OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[Rerisen]

i'm not sure what any of that has to do with what i said. all i'm saying is that obama is very engaged when it comes to foreign policy. and that would be evident in any substantive foreign policy interview you could find

Not sure engaged is the same thing as inspired. I think we are going to have to do something different than we are, whether that is politically, diplomatically, or military, or most likely, some combination, in order to break the stalemate situation that Syria is in. A stalemate with many dying and millions more being displaced the longer it goes on. But with a year left in office, I think Obama is content to just run the clock out.

[TimRobbins]

Not sure engaged is the same thing as inspired. I think we are going to have to do something different than we are, whether that is politically, diplomatically, or military, or most likely, some combination, in order to break the stalemate situation that Syria is in. A stalemate with many dying and millions more being displaced the longer it goes on. But with a year left in office, I think Obama is content to just run the clock out.

I'd say that day can't come soon enough, but given the possible replacements, we may actually miss the do-nothing president.

[Rerisen]

Not sure engaged is the same thing as inspired. I think we are going to have to do something different than we are, whether that is politically, diplomatically, or military, or most likely, some combination, in order to break the stalemate situation that Syria is in. A stalemate with many dying and millions more being displaced the longer it goes on. But with a year left in office, I think Obama is content to just run the clock out.

I'd say that day can't come soon enough, but given the possible replacements, we may actually miss the do-nothing president.

Doing something can be worse than nothing if its the wrong thing, of course.

Seems 'doing nothing' is eeking toward a bit more of late though, despite dozens of, "No boots on the ground."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/01/remember-the-iraq-war-more-u-s-combat-troops-are-heading-back-to-the-fight/

For the first time since U.S. airstrikes against the Islamic State began some 16 months ago, the U.S. is openly sending in ground combat troops. In an acknowledgement that the fight against the militants has yet to significantly dent the group’s power, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday that the Pentagon would send a “specialized expeditionary targeting force” of elite troops to Iraq with freedom to operate inside Syria as well.

[dice]

Not sure engaged is the same thing as inspired. I think we are going to have to do something different than we are, whether that is politically, diplomatically, or military, or most likely, some combination, in order to break the stalemate situation that Syria is in. A stalemate with many dying and millions more being displaced the longer it goes on. But with a year left in office, I think Obama is content to just run the clock out.

I'd say that day can't come soon enough, but given the possible replacements, we may actually miss the do-nothing president.

alright, i'm catching on to the agenda now

what are you suggesting the next president should do?

[dice]

i'm not sure what any of that has to do with what i said. all i'm saying is that obama is very engaged when it comes to foreign policy. and that would be evident in any substantive foreign policy interview you could find

Not sure engaged is the same thing as inspired. I think we are going to have to do something different than we are, whether that is politically, diplomatically, or military, or most likely, some combination, in order to break the stalemate situation that Syria is in. A stalemate with many dying and millions more being displaced the longer it goes on. But with a year left in office, I think Obama is content to just run the clock out.

IS there anything that can be done to fix the enormous mess that is syria short of going back in time and not invading iraq? and if so, why is it the US's job to do it?

[TimRobbins]

Not sure engaged is the same thing as inspired. I think we are going to have to do something different than we are, whether that is politically, diplomatically, or military, or most likely, some combination, in order to break the stalemate situation that Syria is in. A stalemate with many dying and millions more being displaced the longer it goes on. But with a year left in office, I think Obama is content to just run the clock out.

I'd say that day can't come soon enough, but given the possible replacements, we may actually miss the do-nothing president.

alright, i'm catching on to the agenda now

what are you suggesting the next president should do?

Look back a few pages, We discussed possible strategies in length.

[dice]

I'd say that day can't come soon enough, but given the possible replacements, we may actually miss the do-nothing president.

alright, i'm catching on to the agenda now

what are you suggesting the next president should do?

Look back a few pages, We discussed possible strategies in length.

are any of those strategies something you could reasonably expect the next president, whether democrat or republican, to actually pursue? if so, which one(s)?

