IAF attacks Syrian target
The Syrians have released video of damaged buildings and vehicles.
Syria releases images after Israeli air strike on Vimeo
The conspiracy nuts are going ballistic over this news. I know, I know it is a Debka source! Those pesky Russians and their MiG-31 Foxhounds!
Why do the gullible and naive always fall for this nonsense?
Russia slams Israeli attack on Syria. US forces in Jordan on alert
Syria releases images after Israeli air strike on Vimeo
The conspiracy nuts are going ballistic over this news. I know, I know it is a Debka source! Those pesky Russians and their MiG-31 Foxhounds!
Why do the gullible and naive always fall for this nonsense?
Lebanese sources later reported a Russian Mig-31 fighter had crossed over Sinai Wednesday in the direction of Israel. It veered west over the Mediterranean after encountering an Israeli warning not to intrude into its air space and continued flying over Lebanon.
Ditto. Interesting reading.
I love the way he says "America was a steward of wars in two Islamic countries already"(my italics). Sounds so much nicer than "We started them".
I love the way he says "America was a steward of wars in two Islamic countries already"(my italics). Sounds so much nicer than "We started them".
Yes I liked that too, Fox3. As well as the simple statement that the reactor "must go away". Move to a different neighbourhood? emmigrate to France? Go to Coventry. Or be vapourized off the face of the Earth?
For Fox3:
His is very correct in re stewardship. The wars begun were with the political aim of toppling two regimes: Taliban and Saddam. That was completed. The civil wars over which the US presided were not begun by the US, but rather by local factions who chose that path to try and grab what power they could when the previous power structure fell.
That wasn't a required course of action. It was elective. It was not dependent upon US will or influence, but rather in spite of it.
Regarding an interesting point Abrams makes (I don't much care for him, but this touches on something I used to deal with on a daily basis).
General John Abizaid once responded to criticism of foreign fighters infiltrating into Iraq from Syria and Saudi by pointing to our own southern border, and the problems there in peacetime. The infiltrators were using low tech smuggling methods there were centuries old in that region.
That Assad turned a blind eye to being the enabler of that movement strikes me as one reason "W" may have chosen to turn a blind eye on the Israeli move.
My guess is that "W" set up all of the other smoke screens and noise to drive Ohlmert into that decision, more or less backing him into a corner so that he had to act as he did.
His is very correct in re stewardship. The wars begun were with the political aim of toppling two regimes: Taliban and Saddam. That was completed. The civil wars over which the US presided were not begun by the US, but rather by local factions who chose that path to try and grab what power they could when the previous power structure fell.
That wasn't a required course of action. It was elective. It was not dependent upon US will or influence, but rather in spite of it.
Regarding an interesting point Abrams makes (I don't much care for him, but this touches on something I used to deal with on a daily basis).
A very well-placed Arab diplomat later told us that the strike had left Assad deeply worried as to what was coming next. He had turned Syria into the main transit route for jihadis going to Iraq to kill American soldiers. From Libya or Indonesia, Pakistan or Egypt, they would fly to Damascus International Airport and be shepherded into Iraq. Assad was afraid that on the heels of the Israeli strike would come American action to punish him for all this involvement. But just weeks later, Assad received his invitation to send a Syrian delegation to that big international confab of Condi’s, the Annapolis Conference, and according to the Arab envoy, Assad relaxed immediately; he knew he would be OK. I had not wanted Syria invited to Annapolis because of its involvement in killing Americans in Iraq, but Condi had wanted complete Arab representation as a sign that comprehensive peace might be possible. It was only years later that I learned that Assad had instead interpreted the invitation just as I had: as a sign that the United States would not seriously threaten or punish him for what Syria was doing in Iraq.
That Assad turned a blind eye to being the enabler of that movement strikes me as one reason "W" may have chosen to turn a blind eye on the Israeli move.
My guess is that "W" set up all of the other smoke screens and noise to drive Ohlmert into that decision, more or less backing him into a corner so that he had to act as he did.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 4th Feb 2013 at 14:19.
There are a large number of very experienced people in the world who see the pre- and post-war actions of the Bush Administration, not least the woeful lack of post-conflict planning and the immediate disbandment of the Iraqi Army, as leading directly to the civil war.
