Troops or No Troops in Syria - Obama's G20 Speech

[texas_ex2000]

So I just watched the whole thing. I suggest everyone do the same. Some thoughts on the big issue:



"I've proven that I am willing to make the tough decisions, e.g. UBL and more troops in Afganistan, to keep America safe and stop suffering. But we won't commit to a strategy (combat troops in Syria) if it is not sustainable. If you're smarter than my Joint Chiefs, than I would like to meet you and hear your plan, but you aren't."

First, UBL is a no brainier. Every President would have supported that operation and ordered the raid or pursued some kind of derivative of that action. And more troops/longer presence in Afghanistan wasn't a strategy Obama concocted with his generals in an underground bunker like Churchill. The Taliban forced our hand.

Second re: Joint Chiefs and plans. The JCS aren't the decision makers. Obama is the one that makes the decisions. And Obama is a politician and naturally politics play a large part in his decision making. The other thread of the generals going down their own road and Dempsey's often contradicting statements underscore this.

So this no combat troops in Syria. It's a reasonable position to say you won't go down a path that could lead to a vacuum and just another crisis after we leave. And we won't do another occupation. I get that. But here's the thing. Is bombing really making a difference? No. Are these special forces trainers really making a difference? No. You could have Bill Belicick coach a team of walk-ons, and they'd still get run over. What is the endgame? Because it ain't destroying ISIS HQ...decapitating the leadership.

From his speech, it's all about the hope/potential/chance that these rebels will all of sudden turn into Rambo. Well, Sylvester Stallone ain't walking through that door Mr. President. And by some miracle he did walk through, the unsustainable situation about inclusive government and such is still the same with air strikes as it is with ground troops.

If you know, as he admits, that our Army and Marines could smoke these f^%>¥ers, then why prolong the fight to decapitate this threat right now to stop the suffering of people being slaughtered today? IMHO, there is a better chance of a sustainable government in Syria once ISIS is exterminated out of there (which we agree can be done with ground troops), then there is of air strikes actually making a meaningful difference to stopping them (no one seriously thinks this).

He mentioned that he is wary of committing ground troops because he visits Bethesda every few months and sees the wounded soldiers he's ordered into battle. That is why we need more veterans as our leaders. Our servicemen and women have committed their lives to the truth that there are things worth fighting and worth risking your life for. Our servicemen and women don't enlist for the recognition at football games. They enlist to fight for America and her principles. They deserve a leader who has been there, respects that truth, and that they can put their confidence and trust in.

Because hesitancy on the battlefield gets more people killed.

 

[Horn6721]

2000
Good points.
I would be in favor of increased bombing. 80 sorties a day won't do diddy.And those are just sorties, we don't know how many were actually completed missions.
We need to change the ROE to reflect the desire to accomplish something.
I heard they dropped leaflets right before they bombed those petro trucks and said you could see the islamists scurrying away from the trucks.

 

[Musburger1]

If ISIS starts to get the upper hand, Hezbollah will enter through Lebanon and supply the ground forces necessary to defeat ISIS. If the US/NATO put in ground troops to do the job, they will also find a way to remove Assad and install a western friendly puppet government. But Russia opposes this and it could lead to more complications down the road as well as the necessity of permanently keeping a significant ground presence to prevent ISIS from coming back.
I say let Russia, Assad, and Hezbollah do the fighting and the US stay out of it. The best thing the US can do is to stop giving so damn much military hardware to Saudi Arabia and condoning the spreading of Wahabism which Saudi Arabia is behind.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I say let Russia, Assad, and Hezbollah do the fighting and the US stay out of it.

Russia is only half-heartedly going after ISIS and targeting rebels. Obama needs to tell Hollande we will send in troops alongside French forces (probably the FFL) to assault Raqqa. If ISIS flees, they'll flee either East into the Kurds or South straight into the rebels, where we can them hunt down. If they flee West, let Russia get them.

If we go in with France with 2 corps, and maybe some other NATO allies and Jordan (have Jordan focus on security in the West against Hezbollah), Kerry tells Putin, you stay out of our way or join us and you deconflict the airspace.

What the hell is Putin going to say to France and the US when we're there? ISIS just brought down one of their airlines. If that means Assad stays temporarily, fine. It's no different than the alternative of letting Putin run the op. He won't be around for long.

