Posted on Nov 23, 2015
Do you think Democrat Tulsi Gabbard is right about our focus on Assad ultimately strengthening ISIS?
4.55K
54
21
7
7
0
Representative Tulsi Gabbard states we are engaging in a illegal war against Bashar Al Assad, and that it is also counter to the best interests of the US because ousting Assad will ultimately make ISIS a bigger, problem than it already is.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/20/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-paris-keep-assad/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/20/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-paris-keep-assad/index.html
ISIS
Foreign Policy
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 10
6
6
0
5
5
0
This is a sad indicator that as of 2015, Congresswoman Gabbard is the sole remaining Democrat in Congress with any tactical or strategic comprehension whatsoever. An extremely troubling development that does not bode well for those moments when it is time for politicians to put Party differences aside and come together in the interests of National Security. Before both sides can get there, they must be led. Who's going to lead those who cannot grasp the magnitude of an issue or a moment in this arena?
(5)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
It should be clear by now, that for most of our politicians left, or right, politics and re-election take a front seat to ideas of ongoing, consistent, and effective national security, economic, and foreign policy. These shortcomings aren't the problem, but rather a symptom of the much greater, and widespread problem of political expediency at the expense of our Constitution, our rights, and our economic future. Regards
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
Yes she is correct SSG Gerhard S.. The administration's focus against Bashar Al Assad was completely wrong. Our focus should have been on toppling ISIS all along. Our diddling in this area of the world has caused many problems from Libya to Iraq and Syria in the past few years .
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
A few thoughts:
- Representative Gabbard rightly points to Iraq and Libya as examples of unsuccessful regime change but does not point to Japan or Germany as successful examples of regime change. Maybe the key point is not if regime change is good but how regime change can be successful conducted. I argue it can be successful if the proper amounts of time, money and resources are committed.
- I am not sure how the US can stand for freedom, democracy, and human rights but then stand by and do nothing when a regime denies all three to its citizens including conducting chemical warfare against its own citizens.
- Rep Gabbard says we are "engaging in an illegal war against Bashar Al Assad. Question: What law is being broken? US Law? International law?
- Rep Gabbard is presuming an outcome (ISIS will be bigger problem if Assad is ousted). This is a possible outcome IF the Western Allies attempt regime change "on the cheap" as we have other countries. This is not, however, the only possible outcome or even the highest probability outcome. There are a lot of assumptions in her hypothesis. Always good to delineate the assumptions for proper consideration which neither the Representative nor the article have properly done.
- Representative Gabbard rightly points to Iraq and Libya as examples of unsuccessful regime change but does not point to Japan or Germany as successful examples of regime change. Maybe the key point is not if regime change is good but how regime change can be successful conducted. I argue it can be successful if the proper amounts of time, money and resources are committed.
- I am not sure how the US can stand for freedom, democracy, and human rights but then stand by and do nothing when a regime denies all three to its citizens including conducting chemical warfare against its own citizens.
- Rep Gabbard says we are "engaging in an illegal war against Bashar Al Assad. Question: What law is being broken? US Law? International law?
- Rep Gabbard is presuming an outcome (ISIS will be bigger problem if Assad is ousted). This is a possible outcome IF the Western Allies attempt regime change "on the cheap" as we have other countries. This is not, however, the only possible outcome or even the highest probability outcome. There are a lot of assumptions in her hypothesis. Always good to delineate the assumptions for proper consideration which neither the Representative nor the article have properly done.
(3)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
I would also respectfully add that the majority of the world denies their citizens, all three, or a combination of the basic freedoms, democracy, and Human rights you listed. Though I don't condone the use of chemical weapons, I can understand ANY regime in power using force against a armed rebellion such as Assad was facing. I would, as well, expect Any government, (yes, even OUR government) would act with force against any such armed rebellion to it's power. One would also expect that observers on the outside could take the point of view that the government (Assad, in this case) was "killing his own people", while observers from another perspective could assume the government is using force against a armed rebellion.
One also has to wonder though, after President Obama drew his red line regarding chemical weapons in Syria, and then did nothing decisive when they were employed, where President Obama actually stands on the use of such weapons?
Again, Regards, and interested in your thoughts.
One also has to wonder though, after President Obama drew his red line regarding chemical weapons in Syria, and then did nothing decisive when they were employed, where President Obama actually stands on the use of such weapons?
Again, Regards, and interested in your thoughts.
(2)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
SSG Gerhard S. - Very well stated. The problem with saying "we must squash Bad Things™ wherever we find it!" is that there are bad things everywhere. Given that we have limited $$ and focus, we become the World's ADHD policeman. Add to that, it becomes very obvious to others when we only seem to notice Bad Things™ in regimes we don't particularly like.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM, I would point out that the use of chemical weapons did not initiate any action on our part; our limited campaign began over a year later. The use of chemical weapons against a civilian population - a domestic one at that - is about as rancid a war crime as any. But the USA looked away and did squat, content to let Russia swoop in and bail out their pal, Assad. And for that, we got the continued use of chemical weapons, some within days of the agreement to turn them over for destruction was reached.
