The Syrian Crisis Thread

[LA Ute]

I thought we might as well have a place for people's thoughts about this. Here's an interesting piece from the Washington Post:

Vladimir Putin’s New York Times op-ed, annotated and fact-checked (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/12/vladimir-putins-new-york-times-op-ed-annotated-and-fact-checked/)
And a related cartoon:

802

[UTEopia]

Very interesting read. I am conflicted on the question of whether the US should undertake any action against the Syrian President. I do believe that the use of chemical weapons is wrong and in a perfect world we could put Syrian President on trial. However, we do not live in a perfect world and, IMO, the US has been too quick to interject ourselves in the political disputes of sovereign nations. I think it is time to relinquish our role as the "sometimes world police" and by that I mean we interfere when we think it serves our economic interests (middle east) and we allow genocide to occur (africa) when we don't. I think most of our efforts have resulted in far too many US deaths and the expenditure of money that we should be investing in our own Country. Our efforts at developing a foreign policy since the days of the cold war have been difficult and maybe that reflects that the world is made up of shades of grey as opposed to clear lines. Our foreign policy during the cold war, while clear, was mostly misguided as I don't think the answer to foreign policy is that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. We armed and trained too many regimes that later became our enemy under that policy. The world is void of easy answers to complex questions. IMO, based on what we know today, we rattle our saber as fiercely as possible to gain the best negotiated outcome possible. I know that one day we will actually need to use that saber, but for the time being it needs to be repaired and rested.

[LA Ute]

I too am conflicted. I think Assad and (especially) others like him need to know there is a price to pay for using chemical weapons. I just don't know if the USA is in a position to inflict that price. In particular I don't think our current president is the man I want in charge of such an effort. Clinton or either of the Bushes (preferably the elder Bush) would be more effective.

Here's new stage in the crisis, as reported by the Wall Street Journal:

Elite Syrian Unit Scatters Chemical Arms Stockpile (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324755104579071330713553794.html?m od=djemalertNEWS)


A secretive Syrian military unit at the center of the Assad regime's chemical weapons program has been moving stocks of poison gases and munitions to as many as 50 sites to make them harder for the U.S. to track, according to American and Middle Eastern officials.

The movements of chemical weapons by Syria's elite Unit 450 could complicate any U.S. bombing campaign in Syria over its alleged chemical attacks, officials said. It also raises questions about implementation of a Russian proposal that calls for the regime to surrender control of its stockpile, they said.

U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies still believe they know where most of the Syrian regime's chemical weapons are located, but with less confidence than six months ago, U.S. officials said....

[GarthUte]

Do we know for certain that it was the Syrian military that used chemical weapons? Could it have been the al-Qaeda faction of the rebels?

[LA Ute]

Do we know for certain that it was the Syrian military that used chemical weapons? Could it have been the al-Qaeda faction of the rebels?

I don't know how much confidence to have in our intelligence services.

[GarthUte]

I don't know how much confidence to have in our intelligence services.

It's the same intelligence service that existed when the US invaded Iraq under GW.

[wuapinmon]

Do we know for certain that it was the Syrian military that used chemical weapons? Could it have been the al-Qaeda faction of the rebels?

I believe they know the particulars of the chemical signatures used to make things (homemade vs expensively made), and probably realize that there are no Walter Whites making sarin gas in RV in the desert.

[GarthUte]

I believe they know the particulars of the chemical signatures used to make things (homemade vs expensively made), and probably realize that there are no Walter Whites making sarin gas in RV in the desert.

Do you think it's possible that Russia or Iran supplied rebels with chemical weapons?

[LA Ute]

It's the same intelligence service that existed when the US invaded Iraq under GW.

Right. The CIA Director said it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMDs. We all know how that worked out. That's why I'm not sure how much to trust them this time around. Still, I believe Syria has the chemical weapons, but I don't know how much we really "know" about them -- how Syria got them, how many they have, etc.

[USS Utah]

Intelligence is what you rely on when you don't know something.

[wuapinmon]

Do you think it's possible that Russia or Iran supplied rebels with chemical weapons?