Fox, I understand what you are saying, but it isn't the US who started the Civil Wars. The locals did that. You can well argue that the US set the conditions that made such likely, and I'll agree, but it took local initiative to do so. The intent wasn't to follow the invastion with a civil war, the intent (badlly handled) was to enable a transformation. <-- That didn't work, for a variety of reasons.
I agree the civil war was started by the locals, but the Bush Administration started the conflict on the basis of realpolitik. It can hardly claim innocence when the locals post-war decided to do the same, especially when anyone with any experience of the region was telling them its actions (or lack of) would result in same.
Never mind the likely long term outcome, which will be another dictatorial regime that will hate the US a lot more than Saddam ever did.
Never mind the likely long term outcome, which will be another dictatorial regime that will hate the US a lot more than Saddam ever did.
Connect the dots using historical perspective rather than the bias of "very experienced" partisans. What is the history of nations post dictatorship?
Fox
Thank you, that is the semi pendantic point I was trying to make in re your casual comment on Abrams accurate statement of "stewardship" of the wars in progress at the time of his narrative. As above, he's not on my list of favorite policy wonks, not by a long shot.
Point further being is that in 2007, the context of his article, the US could have long since "conquered and left" either Iraq or Afghanistan, or both, but chose instead to try to be "good stewards" (in "W's" own inimitable fashion
) by trying to keep a lid in the civil wars that did indeed start as a consequence of the despots being tossed out. More realipolitik. 
It is my belief that the chain of events has informed President Obama's circumspection in re Syria, which leaves Israel basically in the role of lone actor, just as with W. It is my belief that this is a deliberate policy choice, and a deliberate political stance intended to gently influence events in a particular direction. Just as was W's.
That the policy behind the whole mess in Iraq had some serious holes isn't worth arguing in this thread (sorry for the derail), nor something I disagree with. I deemed the strategic risk to be that taking down Iraq only makes Iran stronger, which is against American interest at the time, and for the foreseeable future. Sadly, nobody at OSD was listening to me at the time.
Which brings us to Syria, at present an ally of Iran but for the near future, of dubious use as other than a playing field for intramural homicide.
I agree the civil war was started by the locals,
Point further being is that in 2007, the context of his article, the US could have long since "conquered and left" either Iraq or Afghanistan, or both, but chose instead to try to be "good stewards" (in "W's" own inimitable fashion
) by trying to keep a lid in the civil wars that did indeed start as a consequence of the despots being tossed out. More realipolitik. It is my belief that the chain of events has informed President Obama's circumspection in re Syria, which leaves Israel basically in the role of lone actor, just as with W. It is my belief that this is a deliberate policy choice, and a deliberate political stance intended to gently influence events in a particular direction. Just as was W's. That the policy behind the whole mess in Iraq had some serious holes isn't worth arguing in this thread (sorry for the derail), nor something I disagree with. I deemed the strategic risk to be that taking down Iraq only makes Iran stronger, which is against American interest at the time, and for the foreseeable future. Sadly, nobody at OSD was listening to me at the time.
Which brings us to Syria, at present an ally of Iran but for the near future, of dubious use as other than a playing field for intramural homicide.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 4th Feb 2013 at 18:09.
Any number of them. That a nation enter civil war after booting its strongman or gaining independence isn't a measure of the initial movement but of the divisiveness of its citizens minus a common enemy thereafter. Be that religious and clan affiliation post Saddam in Iraq or relatively secular, politically based divisions in Ireland after the British pullout.
As lone wolf mentions, the original predicate might have been set by the invasion, however with regards to the causes of the civil war, that powder keg was long in place before some post war narrative was thought up by the current intelligentsia to advance a political position.
As lone wolf mentions, the original predicate might have been set by the invasion, however with regards to the causes of the civil war, that powder keg was long in place before some post war narrative was thought up by the current intelligentsia to advance a political position.
Last edited by West Coast; 4th Feb 2013 at 18:22.
Forgive me. I get the drift of your arguments now.
Yes, the locals started the civil war. The US did not in a legal sense. I'm not one of the intellectuals who would dream of bringing the US to court for that.
However,
If the US had not invaded, would there have been a civil war? No
If the Bush Administration had actually bothered with some post-war planning, could a civil war have been largely or wholly suppressed? Probably
Did the US destroy the power structure? Yes, by disbanding the army, not simply by removing Saddam. Jay Garner told Bremer that.
