Hawkish GOP Neocon stalwarts are praising Biden's status-quo bombing in Syria - much to the delight of those who would like to see a continuation of the same foreign policy orthodoxy that has yielded abysmal results:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-carries-air-strikes-iran-010046404.html

And it's not just Progressives who are condemning Biden's reckless action today (namely Ro Khanna & Bernie Sanders) - but even moderates within the Party are calling for an overhaul to War Powers:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/26/tim-kaine-biden-syria-airstrike-471740

It's really rich to think how so many Dems were lining up to condemn Trump's disastrous foreign policy abuses in taking offensive military action without congressional approval - like Kamala did here:

https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/985219590987927552

Yet Biden has just continued the bi-partisan trend of executive abuse in perpetuating forever war policy - and many rightfully were concerned with his hawkish record coming into office - fearing the same old same old when it comes to counter-productive offensive action in the Mid-East.

Thankfully there's at least one Republican (Rep. Massie) standing on principle who has standing to critique Biden on this (as he critiqued Trump in the same manner):

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1365327423282302977

Biden's bombing of "Iran backed militias" yet again shows the urgent need to return to the JCPOA (something Biden and Blinken are dragging their feet on, instead choosing to rush into military action without even trying diplomacy). Business as usual at the Pentagon.

Just a month into his presidency and Biden has already bombed Syria and Somalia, signals a maintenance of the wars in Afghanistan, and despite some nice rhetoric, hasn't yet put teeth into his words about stopping the Saudi genocide in Yemen. He's sent more troops to Iraq and has already approved hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons deals for Raytheon.

Sorry, pandemic relief will have to wait in line behind imperial priorities. This isn't a good sign for those who had hopes of a new foreign policy prescription.





-->

remember when tulsi gabbard fangirled over putin for his interventionist bombing in a foreign country (syria) when obama wouldnt? and she invoked the post-9/11 war on terror as a justifiable reason for doing so?

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/649615636088365058

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/510447556296728577

then remember when she rebranded herself as a progressive dove despite her real foreign policy record?
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/tulsi-gabbard-president-foreign-islam/

then remember when you went and campaigned for her?

Still mad you got called out in that post for your shapeshifting? Because you're out here flailing like it's the World Cup, having a child-like tantrum and trying to make it personal instead of about policy.

You're still obsessing over Tulsi? Again - on-brand for you to continue to try and dunk on brown women in politics who operate as outsiders. You're really out here like, "You Can't Sit With Us!" as you tirelessly defend the Clinton legacy - shit is embarrassing.

But as for the actual topic: you didn't say anything about the substantive issues at hand -- just more "yea but what about the Russian Asset Assad Toadie Tulsi?!" It's nice to have our own resident Bill Kristol in the house.

Of course - not a word from you about how U.S. policy in Syria has been used to actually prop up ISIS by furthering a proxy-war v. Iran (at the delight of Israel & Saudi Arabia). But I wouldn't expect you to actually understand the nuances of what's transpired in the Middle-East. You don't actually care about how your partisan heroes have endorsed the genocide of millions of Arab bodies (just small potatoes stuff, right?) - you'd rather just tough type while continuing to sexualize AOC, or marginalize her as the lightweight you thought she was - referring to how she "boils bunnies" - but of course that's just Reeq being a "sensible" Democrat.

And not sure why you think I'm ashamed to have introduced Tulsi at an event in the primary. Pound for pound - she's light years ahead of Biden on foreign policy - and that's a debate you don't want to have. I guess you'd be much happier if I campaigned for Tim Ryan?

You know who else I campaigned for over the past few years? Your "boo" AOC's first and 2nd congressional campaigns, Bernie Sanders (both in 2016 and 2020), Elizabeth Warren's Senatorial campaigns (twice), Ed Markey's primary win over Kennedy, Ilhan Omar's 1st and 2nd congressional campaigns, to name a few. I've also co-founded two organizations in the NorthEast that recruit and field state/local candidates (both in state houses and at the city council/school board/state senator level).