Possible, yes
Plausible, maybe
Knowable, not by me

[concerned]

I got a chuckle out of this. Apparently some people don't agree with LA Ute that Obama is the most left-leaning president ever.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/barack-obama-liberals-96746.html?hp=t2_3


From what I read, FWIW it doesn't sound like there is much doubt that the regime used the chem weapons, but you never know. Assad has admitted that he has them (by offering to turn them over) and I think has admitted (or at least it seems common knowledge) that the regime manufactures them. The gas was delivered by missiles that the govt possesses but the rebels don't, and there are supposedly those voice recordings of govt military officers discussing the strike either before or as it happened.

Also, it seems that nobody really expects Assad to turn over all his gas weapons, but do expect that this exercise will make it much less likely for him to use them again, and perhaps rally international support for additional action if he does use them again.

[GarthUte]

Possible, yes
Plausible, maybe
Knowable, not by me

That's the point I was trying to make. We don't know which side used sarin gas. We can't strike Syria until we know who to strike.

[utefan]

I saw that and it made me wonder if the timing of all of this was suspicious.


Hmmm, not showing up for some reason. Anyway, it implies that this whole Syria thing is a diversion to take the focus off the NSA spying.

[LA Ute]

I got a chuckle out of this. Apparently some people don't agree with LA Ute that Obama is the most left-leaning president ever.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/barack-obama-liberals-96746.html?hp=t2_3


From what I read, FWIW it doesn't sound like there is much doubt that the regime used the chem weapons, but you never know. Assad has admitted that he has them (by offering to turn them over) and I think has admitted (or at least it seems common knowledge) that the regime manufactures them. The gas was delivered by missiles that the govt possesses but the rebels don't, and there are supposedly those voice recordings of govt military officers discussing the strike either before or as it happened.

Also, it seems that nobody really expects Assad to turn over all his gas weapons, but do expect that this exercise will make it much less likely for him to use them again, and perhaps rally international support for additional action if he does use them again.

You expect me to agree with a bunch of liberals about whether Obama is a true liberal? There were conservatives who thought Reagan was straying from their reservation too. :D


"It's men in shorts."

-- Rick Majerus

[uteinlogan]

I don't play the left vs right game but I think the idea of using our military in Syria is an absolute disaster. I feel for the Syrian victims 100% but we are not the world's police. Any involvement is not practical and extremely dangerous. I hate the idea of even discussing this. We're still trying it figure out our plan in Afghanistan. Russia is not going to let any sort of strike go unpunished on the world's theater. Ugh.

[USS Utah]

A couple of excellent posts by Galrahn at the Information Dissemination blog:

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/08/syria-sitrep.html

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/09/if-its-not-war-it-sounds-like-checkers.html

Sec State Kerry has been demonstrating recently why it was a good thing he did not win in 2004 -- huge mistake though Iraq was.

[Rocker Ute]

I don't play the left vs right game but I think the idea of using our military in Syria is an absolute disaster. I feel for the Syrian victims 100% but we are not the world's police. Any involvement is not practical and extremely dangerous. I hate the idea of even discussing this. We're still trying it figure out our plan in Afghanistan. Russia is not going to let any sort of strike go unpunished on the world's theater. Ugh.

We aren't the world's anything anymore... well except most despised nation. Our allies have lost confidence in us and our enemies openly mock us.

When we had our first child our pediatrician gave us some sage advice, he said, "Don't get in the pattern of saying to your children, 'If you do that again...' because it teaches them that they can do anything once. Have clear rules and fair discipline, and discipline them immediately when they do something wrong."

We just essentially said to our enemies 'If you do that again...' by turning a blind eye to a government using chemical weapons which all the world has said is wrong. And no, this isn't just the US's torch to bear. But, we should have been able to build consensus in the UN fairly easily to react to this quickly and directly and joined the world by indicating with just not word but deed that we all think that this was wrong. Having Russia handling the 'hand-over' of chemical weapons is the very definition of sending carrot by rabbit.

Now you might argue that our world demise began with GWB, and you very well might be right, but you can only punt the ball so many times with that excuse. I guarantee that Bill Clinton would not have handled this as poorly as the Obama administration has by a long shot.

