Exit Strategy v. Enter Strategy

[Flanders]

Let me start with a good one from the Divine Sarah. The intellect behind this face said:

"So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” So, said Sarah Palin Friday evening.

Sarah Palin mocks Obama for his Syria bumbling
By Andrew Malcolm
Posted 08/30/2013 09:04 PM ET

Sarah Palin mocks Obama for his Syria bumbling - Investors.com

The intellect behind this face wants the US military to bomb Syria:

Jim Treacher over at the Daily Caller summed it up nicely:

We have to bomb Syria to find out what’s in it.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/30/pelosi-we-have-to-bomb-syria-to-find-out-wha

Next

I’m as skeptical as Garth Kant over who done it in Syria. The Administration is blaming Bashar Assad but:

. . . Kerry did not provide any actual evidence backing up those assertions.

XXXXX​

. . . the document the State Department released does not show any actual evidence to support the administration’s accusation that Syria launched a chemical attack on its own people on Aug. 21.

One of the key proofs the administration offers against Assad’s military is where the chemical weapons were launched from and where they landed:

“We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas, and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods,” he added in a news conference from the State Department Friday, while making the administration’s case for a possible military strike on Syria.

Kerry: Assad is the gasser but 'proof' not revealed
Says U.S. credibility, interests on line
Published: 18 hours ago
GARTH KANT

Kerry: Assad is the gasser but ?proof? not revealed

Until proven otherwise, the rebels could just as easily have fired them from Assad-held territory. They’d be fools to launch them from their own territory.

Where did the rebels get chemical weapons? It does not take much imagination to answer that one assuming the dead shown in the video clips flooding the news were gassed. Barack Taqiyya & Company have been lying about everything for five years; so it’s going to take a boatload of solid evidence to prove they aren’t lying about who did it in Syria.

Even if real proof is forthcoming America should not take sides in a civil war. The time to act is after the winning side proves to be a military threat to this country.

And what ever happened to exit strategy? There was a time when Democrats insisted that an exit strategy was the primary component in sending the US military to foreign countries. Question: Where’s the exit strategy in Syria? Indeed, where is the exit strategy in Egypt, Libya, and so on? Of course, no military exit strategy is needed when there are no boots on the ground. The question should be: Where is the political exit strategy after the bombing stops? The Balkans tell us that the touchy-feely crowd never have a political exit strategy. In fact, after the bombing stopped in the Balkans US troops were sent to Bosnia:

Clinton Will Keep Troops in Bosnia
By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 19, 1997; Page A01

washingtonpost.com: Clinton Will Keep Troops in Bosnia

To be fair to Clinton he had a strategy —— only it was an enter strategy. Those boots on the ground are still there contrary to Clinton telling the public the troops would be home by Christmas.

Bottom line on all of it: American Socialists/Communists are moving the US military towards responding to philosophical threats and away from defending the country. Their strategy was formulated in the Vietnam War era. Basically, UN-loving traitors like John Kerry said if Communist countries are not a military threat Communism cannot be a philosophical threat; ergo, we decide what constitutes a threat.

 

[Richard-H]

By your definition of an exit strategy, we have not had an exit strategy for WWII or the Korean war - we still have troops in Germany, Okinawa & Korea. Does that mean that we should never have entered into those wars?

At this point it's silly to argue that the Assad regime is not responsible for the chemical attacks against Syrian civilians last week.

The questions that remain are:

- Should the U.S. take action unilaterally?

- If so, what level of action should we take?

This is not about Syria, it's about the mass murder of civilians by chemical weapons AND it's about the reintroduction of chemical weapons into use after almost 100 years of international agreements not to use them.

It's my belief that chemical weapons are indiscriminate WMDs and that there use constitutes a threat to all humanity. Everyone in this world should be scared shitless at the notion of chemical weapons being reintroduced.

I think that we can all acknowledge that the fact that no one reacted when The Iraqis used them back in the 1980s was a tremendous mistake. If we had reacted back then, most probably the Syrians would not have used them now.

It is almost certain that if we do nothing in response:


- Chemical weapons use will increase throughout the world.

- Manufacturing and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons will increase.

- The world's population will not take exception to there use - it will be considered the
norm in warfare.

- Terrorist group will obtain and use chemical weapons.

NOW is the time to act! If we do not, it will only be a matter of time before these weapons are used against the U.S. population.

If we are to act we should do so in a robust way - we should decisively change the strategic situation in Syria - and send a clear message to the world that anyone who uses chemical weapons will have disaster reigned down upon them.

 

[Flanders]

By your definition of an exit strategy,

To Richard-H: How did you deduce my exit strategy since I never said what it is?

For future reference: Total victory, as in WWII, is my definition of exit strategy.

we have not had an exit strategy for WWII or the Korean war - we still have troops in Germany, Okinawa & Korea.