What have you done? Work overtime on messages boards to legitimize the Clinton-wing of the party while shitting on progressives and perceived outside threats to the party at all costs? Congratulations.

So yea - I'd gladly put up my campaign record against yours - any day of the week.

-->

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

...in this one specific country...using 1 other specific candidate he wholeheartedly supported despite being guilty of the specific behavior he is accusing someone else of.

he goes into some incoherent diatribe about a bunch of other politicians and other posts and says *im* not staying on topic.

you cant make this up.

and it shows.

-->

and not the other.

nor have you even made the slightest effort to describe which "Syrian intervention" I support - because it's a silly false statement on a subject you know nothing about.

-->

In fairness, very few people know the reality on the ground in Syria.

But what we can do is support our allies and interests in the region. The Kurds are high up on that list

I can barely blame Biden specifically, except that he was either stupid or malicious enough to fall for the Iraq War lie twenty years ago, because it's like the defining feature of the job. Presidents blow people up and as long as we think they make an appropriately serious face, we're a bunch of disgusting hogs who eat it up.

Being an American President means permitting profound evil to happen to American citizens and pursuing that evil abroad. You don't even want that job, let alone attain it, without being an amoral monster whose only love is power.

and has even lead the debacle in some instances (see: how he actually bragged and was proud of authoring the Patriot Act)

>Being an American President means permitting profound evil to
>happen to American citizens and pursuing that evil abroad. You
>don't even want that job, let alone attain it, without being
>an amoral monster whose only love is power.

Question: Do you think this is a universal truth? That is: is there any candidate you could see changing this arc of history? Or are we perhaps looking to the wrong person/entity (a United States President) for this change - as it's something that has to take effect within the larger culture/body politic?


-->

>and has even lead the debacle in some instances (see: how he
>actually bragged and was proud of authoring the Patriot Act)

Hey, it's got "patriot" in the name and we all know that's good.

>Question: Do you think this is a universal truth? That is:
>is there any candidate you could see changing this arc of
>history? Or are we perhaps looking to the wrong person/entity
>(a United States President) for this change - as it's
>something that has to take effect within the larger
>culture/body politic?

I mean, winding down empire is necessarily a messy process and nobody initiates it out of the kindness of their own heart. One area where we typically see eye to eye, even though it's always fun to talk about candidates, is that they're tools to be used and I think (and you may disagree here) that any theory of change that starts from the top is going to fail because the credentials that we require to get that job in the first place are a thirst for this sort of violence.

BUT, as your question also aptly indicates - it's the one area where the President has immense, unchecked power. So I guess there's no good reason to discard the possibility. As long as we have a USA, we're going to have a president. One that is disinclined to pursue all this bloodshed can do a ton of good, and do it without many institutional obstacles. Or, at least, we have to believe that if we want democracy right? That at some point we can say, loudly, "stop blowing people up" and they ... will? Or maybe not. The end of the fourth republic in France was precipitated by (among other things) a large and violent public outcry about France's violence abroad - but the outcome was, uh, obviously a lot more ambiguous than "no more of that".

I imagine we have too much invested in this imperial project. It feels like it would take an immense shift in culture to:

a)pay attention to what we do abroad
b)care
c)move to stop it

and even then, we're so good at rationalizing that the next colonial disaster would inevitably be treated as a different case, requiring a different standard, etc.

So, I guess my answer is "no"

>I mean, winding down empire is necessarily a messy process and
>nobody initiates it out of the kindness of their own heart.
>One area where we typically see eye to eye, even though it's
>always fun to talk about candidates, is that they're tools to
>be used and I think (and you may disagree here) that any
>theory of change that starts from the top is going to fail
>because the credentials that we require to get that job in the
>first place are a thirst for this sort of violence.
>
>BUT, as your question also aptly indicates - it's the one area
>where the President has immense, unchecked power. So I guess
>there's no good reason to discard the possibility. As long as
>we have a USA, we're going to have a president. One that is
>disinclined to pursue all this bloodshed can do a ton of good,
>and do it without many institutional obstacles. Or, at least,
>we have to believe that if we want democracy right? That at
>some point we can say, loudly, "stop blowing people up" and
>they ... will? Or maybe not. The end of the fourth republic in
>France was precipitated by (among other things) a large and
>violent public outcry about France's violence abroad - but the
>outcome was, uh, obviously a lot more ambiguous than "no more
>of that".
>
>I imagine we have too much invested in this imperial project.
>It feels like it would take an immense shift in culture to:
>
>a)pay attention to what we do abroad
>b)care
>c)move to stop it
>
>and even then, we're so good at rationalizing that the next
>colonial disaster would inevitably be treated as a different
>case, requiring a different standard, etc.
>
>So, I guess my answer is "no"