[John Murdoch]

He's probably kicking the can and dumping it on the next POTUS. Obama never seemed inspired by foreign affairs.

Not sure i comprehend the bolded ..opposed to what?

[TimRobbins]

are any of those strategies something you could reasonably expect the next president, whether democrat or republican, to actually pursue? if so, which one(s)?

Is it reasonable to expect a president to do what's best for the country? I don't know. I think any reasonable person who knows and understands the region would stop pushing for the reunification of Iraq and Syria. I also believe the airstrikes are a waste of time and money - we can leave it to the Europeans and Russians.

I believe the only reasonable course of action for the next president is to diminish our presence in the ME.

[dice]

are any of those strategies something you could reasonably expect the next president, whether democrat or republican, to actually pursue? if so, which one(s)?

Is it reasonable to expect a president to do what's best for the country? I don't know. I think any reasonable person who knows and understands the region would stop pushing for the reunification of Iraq and Syria

reunification as in removing the border?

I believe the only reasonable course of action for the next president is to diminish our presence in the ME.

which is what obama has done. and you're calling him a "do nothing president"

[TimRobbins]

reunification as in removing the border?

Obama has been relentlessly pushing for the reunification of Iraq and Syria. He has continuously rejected recognizing a Kurdish state (even though one physically exists and is secular and pro-Western), and has continuously pushed for the Sunnis to live under Shia domination, which is why the Sunnis have turned to ISIS.

which is what obama has done. and you're calling him a "do nothing president"

Ending the War in Iraq happened a long time ago. Since then he's flip flopped on his ME policy countless times, and now he looks like he's coming a full circle by sending boots on the ground to Syria and Iraq. So yeah, he's clueless.

[dice]

reunification as in removing the border?

Obama has been relentlessly pushing for the reunification of Iraq and Syria

you didn't answer my question. so what has obama done in his "relentless push"?

He has continuously rejected recognizing a Kurdish state (even though one physically exists and is secular and pro-Western)

what does "recognizing a kurdish state" even mean? and has any US president ever done so? what would be the point?

and has continuously pushed for the Sunnis to live under Shia domination, which is why the Sunnis have turned to ISIS.

no, that situation was set up by the invasion of iraq when the new government structure was set up. not to mention barring saddam's army (who now comprise much of the leadership of ISIS) from participating in government and denying them pensions. obama can't exactly stuff the genie back in the bottle there

Ending the War in Iraq happened a long time ago. Since then he's flip flopped on his ME policy countless times, and now he looks like he's coming a full circle by sending boots on the ground to Syria and Iraq. So yeah, he's clueless.

the situation in the middle east has changed multiple times. and obama's position has been pretty damn consistent - limited troop involvement. how in the world is that "flip-flopping" countless times? and how can he flip-flop on a policy that you claim he doesn't even have?

[TimRobbins]

you didn't answer my question. so what has obama done in his "relentless push"?

That's the official US policy. Not sure what you're talking about.

what does "recognizing a kurdish state" even mean? and has any US president ever done so? what would be the point?

No other US president has faced a situation on the ground where a Kurdish state exists. What wold be the point of having another stable, secular, ally in the ME? Is this a serious question? What's the point of not recognizing a Kurdish state?

no, that situation was set up by the invasion of iraq when the new government structure was set up. not to mention barring saddam's army (who now comprise much of the leadership of ISIS) from participating in government and denying them pensions. obama can't exactly stuff the genie back in the bottle there

Yeah, it was setup by Bush. Why didn't Obama fix it?

the situation in the middle east has changed multiple times. and obama's position has been pretty damn consistent - limited troop involvement. how in the world is that "flip-flopping" countless times? and how can he flip-flop on a policy that you claim he doesn't even have?

Troops on the ground (something he's flip-flopping on now as well) is a very small fraction of foreign policy. Most of the foreign policy work is about diplomacy (talk), and arms/financial support. Obama has flip-flopped on just about everything in the ME from Egypt to Israel to Iran to Iraq and to Syria. His positions have continuously changed without any reasonable explanation. There is absolutely no strategy to our foreign policy, everything is ad-hoc and the positions shift so frequently that often the state-department itself isn't sure anymore.

