What are the foreign affairs strategies?

Musburger1

Musburger1

2,500+ Posts
MOA questions the generals. To better understand the article below, you might first read these two short articles from yesterday.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politi...a-came-shock-defense-secretary-mattis/ri20105
https://www.rt.com/news/392455-us-rocket-launchers-syria/

When Generals Make Policies - From Tactics To Strategy To Political Decision

June 13, 2017 - Mattis promises new Afghanistan strategy by mid-July

Defense Secretary James Mattis on Tuesday promised to deliver a new military strategy for Afghanistan to lawmakers by mid-July, ...​
June 15, 2017 - About 4,000 more US troops to go to Afghanistan

The Pentagon will send almost 4,000 additional American forces to Afghanistan, a Trump administration official said Thursday, hoping to break a stalemate in a war that has now passed to a third U.S. commander in chief. [...]
The decision by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis could be announced as early as next week, the official said. It follows Trump's move to give Mattis the authority to set troop levels ...​

The U.S. has a problem with the former Marine General Mattis as Secretary of Defense. Mattis thinks tactics, not strategy.

It makes little sense to send additional troops when one does not know what strategy they will have to serve. There is so far no other way to end the war in Afghanistan other than to simply pull out of it. The racket that the war has become can only be stopped by such a grand strategic decision. Sending troops before deciding on the strategy practically guarantees that the choice of a pull-out will be excluded from the evaluated possibilities. The tactical decision of sending more troops will drive the strategy.

Mattis already screwed up by allowing the U.S. Central Command to loudly stump around the al-Tanf border crossing between Syria and Iraq. The small al-Tanf garrison is legally very dubious and now surrounded on three sides. The only choices left are to pull out to Jordan or to start a big war with Syria, Russia and Iran. A much bigger war is likely not what the Trump administration wants or needs. But to pull out will now be an acknowledgement that the tactical decision of deploying to al-Tanf was wrong and become a loss of face. Here again the tactics are driving the strategy:

Strategy should drive tactics when it comes to handling Iranian-backed elements in Syria, not the other way around. Otherwise, the United States risks upending other elements of the war effort in Syria for ill-defined reasons. This may include expanding the role of an already over stretched Special Operations Command and more wear and tear on other elements of the U.S. military — all for ill-defined and unachievable goals. The United States has the capability to defend a garrison in the Syrian desert. However, the reasons for doing so are devoid of any purpose ...
​
Mattis is liked by some because of his aggressive stance against Iran. His career is otherwise only remarkable for the massacres he was part in (Fallujah 2004). It is claimed that he owns 7,000 books. I doubt that he understood or even read them. To me he seems to be just one of dozens of rather mediocre general officers the U.S. military has produced. Such officers are incapable of making sound strategic decisions. They know how to run the military machine, but that is the easy part. They lack a real feel for diplomacy, economics and cultural issues. They are unable to see the world through the eyes of the other side. They never learned statecraft.

General McMaster, the current National Security Advisor, seems likewise a man of tactics, not strategy. How else can we explain that there is yet no consistency visible in any of the grand games the U.S. plays. The reaction to the flare up in the Gulf Cooperation Council was chaotic. no game plan has been shown for Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria. The pivot to Asia seems dead. The current policies are reactive and not part of a larger view or scheme.

The grand scheme should run from policy decision to (military) strategy and then down to the tactical decisions. What we see now are tactics driving a strategy and the strategy then driving the greater policies.

One may be grateful, especially as a foreigner, that U.S. foreign policy is in such a miserable state. But the damage that can occur due to a miscalculated tactical decisions or an emotional response to an event - without any thinking about the bigger picture - is likely bigger than the one any well chosen political strategy could cause.
 
It all boils to down to three choices for the U.S. regarding ME terrorism...

1) Fight terrorists with our own troops (alongside or with approval from someone linked to terrorists).

The country doesn't have the stomach or financial stability for it.

2) Arm currently lesser-evil terrorists (and/or countries who arm terrorists) to fight for us as we advise on the ground.

Doing this now and clearly arming bad actors and future threats as usual.

3) Pull out completely and stop arming all Muslim forces.

This option likely facilitates Iran's domination of the ME and their expansion beyond a regional threat into an international one.

The only ally we could fight alongside and arm that's not anti-American terrorist linked is Israel. Seems they're already preoccupied with fending off Iran and their proxy forces to go after ISIS and the Jihad terrorists.

We can criticize every move made in the ME until the cows come home. Every one of them has a nasty downside. I've yet to hear a sound alternative from the critics.

Even full withdraw has its downside beyond Iran's expansion. You can't unkick the hornets nest. America is and will continue to be a top bullseye regardless.

Question is do we want to stifle and keep them occupied over there or withdraw and attempt to deflect them from hitting us at home again?

The ME is hell on earth and should've been avoided. Problem is we already threw cold water in the face of demons and they'll endlessly seek unquenchable revenge.

The mindset is revealed in the Sunni-Shia divide. Neither side will end the bloodlust until one capitulates and recognizes the true successor of their prophet or is eradicated.