In that sense, pragmatically, did the US 'start' the civil war? Yes
Has the Invasion of Iraq made the World a safer place? I doubt it.
Yes, the locals started the civil war. The US did not in a legal sense. I'm not one of the intellectuals who would dream of bringing the US to court for that.
However,
If the US had not invaded, would there have been a civil war? No
If the Bush Administration had actually bothered with some post-war planning, could a civil war have been largely or wholly suppressed? Probably
Did the US destroy the power structure? Yes, by disbanding the army, not simply by removing Saddam. Jay Garner told Bremer that.
In that sense, pragmatically, did the US 'start' the civil war? Yes
Has the Invasion of Iraq made the World a safer place? I doubt it.
Forgive me. I get the drift of your arguments now.
Yes, the locals started
the civil war. The US did not in a legal sense.
Yes, the locals started
the civil war. The US did not in a legal sense.
Of all the things the US Administration wanted to happen, a civil war wasn't one of them. This need got to the point of the absurd, when in 2005 there was OBVIOUSLY a civil war going on, but with each successive press conference Rummy and Cheney and a whole host of others got more and more adamant that "this isn't a civil war, this is some regime dead enders" which was purest horsecrap. I read the brief from Maj General Mattis' HQ (back 2004-2005 time frame) and it was freaking obvious what was going on.
However, If the US had not invaded, would there have been a civil war? No
The matter is to my view "when" not if.
Once Saddam died/fell (and he wasn't getting any younger) a civil war was a near certainty due to both internal pressure and the agendas of a few of his neighbors. Take a look at Egypt with Mubarak's fall for a mild taste, Syria for something less mild. To a certain extent, and this takes a bit of out of the box thinking to grasp, history might (might) suggest that W in his ham handed way did Iraq at large a favor by forcing the issue of the state of Post Saddam Iraq. I do not believe there could have been a peaceful power share. The grasping nature of the power factions simply would not permit that. See break up of Yugoslavia when Tito bit it for a fantastic example, and one which W and his inner circle deliberately ignored as they set their course in Iraq.
Civil war had been going on and off in Afghanistan since before the Russians invaded, it's a matter of degree, not kind.
If the Bush Administration had actually bothered with some post-war planning, could a civil war have been largely or wholly suppressed? Probably
Maybe. Maybe not.
Maybe firing the whole army was dumbest of policy mistakes that some idiots like Bremmer supported ... we'll never know. Maybe boosting that Shia maroon as the inserted president in waiting, or in exile, was an even bigger mistake ...
The inernal fractures were not of recent vintage. All that was needed was a tipping point.
Did the US destroy the power structure? Yes, by disbanding the army, not simply by removing Saddam. Jay Garner told Bremer that.
In that sense, pragmatically, did the US 'start' the civil war? Yes
The US set the conditions that made it more likely. People still had to decide to start killing one another over the power grab, rather than try to put together a new system without so doing. The US and its allies took some measures (albeit awkward and in a lot of ways ineffective) to prevent a civil war. "I want it NOW" with a gun tends to beget violence. That was the attitude being dealt with.
Has the Invasion of Iraq made the World a safer place? I doubt it.
Vague notions about "making the world a safer place" for much of anything I leave to intellectuals and ivory tower mop heads.
Or to nitwits like Feith. 
Or Wolfowitz. Now, link this all to Syria. It happened in Yugoslavia. It happened in Iraq. It keeps going on like a running sore in Afghanistan. It may happen in Egypt. It is happenind in Syria. Not sure how settled Libya is.
The next ten years won't be much safer, not by a long ******* shot.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 4th Feb 2013 at 20:16.
Fox
Well, not quite true I would suggest. There's been a number of uprisings in Iraq, all quashed by Saddam and his ilk. Given that a civil war did happen after the invasion, its not beyond the realm of possibilities that had a successful organic effort to see saddam off would also have led to civil war. the same underlying issues have been in place long before Saddam.
Subjective perhaps but led by history, I would suggest a highly probable scenario. As far as your statement regarding world safety, curious to know if that's just opinion or is there some way of determining that? Saddam was an odd bird and any future looking statement with regard to increasing or decreasing world safety to be considered accurate would have to account for his unpredictable nature. Not sure how you would do that.
Care to educate me?