 

[Musburger1]

To say that Russia is only going half-hearted after ISIS is preposterous, but I don't fault you for saying that because I've heard the same nonsense spouted by the media; even in Obama's address he made yesterday he stated that we needed to convince Russia to join us against ISIS. Up until now, its been the 180 degrees opposite of that. The lies and obfuscation are breathtaking in their audacity. Russia had even asked the US to provide a list of targets and guess what, we refused to give them! Putin then provided satellite photos of ISIS conudcting large scale transporting of oil (used to fund their operations). Certainly the US was aware of this, yet had done nothing to end it. We have been conned by our own government.

Obama has been a horrible President, but I think he's right in not sending in US troops. If we deploy them, despite what we're told, the primary reason will be to secure Syria and install a puppet government. This serves as a blow to the Iranians and to Russia. ISIS will have fulfilled the roll intended by the Gulf States and the US as a proxy destabilizing force. The terrorism in France served as perfect pretext for ground troops. Then the Wahhabi Jihadists (ISIS are whatever anachronism they go under next time) will escape through Jordan and/or Turkey and go on to the next target with support from the US and our allies.

I know this sounds cynical, but it logically explains our foreign policy over the past several years. It's not about making the world safer, stopping human rights abuses, or implementing democracy. It's all about creating chaos in areas we don't and can't control in order to destabilize geopolitical rivals Russia and Iran.

 

[texas_ex2000]

To say that Russia is only going half-hearted after ISIS is preposterous, but I don't fault you for saying that because I've heard the same nonsense spouted by the media; even in Obama's address he made yesterday he stated that we needed to convince Russia to join us against ISIS. Up until now, its been the 180 degrees opposite of that. The lies and obfuscation are breathtaking in their audacity. Russia had even asked the US to provide a list of targets and guess what, we refused to give them! Putin then provided satellite photos of ISIS conudcting large scale transporting of oil (used to fund their operations). Certainly the US was aware of this, yet had done nothing to end it. We have been conned by our own government.

I read that Putin said the FSA was sharing Russian originated intel with us. Putin, if you haven't forgotten, was a KGB officer...you make of that what you want.

Here's what I know with 100% certainty. If the CAOC has verified positive ID targets and deconflicted airspace, they will kill those targets.

I will concede it wouldn't surprise me if Russia has stepped it up against ISIS in the last month since the plane bombing. But there's no question their motives are murky. And by the way, I personally have a relatively warm stance to Russia and Putin from a policy perspective. A lot of things domestically and militarily are heinous, but I don't think they are the Bogeyman (again relatively speaking).

Obama has been a horrible President, but I think he's right in not sending in US troops. If we deploy them, despite what we're told, the primary reason will be to secure Syria and install a puppet government.

Please don't confuse me with whatever primary reason Obama may have. And last time I checked, Obama ain't a neocon.

This serves as a blow to the Iranians and to Russia. ISIS will have fulfilled the roll intended by the Gulf States and the US as a proxy destabilizing force.

Again, who the f$^%k cares what ISIS wants or thinks? They are psychotic and illogical. You want to avoid a destabilizing force? You decapitate the leadership of the psychotic Islamic extremist evil terrorist organization bent on World domination.

That said, your, and many other people who put out this "this is what they want" theory is really crazy ...really crazy...even for ISIS.

Theoretical ISIS strategy => "If we do this, the US won't do this. So we'll do this against France and then, they'll do this and we'll get our a$$ kicked. Then they have to fight Russia. Then Iran, who by the way...we hate with a passion, will swoop in the vacuum. And then the End of Times will start."

No. Getting your a$$ kicked by some pissed off Marines and Legionnaires is not a strategy, even for ISIS. These guys scatter at the sight of airdropped leaflets.

The terrorism in France served as perfect pretext for ground troops. Then the Wahhabi Jihadists (ISIS are whatever anachronism they go under next time) will escape through Jordan and/or Turkey and go on to the next target with support from the US and our allies.

I know this sounds cynical, but it logically explains our foreign policy over the past several years. It's not about making the world safer, stopping human rights abuses, or implementing democracy. It's all about creating chaos in areas we don't and can't control in order to destabilize geopolitical rivals Russia and Iran.

You're right. That's beyond cynical...it's lunacy, illogical, and ridiculous. And I really don't like Obama.

 

[Mr. Deez]

@texas_ex2000, I think you make some excellent points here. I think people like Obama like the airstrikes, because they look cool on TV and give the illusion that we're doing something.