America has clearly aligned with Sunni dominated countries. Even in Syria the gov is Shia but the majority population is Sunni. Which explains why we backed the Syrian rebels to topple Assad's regime and remove an Iranian proxy.

If Muslim forces are sworn to this creed of unrelenting violence against another sect within their own religion, imagine the unending will they have to wipe out the infidels.
 
Last edited:
Idk if I buy the idea of a coming 'false flag' as I can see motivations on both sides and don't trust either. IMHO, there is now real motivation for Assad to do this.

Maybe he had nothing to gain with the first 'alleged' chemical attack, but he surely does now. Russia drew a red line after we downed the Syrian jet.

I could easily see a guy like Assad (will kill civilians in mass to further his strategy) executing a chemical attack now, even if the previous one was a sham.

He denies it, Russia denies it, we strike Syria with even greater magnitude. Russia has had enough and retaliates directly on U.S. forces or jets/ships in the region.

So what has been set in motion by this chain of events?

The superpowers are busy assessing and trading proportional blows in an unprecendented direct conflict with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Superpowers actively striking one another would command 100% focus by both sides as they attempt to hold strong but avoid escalating beyond return.

With Russia and the U.S. busy measuring d*cks, Assad and Iranian proxies would nearly have carte blanche to unload on their opposition as they see fit.

The last chemical attack didn't make sense in Assad's shoes. Though a ME dictator's actions not making sense is far from an eliminating defense.

This one I could see making perfect sense after Russia has escalated to a point of promised retaliation next time we strike their host.

No one but Syrians would give a flip what Assad is doing to the rebels if DT and Putin start trading blows with American and Russian casualties in play.

It'd be the hottest news story of the century. The colluders squaring off in battle that has escalation potential of a nuclear holocaust. The rebels would quietly get toasted.
 
Last edited:
Please, Brad. That take is nonsensical. Every time whenever a ceasefire is imminent or Syria appears to be gaining the upper hand, the US has either broken the ceasefire (the "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops) or accused Syria of an unproven atrocity. The fact of the matter is the US appears to be at war with itself in terms of what direction to take. Trump is now a pawn of one faction - an evil one - and any sane voices aren't visible.
 
Musburger1 said:
Please, Brad. That take is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

The guy posting constant conspiracy theories is calling my view of a strategical battle plan nonsensical. That's rich. :smile1:

This conflict is fluid. At no time has Russia been prepared to strike American targets in retaliation like they are now. To say that's not significant to strategy calculations is naive.

It's very telling how none of the false flag or conspiracy theorist authors write a follow-up article admitting they're huge revelation flopped in their face.

Like the impending U.S. invasion of 100,000+ U.S. troops into Syria after the first strike.

It's just like the MSM...hear something that could be twisted into a scandal and throw sh*t at the wall hoping something sticks.

If by some incredible coincidence the author is right he/she finally goes from a fringe writing kook to gaining credibility and taken seriously.

When it fails miserably and the claim is proven bunk, they just slide back into the darkness awaiting the next hail mary to gear up conspiracy nuts.

If you can't understand the benefits of Assad baiting Russia and the U.S. into direct conflict, there's really no need to debate it.
 
Last edited:
Brad Austin said:
The guy posting constant conspiracy theories is calling my view of a strategical battle plan nonsensical. That's rich. :smile1:

This conflict is fluid. At no time has Russia been prepared to strike American targets in retaliation like they are now. To say that's not significant to strategy calculations is naive.

It's very telling how none of the false flag or conspiracy theorist authors write a follow-up article admitting they're huge revelation flopped in their face.

Like the impending U.S. invasion of 100,000+ U.S. troops into Syria after the first strike.

It's just like the MSM...hear something that could be twisted into a scandal and throw sh*t at the wall hoping something sticks.

If by some incredible coincidence the author is right he/she finally goes from a fringe writing kook to gaining credibility and taken seriously.

When it fails miserably and the claim is proven bunk, they just slide back into the darkness awaiting the next hail mary to gear up conspiracy nuts.

If you can't understand the benefits of Assad baiting Russia and the U.S. into direct conflict, there's really no need to debate it.
Click to expand...
Benefits? Assad is rapidly liberating the country. There would be no benefits in giving the US an excuse to escalate and trigger a US attack on Damascus. That would be insane. Only an idiot would see benefits from launching a chemical attack. i don't believe Assad is an idiot.
 
Musburger1 said:
There would be no benefits in giving the US an excuse to escalate and trigger a US attack on Damascus
Click to expand...

The problem with that thinking is the assumption another chemical attack would provoke a large scale U.S. attack or ongoing confrontation against Syrian forces/assets.

The reality is another strike deemed proportional on supposed chemical attack related targets would occur. Only this time Russia wouldn't sit back and take it.

The disconnect we have here is your side believes the U.S. is trying to provoke a massive conflict in Syria. I disagree with that 100%.

It directly conflicts with one of DT's strongest foreign policy desires of 'safe zones' to stop potentially dangerous refugees entering our country.

Since we disagree on DT's desired course in Syria, the rest won't reconcile.
 
