US forces bomb militia facilities discussion (1 Viewer)

[DaveXA]

Continued from the thread stated in the SR EE board.

US bombs Syria facilities used by Iran-backed militia; first airstrikes under Biden

U.S. airstrikes targeted "Shia militants that conducted the strikes," referring to a Feb. 15 rocket attack in Iraq that killed one civilian contractor and wounded a U.S. service member.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Devildog]

Well, get back to me after you get hit by a rocket attack. I would think a rocket attack is an imminent threat to the safety of the soldiers on the ground in Iraq.

It's fine to question why they're there in the first place, but, once they're there, they should be able to defend themselves. If they aren't allowed to respond in kind, they shouldn't be there.

I completely agree with this. We can argue all day about why our troops are there and if they should have been in Iraq in the first place (I'd argue we shouldn't have been there from the jump). But we're there and if our troops get hurt because of an attack, we hit them back.

This is the problem with going into combat and not thinking of the long term consequences.

 

[RobF]

Humanitarian considerations ?
Well, depending how you measure it, there where up to a million 'excess deaths' resulting from the invasion of Iraq. That's a million people who would have been alive if we had not intervened.

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While I disagree with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, your reasoning first tries to make the unsubtle leap from 'up to a million' to 'actually a million', and then further presumes that there would have been zero 'excess deaths' under a continuation of Saddam Hussein's regime.

And in this context, presenting that argument implies that if one instance of an ill-judged full-out invasion could be seen to be negative in terms of humanitarian considerations, that then automatically disqualifies all other interventions of any nature, which it clearly does not. "We shouldn't have intervened in Iraq like that," clearly does not equate to, "We shouldn't do anything at all in Syria and humanitarian considerations are meaningless," for example.

As for oil and natural gas.. only about 7% comes from the Middle East. And if we simply didn't interfere militarily, then there should be little change to our commercial ties.

UK oil imports by country | Statista

Where does the UK get its oil from? In 2023, the UK imported oil from more than 20 countries with Norway and the United States among the main sources.

www.statista.com

You need to double-check statista as a source; it collates information from elsewhere, but can do so inaccurately. In this instance, that chart in particular appears to be inaccurate, since it appears to show the UK only imported natural gas from Norway in 2019, which is wrong. They appear to have included only pipeline imports (of which Norway represents 94%), but the UK imported over a third of its natural gas in the form of LNG in 2019, with nearly 20% of its total natural gas imports coming in the form of LNG from Qatar, representing nearly half of all the UK's LNG imports. Like I said. (Source: UK Government, https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...est-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes).

The last part of your post - that if we didn't do anything, it would have zero impact - is just another unsubstantiated assertion, and a pretty out there one at that.

 

[bdb13]

This would be good

The White House on Friday signaled a willingness to work with Congress on developing a narrow framework for the authorizations of use of military force after President Biden's strikes in Syria last week sparked a fresh war powers debate.

Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) introduced a bill in the Senate this week that would repeal two military authorizations, effectively curbing the president's war powers.
...
The bill from Kaine and Young would repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF), which both deal with Iraq. Senators sought to rein in the president's war powers during the Trump administration, but failed to muster enough votes.

White House open to reforming war powers amid bipartisan push

The White House on Friday signaled a willingness to work with Congress on developing a narrow framework for the authorizations of use of military force after President Biden's strikes in Syria last week sparked a fresh war powers debate.

thehill.com

 

[samiam5211]

Well, get back to me after you get hit by a rocket attack. I would think a rocket attack is an imminent threat to the safety of the soldiers on the ground in Iraq.

It's fine to question why they're there in the first place, but, once they're there, they should be able to defend themselves. If they aren't allowed to respond in kind, they shouldn't be there.

It wasn't to prevent an imminent attack, it was retaliatory for an attack that had already happened.

I am not aware of any information that suggests we bombed a place where they were preparing for an imminent attack.

 

[DaveXA]

It wasn't to prevent an imminent attack, it was retaliatory for an attack that had already happened.

I am not aware of any information that suggests we bombed a place where they were preparing for an imminent attack.

That's just being nit-picky. The point of a retaliatory attack is to reduce their capabilities of doing another attack. What does it matter whether it's minutes after or days after? The effect is the same. And arguably, waiting and being sure you have the Intel you need before executing a retaliatory strike makes more sense.

 

[Devildog]

It was a retaliatory strike and not a preeminent strike. We're not in a position in Iraq to go striking whoever first.

 

[samiam5211]

That's just being nit-picky. The point of a retaliatory attack is to reduce their capabilities of doing another attack. What does it matter whether it's minutes after or days after? The effect is the same. And arguably, waiting and being sure you have the Intel you need before executing a retaliatory strike makes more sense.

I believe retaliatory attacks like this only result in escalation.

I’m fine with bombing a known shipment of weapons going to people known to have attacked us, or bombing a site where it is suspected an attack is about to be launched against us.

Military force should not be used to make a point. We don’t need to get involved in a tit for tat with people who already know we could blow them up any time we want.