Also, there's no point arguing with Mus on Russia. He might be the smartest person here (definitely smarter than I am), but the guy watches way too much RT news. Nothing wrong with RT. I watch it myself, because it's probably the best news channel I can find that works with my Google Chromecast. Besides, Sophie Shevardnadze is sexy. She's not S.E. Cupp sexy for rocking the repressed librarian look. She's sexy in the trashy Russian mail order bride kind of way.

Nevertheless, I digress. I watch RT, but I know I'm getting propaganda geared toward publicly fellating the Russian government and Vladimir Putin in particular. I think Mus losses sight of that from time to time.

 

[texas_ex2000]

@texas_ex2000, I think you make some excellent points here. I think people like Obama like the airstrikes, because they look cool on TV and give the illusion that we're doing something.

Also, there's no point arguing with Mus on Russia. He might be the smartest person here (definitely smarter than I am), but the guy watches way too much RT news. Nothing wrong with RT. I watch it myself, because it's probably the best news channel I can find that works with my Google Chromecast. Besides, Sophie Shevardnadze is sexy. She's not S.E. Cupp sexy for rocking the repressed librarian look. She's sexy in the trashy Russian mail order bride kind of way.

Nevertheless, I digress. I watch RT, but I know I'm getting propaganda geared toward publicly fellating the Russian government and Vladimir Putin in particular. I think Mus losses sight of that from time to time.

I think Mus is the best. But I guess I never noticed his view on Russia. And I know a lot of people have the "this is what the terrorists want" view, which is totally understandable. But I didn't know Mus had a subversive wag the dog view of our foreign policy.

 

[Musburger1]

Deez, there is nothing murky about Russia's motives with respect to Syria. Unlike the US, Putin has been christal clear. He has stated from the beginning Russia would support Assad and oppose all opposition to have him forcibly removed. How much clearer can he get?


"Again, who the f$^%k cares what ISIS wants or thinks? They are psychotic and illogical. You want to avoid a destabilizing force? You decapitate the leadership of the psychoticIslamic extremist evil terrorist organization bent on World domination."

It's debatable who the leadership of ISIS is. Most likely most of the leadership is comprised of experienced holdovers from Hussein's regime. While they are sadistic and barbaric, they aren't necessarily psychotic. But they can't accomplish their goals without help. And that help has been provided by "the coalition;" that's right, our allies in Saudi Arabia.

My argument is that all along the US has not wanted to decapitate a destabilizing force, but rather to create one. It is only now that those forces are out of control and resulting in blowback that they have to be reigned in. We don't readily see this because it is contrary to what we are predisposed to believe and inconsistent with the media that bombards us on a continual basis.

 

[Crockett]

Hey, we've got a lot of practice in nation building. Let's try it in Syria.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That's the crux of the matter. There is simply no local ability to govern outside of these Islamic fundamentalists. Unless we are willing to govern Syria, Iraq, Libya and other countries the strategy is as short sighted as the Bush Administration taking out Sadam Hussein.

 

[texas_ex2000]

That's the crux of the matter. There is simply no local ability to govern outside of these Islamic fundamentalists. Unless we are willing to govern Syria, Iraq, Libya and other countries the strategy is as short sighted as the Bush Administration taking out Sadam Hussein.

Seattle, it's tough. Maybe Jordan can help. Maybe France can help. We made a mistake by leaving Iraq as the threat was diminishing. Not having the stomach to be there is costing us now.

One thing that's hard to argue, is that we can't let ISIS establish their own stronghold where they can base operations, develop weapons, and build their caliphate. Some folks think the Nazi comparison is overboard. The Nazis had an industrial base and a country to develop its capabilities. Well, that's what ISIS is doing. And the Nazis cost the world millions of lives because no one wanted to stop them when they were less of a threat. When we did step in many years after the War actually broke out, we were committed to destroying them.

ISIS is what 21st Century post-globalization Nazism look likes.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Seattle, it's tough. Maybe Jordan can help. Maybe France can help. We made a mistake by leaving Iraq as the threat was diminishing. Not having the stomach to be there is costing us now.

One thing that's hard to argue, is that we can't let ISIS establish their own stronghold where they can base operations, develop weapons, and build their caliphate. Some folks think the Nazi comparison is overboard. The Nazis had an industrial base and a country to develop its capabilities. Well, that's what ISIS is doing. And the Nazis cost the world millions of lives because no one wanted to stop them when they were less of a threat. When we did step in many years after the War actually broke out, we were committed to destroying them.