[concerned]

We aren't the world's anything anymore... well except most despised nation. Our allies have lost confidence in us and our enemies openly mock us.

When we had our first child our pediatrician gave us some sage advice, he said, "Don't get in the pattern of saying to your children, 'If you do that again...' because it teaches them that they can do anything once. Have clear rules and fair discipline, and discipline them immediately when they do something wrong."

We just essentially said to our enemies 'If you do that again...' by turning a blind eye to a government using chemical weapons which all the world has said is wrong. And no, this isn't just the US's torch to bear. But, we should have been able to build consensus in the UN fairly easily to react to this quickly and directly and joined the world by indicating with just not word but deed that we all think that this was wrong. Having Russia handling the 'hand-over' of chemical weapons is the very definition of sending carrot by rabbit.

Now you might argue that our world demise began with GWB, and you very well might be right, but you can only punt the ball so many times with that excuse. I guarantee that Bill Clinton would not have handled this as poorly as the Obama administration has by a long shot.

How would Bill Clinton have handled it, or either Bush?

[Rocker Ute]

How would Bill Clinton have handled it, or either Bush?

Well given that GHWB and Clinton were significantly more adept at foreign policy and relations along with their Secretaries of States they likely wouldn't have painted themselves into a corner as Kerry and Obama have. And I would suppose that even GWB could have brought together our allies to respond, after all he was able to with much more dubious evidence to start a protracted war in Iraq.

Now how might they have responded militarily?

Clinton sent cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan for terrorist attacks, and sent troops to fight in Kosovo to depose a government guilty of genocide. the Bushes track record is hopefully evident.

Now I'm not calling for war, but I'm fairly certain that they would have been decisive in action and diplomacy with Syria would not have been on the top if their list as a response. We've acted like we have no idea what to do with a petulant child. I do imagine that they would have used diplomacy with the UN and our allies to get buy in for world participation.

Now it feels like we are asking for help for a welfare project at church where everyone shuffles around and avoids eye contact.

[concerned]

Well given that GHWB and Clinton were significantly more adept at foreign policy and relations along with their Secretaries of States they likely wouldn't have painted themselves into a corner as Kerry and Obama have. And I would suppose that even GWB could have brought together our allies to respond, after all he was able to with much more dubious evidence to start a protracted war in Iraq.

Now how might they have responded militarily?

Clinton sent cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan for terrorist attacks, and sent troops to fight in Kosovo to depose a government guilty of genocide. the Bushes track record is hopefully evident.

Now I'm not calling for war, but I'm fairly certain that they would have been decisive in action and diplomacy with Syria would not have been on the top if their list as a response. We've acted like we have no idea what to do with a petulant child. I do imagine that they would have used diplomacy with the UN and our allies to get buy in for world participation.

Now it feels like we are asking for help for a welfare project at church where everyone shuffles around and avoids eye contact.

Assuming that Clinton or Bush never drew a red line a year ago, what would and should they have done after learning about the gas attacks two or three weeks ago? Unilaterally immediately and decisively sent in cruise missiles,without consulting Congress or the international community? After 12 years in Afganistan and 10 in Iraq, do you think Bush would have been able to put together the same coalition as in 1991 or 2003? Do you think the vote in Parliament would have been different if Bush were president or Clinton? Do you think the Republican House would approve military action if Clinton were president? or even if Bush were president?

[LA Ute]

Assuming that Clinton or Bush never drew a red line a year ago, what would and should they have done after learning about the gas attacks two or three weeks ago? Unilaterally immediately and decisively sent in cruise missles,without consulting Congress or the international community? After 12 years in Afganistan and 10 in Iraq, do you think Bush would have been able to put together the same coalition as in 1991 or 2003? Do you think the vote in Parliament would have been different if Bush were president or Clinton? Do you think the Republican House would approve military action if Clinton were president? or even if Bush were president?

Concerned, do you think Obama has handled the Syrian crisis well?


"It's men in shorts."