Death is not a deterrent to people who have been radicalized, and it only makes it easier for them to radicalize more young men and keep the fight going.

 

[DaveXA]

I believe retaliatory attacks like this only result in escalation.

I’m fine with bombing a known shipment of weapons going to people known to have attacked us, or bombing a site where it is suspected an attack is about to be launched against us.

Military force should not be used to make a point. We don’t need to get involved in a tit for tat with people who already know we could blow them up any time we want.

Death is not a deterrent to people who have been radicalized, and it only makes it easier for them to radicalize more young men and keep the fight going.

So, bombing a place known for shooting off rockets at your troops is a no go? Is that what you're saying?

 

[samiam5211]

So, bombing a place known for shooting off rockets at your troops is a no go? Is that what you're saying?

In this specific case, I’ll concede that my only issue may be with the messaging, but messaging is probably the most important front of the war against terrorism.

The Biden administration should have stated that the purpose of the attack was to limit the capability of those responsible for the earlier attack against our people there and left it at that.

I can’t find a direct quote from Biden, but the pentagon said that it sends an important message. We should not be blowing things up to send a message, or at least not publicly stating that military action sends a message.

If we believe that it is in the world’s interest for there to be some level of military occupation in Mesopotamia, we need to transition the responsibility over to the UN.

If it is only in our own or our 5 or 10 most immediate allies’ interests for there to be military occupation, then we have no right to be there and should get out and say Trump was right about that.

 

[SaintForLife]

Yes, unless you think people don't matter.

Which people are you referring to and what's our responsibility to them?

 

[SaintForLife]

So, bombing a place known for shooting off rockets at your troops is a no go? Is that what you're saying?

The same troops that are in a foreign country that wants us out?

 

[DaveXA]

Which people are you referring to and what's our responsibility to them?

Everyone in the Middle East affected by our policy decisions there. Our responsibility is to being careful how we exert power and influence in areas we've been in. Some people don't give a shirt about those who live in the ME, or really anywhere else. I understand why some have that sentiment. But, I do care about them, and not only our own citizens there though.

 

[MT15]

Hey, SFL, I thought Biden’s entire administration is filled with warmongers. I wonder why such a hawkish administration would be open to legislation curbing the Executive’s power to launch military actions? It doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Heathen]

[

Do you think there is a problem with out never ending wars movement and how the military industrial complex enriches itself while we waste our money and get our troops killed or injured?

The fact that NOBODY writ large, either party, is angry about our never ending wars and the continuous squashing of the middle class tells you everything you need to know. Hell, even people making excuses for why we should be in Afghanistan when we’ve been there 20 years. Bat$hit insane.

The idea that America has to be the world’s police is a farce. It’s colonialism by force and for the most part (please reread that) always has been.

America is a business. Freedom is relative. We plebs making the excuses for the corporations that run this nation is just a sickening realization, but that’s where we are. Full circle.

 

[Roofgardener]

While I disagree with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, your reasoning first tries to make the unsubtle leap from 'up to a million' to 'actually a million', and then further presumes that there would have been zero 'excess deaths' under a continuation of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Ooops.. that was clumsy writing on my part. My apologies

And in this context, presenting that argument implies that if one instance of an ill-judged full-out invasion could be seen to be negative in terms of humanitarian considerations, that then automatically disqualifies all other interventions of any nature, which it clearly does not. "We shouldn't have intervened in Iraq like that," clearly does not equate to, "We shouldn't do anything at all in Syria and humanitarian considerations are meaningless," for example.

I wouldn't say that humanitarian considerations are meaningless. But can you give me an example of where our military interventions have improved the 'humanitarian' situation ?

You need to double-check statista as a source; it collates information from elsewhere, but can do so inaccurately. In this instance, that chart in particular appears to be inaccurate, since it appears to show the UK only imported natural gas from Norway in 2019, which is wrong. They appear to have included only pipeline imports (of which Norway represents 94%), but the UK imported over a third of its natural gas in the form of LNG in 2019, with nearly 20% of its total natural gas imports coming in the form of LNG from Qatar, representing nearly half of all the UK's LNG imports. Like I said. (Source: UK Government, https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...est-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes).

Oooh right.. good find. However, I think you'll find that Quatar did NOT import much from Qatar in recent years ?

Factcheck: Less than 1% of UK gas supplies come from Russia - Carbon Brief

UK gas supplies have been under scrutiny after the “Beast from the East” recently brought freezing conditions and increased demand for heating.

www.carbonbrief.org

The last part of your post - that if we didn't do anything, it would have zero impact - is just another unsubstantiated assertion, and a pretty out there one at that.

Zero impact ? Well, of COURSE it would have zero impact - by definition - for better or worse.

 

[RobF]

I wouldn't say that humanitarian considerations are meaningless. But can you give me an example of where our military interventions have improved the 'humanitarian' situation ?