>I mean, winding down empire is necessarily a messy process and
>nobody initiates it out of the kindness of their own heart.
>One area where we typically see eye to eye, even though it's
>always fun to talk about candidates, is that they're tools to
>be used and I think (and you may disagree here) that any
>theory of change that starts from the top is going to fail
>because the credentials that we require to get that job in the
>first place are a thirst for this sort of violence.

I actually largely agree with this. Some may view this as cynicism but a closer examination reveals that this is simply the harsh reality of who flourishes in our political system. There are certain areas that are permissibly debated within our body politic - and there are other areas which aren't allowed within the parameters of media/political discourse. It's why we've had endless circular debates on the same handful of topics - yet zero debate on the architecture of Empire and deeply embedded neo-colonialism still inherent in our foreign policy. We need look no further than the manner in which candidates who (genuinely) oppose the military-industrial complex are treated and maligned (for simply proposing policies that benefit human beings - yet threaten powerful interests).

>BUT, as your question also aptly indicates - it's the one area
>where the President has immense, unchecked power. So I guess
>there's no good reason to discard the possibility. As long as
>we have a USA, we're going to have a president. One that is
>disinclined to pursue all this bloodshed can do a ton of good,
>and do it without many institutional obstacles. Or, at least,
>we have to believe that if we want democracy right? That at
>some point we can say, loudly, "stop blowing people up" and
>they ... will? Or maybe not. The end of the fourth republic in
>France was precipitated by (among other things) a large and
>violent public outcry about France's violence abroad - but the
>outcome was, uh, obviously a lot more ambiguous than "no more
>of that".

Indeed - and the hope is that there will be a momentum-shift before it's too late. That is: before irreversible damage is done and we reach a crescendo where military might, biowarfare, cyber warfare, and largescale dehumanization propels us to a race to the bottom where untold suffering occurs.

Perhaps the President I most admire throughout our history is abolitionist John Quincy Adams who was a rarity in terms of his view of America's role in the world. He once stated:

"She (America) goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world."

Unfortunately - not only have we searched abroad for monsters to destroy - but via the CIA and its degenerative efforts in LatAm, the Middle East, Vietnam etc.. - we have actually *created* those monsters - and continue to do so to this day.

Sadly, even most "liberals" still will rationalize the maintenance of empire abroad (as is done in this very post) by either deflecting and not addressing it directly, or hurling around "that's just the way it is"-isms to contribute to a status-quo freeze which has been frozen for far too long.


-->

and more recently the American prison system into an inseparable dual function of Western civilization, one seen, glorious, idealistic, the other shadowed, murderous, and othering.

Could we enjoy the 'total freedoms' we are sold in the US without Guantanamo, without fomenting economic instability in Latin America or political unrest in the Middle East? It makes you think why they make you stand with your hand over your heart when the national anthem plays at sporting events so insistently. The freedom to watch football on Sunday is not even attempted to be removed from the soldiers who fight abroad.

I agree with all of it. But that means it's hard to imagine an "out" from the synthesis this imposes on ... everything.

There's probably more than one answer here, as far as how to escape the bind we've created for ourselves, but reading that - the only thing I can see room to pick at is that the idea of Western Civilization isn't a fixed concept - and so can be escaped. Not without tremendous work, and an unqualified change in culture. But since I don't think "Western Civilization" is actually a coherent category (we treat it like one - but that doesn't make it true) that there's room in here for HISTORY to operate as a discipline and to un-do what it's done so far.

