MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
"It's possible that you may see conventional forces hit the ground in Syria for some period of time," one defense official told CNN.But the official emphasized that any decision is ultimately up to President Donald Trump, who has ordered his defense secretary to come up with a proposal to combat ISIS before the end of the month.
Just one possible proposal, certainly not a done deal. But the very idea that it's even being considered by this administration is frightening ...
Comments
And Barbara Starr doesn't report "light" news.
by barefooted on Wed, 02/15/2017 - 5:22pm
yeah she's always reminded me of Sgt. Joe Friday just the facts as told to me no messing around with other stuff, will only venture into nuance or analysis along the lines of whether something is typical or atypical to military press conference or military procedure...
by artappraiser on Wed, 02/15/2017 - 6:45pm
YES DONALD, because Putie and Erdogran and Assad made us a great deal (maybe let Exxon steal some oil) and there is plenty more room in Arlington when the body bags come back late at night.
by NCD on Wed, 02/15/2017 - 7:40pm
Thus far neither the DOD or Spicer* are commenting when asked directly about the CNN report. I'd much prefer the usual response of *"fake news!" to no comment at this point.
by barefooted on Wed, 02/15/2017 - 7:59pm
How right you are on that one !
by NCD on Wed, 02/15/2017 - 8:51pm
I suppose none of you wise guys have been paying attention to the fact that US troops deploying to these conflicts in Syria and Iraq have been discussed from the onset of the IS crisis. The troops needed to fight them must come from somewhere but the US is certanly not anxious to supply them. The Kurds and other forces in Syria don't seem to be capable of this task and Assad's forces and their Iranian supporters haven't done any better against the hardened IS forces.
One possible option might have been achieved through a deal with the Russians encouraging them to supply forces for the fight they seem to want. That option may be dead now that the brilliant minds of the Clintonites are busy undermining any chance for cooperation with the Russians against a mutual threat or anything else. If US troops are sent the reason other options weren't viable may be because of this rabid Russophobia and mindless striking out against Trump.
by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 02/15/2017 - 10:14pm
Red Don just has to tell Putie about his huge electoral vote win.
And how smart he is cuz he had an uncle at MIT.
And that he knows more than the Generals. Decides from the gut.
Invite Putie to Mar-a-Lago. Where Trump is The Big Kahuna.
Then..... reveal his fantastic plan over dinner to win the world war against Islamic bad hombres.
by NCD on Wed, 02/15/2017 - 11:01pm
If US troops are sent the reason other options weren't viable may be because of this rabid Russophobia and mindless striking out against Trump.
So the US sending troops to Syria would be because of "Russophobia" and "mindless striking out against Trump"? Care to elaborate? Or attempt to make a modicum of sense?
by barefooted on Wed, 02/15/2017 - 11:17pm
Hillary said no ground troops, so then her no-fly zone had to be viewed as a precursor to WWIII. Coalition is working steadily on Mosul now, will free up Iraq - not easy, but progressing. Syria? Let Putin, Assad & Erdigan figure it out - they've done such a "bang up" job to date.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 12:56am
Are you suggesting that a no-fly zone was a smart idea?
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 1:00am
Everything is terrible and leads to WWIII. Donald is smart - I'm just his acolyte.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 1:05am
Were you suggesting that Hillary's no-fly zone was a good idea?
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 1:06am
The idea behind a no fly zone is to protect the civilian population from the cluster bombs and other munitions Assad was dropping. Are you suggesting we should do nothing to protect the civilians?
by ocean-kat on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 1:33am
No, I was asking PP if he was suggesting that a no-fly zone was a good idea. You of course could answer that question yourself if you choose to.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 1:37am
In a situation as chaotic as the warring middle east nations there are no unequivocally good options. There is always the danger that some action could make things worse. Withdrawal only creates a vacuum that others will fill as Putin did when Obama took no meaningful action. I believe that made things worse. A no fly zone before Putin entered might have kept him out or at least minimized his actions. Your question is simplistic. It's just so much more complex than that. Sometimes the answer is Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 2:04am
Yeah, but at some point, if you are going to be intellectually honest or, if because of whatever circumstance you are in the actual deciding position, you are going to need to say either "yes" or "no".
edited to change academically to intellectually. Duh.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 2:29am
During Obama's presidency I learned much about the flaws of inaction which was a large part of his foreign policy. Don't do stupid stuff usually translated into don't do anything. I wanted to see a more active engagement. I hoped to see decisions made by someone with a deep understanding of the situation. That person is not in the WH. Rhetoric on the campaign trail is usually dumbed down for the uneducated. I have little interest in discussing hypotheticals of what Hillary might have done if elected. If she had been elected I'd have happily critiqued what she actually did if I disagreed. Just as I happily critiqued Obama when I disagreed even though I supported him and voted for him twice. I'm much more interested in discussing what is actually happening now
by ocean-kat on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 2:34am
I agreed with NoFly Zone many times, hasn't changed in years.
Haven't seen a good reason to support boots on the ground or other unstated option. No idea where we're going with this, but probably some new & improved game of gotcha.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 3:16am
Thanks for the definitive reply. No, There is no attempt to play "gotcha", just an effort to establish a starting point.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 3:24am
You are looking at the object through the wrong end of the telescope.
If US troops are sent to Syria to fight ISIS, they will also be fighting to prop up Assad's regime. This would not be a failure to work with the Russians but exactly the living flesh of such cooperation.
by moat on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 9:19am
There is near zero support in the public or the government for sending an army into anywhere in the ME, we've done that and we know what happens. The military planners have to include that option in their planning to be comprehensive also knowing there is no support for it.
The US is already indirectly assisting the Assad regime by attacking the IS and pulling some rebel fighters away from attacking Assad to join the Kurds against the IS. There isn't much chance for anything significant happening against the IS until there is some kind of settlement of the civil war which still faces huge hurdles.
by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 12:05pm
Well, that is a reasonable account of the situation. Not the only one but reasonable.
Not much room for "Russia phobia" or blaming the situation entirely on partisan politics within its scope, however.
What connects the diametrically opposed set of assumptions in your two statements?
by moat on Thu, 02/16/2017 - 7:47pm