RE: Apparently We Have Invaded Syria
January 21, 2018 at 12:14 pm
(This post was last modified: January 21, 2018 at 12:22 pm by CapnAwesome.)
(January 21, 2018 at 11:36 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:(January 21, 2018 at 11:17 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: What the fuck is the deal with Syria. It's a powder keg. So many countries just fucking around there. Turkey just invaded the North to take out the Kurds, who we armed and trained.
Wr actually armed a communist group to fight ISIS, 21st century is so weird.
If Hillary were president, we'd be way more involved in Syria. It would be hard to deny that.
Way more involved in what way? Troops? I highly doubt it. Involved as in actually thinking about it and taking a role in definition coherent policy? Absolutely.
I believe she would endeavor to play a deeper game to turn the situation against Russia by not gratuitously pissing off Iran, not gratuitously sucking up to Saudi Arabia, and arming groups in Syria connected to breakaway fractions in southern Russia.
So under Hillary the US would be more deeply involved by playing a more coherent game across the region and attempt to play regional players as chess pieces in a overall game, rather than a series of disjointed and individually risky ad hoc ventures without any mutural synergy or mutural risk offset.
Granted, Hillary is likely to bring with her some deeply flawed, ideological based fundamental assumptions with her.
But a coherent but flawed strategy is at least an adult’s game. Even if that approach fails it would not permanently damage america’s Standing as a power that can be trusted to play in the adult league.
With trump’s approach, if approach as so grand a word could possibly be applied to a policy defined solely by trump’s mood, and his fire-up-the-base impulse de jour, the US would be seen increasingly as a meddlesome nonentity. Treaties will increasingly be signed without us. International trade and alliance frameworks will be formulated without us. We will increasingly be blocked from having any role or even input in international events which affect us.
With trump, we will increasingly play the clown who makes the news but not involved in shaping the underlying current of regional development. If some development seem to bring apparent results consistent with our claimed interests, as is the case recent developments on the Korean Peninsula, we wil baffoonishly claim credit. The world will humor us and tell us to go away. If some shit seem to hit the fan, a tweet storm mainly aimed at previous US administrations will entertain the rest of the world.
Hillary pushed for more Military involvement in the middle East and regime change her whole time as Secretary of state. She openly wanted us involved there deeper and had great disrespect for the Russians throughout her campaign.
So yeah, I think our chances of getting full out involved in another ground war in Syria was probably more likely with Hillary. Just going off the statements that she made in the campaign, since it's impossible to really know.
Hard to say that she wouldn't follow through. Therr is really no reason to not take her at her word. Yeah, it would be a more coherent policy, but coherent =\= good. Her consistency is that she wanted to force Assad from office. It's impossible for me to say that is a good idea, in any way.
I'd much rather have her dealing with Korea for sure, but Hillary's boner for the middle East and contempt for Russia was truly frightening.