[Rerisen]

They've got to go one way or the other. Either get out, or if you are staying in (which is of course reality), take the gloves off. I don't why it took a year to start bombing ISIS's oil transports. Or why the vast majority of our planes come back with bombs undropped. Or why if we need special forces we are just starting it now. Military is not happy with the ROE, lawyers in WAS picking targets. Obama says ISIS is contained his own Joint Chiefs general says they are not.

If a political solution is the answer, there won't be one till ISIS is gone, they aren't coming to a peace table. And to get rid of them going to have to find allies on the ground, it won't be secular democrats, but then pick the best alternative to ISIS. Will also need to stabilize the massive refugee flow, to ever quell the chaos enough for diplomacy, likely a safe zone of some kind. You can't re-establish society with no citizens in a country, but rather just a bunch of mercenaries.

[dice]

you didn't answer my question. so what has obama done in his "relentless push"?

That's the official US policy. Not sure what you're talking about.

there is no official US policy to reunify syria and iraq (which you still have not explained as to what that would entail)

what does "recognizing a kurdish state" even mean? and has any US president ever done so? what would be the point?

No other US president has faced a situation on the ground where a Kurdish state exists.[/quote]
kurdistan was autonomous well before the first gulf war

What wold be the point of having another stable, secular, ally in the ME? Is this a serious question? What's the point of not recognizing a Kurdish state?

you still haven't explained what "recognizing a kurdish state" means! they are not an independent nation state and many kurds do not want to be. nothing that america says or does would change that. and they are already our ally. a new name and official national borders would not change that

no, that situation was set up by the invasion of iraq when the new government structure was set up. not to mention barring saddam's army (who now comprise much of the leadership of ISIS) from participating in government and denying them pensions. obama can't exactly stuff the genie back in the bottle there

Yeah, it was setup by Bush. Why didn't Obama fix it?[/quote]
why didn't obama fix [insert bush era catastrophe]? if i had a nickel for every time i heard that one

see bold. obama does not have a time machine. he cannot say to members of ISIS "hey guys, we made a mistake, come on back and work for the iraqi government in harmony with the shia." nor does he have the power to tell the shia dominated government (that we helped set up!) of a shia majority nation to overhaul it's structure, particularly not after we have withdrawn our troop presence

the situation in the middle east has changed multiple times. and obama's position has been pretty damn consistent - limited troop involvement. how in the world is that "flip-flopping" countless times? and how can he flip-flop on a policy that you claim he doesn't even have?

Troops on the ground (something he's flip-flopping on now as well) is a very small fraction of foreign policy. Most of the foreign policy work is about diplomacy (talk), and arms/financial support. Obama has flip-flopped on just about everything in the ME from Egypt to Israel to Iran to Iraq and to Syria. His positions have continuously changed without any reasonable explanation. There is absolutely no strategy to our foreign policy, everything is ad-hoc and the positions shift so frequently that often the state-department itself isn't sure anymore.

he has certainly stopped doing things when they weren't working. he has also made minor adjustments to stated policy. but please name one impactful change in obama's middle east policy that was unwarranted

the situation in the middle east is volatile and fluid. any involved leader should be constantly shifting their country's middle east strategy in small tactical ways

you've simultaneously said that obama is "do nothing" and "aggressively pursuing reunification." you've suggested that america be less involved in the middle east while at the same time actively fixing what is wrong there. it's like you're picking random talking points from conflicting anti-obama blogs. it's incoherent

[TheSuzerain]

you didn't answer my question. so what has obama done in his "relentless push"?

That's the official US policy. Not sure what you're talking about.

what does "recognizing a kurdish state" even mean? and has any US president ever done so? what would be the point?