Brad Austin said:
The problem with that thinking is the assumption another chemical attack would provoke a large scale U.S. attack or ongoing confrontation against Syrian forces/assets.

The reality is another strike deemed proportional on supposed chemical attack related targets would occur. Only this time Russia wouldn't sit back and take it.

The disconnect we have here is your side believes the U.S. is trying to provoke a massive conflict in Syria. I disagree with that 100%.

It directly conflicts with one of DT's strongest foreign policy desires of 'safe zones' to stop potentially dangerous refugees entering our country.

Since we disagree on DT's desired course in Syria, the rest won't reconcile.
Click to expand...
Brad, I still don't understand your explanation of the rationale for a chemical attack designed to further draw in Russia. Is that what you are saying or do I misunderstand you? It just makes no sense. None.
 
I'm saying that Russia has already declared any further U.S. attacks on Syrian targets will result in Russian retaliation against U.S. assets.

A chemical attack would guarantee a U.S. retaliatory attack on Syrian targets as before. DT declared no chemical attack will go unpunished.

Putin declared further U.S. attacks on Syria will be punished. The lines are drawn.

Provoking a direct confrontation between Russia and the U.S. does provide strategic advantages to Assad's war against the rebels.

With the two big brothers busy squaring off, it provides cover. I'm not saying that's a likely occurrence, I'm saying I can see the motivations of such an act.

It's fine you think it makes no sense. I think you're belief the U.S. is trying to provoke a massive confrontation in Syria makes no sense for the current admin.

It's political suicide, will inflame the refugee dilemma to new heights, and destroys any chance of safe zones.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing, let's watch it play out and see.
 
Of course we will have to wait and see.

One place I disagree with you is that safe zones, for the sake of stemming refugee flows, is a major goal. That concept is a publically accepted camouflage for the likely real goal of partitioning Syria into a Sunni-friendly eastern half occupied by Kurds and giving the US and Gulf allies a strategic and economic foothold. Again, we'll see.
 
Musburger1 said:
That concept is a publically accepted camouflage for the likely real goal of partitioning Syria into a Sunni-friendly eastern half occupied by Kurds and giving the US and Gulf allies a strategic and economic foothold.
Click to expand...

It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Though it's currently impossible to assess the seriousness of DT's often claimed desire for safe zones as Russia must be a huge part of any agreement.

The MSM has made it virtually impossible to have any discussion with Putin over this. Putin has discussed it on his side and claims his allies support it. DT has also broached the subject with his group of ME allies.

Due to phony collusion claims the two main players haven't met to even see if they can work it out.

Word is DT is insisting on an openly publicized face to face meeting with Putin next month when both are in Germany.

It's also reported his team is resisting such a move with the collusion hysteria in play. Some recommend a private side meeting or letting the delegations interact instead.

It's a shame the lying MSM is preventing any real chance of potential peaceful solutions in Syria just to sabotage POTUS. Disgusting actually.
 
Kushner is a mistake, plain and simple. His presence (esp in the ME) is the decision I disagree with DT on the most.

IMHO, DT and Rex are more in-line than most assume. I can see instances where Rex is used as an agent of disinformation and it appears contradictory to the outside observer.

To assume the SOS is out there free-lancing and running his/her own show is disregarding the nature of the position.

Disagreeing with POTUS on strategy is nothing new. Powell and GWB had vast disagreements over Iraq. HRC and BO were said to be at odds often behind closed doors.

Regardless of conflicting views on strategy, the SOS is an extension of POTUS and falls in line to communicate the president's policy. If Rex is out there communicating one thing to foreign leaders and DT is at home conflicting it, it's most likely done by design.

As for POTUS and the defense chiefs having vastly conflicting strategies, history is riddled with it. Every U.S. president since the 50's who showed strong restraint and refused to be war-happy dealt with this same dissent.

There's a reason why Mattis had to get a waiver to serve in his position. The restriction was created because history shows those recently in active military leadership positions are a risk to serve in a cabinet position where geopolitical strategy is every bit as (if not more) essential than winning on the battlefield.

If military chiefs had their way back in the 60's and 80's, the human race would've been wiped out through nuclear holocaust on multiple occasions.

We can all thank JFK for choosing Robert McNamara, a non-military SOD, during his brief presidency. The military chiefs almost ended our species and used tactics to escalate behind Kennedy's back. I can only imagine of one of them was chosen as SOD.

"During the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, McNamara served as a member of EXCOMM and played a large role in the Administration's handling and eventual defusing of the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was a strong proponent of the blockade option over a missile strike and helped persuade the Joint Chiefs of Staff to agree with the blockade option."
 
Last edited:
Here's a chronology of five key Hersh articles reporting on policy, specifically how it relates to the Middle East. This is at least three hours of reading material. I realize few are interested and even fewer have the time, but if you have both time and interest it's very helpful in grasping what's gone on the past fifteen years or so.

2007 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

2013 https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

2014 https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

2016 https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military

2017 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.welt.de/amp/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html
 
Supposedly a cease fire will be announced Sunday in Syria brokered by the US and Russia. What's the over/under on how long until another bogus claim Assad orders a new chemical attack?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top