-- Rick Majerus

[concerned]

Absolutely not. He never should have drawn the red line a year ago. He never should have been decisive about a military response when he did not know if he could rally international or congressional support. Its not clear to me how much Kerry's remark was off the cuff, and how much the idea had been floated through back channels, but even if it had been the subject of some prior discussion, he never should have raised it the way he did. they never should have given Putin the stage he has gotten, especially after Snowden. However, I don't see anything wrong with adopting what is now a Russian Plan, because it forces the Russians to own it and take responsibliity for it. The threat of force probably played a role in Russia and Syria coming to the table. But even if Obama had handled it well, I am not sure we would be in a much different place, because I dont think he would have gotten support for military action. I also think he was right to go to Congress and not act unilaterally, even if he took a huge risk because he didnt know if he could get support (he probably thought he could after Boehner and Cantor signed on). Hopefully that is a good precedent for the futre, but he botched his presentation to Congress and America generally. i also dont think Bush or Clinton would have us in a different place, or a better place, unless each decided to stay out of it altogether.

[USS Utah]

We aren't the world's anything anymore... well except most despised nation. Our allies have lost confidence in us and our enemies openly mock us.

When we had our first child our pediatrician gave us some sage advice, he said, "Don't get in the pattern of saying to your children, 'If you do that again...' because it teaches them that they can do anything once. Have clear rules and fair discipline, and discipline them immediately when they do something wrong."

We just essentially said to our enemies 'If you do that again...' by turning a blind eye to a government using chemical weapons which all the world has said is wrong. And no, this isn't just the US's torch to bear. But, we should have been able to build consensus in the UN fairly easily to react to this quickly and directly and joined the world by indicating with just not word but deed that we all think that this was wrong. Having Russia handling the 'hand-over' of chemical weapons is the very definition of sending carrot by rabbit.

Now you might argue that our world demise began with GWB, and you very well might be right, but you can only punt the ball so many times with that excuse. I guarantee that Bill Clinton would not have handled this as poorly as the Obama administration has by a long shot.

The world said it was wrong in a treaty in the 1920s as a reaction to World War I. The world did nothing in the 1980s when Iraq used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War or later when Saddam used them against the Kurds.

The track record is to say its wrong and do nothing about it.

[USS Utah]

Well given that GHWB and Clinton were significantly more adept at foreign policy and relations along with their Secretaries of States they likely wouldn't have painted themselves into a corner as Kerry and Obama have. And I would suppose that even GWB could have brought together our allies to respond, after all he was able to with much more dubious evidence to start a protracted war in Iraq.

Now how might they have responded militarily?

Clinton sent cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan for terrorist attacks, and sent troops to fight in Kosovo to depose a government guilty of genocide. the Bushes track record is hopefully evident.

Now I'm not calling for war, but I'm fairly certain that they would have been decisive in action and diplomacy with Syria would not have been on the top if their list as a response. We've acted like we have no idea what to do with a petulant child. I do imagine that they would have used diplomacy with the UN and our allies to get buy in for world participation.

Now it feels like we are asking for help for a welfare project at church where everyone shuffles around and avoids eye contact.

Clinton painted himself into a corner on Kosovo, essentially doing the same thing Obama did with Syria -- "Stop or we will drop bombs." Clinton had no idea how long he would need to bomb Serbia, and it is doubtful that the bombing accomplished anything. The air war ended when the Russians helped negotiate a cease-fire, which begs the question of why Clinton didn't get the Russians involved before he started dropping bombs.

Dropping bombs and firing cruise missiles to try and achieve a strategic result has a lousy track record.

[GarthUte]

Obama has the weakest, most pathetic foreign policy than any other POTUS in history. We're seeing what a 2nd term of Jimmy Carter would have looked like. While GW was bad, the enemy states still had some fear/respect for the US when he was in office.

[concerned]

Obama has the weakest, most pathetic foreign policy than any other POTUS in history. We're seeing what a 2nd term of Jimmy Carter would have looked like. While GW was bad, the enemy states still had some fear/respect for the US when he was in office.

same question to you. What would any other president have done in the last three weeks after learinng of the gas attacks.