To Richard-H: Occupation for as long as the victor decides is a part of exit strategy. Note that it worked exceptionally well in Germany and Japan.

Korea, and the one you failed to mention, Vietnam, were Peace Without Victory Wars. Such wars must always end in a tie or in defeat as in Vietnam thanks to Kerry and his kind.

Incidentally, fighting Peace Without Victory wars is just as reckless as is choosing sides in a civil war.

Does that mean that we should never have entered into those wars?

To Richard-H: Does your question mean you would not have fought a real military threat like Communist expansion, but you would bomb Syria when it poses no military threat to the US?

At this point it's silly to argue that the Assad regime is not responsible for the chemical attacks against Syrian civilians last week.

To Richard-H: It will become silly when the Administration presents irrefutable proof of Assad’s guilt.

The questions that remain are:

- Should the U.S. take action unilaterally?

To Richard-H: No.

Unilateral action is America’s absolute Right of self-defense. There is no justification for action of any kind in a civil war.

Parenthetically, the Spanish Civil War (1936 to 1939) is a case in point. It could not have turned out better for US non-interference. Franco defeated the Communists, but remained neutral in WWII for whatever reasons. Bombing Syria will not turn out so well.

- If so, what level of action should we take?

To Richard-H: Your premise is false. No matter. The answer is none regardless of how you frame the question.

This is not about Syria, it's about the mass murder of civilians by chemical weapons

To Richard-H: Find a better argument. Government’s practiced mass murder throughout the 20th century. The same people who now want to bomb Syria turned a blind eye to Communist governments slaughtering civilians in the tens of millions.

AND it's about the reintroduction of chemical weapons into use after almost 100 years of international agreements not to use them.

To Richard-H: That’s the ruling class’ argument. Prior to mustard gas being dropped from aircraft in WWI ruling classes had no qualms about sending others out to die. That all changed when they realized they could be killed along with everybody else. Some three decades later atomic bombs added to their fear.

Question: Is it the method of death that you fear? If so, how is dying in a nuclear blast, or dying in a biological weapon attack, worse than having your head cut off?

It's my belief that chemical weapons are indiscriminate WMDs and that there use constitutes a threat to all humanity. Everyone in this world should be scared shitless at the notion of chemical weapons being reintroduced.

To Richard-H: Don’t give me that humanity horseshit until you can explain why one form of death is worse than another.

I think that we can all acknowledge that the fact that no one reacted when The Iraqis used them back in the 1980s was a tremendous mistake. If we had reacted back then, most probably the Syrians would not have used them now.

To Richard-H: There is no proof of that. On the other hand Bush the Younger gets no credit from the Left for taking out Saddam Hussein because everyone believed he had nuclear capabilities.

It is almost certain that if we do nothing in response:

- Chemical weapons use will increase throughout the world.

- Manufacturing and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons will increase.

To Richard-H: Exactly which response will stop chemical WMD proliferation? Tell the world If you know how to accomplish it because it should work on nuclear proliferation as well.

- The world's population will not take exception to there use - it will be considered the
norm in warfare.

To Richard-H: Look at the evolution of weapons and you’ll see that killing with any available weapon IS the norm in warfare.

- Terrorist group will obtain and use chemical weapons.

To Richard-H: Again, why chemical and not nuclear?

NOW is the time to act! If we do not, it will only be a matter of time before these weapons are used against the U.S. population.

To Richard-H: No they won’t if America maintains superior retaliatory capabilities irrespective of disastrous treaties like New START that Kerry and Barack Taqiyya love so much.

And what makes you so sure enemies with biological WMD have a suicide wish? Possessing biological WMD does not go hand in hand with more courage than the nuclear Chicoms, North Koreans, and Soviet Communists, ever had? Iran will soon join the others. The means along with the will to wipe them out is the only thing that will ever keep an enemy in check.

If we are to act we should do so in a robust way - we should decisively change the strategic situation in Syria - and send a clear message to the world that anyone who uses chemical weapons will have disaster reigned down upon them.

To Richard-H: That message was sent to every country contemplating a cross-border war. Barack Taqiyya’s message should go by Western Union not Tomahawk missiles.

 

[Flanders]

Break out the shovels the bull crap is piling up:

Obama to seek Congress vote on military action in Syria
President makes strong case for air strikes - but there is no guarantee the legislature will back him

Cameron's Commons fiasco prompts Obama to seek Congress vote on military action in Syria - Americas - World - The Independent

Oh yeah, like there is a chance Congress will say no. He was sure he had the votes before he went to Congress. He knows he has the Senate and the Democrats in the House. The only thing he needs is a few House Republicans to go along. That won’t be difficult from what I’m hearing; “America has a moral obligation to act now” blah, blah, blah.

