Syria?

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24944
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Syria?

Post by Wabash »

I'll let you know when I'm president.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Сделай Америку великой снова
broman
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:52 am
Has thanked: 1 time

Re: Syria?

Post by broman »

Wabash wrote:I'm not a president who made a lot of statements about not being involved in Syria.

Trump did.
You mean you can't have three contradictory beliefs on the same subject. Support Trump when he publicly tells Obama to not go into Syria, badger Obama on the "red line" and cheer when Trump he bombs Syria.



@realDonaldTrump
The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A.



If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!
User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4709
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Syria?

Post by Professor Fate »

Wabash wrote: y Wabash » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:35 am

Given that Trump campaigned on an isolationist platform this looks more like a "Wag the Dog" attempt at distraction.
HaHa, I missed this at first. Am I to believe that Theresa May, and Emmanuel Macron bombed Syria to distract from Stormy Daniels? #-o
Make Them Cry Again In 2020
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24944
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Syria?

Post by Wabash »

Couldn't tell you. You'll have to ask them. Neither is president of the United States. Nor do either have a history of making isolationist statements as it relates to Syria.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Сделай Америку великой снова
User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 9417
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Syria?

Post by Omar Bongo »

Professor Fate wrote: For you to suggest that anyone who opposes massive numbers of immigrants, can not also care about babies, children, and grannies, getting gassed is pathetic.
For you to state he only opposes "massive numbers" of immigrants is equally pathetic...BTW did either of his travel bans include exceptions for babies, children and grannies?
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump
User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4709
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Syria?

Post by Professor Fate »

Image
Make Them Cry Again In 2020
User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 9417
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Syria?

Post by Omar Bongo »

It's not about you or me, it the about lies you propagate here to defend the buffoon you voted for
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24944
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Syria?

Post by Wabash »

Sarah Sanders released this photo that supposedly depicts the Situation Room during the Syria missile strike. Apparently the Star Trek transporter must have been perfected.
Attachments
Sit Room.jpg
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Сделай Америку великой снова
User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 20303
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Syria?

Post by John Q. Public »



"Mission accomplished. You like that? I just thought it up. Nobody's ever said that before."
Don't look at me, I just work here.
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24944
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Syria?

Post by Wabash »

This popped into my FB feed from someone who claims to be a veteran named Jim Wright. He makes some good points.
24 years on active duty, I never heard the term "mission accomplished" used other than by politicians.

There are major problems with this phrase, particularly as used by this president for this most recent strike on Syria.
First: What does he mean by "mission?"
This isn't a rhetorical question. The terms matter.
Is he talking about a single strike? Or the larger objective of deterring Assad from using chemical weapons? Note that he didn't define what he meant, if he even knows.

There is a huge difference between Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) and Measure of Effect (MOE).

BDA is an assessment of whether or not the weapons struck their intended targets. I.e. blowing **** up.

MOE is an assessment of whether or not the PLAN OBJECTIVES were met.

We don't just bomb things to bomb things.

A strike is -- ideally -- part of a larger plan. A military plan is based on national objectives. The strategic objective here is (assumed from context) to deter Assad from future use of chemical weapons.

How you achieve those objectives, militarily, is a complex process based on the intelligence picture, doctrine, available assets, time frame, probable risks, possible strategic and tactical gains, politics, and so on.
The result of this process is the Operational Plan.

This planning process is continuous and ongoing. The military generates plans at all levels of granularity for every conceivable scenario. It's a structured process with a specific format and components.
When, IF, needed, the plan is updated based on the latest intel and strategic/tactical assessment, available assets, targets, weather, time, etc.

It always begins with the plan OBJECTIVES.
You have to have a methodology of determining if those objectives have been met.
How we determine that is often a classified process based on the fusion of intelligence from a variety of inputs that may be both quantitative (i.e. directly measurable) or qualitative (inferred from enemy action or response).
This process of determining if the objectives have been met is called MOE.

THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART.
You can bomb **** all day, but if you didn't achieve the OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN, then you fail even if every missle was dead on target (BDA).

Ideally, you have high BDA and MOE, i.e. your intel is good, you plan is good, your weapons strike the target, the targets are destroyed or disabled, and the strategic objectives of the plan are met.
But it doesn't always work out that way.

For example: your bombs struck the intended bunkers and destroyed them. You know this because you can see it and measure it directly. 5 missiles, 5 bunkers, 5 piles of rubble. And you got pictures.
That's high BDA.

HOWEVER, if your objective was to prevent the enemy from carrying out a certain action and the bunkers turned out not to be what you thought, or they were empty, or not as critical to the enemy as you thought, etc., well, then you didn't stop the enemy from being able to do what he wants and thus you didn't meet the objectives of the plan.
You hit all the targets and destroyed them, high BDA.
But you didn't achieve the STRATEGIC objective, low MOE.
Now, in this scenario, you COULD say that the MISSION was accomplished.

