I Am a Liberal

Allepo has fallen as Obama averted his gaze.

There was a lot of sympathetic talk when all of this started. Talk that faded into the never-ending void of soundbytes gone bye.

I always thought that history would judge Obama kindly in the long run. These days, I am not so sure about that.

Obama's refusal to stare down Aasad, and stand up for Allepo is absolutely shameful. It is a failure on the part of America and it's President's policies in the region.

While I grant Obama the blame, I think the shame of it belongs to all of us. Especially Democrats and Liberals, who have allowed things like transgender bathrooms, and other inconsequentials to distract focus from true issues such as Allepo and other more pressing world issues.

And, while I tend to believe in most Liberal causes, I feel that Democrats have gone a bit overboard with some things. Mostly at the expenses of our own common sense.

There are always lines. Unfortunately, we failed to cross a very important one. Political cowardice is nothing to be proud of, and not something to defend or ignore. What happened there is an absolute atrocitie. One that may have been prevented had America and it's President taken a stand for what is right, instead of burying our political heads in the sands.

Over 470,000 dead since March of 2011. Think about that for a minute.

[b][i][u]470,000 PEOPLE !!![/u][/i][/b]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/aleppos-fall-is-obamas-failure/2016/12/15/5af72640-c30f-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?client=ms-android-metropcs-us

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

firefall · 61-69, M

There is no side that the americans can join, in Syria - none at all: there's no right side or wrong side, just a bunch of factions that are determined to corral total power for themselves: until they are prepared to compromise, there's nothing to be done but help the refugees. This isn't about political power or failing to 'stare down Assad' - that was never an option, Assad is fighting for his life, quite literally, and had nowhere to back down [b]to[/b]

And Americans dont have the will to suffer 20k+ casualties per year in trying to enforce a unilateral peace there against the will of all sides (nor do I blame them, and given Iraq it would likely be a failure anyway).

HikingMan · 51-55, M

Doing the right thing isn't always easy.

firefall · 61-69, M

@HikingMan: what I'm saying is, there IS no right thing to do. Starting conscription, raising a massive conventional army, and invading with massive manpower still wouldn't crack the nut on this (see: Iraq). What would you suggest?

The only thing that would sort things out in Syria is, dont invade Iraq in 2003. The side effects of that invasion inevitably caused the destabilisation of Syria's wretched regime. Frankly, I think we're lucky it didnt take down Jordan as well.

HikingMan · 51-55, M

What the true root is, is that we actually withdrew too early from Iraq. Once the invasion happened, the only RIGHT THING to do was remain until stability emerged. We didn't. We left, and in our wake left vacuums that have since been filled with unstable minds and power seekers. As unsavory as it was to have troops there, the results of our leaving have borne the rotten fruit upon which we dine now.

Regret is the product of things left undone. We as a people, and as a country, had an obligation to ourselves and the world to attempt the impossible. But sometimes the right thing costs more than the selfish are willing to pay.

firefall · 61-69, M

@HikingMan: I disagree, stability was never going to emerge in Iraq while the USA was there - having an invader occupying your country appears to always be a major destabilising force, looking back on past history.

I have no problem with doing the right thing, and meeting obligation incurred from past folly. I have a huge problem with you suggesting the USA launch another invasion that appears bound to fail, and will as a byproduct destabilise eastern Turkey (which, frankly, is looking pretty wobbly atm, with the whole secular v religious government issue bubbling away).

HikingMan · 51-55, M

I never once mentioned an invasion. Nor did I suggest troops. But to completely abandon diplomatic avenues as we did.... It's unconscionable.

To sit idly by and simply watch while pandering around Washington on behalf of far left ideological views that neither affect life on the whole, or change much of anything, while such things are going on.....
Unfathomable.

The absence of a strong American standpoint on the matter emboldened those who have committed this most recent set of events.

firefall · 61-69, M

@HikingMan: Hm. So what strong American standpoint do you advocate?

HikingMan · 51-55, M

While all sides have contributed to the violence the military escalation was attributable largely to the actions of a singular party: the Assad regime.

It feels very much as if we’ve pinned a lot of our hope on a great power political settlement of the conflict. We were willing to believe the lies the Russians told us to our faces in order to make it easier to believe that a settlement would take place.

Obama had issued tentative warnings that it would consider using military force if the cessation of hostilities failed and it determined Russia was insincere in its diplomatic efforts. After that however, he buried his head and ignored the obvious intentions of the Russians, as well as the depth Syrian aggression would go.