Barack Taqiyya is milking Syria for all of the publicity he can get in a last ditch attempt to set himself up as a moral leader. Judi McLeod over at Canada Free Press pegged him in Friday’s column:

If there’s anything Barack Obama loves as much as himself it’s publicity.

Obama wants his name on the lips of all citizens of the world’s nations, his image flashing on every big screen television; his identity mixed with that of Jesus Christ; to channeling whatever American president suits his convenience at the time; his picture ad infinitum.

Like the thrill that comes from spending other people’s money, he just can’t get enough of it.

Obama’s war-game on Syria a publicity stunt?
By Judi McLeod Friday, August 30, 2013

Obama?s war-game on Syria a publicity stunt?

The media cooperated in full; especially FOX. Yesterday, FOX ran so many clips of the Chicago sewer rat making his case I assumed he had been put on the payroll.

Barack Taqiyya & Company are determined to turn killing into a moral imperative. Just look at the faces of the people around him. Killing babies was never their end game. Just like Muslim fanatics killing for the love of killing is what they’ve been after. Remember how Socialists/Communists turned infanticide into a moral choice if you doubt me. The civil war in Syria is their opening to kill and call a moral imperative.

And has anyone noticed that defunding the Affordable Care Act has been driven from the news? Stalling before getting down to the killing will all but defuse the efforts to defund

To me, the most sickening aspect of all is that so many Americans believe that their own moral compass is not as good as the moral image the scum in government try to project. I will never understand how any American can believe that garbage like Barack Taqiyya, Biden, the Clintons, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and so on are morally superior people. The lot of them are after the authority to kill. Syrians who pose no threat to the United States just happen to be the first convenient target.

From the OP
Bottom line on all of it: American Socialists/Communists are moving the US military towards responding to philosophical threats and away from defending the country. Their strategy was formulated in the Vietnam War era. Basically, UN-loving traitors like John Kerry said if Communist countries are not a military threat Communism cannot be a philosophical threat; ergo, we decide what constitutes a threat.

 

[editec]

Anyone notice that the list of governments that must or have already fallen also happen to be the same governments that tried to end the PETRODOLLAR SYSTEM?

Pure coincidence, of course...its not about money..its all freedom

 

[dilloduck]

Anyone notice that the list of governments that must or have already fallen also happen to be the same governments that tried to end the PETRODOLLAR SYSTEM?

Pure coincidence, of course...its not about money..its all freedom

It's all about money, pipelines, oil and gas. When millions were being slaughtered in the Congo we did virtually nothing.

 

[Mushroom]

Anyone notice that the list of governments that must or have already fallen also happen to be the same governments that tried to end the PETRODOLLAR SYSTEM?

Pure coincidence, of course...its not about money..its all freedom

Interesting theory, to bad it is not true.

Iraq had no problem trading in Dollars. After all, the US Dollar is probably the most fungible currency in the world. And the same goes with Libya.

The only countries I am aware of that are pushing for a change to another currency (Euro) is Iran and Venezuela. And with the instability of that currency, I expect to see that happen about the time that hell freezes over.

"Petrodollar" is largely a myth, any dollar which is used to buy and sell oil is a petrodollar. For oil from the North Sea, it is the Pound. For natural gas from the North Sea it is the Dutch Guilder. From Canada it is the Canadian Dollar. For OPEC, the choice was the US Dollar, simply because of it's stability and resistance to strong inflationary or deflationary trends.

The Euro actually was gaining some consideration among OPEC members for a new standard, until the recent decade of rollercoaster rise and fall of the value of the Euro (as well as the current economic slide in Europe) made all but Iran and Venezuela pull away from it.

And it is more then just the US itself that matters here. A lot of countries around the world use the US Dollar as either it's official or unofficial currency. Panama, British Virgin Islands, Timor, Palau, Caribbean Netherlands, Ecuador, El Salvador, Micronesia, Bahamas, Uruguay, Belize, Vietnam, Cambodia, Liberia, Lebanon, Haiti, and even North Korea have the US Dollar as either their own currency, the currency that theirs is tied to, or as their major trading currency.

The Euro was in consideration for at least some of these nations as a replacement, but they have all backed away. The only nations that use the Euro as their dollarized currency are nations that were tied to pre-Euro currencies like Kosovo (German Mark), Monaco (French Franc), Vatican City (Italian Lira) and Montenegro (German Mark).

So you can say this all you want, to bad it has no basis in truth whatsoever. In fact, even though Iraq officially uses the Iraq Dinar as it's currency, most trading still happens in US Dollars. This is because of the instability of the nation and the runaway inflation.