ISIS is what 21st Century post-globalization Nazism look likes.

I'd argue the mistake was believing we could nation build a post-Sadam Iraq to begin with but it seems the short memories only go back to Democratic administrations.

The difference in your example is the same mistake that was made in the Iraq War 2 decision. Containment vs. control. Outside of economic controls, there was not containment mechanism for Germany. For Iraq though we had economic sanctions, the no-fly zone, and inspections that contained him (not control). I personally think it's absolutely impossible to control this area forever, which is what it will take. The only option is containment. Containment shouldn't require our boots on the ground outside of special ops. Force ISIS to walk around perpetually in the shadows for fear of death from above. Fund/train Kurds and similar forces who have a vested interest in removing ISIS.

 

[Musburger1]

Shedlock cites Buchanan as the politicians weigh in on what to do about ISIS. Link.

Putin Our Ally in Syria: Pat Buchanan Gets It Right, Clueless Candidates Get It Wrong; Jeb vs. Hillary

Three Questions

1. Of what real threat to US security was Saddam Hussein? The answer is none. Ever.
2. Of what real threat to the US is Syrian president Bashar Assad? The answer is none.
3. Is ISIS a threat? Obviously yes, but not to the degree imagined.

Formation of ISIS

US policy on Syria is centered on the removal of Assad in Syria even though Assad is no threat, but ISIS is.

And it was the bungled removal of Hussein that destabilized Iraq and directly led to the creation of ISIS.

In October, I noted former UK prime minister Tony Blair (who joined president Bush on the inane takeout of Saddam Hussein),Issued an Apology for Creation of ISIS.

Our allies ought to be those who want to fight ISIS, not alleged "moderate" Al Qaeda forces seeking to destabilize Syria, creating a refugee mess in the process.

Is Putin Our Ally in Syria?

Pat Buchanan asks (and correctly answers) the question Is Putin Our Ally in Syria? The President’s strategy is to contain, degrade and defeat ISIS. While no one has provided the troops to defeat ISIS, the U.S. is using Kurdish and Yazidi forces, backed by U.S. air power, to degrade it.

The Kurds have run ISIS out of Kobani, captured much of the Turkish-Syrian border, and moved to within 30 miles of Raqqa, the ISIS capital. Yazidis and Kurds last week recaptured Sinjar in Iraq and cut the highway between Mosul and Raqqa.

The terrorist attacks in Paris, the downing of the Russian airliner in Sinai, the ISIS bomb that exploded in the Shiite sector of Beirut, are ISIS’s payback. But they could also be signs that the ISIS caliphate, imperiled in its base, is growing desperate and lashing out.

Yet consider the Republican strategies being advanced.

In Sunday’s Washington Post, Mitt Romney writes:

“We must wage the war to defeat the enemy. … [Obama] must call in the best military minds from the United States and NATO … and finally construct a comprehensive strategy that integrates our effort with the Kurds, Turks, Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians.”

The Kurds excepted, Gov. Romney ignored all the forces that are actually fighting ISIS: Russians, Hezbollah, Iran, Bashar Assad, the Syrian army.

Mitt urges instead an alliance of countries that have done next to nothing to defeat ISIS.

Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham want U.S. ground troops sent into Syria and Iraq. But as Turkey has an army of 500,000 next door and Assad’s army would happily help wipe out ISIS, why not let Arab and Turkish boys do the fighting this time?

“America must lead,” is Jeb Bush’s mantra, and he wants U.S. boots on the ground and a no-fly zone over Syria.

“We should declare war,” says Bush.

Why then does Bush not call up Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and dictate the war resolution he wants passed?

And whom does Jeb propose to fight? Why declare a no-fly zone when ISIS has no air force? Does Bush plan to shoot down Syrian planes flying over Syria and Russian planes flying in support of Assad?

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is ready to rumble.

“Well, the first thing you do is you set up a no-fly zone in Syria, and you call Putin, and you say to him, ‘Listen, we’re enforcing a no-fly zone, and that means we’re enforcing it against everyone, and that includes you. So, don’t test me.’”

And if Russia violated his no-fly zone? “Then you take him down,” said Christie, meaning we shoot down Russian jets.

But what vital interest of ours has ever been so engaged in Syria as to justify a major war in the Middle East and a military clash with a Russia with a nuclear arsenal as large as our own?