Well, not quite true I would suggest. There's been a number of uprisings in Iraq, all quashed by Saddam and his ilk. Given that a civil war did happen after the invasion, its not beyond the realm of possibilities that had a successful organic effort to see saddam off would also have led to civil war. the same underlying issues have been in place long before Saddam.
Subjective perhaps but led by history, I would suggest a highly probable scenario. As far as your statement regarding world safety, curious to know if that's just opinion or is there some way of determining that? Saddam was an odd bird and any future looking statement with regard to increasing or decreasing world safety to be considered accurate would have to account for his unpredictable nature. Not sure how you would do that.
Care to educate me?
Last edited by West Coast; 4th Feb 2013 at 20:06.
All very valid points gentlemen, which I acknowledge.
I feel his sons would have been able to take over when he died, much as Bashar did in Syria. Whether Iraq would have collapsed into civil war triggered by the Arab Spring, I don't know. The youth unemployment wouldn't have been as bad as other countries, nor would initial protests have been likely to be allowed.
I chucked in the comment about world safety because, although not relevant to your point, it was one of the stated points by the Bush Administration.
Can I prove it? No, though I would contend that Saddam had no intentions of annoying America or the west, and was passionately opposed to Iran, and there are now factions with power (though not all are in Government) in Iraq who do and aren't respectively. Thus the world is less safe.
I feel his sons would have been able to take over when he died, much as Bashar did in Syria. Whether Iraq would have collapsed into civil war triggered by the Arab Spring, I don't know. The youth unemployment wouldn't have been as bad as other countries, nor would initial protests have been likely to be allowed.
I chucked in the comment about world safety because, although not relevant to your point, it was one of the stated points by the Bush Administration.
Can I prove it? No, though I would contend that Saddam had no intentions of annoying America or the west, and was passionately opposed to Iran, and there are now factions with power (though not all are in Government) in Iraq who do and aren't respectively. Thus the world is less safe.
Fox, while I doubt the boys would have been as effective as Saddam, it is one way it could have played out.
The world has been increasingly less safe since the Wall fell in '89. The multi polar world includes national actors, and extra national actors. The non safeness of the world was driven home to Americans, at long last, in September of 2001. A lot of us in uniform knew how unsafe things already were, but nobody wanted to hear it. Beyond our shores, plenty of folks in Africa and Europe were already keenly aware of the blood price of political change.
As a general rule, a multi-polar world is inherentlly less safe than the bi-polar world of the Cold War. For a thought experiment, apply the model of 17th century Europe to the global situation of now and you may see what I mean. Even with the Treaty of Westphalia, there remained multiple power nodes, any which could force a shift in the status quo via armed means. Likewise, multi polar political dynamics in 1914 and 1939 sent Europe up on flames.
When the American policial morons went ape over "the peace dividend" when the Wall fell, mine was one of a number of dissenting voices warning that the world had just gotten more uncertain, what with China growing, and with multiple poles arising, not less. The noise of "the world's only super power" coming from our political class drowned out those who looked a bit deeper than the next election cycle.
As to what happens in Syria any time soon, you may find of interest a piece provided in the recent New York Times:
After Assad, Chaos? By Ramzy Mardini
Worth a look.
The world has been increasingly less safe since the Wall fell in '89. The multi polar world includes national actors, and extra national actors. The non safeness of the world was driven home to Americans, at long last, in September of 2001. A lot of us in uniform knew how unsafe things already were, but nobody wanted to hear it. Beyond our shores, plenty of folks in Africa and Europe were already keenly aware of the blood price of political change.
As a general rule, a multi-polar world is inherentlly less safe than the bi-polar world of the Cold War. For a thought experiment, apply the model of 17th century Europe to the global situation of now and you may see what I mean. Even with the Treaty of Westphalia, there remained multiple power nodes, any which could force a shift in the status quo via armed means. Likewise, multi polar political dynamics in 1914 and 1939 sent Europe up on flames.
When the American policial morons went ape over "the peace dividend" when the Wall fell, mine was one of a number of dissenting voices warning that the world had just gotten more uncertain, what with China growing, and with multiple poles arising, not less. The noise of "the world's only super power" coming from our political class drowned out those who looked a bit deeper than the next election cycle.
As to what happens in Syria any time soon, you may find of interest a piece provided in the recent New York Times:
After Assad, Chaos? By Ramzy Mardini
Worth a look.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 4th Feb 2013 at 22:21.