- didn't freeze ICE deportations as promised

- opened more detention centers for immigrant kids

- "$2000 immediately" --> $1400 eventually

- Cutting Medicare as part of this stimulus program

- Punted on student loan forgiveness

- canceled Keystone XL Pipeline overnight, leaving thousands of blue collar workers without jobs and no contingency plan on how to recover their lost work in suddenly and allegedly booming green energy industries

- Bombed Syria (which quite literally no one was asking for)

- Gave MBS a pass for the brutal murder of Jamal Kashoggi

- seems to be indefinitely delaying our overdue withdrawal from Afghanistan

- nixing the insulin discount that was to be buoyed by incentives to pharmacies


And still, he's not Trump. But at what point does "at least he's not Trump" also include "but he's not good" ?

Worst of all to me is just the simple fact you barely see or hear from him. People are desperate for a leader.

It's been so long since we had our traditional feckless good old boy politician in the Oval Office that I forgot how laughably useless the position usually seems..

I believe that no matter what he did or didn't do you'd find a way to make this post.

"Worst of all to me is just the simple fact you barely see or hear from him. People are desperate for a leader."



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

But tell me, where am I wrong? Everything listed there is true. Progressives all over are criticizing him for these very same things.

And he hasn’t done a press briefing yet. Both of the last two presidents had by now, so yea we’re not hearing from him.

i.e. the podcasts that tell you you're very smart for listening to them.



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

...instead of ridiculing me over and over. Nothing I listed was false.

I'm noting what's going on.

you don't have to copy from people who tell you what you want to hear

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I didn’t copy those things from anywhere, I read and pay attention.

You insist I’m burying my head in the sand to focus on what I want to believe, but it’s actually you who’s more focused on ignoring reality. You’ve done nothing but say “you’re ripping this off from somewhere” , “you don’t even believe these things.”

That’s so condescending - I do believe these things, I’ve learned them myself, and you’ve responded to the substance not at all. The very worst kind of internet discourse is the one you’re encouraging here; Ignore the facts , insult the arguer, never engage beyond surface level.

never said anything like this, but it's on your list of talking points that you got from somewhere.>>>You insist I’m burying my head in the sand to focus on what I want to believe, but it’s actually you who’s more focused on ignoring reality.


you did rip this off from other people >>> You’ve done nothing but say “you’re ripping this off from somewhere” , “you don’t even believe these things.”

That’s so condescending - I do believe these things,


you learn things from places. the places you ripped these ideas off of. That's how propaganda works, you copy their ideas and you believe they're you're own. you've exactly described the process>>>> I’ve learned them myself,


u mad? >>> and you’ve responded to the substance not at all.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I also never said you don't believe those things.

you just made up another insult that you want to imagine I said about you.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

got it.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

And for good reason, every time he spoke he said something stupid and the media machine had to spend days cleaning it up.

I dont think most biden supporters really care about the things you listed tbh. They're going to tell you "Too soon" until the midterms, then tell you to be quiet because you're hurting the 2024 campaign, and finally we're back to "he just got in office". Wash rinse repeat.


Apparently its not too soon for bombs to drop. There will be no budget complaints about that.

Make love not war

Wasnt also going to be drone friendly


----------

IG @erichrigonan

They targeted Iran backed militias. Iran backed. And the strike is in direct response to recent attacks like what happened on Feb 15th


I’m going with Lloyd Austin’s explanation, instead of foreign policy expert Ro Khanna.

.

It's amazing that the Kurds would even trust us at this point. I remember when the foreign policy establishment ridiculed Obama for the "red line" approach to Syria - but what he did actually took immense bravery.

After the debacle in Libya (which he cited as the biggest mistake of his presidency and is what fractured his relationship with Clinton) - Obama bravely decided not to repeat the same mistake in Syria - where were directly and indirectly supporting and arming ISIS yet were claiming we were supporting "freedom fighters" simply because they opposed Assad.