No other US president has faced a situation on the ground where a Kurdish state exists. What wold be the point of having another stable, secular, ally in the ME? Is this a serious question? What's the point of not recognizing a Kurdish state?

no, that situation was set up by the invasion of iraq when the new government structure was set up. not to mention barring saddam's army (who now comprise much of the leadership of ISIS) from participating in government and denying them pensions. obama can't exactly stuff the genie back in the bottle there

Yeah, it was setup by Bush. Why didn't Obama fix it?

the situation in the middle east has changed multiple times. and obama's position has been pretty damn consistent - limited troop involvement. how in the world is that "flip-flopping" countless times? and how can he flip-flop on a policy that you claim he doesn't even have?

Troops on the ground (something he's flip-flopping on now as well) is a very small fraction of foreign policy. Most of the foreign policy work is about diplomacy (talk), and arms/financial support. Obama has flip-flopped on just about everything in the ME from Egypt to Israel to Iran to Iraq and to Syria. His positions have continuously changed without any reasonable explanation. There is absolutely no strategy to our foreign policy, everything is ad-hoc and the positions shift so frequently that often the state-department itself isn't sure anymore.

Uh pissing off Turkey?

[musiqsoulchild]

I have an honest question for folks here - as you are all very knowledgeable.

We all accept and fully supported the advent of a Jewish state ( Israel). What would be the problem in having a similarly themed home /country for Muslims? Or, in other words, the Caliphate?

Lets be VERY CLEAR here ---- I am NOT advocating for Daesh and their pogrom. I am asking more as a theoretical question - whats wrong with having a Caliphate in the 21 st century?

[Rerisen]

I have an honest question for folks here - as you are all very knowledgeable.

We all accept and fully supported the advent of a Jewish state ( Israel). What would be the problem in having a similarly themed home /country for Muslims? Or, in other words, the Caliphate?

Lets be VERY CLEAR here ---- I am NOT advocating for Daesh and their pogrom. I am asking more as a theoretical question - whats wrong with having a Caliphate in the 21 st century?

They've got two choices already. Saudia Arabia or Iran.

Because Muslims can't agree on their own religion, to the point of violence. Meaning, who is running this fictional state, Shia's or Sunni's?

Also, Israel isn't a theocracy. Rights for minorities, rights for woman, etc.

[musiqsoulchild]

I have an honest question for folks here - as you are all very knowledgeable.

We all accept and fully supported the advent of a Jewish state ( Israel). What would be the problem in having a similarly themed home /country for Muslims? Or, in other words, the Caliphate?

Lets be VERY CLEAR here ---- I am NOT advocating for Daesh and their pogrom. I am asking more as a theoretical question - whats wrong with having a Caliphate in the 21 st century?

They've got two choices already. Saudia Arabia or Iran.

Because Muslims can't agree on their own religion, to the point of violence. Meaning, who is running this fictional state, Shia's or Sunni's?

Also, Israel isn't a theocracy. Rights for minorities, rights for woman, etc.

The theocracy part I get --- the other part I dont.

I can see how someone in the Middle East may think that there is a need for an adminstration/form of government that speaks for Muslims.

I mean - for whatever reason, deserved or not - that region has gone through a LOT. For a looooooooonnnnngggg time now. And its MOSTLY been a war fought along religious lines (crusades) and then the Israeli war in 1967 and now the Arab Spring.

At some point, the way out of this maybe to allow for the creation of a Caliphate that is more 21st century than 12th. After all, Israel's beauty is that they are not wedded to the Old Testament. They have always challenged their own thinkers and moved forward on cultural evolution.

[Rerisen]

At some point, the way out of this maybe to allow for the creation of a Caliphate that is more 21st century than 12th. After all, Israel's beauty is that they are not wedded to the Old Testament. They have always challenged their own thinkers and moved forward on cultural evolution.

Right now too many in the region are wedded to ancient extremist doctrine though. So I don't see how you would ever bring about the creation of this idea. When the people in the region couldn't agree on it themselves. Thus sectarian fighting for control of the territory would continue, even if the rest of the world said, "Lets tear up all borders in the M.E. make up one giant nation-sate and share all the oil." No one is going for that especially those who hold power in the region. Saudi royals aren't giving up power. Ayatollahs aren't giving up power/land. Jordan wouldn't want to throw in with much more troubled areas like Libya and Syria.