[GarthUte]

Clinton painted himself into a corner on Kosovo, essentially doing the same thing Obama did with Syria -- "Stop or we will drop bombs." Clinton had no idea how long he would need to bomb Serbia, and it is doubtful that the bombing accomplished anything. The air war ended when the Russians helped negotiate a cease-fire, which begs the question of why Clinton didn't get the Russians involved before he started dropping bombs.

Dropping bombs and firing cruise missiles to try and achieve a strategic result has a lousy track record.

Generally, I would agree with this. However, it did work for Reagan when he bombed the hell out of Libya in '86 to let Gadaffi know that Reagan wasn't going to tolerate a dictator of a pissant country committing acts of terror.

It's clear that Obama is in over his head. Putin didn't have to do much to make him look like a fool regarding Syria; he just let Obama be himself.

[GarthUte]

same question to you. What would any other president have done in the last three weeks after learinng of the gas attacks.

If it was known for certain that it was Assad's troops that used those weapons, I think Reagan would have bombed the hell out of those sites as soon as he knew where the sites were. Both Bushes and Clinton would have taken a more diplomatic approach, as Obama has done, but those three are more competent when it comes to dealing with foreign heads of state. A guy like Putin wouldn't have been able to make them look silly.

[USS Utah]

Generally, I would agree with this. However, it did work for Reagan when he bombed the hell out of Libya in '86 to let Gadaffi know that Reagan wasn't going to tolerate a dictator of a pissant country committing acts of terror.

Did it work for Reagan? Did Ghadaffi really change? Didn't the plot that blew up that 747 over Scotland have connections to libya?

I think the later invasion of Iraq had a much bigger impression on Ghadaffi than Operation El Dorado Canyon.

[USS Utah]

If it was known for certain that it was Assad's troops that used those weapons, I think Reagan would have bombed the hell out of those sites as soon as he knew where the sites were. Both Bushes and Clinton would have taken a more diplomatic approach, as Obama has done, but those three are more competent when it comes to dealing with foreign heads of state. A guy like Putin wouldn't have been able to make them look silly.

I have to disagree. Syria in the 1980s was a client state of the Soviets (which helps explain Putin's opposition to a U.S. strike today). A strike by Reagan then really could have sparked World War III.

[Rocker Ute]

I have to disagree. Syria in the 1980s was a client state of the Soviets (which helps explain Putin's opposition to a U.S. strike today). A strike by Reagan then really could have sparked World War III.

So I'm curious USS, are you saying that Obama and Kerry have acted appropriately? How would you grade their reaction to this latest crisis? (And no I'm not trying to be contentious, just sincerely curious what you think.)

[USS Utah]

So I'm curious USS, are you saying that Obama and Kerry have acted appropriately? How would you grade their reaction to this latest crisis? (And no I'm not trying to be contentious, just sincerely curious what you think.)

By setting the red line Obama made the same mistake Clinton did with Kosovo. The difference is that Clinton would have acted by now

Kerry, in the meantime, by arguing that all other definitions of war are wrong and that his is right -- "it's not an act of war, just a little air strike without troops on the ground" -- has demonstrated why it was a good thing he lost in 2004.

Events in Syria, as in Kosovo, are a internal matters of a sovereign state, we have no business getting involved.

Imagine Great Britain intervening during the American Civil War or the Indian Wars. We would not have found that to be acceptable, so who the hell are we to intervene in the affairs of sovereign states?

[LA Ute]

Here's what intrigues me about Putin's New York Times op-ed. (Advance note: This is not a slam of anyone, just an effort to understand what's going on.) As this writer noted (http://spectator.org/archives/2013/09/13/putin-exposes-the-secrets-of-a), Putin made three points that really could have been made by a standard American liberal columnist or college professor:



First, it is contrary to international law for a member of the United Nations to attack another country without approval from the U.N. Security Council. A U.S. attack on Syria, he writes, would undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations and encourage other countries to resort to armed force to settle international differences. As he writes, “Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.” [During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said that the intervention in Iraq was illegal because it was not authorized by the United Nations.]


Second, the major powers should avoid armed intervention into internal conflicts and civil wars in other countries. Such interventions are likewise illegitimate under international law. They are also ineffective and typically result only in an escalation in the level of violence.