The Iraqi Dinar was intended to be of a similar value to the US Dollar, with an intended exchange of 4 Dinar to a Dollar. But with the current exchange rate being over 1,100 Dinar to the Dollar, nobody keeps their money in Dinar unless they have to, or to buy small items that are valued under $1.

In fact, it would probably help the US economy if the OPEC Petrodollar was moved to something else. In a case much like the cart dragging the horse, the price of oil rising and falling often has detrimental effects on the US Dollar, dragging it's value up and down along with the price of oil. That effect is the main reason why the US (and most other nations) left the "Gold Standard" decades ago.

 

[Mushroom]

To Richard-H: How did you deduce my exit strategy since I never said what it is?

For future reference: Total victory, as in WWII, is my definition of exit strategy.

To Richard-H: Occupation for as long as the victor decides is a part of exit strategy. Note that it worked exceptionally well in Germany and Japan.

OK, then that should be the "Exit Strategy" for every war from now on. Eternal occupation. This means you should have absolutely no problem keeping troops in Afghanistan for half a century, and did not complain about our troops in Iraq, right?

Personally, I find the entire concept of "Exit Strategy" laughable, and simply a stupid political ploy. And every time I hear the word (from Republicans or Democrats), I know it is simply a phrase that is used in a political attack. Republicans used it against President Clinton, Democrats used it against President Bush.

And in both cases I found it a stupid claim.

 

[Flanders]

To Richard-H: How did you deduce my exit strategy since I never said what it is?

For future reference: Total victory, as in WWII, is my definition of exit strategy.

To Richard-H: Occupation for as long as the victor decides is a part of exit strategy. Note that it worked exceptionally well in Germany and Japan.

OK, then that should be the "Exit Strategy" for every war from now on. Eternal occupation.

To Mushroom: Did you miss this, or fail to comprehend it?:

From #3 permalink
To Richard-H: Occupation for as long as the victor decides is a part of exit strategy. Note that it worked exceptionally well in Germany and Japan.

Korea, and the one you failed to mention, Vietnam, were Peace Without Victory Wars. Such wars must always end in a tie or in defeat as in Vietnam thanks to Kerry and his kind.

Incidentally, fighting Peace Without Victory wars is just as reckless as is choosing sides in a civil war.

This means you should have absolutely no problem keeping troops in Afghanistan for half a century,

To Mushroom: Am I going too fast for you?

Peace Without Victory wars dramatically change the rules of occupation.

and did not complain about our troops in Iraq, right?

To Mushroom: Correct.

I did complain that America won a total victory in Iraq but blew the occupation. Military leaders should have learned from Algeria when it was a French colony. They didn’t.

The lesson learned in Algeria and Iraq taught that future wars must be fought without occupation as the end game when it is certain the enemy will fallback on terrorist acts to drive out the occupiers. In short: The enemy must surrender completely as they did in WWII. Muslim fanatics show that total surrender is not possible. In those cases the infrastructure of a defeated country should be blotted out. Every airfield, every dam, every power plant, every bridge, every tunnel, and every railway line should be wiped out for at least a century.

I’d go so far as to notify those countries bordering on the defeated country that accepting refugees would be an act of war. Do all that I suggest just once and you’ll see how fast the desire for martyrdom vanishes from warfare.

NOTE: The current push to bomb Syria does nothing for America’s security even though occupation is not on the table. In fact, the “best recruiting tool for terrorists” argument Democrats used during the Iraq War is much more apt in Syria.

In other words stay the hell out of civil wars; especially when the side you support is a bigger longterm threat than the side you want defeated.

Finally, don’t be fooled by the ruling class’ fear of dying along with everybody else:

From #3 permalink
To Richard-H: That’s the ruling class’ argument. Prior to mustard gas being dropped from aircraft in WWI ruling classes had no qualms about sending others out to die. That all changed when they realized they could be killed along with everybody else. Some three decades later atomic bombs added to their fear.

Had “somebody” NOT used gas sarin gas in Syria Barack Taqiyya & Company could not make the ruling class’ case for taking sides in a civil war.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The exit strategy is to walk away following missile strikes and allow sectarian violence in Syria to weaken Iran by Saudi and western agents. Of course, the inevitable military response by Syria, Hezbollah, and even Iran against Israel would draw us back into a protracted military conflict that we can ill afford and has a strong likelihood to start some a nuclear war and some of the scarrier passages of Revelations and Daniel.

 

[whitehall]

WTF are we thinking? Have we become a Nation of wimps since the democrat party turned traitor and renounced the Iraq conflict? We aren't talking about war so there is no exit strategy except for the political cowards who might want to spin the operation. America is the globe's last super power. We have more concentrated conventional destructive power in a Stealth Bomber or Submarine. It's about punishing Syria and it seems the administration doesn't have the heart for it.