As to what specifically I would suggest, I am not really sure, to be honest. But what is glaringly clear is that ignoring the issue has led us to where we are now.

And, while life goes on for most of us here despite the events in Allepo, over 470,000 lives were ended within the spiraling whirlpool of American isolationism, and complacency.

firefall · 61-69, M

@HikingMan: Again, I have to disagree, completely. Trying to pin the bulk of the blame on Assad is disingeuous, to say the least. He was the tyrant in charge, he responded with violence to violent attempts to overthrow him. I have no brief for the man, but he's no more at fault than any of the other sides in that bitter mess.

And I disagree that Obama buried his head. He took no action, because there was no action available to him that would improve the situation. Not every situation is open to being ameliorated by the USA waving around threats of force, real or hypothetical.

There is no option open to the USA that will stop the mutual slaughter now. There was no option for that in 2011, either. Trying to castigate Obama for that seems a particularly cruel and pointless exercise in flagellation.

HikingMan · 51-55, M

Perhaps. Though to me, the silence from Washington has been deafening. The lack of a clear pathway doe's not necessarily reflect the fact of there being no pathway.

Rush said it best, when they said.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

We armed those people. We consigned them to death by way of it. We did that under Obama and through his direction.

To say "... there was no action for us..." (now or then), when we actually undertook the actions of emboldening the rebels with our supposed political backing, then furthermore arming their resistance, followed quickly by our abandonment of them and their causes, smacks of a disingenuous thought process filled with a denial of the actual facts.

As an aside, and quite apart from this discussion...,
(and so that I am clear)
I've enjoyed this conversation thus far. I am glad it's remained cordial.

I am an admitted Liberal Democrat who feels betrayed by his leadership, and will not blindly believe or follow the party lines.

firefall · 61-69, M

@HikingMan: Well, I'm a socialist by inclination, and not an american, so american party lines don't really enter my calculations.

I agree that initially adding some more arms for the supposed moderate rebels was a mistake (and grossly unrealistic at the time), but doubling down and keeping on supporting them when they so patently lack the numbers and support to successfully take over the state, seems like it would be a bad decision, too. And bear in mind, while the USA provided arms and support, they didn't 'arm those people' - all of the rebel factions already had an array of weaponry, and the USA only supplied some more arms to the 'moderate'* faction, and nothing to the other factions

I'm still totally at a loss to see what (post-2008) action the USA could have taken to ameliorate or stop this civil war. Once the flood of weapons and ex-soldiers from Iraq arrived in Syria, it was primed and going to happen.

Oh, except one: if the USA had gone in, boots and all, to support Assad, it probably would have stopped the civil war getting a foothold. But it's not clear that would have reduced the death toll, given Assads** taste for slaughtering oppositions (aside from the moral horror of supporting such a tyrant).

* Not that I believe they would be moderate either, if they ever got into power, but they would at least be slightly less anti-Western I guess
**rather, Assad's immediate supporters/controllers, not that it really makes a difference at this point

HikingMan · 51-55, M

Everything you said holds solid footing throughout. My thanks for that. As most often discussion on topics such as this become caustic quickly. Post 2008 ? Probably very little. Pre-2008. Likely quite a bit.

Which more than illustrates my giving the early withdrawal from Iraq such weight.

Anywho, we could go around all day with this. I don't know what we could've/should've done or were exactly able to do. Yet, my original point stands.

That being: The fall of Aleppo is a gigantic failure upon Obama and his adminstration.

firefall · 61-69, M

@HikingMan: Yes, pre-2008 .. ideally not invading in the first place. I think staying longer in Iraq would have resulted in more violence in Iraq, without slowly the flight of exsoldiers and weaponry to Syria; but I can see how you'd evaluate things otherwise.

As for caustic discussion, I think the major issue is trying to discuss things across the left/right divide because each side* sees the other as putting credence in things that are patently untrue, leading to almost immediate frustration. As we're both more or less on the same side of that divide, we can at least agree on basic facts on the ground :)

* of course, they're wrong, and we're right :D

HikingMan · 51-55, M

We aren't scamming to get elected either.

Enjoy the day, my friend.
Be well.

firefall · 61-69, M

@HikingMan: LOL true! Thanks for the discussion, and I trust the week is kind to you.