Yes. But you're kind of missing the point by asking the question. The argument you were putting forward against humanitarian considerations was "casualties of Iraq war", and the point I was making in response was that it's not that simple, partly because you can't take one intervention as representative of all possible interventions, but also because the comparison is not against a magical world where nothing bad ever happens; it's against the continuation of the situation being intervened in. And that then becomes inherently debatable, because that latter situation is hypothetical; while it can be argued that it might, somehow, have improved, it can also easily be argued that it would have worsened. But neither case can be simply proven; you can't intervene militarily and not intervene militarily at the same time to provide a control case.

So the point is each situation is unique, and requires careful consideration, an in-depth understanding of the situation, and not just awareness of the real impacts from intervening or not, but also what the potential impacts were from the alternative.

Which is why the simplistic approach you're taking, where you simply, and wrongly, assert that non-intervention has no impact and therefore any intervention must be worse just doesn't work.

But to answer your question anyway, plenty would point to WW2 off the bat and you could argue whether humanitarian considerations were part of that or not, but one more recent example of British military interventions being seen as successful would be the British intervention in Sierra Leone in 2000.

Oooh right.. good find. However, I think you'll find that Quatar did NOT import much from Qatar in recent years ?

Factcheck: Less than 1% of UK gas supplies come from Russia - Carbon Brief

UK gas supplies have been under scrutiny after the “Beast from the East” recently brought freezing conditions and increased demand for heating.

www.carbonbrief.org

You appear to have said that 'Quatar did NOT import much from Qatar' and then linked to a three year old article that explains the UK didn't get much gas from Russia which also states "the vast majority of imports come from Norway, the Netherlands and Qatar."

I'm not sure that was what you were going for there.

Zero impact ? Well, of COURSE it would have zero impact - by definition - for better or worse.

No. Non-intervention naturally has an impact on commercial ties with a region. It affects relationships with allies who do want your intervention, and if an entire country or region is destablised, that does tend to have a bit of an effect on commerce.

To put it another way, what you're putting forward is essentially the overly simplistic notion that "what happens in the Middle East stays in the Middle East" and even a cursory awareness of recent history should tell you that is very wrong.

 

[MT15]

The fact that NOBODY writ large, either party, is angry about our never ending wars and the continuous squashing of the middle class tells you everything you need to know. Hell, even people making excuses for why we should be in Afghanistan when we’ve been there 20 years. Bat$hit insane.

The idea that America has to be the world’s police is a farce. It’s colonialism by force and for the most part (please reread that) always has been.

America is a business. Freedom is relative. We plebs making the excuses for the corporations that run this nation is just a sickening realization, but that’s where we are. Full circle.

So, this administration seems to be willing to make concessions through the bipartisan legislation we just talked about and released a statement saying this:

“We are committed to working with Congress to ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars,"

I get it that people can be cynical, but both you and especially SFL seem to be banging away on a narrative based on past administrations without acknowledging these signals. That is certainly your right to do so, but you run the risk of having your righteous indignation seem a bit performative.

 

[Heathen]

So, this administration seems to be willing to make concessions through the bipartisan legislation we just talked about and released a statement saying this:

“We are committed to working with Congress to ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars,"

Yes, let's dig into this a little more beyond pleasantries. Do you really think what you posted above isn't just a PR talking point to satisfy what is becoming a popular mantra? Come on.

Look at the track record of Biden's administration thus far:
Biden recognizing an unelected representative as President in Venezuela (Guaido) after an unsuccessful coup attempt?
Would you be ok with your nation if it were outside of America recognizing Trump as President after Biden clearly won?
How about Biden adopting every Trump position on Israel and refusing an investigation into human rights abuses against Palestinians? These are only a few.

Would you care to address these? I understand the tendency for some to defend him as he's on their side of the aisle, but my broader point is to address the fact that American presidents, like Trump and Obama before him, are largely at the mercy of a well-oiled machine that is the defense industry. Remember Trump pledging to remove all troops from Afghanistan? He pledged in 2016 to "End Forever Wars" too. How'd that go?

I really don't see what's so hard about admitting this as a problem.

I get it that people can be cynical, but both you and especially SFL seem to be banging away on a narrative based on past administrations without acknowledging these signals. That is certainly your right to do so, but you run the risk of having your righteous indignation seem a bit performative.

I tell you what. Read up on some of our human rights violations that occurred not simply as far back as this country was founded, but over the time period of the last few presidencies. Read up on the "signals" that were given in campaign speeches and on websites and bumper stickers before the inevitable happened. When you have innocent people, especially children, being blown to bits year after year in their own country (I can give you a pretty lengthy portrayal of those events as well, if you wish) then you'd probably be a little "cynical" as well.

Would you care to address how these 'signals' are contributing to the end of what I just described?

It's troubling to me when not just one but both sides of our American political persuasion seem dulled to the fact that we are constantly at war and have been for two decades. Not only does this new norm contribute to human rights abuses abroad, but it very clearly contributes to how Americans at home have the ability to prosper -- when the majority of our spending goes to war instead of to our own people, infrastructure, and environment.

I really have no desire to engage with someone calling my thoughts on this matter "righteous indignation" and "performative". I don't think any of my thoughts or passion over this issue come from a place of thinking I'm levitating over anyone else in thought nor do I have any interest to perform.