger school but not sure. We have very close ties with the Government, regardless of what the people think.
Hedge....I don't think Obama has a good grasp of what's going on in Afghanistan based on some of his statements..invading Pakistan or we need more troops....its alot of knee jerk reaction or just spitting out the opposite of what Bush is doing. We could not go into Pakistan with Mushariff in charge because that would have caused his overthrown, potententially witha nutbag in charge, we allowed evenets to take their course. Their intel services are actively backing the Taliban, and I'm not sure how that is currently shaking out. It is in the strategic best interest of Pakistan that Afghanistan remain a friggen mess. That focuses the attention of the nutbags in the tribal area's away from the Central paki government. Obama chaired a sub committe on Afghanistan and did nothing with it. This is a very very confusing problem and defeating the AQ elemenst there will cause thsi war to slow to a crawl...rebuilding Afghanistan is another matter. I wish we could talk this over a beer so i could lay alot a background stuff as well as things I've been privy to.
-
Obama' doing a bang up job in Syria 240 no?
-
333 making 240 look more and more like a moron every day.
240, why don't you just save us the trouble and willingly divulge every ass backward prediction and overwhelmingly inaccurate judgement that you've made since Obama took office.
Admission is the first step in recovery.