To hear people talk about Syrian sovereignty in 2017 (when Trump was being reckless and idiotic) - yet abandon those views now that it's Biden - is all you need to know about the posturing and corruption within the Pentagon.




-->

While trying to bring them to the table

WTF

Right before the MBS/Khashoggi report is released

We’re still Saudi Arabia’s bish...we got the message.

the dems are some bullshit

The theory that I essentially take from your (and others) analysis is that your opinion on what to do is right and moral and anything else is not. I would instead state that there is no definitive right decision, just choices that have to be made. There are countless factors going into all these decisions from humanitarian concerns to maintaining international relations to trade concerns to jobs, etc...

Obama put it well on the wtf podcast...the federal government is an aircraft carrier... you can't move it on a dime, you can make nudges and over time the policies change.

They'd have posted that too.

Remember - when it's an elected Democrat they will post complaints immediately in whatever for they can take.

Look at the laundry list of bullshit posted here - it's laughable and pathetic. Talking about "He's failed us on eleventy-eight things already!!!!!"

our answer almost always seems to be 'let's bomb some shit and see what happens'. We don't even have to declare war to bomb people now or get approval. Some career military dipshits and politicians can basically bomb whoever or whatever they fuck they want and come up with the justification afterwards. They frequently lie about it to us as well.

So my knee jerk reaction is usually 'can we fucking not this time?'

>The theory that I essentially take from your (and others)
>analysis is that your opinion on what to do is right and moral
>and anything else is not.

Where did anyone say that? I think you're reading this into the discussion where it doesn't really exist.

I would instead state that there is
>no definitive right decision, just choices that have to be
>made. There are countless factors going into all these
>decisions from humanitarian concerns to maintaining
>international relations to trade concerns to jobs, etc...

Of course - but you have to assess foreign policy in its totality - juggling all of these factors (and more) when seeking to create responsible statecraft. Even if there are no "right decisions" as you contest, there are certainly bad decisions (countless ones throughout the lineage of U.S. foreign policy) and some absolute tragic decisions (Vietnam, the Iraq War) - and it's not helpful when people just pivot from the specific to vagaries and essentially become apologists for disastrous (and in some instances - criminal) foreign policy.

We have a very specific act of foreign policy/war to assess here: Biden's strike on Syria. It's not vague and we have a number of complex layers to analyze with this - so maybe we could start to actually dive into it instead of just saying "well it's complicated and there's really no right/wrong answer here."

>Obama put it well on the wtf podcast...the federal government
>is an aircraft carrier... you can't move it on a dime, you can
>make nudges and over time the policies change.

I've long contested that the Obama Doctrine was a step in the right direction:

https://www.theatlantic.com/press-releases/archive/2016/03/the-obama-doctrine-the-atlantics-exclusive-report-on-presidents-hardest-foreign-policy-decisions/473151/

Obama challenged a lot of the conventional norms in terms of how foreign policy is constructed and projected into the world (namely: distancing himself from the corrupt regimes of Saudi Arabia and Israel and openly engaging with Iran (also a corrupt regime in some ways - but nonetheless far more democratic than Saudi Arabia - and a nation we have far more commonality with than people think). Obama proudly refused to intervene and exact regime change in Syria (citing Libya as the biggest mistake of his presidency) - and the JCPOA was the most impressive foreign policy/diplomatic achievement this country has had in multiple decades.

The foundation was laid under the Obama years - and a progressive president (like Bernie Sanders) could've taken the baton and really evolved our foreign policy into a force of good in the world - but obviously the opposite happened under Trump. And now - with Biden striking Syria (and continuing the Trump policy there and elsewhere) - we must not be silent. Many of us were loud and deeply critical of the disastrous Trump foreign policy - and that shouldn't change when a new president continues those awful policies.

There are a few major areas where there is bi-partisan consensus in this country: foreign policy and war is one of them.

So yes - you're right: foreign policy is full of complex layers and intricacies. So let's dive into them instead of just throwing our hands up and saying "well there's really no right or wrong answer here" -- for if we can't call out unconstitutional strikes and borderline war crimes - what can we call out?