In any war it is usually wise to enlarge the roster of one’s allies and reduce the roster of enemies. If ISIS is the implacable enemy and must be annihilated, we should welcome all volunteers.

If Putin wants to enlist in the war against ISIS, sign him up.Clueless Candidates Get It Wrong

1. Jeb Bush - Republican Candidate: "Enforce that no-fly zone, and we’ll stop the regime’s bombing raids that kill helpless citizens.
2. Ben Carson - Republican Candidate: "I would establish a no-fly zone along the border with Turkey. In no way would I back off."
3. Chris Christie - Republican Candidate: "My first phone call would be to Vladimir, and I’d say to him, ‘Listen, we’re enforcing this no-fly zone’"
4. Hillary Clinton - Democratic Candidate: "I personally would be advocating now for a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air."
5. Carly Fiorina - Republican Candidate: "This is a tricky maneuver, it’s a dangerous maneuver, but it’s a maneuver that we must undertake."
6. Lindsey Graham - Republican Candidate: "I don’t know if there’s anybody left to train, but a no-fly zone would be a great relief to the Syrian people."
7. John Kasich - Republican Candidate: "Now is the time for the United States to provide the moral leadership that it has so far failed to provide."
8. Marco Rubio - Republican Candidate: "The United States should work with our allies, both Arab and European, to impose a no-fly zone over parts of Syria."

Unfit for President

Every one of the above is unfit for president, for multiple reasons, but foreign policy is the standout here.

Let me ask again: Who is the threat?

Jeb vs. Hillary

Note the similarity between the positions of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.

Bush is concerned about "killing helpless citizens" while Hillary wants "humanitarian corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air."

The irony in those statements is Syrian civilians are dying directly as a result of US policy of arming Al Qaeda rebels, US policy that created ISIS, and US policy of weapons handouts that fell into the wrong hands.

Immigration Fact Check

Please consider this amusing Fact Check on Immigration. Pouncing on controversial comments about Mexican immigrants by Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday that the ideological space between Trump and Jeb Bush on the issue of immigration was small.

Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for president, said while she would like to see immigrants have a path to citizenship, Bush, "doesn't believe in a path to citizenship."

But the former Florida governor -- seen by many as one of the most pro-immigration reform Republican candidates -- has repudiated Trump's comments. And Tuesday, his campaign rebuffed Clinton, saying Bush supports a path to "earned legal status."

Bush this year has also backed a pathway to citizenship for children eligible under the DREAM Act who were brought to the United States by their parents.

Bush's attempt to navigate the nuanced waters between "earned legal status" and a path to "citizenship" is what makes Clinton technically correct in her assertion to CNN that he does not support a path to "citizenship."

Bush's campaign is also right that Clinton did tell CNN a year ago, in the wake of a flood of unaccompanied children crossing the southern border, that they "should be sent back." It's a comment that her now-Democratic rival, Martin O'Malley, has also seized upon.Bush-Clinton 2016 Ticket

Both Bush and Clinton are talking out of both sides of their mouths, with one side saying essentially the same thing as their counterpart, the other side blasting their counterpart for inconsistency. There is no real difference between the two on immigration.

They may also argue about health care, but neither will do a damn thing to fix it.

Clinton and Bush hate each other, but perhaps they should be on the same ticket if only they can resolve wide differences on abortion and guns.

Presidential Roundup

With the Bush-Clinton diversion out of the way, let's check out the New York Times article Presidential Candidates on Syrian No-Fly Zone.







Rand Paul says "Setting up a no-fly zone is a recipe for disaster. It’s a recipe for confrontation," while predicting it could lead to World War III by causing a confrontation between the United States and Russia.

Trump says "I want to sit back and I want to see what happens."

Mr. Trump said he likes the idea of a “safe zone” being established in Syria. But he has questioned the idea of supporting rebels who oppose President Assad, and he has welcomed the idea of Russia attacking the Islamic State.

Welcoming help from Russia is certainly the right idea, as is questioning the backing of alleged moderates seeing to overthrow Assad. His statements are also more consistent with those who oppose a no-fly zone.

Trump appears to be mainly correct, while Chris Christie's and Jeb Bush's war ideas are extreme lunacy.

Undoubtedly, Hillary supports war as well, whether or not she says otherwise.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

 

[Joe Fan]

Believe it or not, Chris Matthews sort of made some sense on this issue --

 

[Crockett]

I don't watch MSNBC much, but Matthews makes a great point.

