Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: Obama's Syrian plan lacks a 'logical premise and a well-designed goal' (218 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Joyner's article is troubling since claiming that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    no strategic goal exists is based not on citing von Clauswitz, or selectively describing the payload options for cruise missiles (you want moral approbation, include the tactical nukes), or even omitting the apparently successful 2011 Libyan cruise missile campaign while mentioning the 1986 and 1989 Libyan attacks. Mr Joyner, the absence of your goals does not mean that goals don't exist and that the objectives require the kind of strategic process we are only beginning in a situation with many moving policy parts in order to get to an "acceptable price" since it may emerge in the context of or even despite distinguishing among the red line, bright line, line in the sand memes.

    Cohen prefers a more robust campaign with "serious targets" such as the air force, air defense system, and airports. But the reason we haven't already done that, despite a stated goal of regime change, is that we have no way of achieving that objective at an acceptable price. In his letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee a month ago, Joint Chiefs chairman General Martin Dempsey outlined our military options, which ranged from horrible to awful.
    Dempsey warned then that it "is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state." He added, "Should the regime's institutions collapse in the absence of a viable opposition, we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control." Red lines or not, that hasn't changed.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:50:08 PM PDT

    •  My take on Joyners piece is not that goals .. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, CenPhx, truong son traveler

      ..don't exist..but that bombing in order to save lives doesn't cut it.
      James Joyner writes:

      If the goal is to send the message that using chemical weapons is unacceptable, as security specialist Charli Carpenter notes in Foreign Affairs,  it would be unfortunate to use "Tomahawk missiles, which are capable of carrying cluster munitions and which have been decried on humanitarian grounds by numerous governments and civil society groups."
      So innocents will be hurt or killed.

      And then Joyner references  Joint Chiefs chairman General Martin Dempsey who points out that if Assad is toppled:

      "Should the regime's institutions collapse in the absence of a viable opposition, we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control."
      So it may unleash more CW on civilians in the end.
      •  my (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Nelson

        beef is with the straw man of "logical premise and well-designed goal" since for example once any battle starts all planning changes, as well as Joyner's own shoddy logic

        Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

        by annieli on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:41:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site