-->

Oh fuck just bombed a country with several citizen casualties while being in office for less than 2 months.


Sorry guys the minimum wage raise that has been overdue for over a decade wont be available until 2025.


We need to go through a convoluted process to get stimulus checks during a pandemic but we can get some bombs dropped immediately!



Why are you upset that the Pentagon loses trillions of tax dollars on the regular? Do you not understand how politics works?

You can do all the mental gymnastics you want bringing up a domestic policy issue in a conversation about foreign policy


But we’ve moved on from Trump. We won’t abandon the Kurds, or any allies, during this administration

these never ending foreign wars.


I promise it takes zero mental gymnastics to be disgusted by the speed our government has bombing people overseas while dragging their feet to help its own citizens.

Its pretty easy.

Fascinating.

-->

Why you doing this

You clearly know better

Israel & Saudi Arabia. It's a fact that U.S. arms sold to Saudi Arabia & the UAE have made their way to al-Qaeda and other extremist groups in the region. We have directly & indirectly made it possible for those groups to wreak havoc in Syria.

With all the talk about "Iranian militias" (and they exist and are brutal) - there's no talk of Saudi militias or Israeli-back militias - which is a dishonest framing of the situation in Syria (and elsewhere) making it seem like Iran is the only problematic actor (when one could very easily make the argument that both Saudi Arabia and Israel are equally responsible - if not more responsible for the bloodshed).

But I think Mehdi Hasan said it best:

"What unites Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, Nancy Pelosi, David Petraeus, Tom Friedman, and the editorial board of the Washington Post?

Answer: Their support for arming what they called “moderate” Syrian rebel groups.

Yes, the brutal Assad is responsible for the bulk of the violence in Syria — as are the governments of Iran and Russia that armed and backed him. But those responsible for arming and backing some of Syria’s most thuggish rebel groups include — among many others — the government of the United States. Some of us warned that the U.S. providing money and weapons to such rebels would backfire. We were smeared as genocide apologists, Assad stooges, Iran supporters. And yet what we are seeing on the ground in northeastern Syria today is a classic — and depressing — case of what the CIA has called “blowback.”

The former allies of the United States in Syria have turned on the current allies of the United States in Syria. And no one seems to want to admit this — or take any responsibility for it."


-->

Biden did not seek congressional authorization for a military strike

...and here people are doing everything they can to defend it...

Using the aircraft analogy...during my lifetime we’ve been nudged in the direction of the executive taking military action without congressional approval...and power being consolidated under the executive

Ivy League educated congressional scholar BHO continued this practice instead of correcting it

How can we be 2 months post the worst administration in the history of our country

and people can’t see how dangerous this is...when their guy isn’t in office?

Build back better, that’s what we were sold

How is an airstrike on Iranian targets inside Syria, days before a report implicating the Saudi crown prince in the murder of a US resident...how is that better?

It’s also not lost on me that reports about the Feb missile strike in Iraq killed a ‘US contractor’...is this another blackwater mercenary?

i.e. there is plenty to debate

But we can’t have a discussion on the issue with blind loyalty.

They just retaliated

De-escalation they said...

Yet these dudes want to criticize the decision through the lens of domestic policy? Like huhhhh

I blame the talking head political Instagram influencer bros for this in large part. You can have a fucking TAKE on this strike without bothering to read the details — reading about the Kurds or Hezbollah.

They’re just not interested in the actual details. Or it’s a different brand of America First that says fuck our allies around the world.

but rather than hint at us not getting it, indulge us then. Lay out all of the "factors" please

https://www.bbc.com/news/56249926

No responsibility has been taken yet but we all know how this tit-for-tat game goes. 20+ were killed in Biden's strike in NE Syria - and this is likely a retaliation. This was the same airbase that was hit in retaliation for Trump's assassination of Soleimani. Trump bombed Syria in late 2020 as a parting gift - and Biden has picked up right where he left off.

There really was an opportunity here to re-enter the JCPOA and resume diplomacy. I can't imagine the logic in wanting to ratchet up military conflict with Iran -- this only leads to destruction and death and a lose/lose outcome.

-->