 

[LtSwtCrude]

It's all about creating chaos in areas we don't and can't control in order to destabilize geopolitical rivals Russia and Iran.

Yep.

 

[LtSwtCrude]

Shedlock cites Buchanan as the politicians weigh in on what to do about ISIS. Link.

Putin Our Ally in Syria: Pat Buchanan Gets It Right, Clueless Candidates Get It Wrong; Jeb vs. Hillary

Three Questions

1. Of what real threat to US security was Saddam Hussein? The answer is none. Ever.
2. Of what real threat to the US is Syrian president Bashar Assad? The answer is none.
3. Is ISIS a threat? Obviously yes, but not to the degree imagined.

Formation of ISIS

US policy on Syria is centered on the removal of Assad in Syria even though Assad is no threat, but ISIS is.

And it was the bungled removal of Hussein that destabilized Iraq and directly led to the creation of ISIS.

In October, I noted former UK prime minister Tony Blair (who joined president Bush on the inane takeout of Saddam Hussein),Issued an Apology for Creation of ISIS.

Our allies ought to be those who want to fight ISIS, not alleged "moderate" Al Qaeda forces seeking to destabilize Syria, creating a refugee mess in the process.

Is Putin Our Ally in Syria?

Pat Buchanan asks (and correctly answers) the question Is Putin Our Ally in Syria? The President’s strategy is to contain, degrade and defeat ISIS. While no one has provided the troops to defeat ISIS, the U.S. is using Kurdish and Yazidi forces, backed by U.S. air power, to degrade it.

The Kurds have run ISIS out of Kobani, captured much of the Turkish-Syrian border, and moved to within 30 miles of Raqqa, the ISIS capital. Yazidis and Kurds last week recaptured Sinjar in Iraq and cut the highway between Mosul and Raqqa.

The terrorist attacks in Paris, the downing of the Russian airliner in Sinai, the ISIS bomb that exploded in the Shiite sector of Beirut, are ISIS’s payback. But they could also be signs that the ISIS caliphate, imperiled in its base, is growing desperate and lashing out.

Yet consider the Republican strategies being advanced.

In Sunday’s Washington Post, Mitt Romney writes:

“We must wage the war to defeat the enemy. … [Obama] must call in the best military minds from the United States and NATO … and finally construct a comprehensive strategy that integrates our effort with the Kurds, Turks, Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians.”

The Kurds excepted, Gov. Romney ignored all the forces that are actually fighting ISIS: Russians, Hezbollah, Iran, Bashar Assad, the Syrian army.

Mitt urges instead an alliance of countries that have done next to nothing to defeat ISIS.

Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham want U.S. ground troops sent into Syria and Iraq. But as Turkey has an army of 500,000 next door and Assad’s army would happily help wipe out ISIS, why not let Arab and Turkish boys do the fighting this time?

“America must lead,” is Jeb Bush’s mantra, and he wants U.S. boots on the ground and a no-fly zone over Syria.

“We should declare war,” says Bush.

Why then does Bush not call up Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and dictate the war resolution he wants passed?

And whom does Jeb propose to fight? Why declare a no-fly zone when ISIS has no air force? Does Bush plan to shoot down Syrian planes flying over Syria and Russian planes flying in support of Assad?

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is ready to rumble.

“Well, the first thing you do is you set up a no-fly zone in Syria, and you call Putin, and you say to him, ‘Listen, we’re enforcing a no-fly zone, and that means we’re enforcing it against everyone, and that includes you. So, don’t test me.’”

And if Russia violated his no-fly zone? “Then you take him down,” said Christie, meaning we shoot down Russian jets.

But what vital interest of ours has ever been so engaged in Syria as to justify a major war in the Middle East and a military clash with a Russia with a nuclear arsenal as large as our own?

In any war it is usually wise to enlarge the roster of one’s allies and reduce the roster of enemies. If ISIS is the implacable enemy and must be annihilated, we should welcome all volunteers.