Third, the United States is not an “exceptional” nation, or no more exceptional than any other nation is, and this belief promotes a sense that the United States is not bound by conventional rule of international conduct. Since Americans believe they are exceptional, he suggests, they believe they can make their own rules. As he writes, “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.” [In 2009, when asked about American exceptionalism, Obama said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”]


These are all arguable points, although as a conservative I disagree with them. It's just interesting that Putin is making them to the American people. That cannot be a coincidence and was surely intentional. What's his game? Is he trying to undermine Obama's liberal base?

[USS Utah]

Many of the same people who thought we had to intervene in Kosovo, and now in Syria, opposed the invasion of Iraq, despite Saddam's atrocities, and despite the fact his people were starving while he built palaces with oil for food money. An important difference with Iraq, however, was the sanctions that resulted from the First Gulf War (imagine liberating Europe but leaving Hitler in power). Even so, the invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake, largely because it may not have been entirely necessary.

The idea that all we have to do is drop some bombs and fire some cruise missiles is a siren song, "push button warfare" in a shiny new package. Politicians have been persuaded by this song that a clean war might be possible, that they can achieve a strategic result without getting their hands dirty. The U.S. Air Force has an obvious interest in this concept of war, and they have been pushing it since the Battle of Khafji in the Gulf War. They talk about how effective airplanes were against attacking tanks; what they usually fail to mention is the Marines on the ground in Khafji that were pointing lasers at those tanks.

It has been demonstrated over and over, in England, Germany, Japan, Vietnam and Serbia, that bombing strengthens rather than weakens the resolve of those under the bombs. Additionally, by restricting yourself to bombing you cede the initiative to the enemy because they get to decide when they have had enough. If the enemy is willing to fight a total war, or at least endure one, they will likely never decide that they have had enough.

War is ugly, it always has been and always will be. There is no such thing as a clean war. Sometimes, however, there are just causes to fight for. Ground wars are particularly messy, certainly for both sides, and occupations can be very frustrating, but the use of ground troops is the best way to achieve a strategic result -- of course, that requires a sound strategy, and the making of strategy is unfortunately a lost art in the U.S. Army.

[USS Utah]

Second, the major powers should avoid armed intervention into internal conflicts and civil wars in other countries. Such interventions are likewise illegitimate under international law. They are also ineffective and typically result only in an escalation in the level of violence.

I don't know about international law, but he is otherwise correct. We bombed Serbia to stop the depredations against the Muslim Kosovars, but the Serbs responded by sending military formations into Kosovo, creating an even bigger humanitarian crisis, with refugees fleeing to neighboring territory.

[LA Ute]

I don't know about international law, but he is otherwise correct. We bombed Serbia to stop the depredations against the Muslim Kosovars, but the Serbs responded by sending military formations into Kosovo, creating an even bigger humanitarian crisis, with refugees fleeing to neighboring territory.

That second point isn't as interesting as the first and third. Still, there have been lots of "civil" wars in the last 100 years that were really proxy wars. For the USA the main consideration has to be our national interest, not the nature of the war involved.


"It's men in shorts."

-- Rick Majerus

[UTEopia]

Here's what intrigues me about Putin's New York Times op-ed. (Advance note: This is not a slam of anyone, just an effort to understand what's going on.) As this writer noted (http://spectator.org/archives/2013/09/13/putin-exposes-the-secrets-of-a), Putin made three points that really could have been made by a standard American liberal columnist or college professor:

First, it is contrary to international law for a member of the United Nations to attack another country without approval from the U.N. Security Council. A U.S. attack on Syria, he writes, would undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations and encourage other countries to resort to armed force to settle international differences. As he writes, “Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.” [During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said that the intervention in Iraq was illegal because it was not authorized by the United Nations.]


Second, the major powers should avoid armed intervention into internal conflicts and civil wars in other countries. Such interventions are likewise illegitimate under international law. They are also ineffective and typically result only in an escalation in the level of violence.