You launched the missiles and they struck the targets as intended. You launched your aircraft and they carried out their orders and returned safely. The MISSION was accomplished.

BUT in this example, while the MISSION was successfully accomplished, the STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE wasn't met.
You're going to have to get better intel. You're going to have to retarget, reassess, go back in, or accept that you failed to meet the objectives set by national authority.

Note: There may be MANY missions within a single plan to achieve a particular objective.
Successful accomplishment of a single mission doesn't mean the objective has been met. Failure of a mission doesn't mean the overall objective wasn't achieved. We plan for failure.

The goal isn't to blow **** up, the goal is to achieve the objective of the plan.
There are many, many shades of gray when it comes to "mission accomplished."
And like every thing else with this administration, you'll note that the president didn't define the terms.

When a politician says "Mission accomplished" the questions you need to ask are:
1. Define "mission." What is the objective?
2. Define "accomplished." How do you measure it against the objective?
3. Forget the individual mission, was the objective of the overall PLAN accomplished? Were the national objectives met? How do you know?

Regarding the Syrian raid, the strike mission may have been accomplished successfully, but you don't know if the OBJECTIVE was met because you have no way to determine if Assad will use chemical weapons in the future.
Unless the terms are specifically defined, "Mission Accomplished" means absolutely nothing -- particularly coming from a politician.

Which is why the military doesn't use the term.

After decades of war, Americans should be smart enough to recognize this and to demand accountability from their leaders.

If you want a better nation, you have to be better citizens.
One has to love that we just spent millions to blow up a couple buildings worth a couple hundred bucks.

Assad is claiming the Russians knew to evacuate their troops prior to the strike. It's like they knew in advance where the missiles were aimed. I'm sure it was just a coincidence.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Сделай Америку великой снова
User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 9417
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Syria?

Post by Omar Bongo »

The goal was to knock Muellar/Stormy/Cohen stories off the front page for a few days...mission accomplished
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump
User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4709
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Syria?

Post by Professor Fate »

Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron wanted to help Trump divert attention from Mueller/Stormy/Cohen issues...Yeah, Let's pretend that makes sense. :roll:

Image
Last edited by Professor Fate on Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Make Them Cry Again In 2020
User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 9417
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Syria?

Post by Omar Bongo »

Try to keep up, Prof...who was it that said "Mission Accomplished"?
User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4709
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Syria?

Post by Professor Fate »

That's quite a stretch elastic man.


Image
Make Them Cry Again In 2020
User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 9417
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Syria?

Post by Omar Bongo »

From your "responses" I gather you have no idea what the mission was that was accomplished either...am I right?
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump
User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4709
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Syria?

Post by Professor Fate »

No you aren't. The mission was to punish and deter the use of chemical weapons outlawed by the Geneva Protocols in 1925, and outlawed more thoroughly in 1997 by the Chemical Weapons Convention signed by 192 nations. Only Egypt, N. Korea, and South Sudan haven't signed it.

Image
Make Them Cry Again In 2020
User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12602
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Syria?

Post by Vilepagan »

Professor Fate wrote: No you aren't.
Yet you won't say whether or not the mission was accomplished...why not?
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24944
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Syria?

Post by Wabash »

Agreed. What is the Mission?

Getting Assad to stop using chemical weapons on civilians? Particularly children?

What about conventional non-chemical weapons? Is using those on civilians going to still be okay?
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Сделай Америку великой снова
User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4709
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Syria?

Post by Professor Fate »

Vilepagan wrote: Contact: Contact Vilepagan
Re: Syria?
Post Reply
Unread postby Vilepagan » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:21 am

Professor Fate wrote:
Source of the post No you aren't.


Yet you won't say whether or not the mission was accomplished...why not?
Where do you get that from?

Fact is I didn't say. That doesn't mean I won't say. Get a dictionary.

The mission was to punish and deter the use of outlawed chemical weapons. The punish part is mission accomplished. As to the deter part, we'll have to wait and see.
Make Them Cry Again In 2020
User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4709
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Syria?

Post by Professor Fate »

Wabash wrote: Postby Wabash » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:51 am

Agreed. What is the Mission?

Getting Assad to stop using chemical weapons on civilians? Particularly children?

What about conventional non-chemical weapons? Is using those on civilians going to still be okay?
Wabash,

I must assume you can't read, or maybe are blind. Two posts above your own post, I stated what the mission was. Get your mommy to read it for you.

The non-chemical weapons are another story. If you think we should take sides in this civil war, you must have loved the Vietnam War. There are no good guys in this fight.

The allies have made it clear that the mission wasn't to seek regime change, nor was it to take sides in the Syrian civil war.
Make Them Cry Again In 2020
Post Reply