If Putin wants to enlist in the war against ISIS, sign him up.Clueless Candidates Get It Wrong

1. Jeb Bush - Republican Candidate: "Enforce that no-fly zone, and we’ll stop the regime’s bombing raids that kill helpless citizens.
2. Ben Carson - Republican Candidate: "I would establish a no-fly zone along the border with Turkey. In no way would I back off."
3. Chris Christie - Republican Candidate: "My first phone call would be to Vladimir, and I’d say to him, ‘Listen, we’re enforcing this no-fly zone’"
4. Hillary Clinton - Democratic Candidate: "I personally would be advocating now for a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air."
5. Carly Fiorina - Republican Candidate: "This is a tricky maneuver, it’s a dangerous maneuver, but it’s a maneuver that we must undertake."
6. Lindsey Graham - Republican Candidate: "I don’t know if there’s anybody left to train, but a no-fly zone would be a great relief to the Syrian people."
7. John Kasich - Republican Candidate: "Now is the time for the United States to provide the moral leadership that it has so far failed to provide."
8. Marco Rubio - Republican Candidate: "The United States should work with our allies, both Arab and European, to impose a no-fly zone over parts of Syria."

Unfit for President

Every one of the above is unfit for president, for multiple reasons, but foreign policy is the standout here.

Let me ask again: Who is the threat?

Jeb vs. Hillary

Note the similarity between the positions of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.

Bush is concerned about "killing helpless citizens" while Hillary wants "humanitarian corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air."

The irony in those statements is Syrian civilians are dying directly as a result of US policy of arming Al Qaeda rebels, US policy that created ISIS, and US policy of weapons handouts that fell into the wrong hands.

Immigration Fact Check

Please consider this amusing Fact Check on Immigration. Pouncing on controversial comments about Mexican immigrants by Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday that the ideological space between Trump and Jeb Bush on the issue of immigration was small.

Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for president, said while she would like to see immigrants have a path to citizenship, Bush, "doesn't believe in a path to citizenship."

But the former Florida governor -- seen by many as one of the most pro-immigration reform Republican candidates -- has repudiated Trump's comments. And Tuesday, his campaign rebuffed Clinton, saying Bush supports a path to "earned legal status."

Bush this year has also backed a pathway to citizenship for children eligible under the DREAM Act who were brought to the United States by their parents.

Bush's attempt to navigate the nuanced waters between "earned legal status" and a path to "citizenship" is what makes Clinton technically correct in her assertion to CNN that he does not support a path to "citizenship."

Bush's campaign is also right that Clinton did tell CNN a year ago, in the wake of a flood of unaccompanied children crossing the southern border, that they "should be sent back." It's a comment that her now-Democratic rival, Martin O'Malley, has also seized upon.Bush-Clinton 2016 Ticket

Both Bush and Clinton are talking out of both sides of their mouths, with one side saying essentially the same thing as their counterpart, the other side blasting their counterpart for inconsistency. There is no real difference between the two on immigration.

They may also argue about health care, but neither will do a damn thing to fix it.

Clinton and Bush hate each other, but perhaps they should be on the same ticket if only they can resolve wide differences on abortion and guns.

Presidential Roundup

With the Bush-Clinton diversion out of the way, let's check out the New York Times article Presidential Candidates on Syrian No-Fly Zone.







Rand Paul says "Setting up a no-fly zone is a recipe for disaster. It’s a recipe for confrontation," while predicting it could lead to World War III by causing a confrontation between the United States and Russia.

Trump says "I want to sit back and I want to see what happens."

Mr. Trump said he likes the idea of a “safe zone” being established in Syria. But he has questioned the idea of supporting rebels who oppose President Assad, and he has welcomed the idea of Russia attacking the Islamic State.

Welcoming help from Russia is certainly the right idea, as is questioning the backing of alleged moderates seeing to overthrow Assad. His statements are also more consistent with those who oppose a no-fly zone.

Trump appears to be mainly correct, while Chris Christie's and Jeb Bush's war ideas are extreme lunacy.

Undoubtedly, Hillary supports war as well, whether or not she says otherwise.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Good job.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez, there is nothing murky about Russia's motives with respect to Syria. Unlike the US, Putin has been christal clear. He has stated from the beginning Russia would support Assad and oppose all opposition to have him forcibly removed. How much clearer can he get?

You're right. He has been clear on his position, and again, I'm all for working with Putin in Syria.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I'd argue the mistake was believing we could nation build a post-Sadam Iraq to begin with but it seems the short memories only go back to Democratic administrations.

You could try to argue that, but the fact is Iraq was relatively stable until Obama pulled everyone out.

Put whatever take on that you care to, but facts are stubborn things.

And are you suggesting that going after AQ in Afganistan after 9-11 was a bad idea?