Third, the United States is not an “exceptional” nation, or no more exceptional than any other nation is, and this belief promotes a sense that the United States is not bound by conventional rule of international conduct. Since Americans believe they are exceptional, he suggests, they believe they can make their own rules. As he writes, “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.” [In 2009, when asked about American exceptionalism, Obama said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”]





These are all arguable points, although as a conservative I disagree with them.

Your statement that as a conservative you disagree with them puzzles me. I certainly don't think these rules have been followed in the past by either the US or the Russians, but that does not make them invalid. What is the conservative foreign policy that we should be following? I don't think we have had a well articulated or followed foreign policy since the cold war ended. The foreign policy of the cold war was oppose communism at every corner regardless of who you need to train, arm or bribe.

It is pointless to discuss who would have done a better job when you fail to state exactly what it is you think should be done. I don't think we should involve ourselves militarily in Syria. I believe we should use all of our powers to achieve a non-military agreement.

[USS Utah]

What is the conservative foreign policy that we should be following?

I can't speak for anyone else, but as far as I know, there is no one "conservative" foreign policy. The right has been represented by the isolationists and the Neocons, which had vastly different philosophies. The left has been represented by interventionists and anti-war peace at any price types.

I tell people that I am a foreign policy realist, and then invoke the Weinberger and Powell Doctrines to define what that is.

http://flattopshistorywarpolitics.yuku.com/topic/753/The-Weinberger-Powell-Rumsfeld-Doctrines#.UjT24H8o9oM

I believe that Eisenhower and Reagan were realists.

[LA Ute]

Your statement that as a conservative you disagree with them puzzles me. I certainly don't think these rules have been followed in the past by either the US or the Russians, but that does not make them invalid. What is the conservative foreign policy that we should be following? I don't think we have had a well articulated or followed foreign policy since the cold war ended. The foreign policy of the cold war was oppose communism at every corner regardless of who you need to train, arm or bribe.

It is pointless to discuss who would have done a better job when you fail to state exactly what it is you think should be done. I don't think we should involve ourselves militarily in Syria. I believe we should use all of our powers to achieve a non-military agreement.

I was just interested in the way Putin's op-ed tracked traditional liberal arguments. No. 1 (no attacks on other countries without U.N. approval) is a position that has traditionally been the liberal point of view and one that conservative thinkers and realists abhor. Nixon, Ford, and Reagan were more or less realists -- and to a certain extent GHW Bush was too -- did the U.N. approve of his intervention in Panama? I don't recall. And didn't Clinton bomb Kosovo without U.N. approval?

No. 2 (major powers should avoid armed intervention into internal conflicts and civil wars in other countries) is the same kind of thinking.

No. 3 (the United States is not an “exceptional” nation) is more a philosophical argument, and a huge one. Conservatives (W.F. Buckley, for example) have since Lincoln thought America is an exceptional nation, the "last best hope" of the world with special responsibilities, etc. Liberals, especially recently, have decried that notion and think it is dangerous -- which is exactly what Putin said. George McGovern couldn't have stated all three propositions better than Putin did. Again, I am just wondering why a Russian president would take those positions. It's very interesting.

[UtahDan]

I was just interested in the way Putin's op-ed tracked traditional liberal arguments. No. 1 (no attacks on other countries without U.N. approval) is a position that has traditionally been the liberal point of view and one that conservative thinkers and realists abhor. Nixon, Ford, and Reagan were more or less realists -- and to a certain extent GHW Bush was too -- did the U.N. approve of his intervention in Panama? I don't recall. And didn't Clinton bomb Kosovo without U.N. approval?

No. 2 (major powers should avoid armed intervention into internal conflicts and civil wars in other countries) is the same kind of thinking.

No. 3 (the United States is not an “exceptional” nation) is more a philosophical argument, and a huge one. Conservatives (W.F. Buckley, for example) have since Lincoln thought America is an exceptional nation, the "last best hope" of the world with special responsibilities, etc. Liberals, especially recently, have decried that notion and think it is dangerous -- which is exactly what Putin said. George McGovern couldn't have stated all three propositions better than Putin did. Again, I am just wondering why a Russian president would take those positions. It's very interesting.

I thought it was clearly designed to undermine Obama from the left. Putin doesn't believe a word of it of course.

Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk 2