tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post82497125183367116..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: Blaming Putin For Being Putin Is UnjustifiedFreedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-53763804047239026032013-09-21T21:09:44.319-07:002013-09-21T21:09:44.319-07:00Sorry about the multiple posts here. As stated in...Sorry about the multiple posts here. As stated in the previous posts, the questions I pose regarding any invasion of Syria are far from exhaustive as to the factors that would need to be considered, however, there are two more questions that need to be posed that are so important that they simply must be mentioned.<br /><br />1.) Is it possible to gain the support of the American people for an attack on Syria? If Syria directly attacked America directly AFTER America withdrew all forces from the regions and even the current limited support for the rebels, the American people MIGHT support military action against Syria. To many Americans are of the opinion that America "has it coming" for its prior foreign policy actions. <br /><br />It must be understood that America politically is a left of center nation as of this date. As such, America is the least nationalist country on earth and Americans will reflexively oppose virtually any proposed military actions its leaders might propose. Whereas Russia, China, and other adversaries and potential adversaries can count on their citizens to "rally around the flag" and to rally around the leaders in a conflict with America, America's leaders cannot count on this. In fact, quite the opposite is likely to occur at present. I see no possibility of being able to change this dynamic within a generation at best. <br /><br />2.) Can America count on any allies, such as Western European nations, Japan, Australia, and any other allies to support it in an invasion of Syria. At this time, the answer to this is a resounding no. With the possible exception of Australia strong currents of anti-Americanism run through these nations.<br /><br />The only conceivable support America might have in the foreseeable future are Sunni Arab nations who are heavily influenced by Al Qaeda. Relying on them is a bit like relying on a rattlesnakes to eliminate the rats infesting your house. They may eat the rats but at some point they are going to attack you. Furthermore as discussed previously it would be VERY difficult, if not impossible to prevent any weapons supplied to these groups from being used against us, our interests, or our ally Israel. The performance of the military and political leaders to date would appear to indicate they do not have the competence to carry this out. These are yet more reasons why a military operation against Syria appears to be an exceedingly bad idea. B.Posternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-10744544923800206612013-09-21T16:21:53.157-07:002013-09-21T16:21:53.157-07:003.)In an attack on Syria, the Russians have threat...3.)In an attack on Syria, the Russians have threatened to respond by attacking Saudi Arabia, specifically the oil fields. Can these valuable oil fields be protected?<br /><br />4.)In the event of an attack on Syria, Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. Can this be prevented or if the strait is closed down can it be reopened?<br /><br />5.)With the massive national debt the US faces, the struggling economy it faces, and the worn down military it has at its disposal is it possible to maintain the type of credible force for the length of time that would be needed to defeat Syria and the Assad forces?<br /><br />6.)It seems extremely likely that Hezbollah forces, Iranian forces, and other enemy forces who are already in the US will attempt to launch devastating attacks against the American mainland. Can American citizens and American infrastructure be protected from this?<br /><br />7.)Part of the result of an attack on Syria will likely be an attack by Arab forces on Israel. Can any thing be done to protect Israel from this? Furthermore what is Israel's position on this? Can Israeli interests be advanced from an attack on Syria? Again, most importantly what is their position on this? Given that this action places an important ally in grave danger even more than they are already in, they need to be closely consulted with on this.<br /><br />These seven points are hardly exhaustive. Many other points will need to be considered. This is the minimum. <br /><br />The answer to all of the questions is likely "yes" but it will require extraordinary skill and precise execution. Once the answers are determined to be "yes" then one has to determine is it worth the risk. Since other opportunities may never present themselves, if it is determined the risk is worth it then it must be asked do American military and political leaders have the competence to pull it off. Based upon their track records, the answer to this final question is a resounding NO.<br /><br />As such, we need to find other ways to defend our nation and advance our interests. There are ways to do this but that is for another post.<br /><br />With regard to question 1, it was primarily through guile that America thwarted Russia during the first cold war. (A credible nuclear deterrent helped greatly!!) Had it come down to a question of brute conventional strength only, we would have lost and lost handily but alas the people who currently run things lack the necessary guile to pull it off. <br /><br />With regards to point 7 Israel is fully capable of taking care of itself. The best thing for us to do is to stay out of their way. Unfortunately a botched execution would make things infinitely more difficult for our ally. They need to be consulted closely on this. Unfortunately it appears they are not being consulted at the level they should be. Not good, especially when considering they can offer us valuable insight on Syria that we currently do not possess and it shows disrespect for a valuable and trusted ally. Leads me to wonder who will ever trust us again, if our leaders treat allies in this