As far as regime change goes, there is absolutely no evidence that Syria would be able to hold peaceful transition of power. What is incredibly likely in a polyglot and war-torn nation such as Syria is that the majority (Sunni Arabs, IF they can set aside political splits) would win an election, the Alawites would be subject to reprisals (a la Iraq, ca 2011 or Libya ca 2013) of a brutal nature, and that the various power brokers will continue to support their favored factions, resulting in continued destruction and refugee issues. Even more probable is that the biggest, meanest group comes to power and then ruthlessly crushes any domestic opposition to consolidate power. Today, that would be ISIS. The obvious parallel is Libya, for multiple reasons, and I would bet the ranch that a very similar result would be the outcome in Syria.
The notion that the various goon squads that hold sway in portions of Syria would just lay down their arms is laughable.
Syria is and has been for decades a den for terrorists in the form of Hezbollah. More recently, it has had Al-Queda (Al Nusra, Khoresan Group) and ISIS in residence. All of those are dug in pretty deep and will need to be rooted out by a competent and deliberate ground operation in order to secure any chance of de-escalating conflict in Syria. I look around the world and I don't see anybody willing to make the commitment necessary to do that, least of all us.
As far as regime change goes, there is absolutely no evidence that Syria would be able to hold peaceful transition of power. What is incredibly likely in a polyglot and war-torn nation such as Syria is that the majority (Sunni Arabs, IF they can set aside political splits) would win an election, the Alawites would be subject to reprisals (a la Iraq, ca 2011 or Libya ca 2013) of a brutal nature, and that the various power brokers will continue to support their favored factions, resulting in continued destruction and refugee issues. Even more probable is that the biggest, meanest group comes to power and then ruthlessly crushes any domestic opposition to consolidate power. Today, that would be ISIS. The obvious parallel is Libya, for multiple reasons, and I would bet the ranch that a very similar result would be the outcome in Syria.
The notion that the various goon squads that hold sway in portions of Syria would just lay down their arms is laughable.
Syria is and has been for decades a den for terrorists in the form of Hezbollah. More recently, it has had Al-Queda (Al Nusra, Khoresan Group) and ISIS in residence. All of those are dug in pretty deep and will need to be rooted out by a competent and deliberate ground operation in order to secure any chance of de-escalating conflict in Syria. I look around the world and I don't see anybody willing to make the commitment necessary to do that, least of all us.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Assad is a bad guy, but ISIS is worse. Both need to go. But concentrating on Assad first makes it more likely that ISIS fills the vacuum.
(3)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
I wonder if ridding Syria of Assad wouldn't result in another more radical element running Syria, as we've seen happen in Egypt, with the Muslim Brotherhood, (though softened by a military coup), Libya, Iraq, and others? Just because someone in our administration wants to pick losers, by funding and arming a rebellion, (regardless the radicalism or barbarism of the resultant winners,) does not make it either the right, or the best thing to do, as has been proven out in the examples listed above. Regards.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
She brought some solid points. Until we can honestly find someone there that supports our views and the long term sustainable of them, maybe we need to step back and watch the overall picture. The last two time she mentioned, she is correct in. With the current method of nation building we use and do, I wouldn't have the US build me an outhouse. It would be crappier than the crap that's supposed to go in it. We need to rethink our methods and are they relevant in the modern world, and how does it further our interests beyond the time we use to "rebuild" that nation?
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
Sigh, if we had politicians that had a clue the world would be safer and happier place. Until that happens I will be a prepper.
OTH she is Cute.
OTH she is Cute.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
I think in most cases we'd be better off with our politicians clueless.... But only if they understand their Constitutional limits as well. If our politicians would advise by their oaths to support and defend our Constitution, their ability to muck things up would be extremely limited. Regards
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Yup, I support her, she should be VP choice if Bernie winds, excuse the pun but F Clinton.. they don't give a f for us vets or in house military.. Tulsi is intelligent and standing with Bernie is the smartest move.. I know many of you actives can't speak up politricks, but i'm a vet and I can speak out. We need intelligent international decisions and not those trying to create wars especially with russia and china etc.. I know people want to play with hardware and train in real battle but i believe after manipulated wars since the 60's its time for intelligent military actions that bring balance to the world not destroy it..russians were our enemies during cold war and my time period ins service, now they are my best friends in the film industry and very integral people so i won't stand for this manipulation from corporate powers to create wars to shut up americans trying to take back power for the people and military should know this, we swore to constitution and bill of rights not to corporate charters.. time for sensible policies and I see her being a Presidential potential.. Female president with history of the military and knows what pitmans to be a real human..Not a sellout or a billionaire with dreams of illusion.. thats my opinion and some may call me a liberal..but I'm central and stand for our truth as what make sense not bullshit policies and yes citizens of this country deserve better.. education, health, security, food and shelter..shit look at us vets, we are good when we are socialist in uniforms but once we leave the service and die trying to survive in outside crapped out world..how many suicides a day, how much real care for our PTSD, how much community?? the rest of society needs a boost and vets need a support system and that means coop housing, etc.. time for FDR time period reforms.. Thats how the USA will stay strong and last another century.. end the street violence and get harmonized with reality.. Lets support the Kurds to end Daesh ( IS) reality, they deserve our awareness and watch for Turkeys manipulation...
(0)
(0)
This is why. She is an MP officer. We both went to the Alabama Military Academy to get our commissions. I wasn't in her class but we are both alumi. She is still serving also. She is a MP Company Commander. I don't think there are many out there that are doing this. But she see things from our point of view.
Tulsi Gabbard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tulsi Gabbard (born April 12, 1981) is an American politician and member of the Democratic Party who has been the United States Representative for Hawaii's second congressional district since 2013. She is also a vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee.[2] Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google