manner.B.Posternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-11288768334121369182013-09-21T15:59:37.363-07:002013-09-21T15:59:37.363-07:00There is an opportunity here to deal Russia and Ir...There is an opportunity here to deal Russia and Iran a crushing blow by crushing their ally Syria, however, such an action would be very difficult and would be fraught with tremendous risk. Respectfully I think your odds of 50/50 of destabilizing the region are overly optimistic. The odds are actually about 99.9999/.0001 of destabilizing the Middle East. In order to avoid this, their would be virtually zero margin for error. <br /><br />Given the track record of US military leaders and US political leaders of late, it seems exceedingly unlikely that they have the competence to pull such a thing off. The general incompetence is a consequence of promoting political hacks who fit the proper political mode rather than promoting based upon competence in the military and the government at large. As such, we are left with incompetent nitwits who are leading America's warriors. As such, I see no possible way a military action against Syria or any other military power can possibly end well for us at this juncture. <br /><br />A "limited strike" is absolutely the wrong way to go. For someone to suggest such a thing, someone is either very, very stupid or blinded by ideology. The problem is likely a combination of the two. <br /><br />With that said, if military action is taken against Syria, the following factors will need to be considered. <br /><br />1.)Russia has threatened to intervene if either Iran or Syria is attacked. When Russia intervenes, China will intervene on the side of Russia as well. At present, it seems unlikely that US forces are in any condition to fight and win a conflict with Russia. Defeating the combined forces of Russia and China is an even greater long shot. Can US forces be brought up to the level needed in short order or can we prevail through guile?<br /><br />2.)Given that the non extremist Syrian rebels are not well trained in military combat and the US has a severe shortage of military trainers, there never has been any real possibility of training a non extremist army to confront Assad'd forces. Such thoughts were and are the stuff of ideologues and fantasizers. As such, it has always been clear we would need to coordinate closely with Extremists forces to successfully confront Assad and his allies. This likely means the supplying of weapons to Islamic Extremists who are closely allied with Al Qaeda. In this case, is it possible to prevent those weapons from being used against us, Israel, Christian groups within Syria, and other minorities within Syria?<br /><br />Since this is running long the remainder of points to be considered will be in another post. This is a very complex topic that I will try to keep brief. B.Posternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-56688291528132037512013-09-20T20:58:22.331-07:002013-09-20T20:58:22.331-07:00We should hope this is not a new cold war. If it ...We should hope this is not a new cold war. If it is, we are in deep sh*t. Briefly to compare and contrast our situation now with Cold War 1: 1.)During Cold War we were allied with militarily strong Western European nations who had the same commitment to defeating the Soviet Union we did. At this stage of Cold War 2, these Western European nations, have weakened militaries, a strong current of anti-Americanism runs through them, and many of them are heavily dependent upon Russian oil supplies. As such, we can expect no help from them. <br /><br />2.)During Cold War 1 we were closely allied with the mujahedeen who were instrumental in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. I think its self explanatory why they cannot be relied upon during Cold War 2.<br /><br />3.)During Cold War 1 Russia and China had frosty relations. Now the powers are closely allied. Additionally, Russia can rely on help from the other BRICS, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and most Central and South American nations in any conflict with the United States. In contrast, the United States is virtually alone, if not entirely alone. <br /><br />4.) During Cold War 1 the United States had sufficient numbers of properly trained soldiers and state of the art military equipment to provide a credible military deterrent. Today America's military equipment is worn down and outdated, there is a shortage of properly trained soldiers to be effective on the 21st century battlefield, and America faces a severe shortage of military trainers to address the problem with the soldiers. <br /><br />5.)During Cold War 1 America had a robust nuclear deterrent. In recent years, the Russians have upgraded and expanded their arsenal. The United States has neglected this area to the point that it is questionable whether or not we even have a credible nuclear deterrent. Even if we began trying catch up now, there is a shortage of facilities, lack of properly trained personnel to address any of this, and major financial challenges brought on by the massive national debt that make addressing any of this problematic.<br /><br />I could go on but am running out of space. Suffice it to say today America would have to fight Cold War 2 alone with military capabilities currently incapable of the task against a unified enemy with numerous and dedicated allies. <br /><br />If Sun Tzu were alive today, I think he would have something to say about our predicament. I shall have to read up on his teachings. I know what comes to mind for me. The term is perhaps we should "sue for peace." This certainly seems preferable to pondering futile military actions against Syria. Suffice it to say we best hope this is not a new cold war. B.Posternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-52445928226080262172013-09-17T22:37:36.792-07:002013-09-17T22:37:36.792-07:00i didn't understand what all the faux vomit wa...i didn't understand what all the faux vomit was about putin's comments.<br />especially the referenced exceptionalism.<br />he simply reiterated what hussein has been telling us for five years.louielouienoreply@blogger.com