The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[Valmy]

CNBC seems to think the US is going to not help the French on this...or already has...or something

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/16/why-nato-probably-wont-help-france-against-isis.html

France is at war after the brutal attacks on Paris last week, President François Hollande said Monday, leading many to wonder if that war will include a full response from NATO, the military alliance sworn to protect it.

But the short answer is that military help from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is unlikely to come.

The issue at hand is whether France would invoke Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty, which says an armed attack against a member state "shall be considered an attack against them all." Such an invocation would call on the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and others to assist in the effort to "restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Only one country has ever invoked Article 5: The United States activated that part of the treaty after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. France is among the NATO nations that contributed ground forces to the subsequent war in Afghanistan.

James Stavridis, a retired four-star U.S. Navy admiral and NATO supreme allied commander, wrote over the weekend in Foreign Policy that it's "NATO's turn to attack."

"There is a time for soft power and playing the long game in the Middle East, but there is also a time for the ruthless application of hard power," Stavridis wrote. "It is NATO's responsibility to recognize our current moment qualifies as the latter."

But experts said that France is unlikely to officially call on NATO, because the United States may oppose such a move. A NATO presence in the region also could do more harm than good in building an international coalition.

In a Monday speech, U.S. President Barack Obama cautioned that it would be a "mistake" to have full-scale ground force operations against the so-called Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL), instead advocating for a measured approach that seeks to prevent repeating errors made in other recent U.S. wars.

"Not because our military could not march into ... Raqqa [ISIS' self-declared capital in Syria] and temporarily clear out ISIL, but because we would see a repetition of what we've seen before," Obama said after a G-20 meeting in Turkey. "If you do not have local populations that are committed to inclusive governance and who are pushing back against ideological extremes, then they resurface."

Additionally, the United States is particularly sensitive to official declarations of war, Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in a Monday analysis. Internationally formalized war "raises serious issues about the rights of combatants, how you legally define ISIS as an opponent and other problems in international law," he wrote, adding that "a formal declaration of war against a claimed state with international networks is a potential legal nightmare."

France is unlikely to invoke Article 5 without first consulting the United States, according to Colin Clarke, a political scientist with Rand Corp.

"The last thing they would want is to invoke Article 5 and have the U.S. back away," he said, explaining that Washington may be reticent to initiate a treaty-legalized war as it pursues diplomatic agreement with Russia and others.

Russia itself remains a sticking point, as Moscow routinely voices anti-NATO rhetoric and accuses the alliance of encroaching on its interests. Russia already has military aircraft and support troops in Syria and is flying missions against ISIS.

"To have this Cold War-era institution acting in the same theater as the Russians seems highly unlikely," Clark said. "Although, stranger things have happened."

France appears to be considering its options, and has not given any clear indication whether it will call on NATO, Stratfor military analyst Omar Lamrani told CNBC. In a Monday note, political analyst and former U.K. diplomat Alastair Newton wrote that "such an invocation looks unlikely for now; but I doubt that it can be ruled out entirely."

If Paris did call to activate the treaty's responsibilities, it's not clear that much would change in terms of military responses to ISIS.

The exact text of the agreement says that signatories must assist "individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force." Pointing to this phrase, Lamrani said that few NATO countries would be compelled to contribute more against ISIS than they already are.

The United States has "basically already fulfilled" the NATO responsibilities it would face if France invokes Article 5, he said. Other countries that have taken more of a back seat, like Germany, may offer additional support to the efforts in Syria, but would be unlikely to step up use of force, Lamrani said.

"Ultimately, it's more of a domestic politics issue than it is a military issue," he said of Article 5.

Well...um...what was just said here? The US does not want a big risky move that would force it to do nothing it is not already doing?

[Grey Fox]

France needs to invokie it anyway, just so the other countries can have treaty obligation to help in the war, especially our dumb new government.

[Razgovory]

France should be calling the shots.  If they want ground troops there, then we should bring ground troops.  Anything less means that NATO is worthless.

[Admiral Yi]

I think the article is saying two things: if NATO committed ground troops it would not be wise, and if France invoked Article 5 the US and other countries currently bombing would be able to say we're already fulfilling our treaty commitments.  Germany and other countries might have to send some nurses or minesweepers.

[grumbler]

A more important question: if god is omnipotent, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?

I doubt a burrito can even remotely withstand 1.416785(71)×1032 K, which is theorically absolute heat, let alone the heat of Sun and stars which God, if he has created them without machinery, can logically withstand.

God 1, burrito 0.

So, you are saying god is not omnipotent.

[mongers]

A Franco-American operation on the Iraq-Syria border ?

Say the equivalent of an old fashion airmobile brigade takes control of two or three former airbases in the border region, cuting the Eurphates 'valley' supply line down into ISIL occupied Iraq. Islamic State is now divided into two, this expeditionary or blocking force has the Iraqi Kurds on one flank and the Syrian Kurds/YPG on the other, though with the Turks at their backs, so not all plain sailing by any means.

This force could be supplied via the M40/10 out of Jordan and would be a first step in cutting up and killing IS; boots on the ground, yes, but that will eventually have to happen once the list of IS attacks in the West grows too long or do we just keep waiting and hoping it'll go away.

And this probably only works if there's also a political deal brokered in Syria and the Iraqi state gets its act together in fighting ISIL in Iraq, the Kurds not being able to do it all.

I'd vote for the British joining this, rather than say some more marginal airstrikes instead.

[Tonitrus]

A more important question: if god is omnipotent, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?

I doubt a burrito can even remotely withstand 1.416785(71)×1032 K, which is theorically absolute heat, let alone the heat of Sun and stars which God, if he has created them without machinery, can logically withstand.

God 1, burrito 0.

So, you are saying god is not omnipotent.

You have missed a greater conundrum: why would God eat a burrito at all?

[Admiral Yi]

A Franco-American operation on the Iraq-Syria border ?

Say the equivalent of an old fashion airmobile brigade takes control of two or three former airbases in the border region, cuting the Eurphates 'valley' supply line down into ISIL occupied Iraq. Islamic State is now divided into two, this expeditionary or blocking force has the Iraqi Kurds on one flank and the Syrian Kurds/YPG on the other, though with the Turks at their backs, so not all plain sailing by any means.

This force could be supplied via the M40/10 out of Jordan and would be a first step in cutting up and killing IS; boots on the ground, yes, but that will eventually have to happen once the list of IS attacks in the West grows too long or do we just keep waiting and hoping it'll go away.

And this probably only works if there's also a political deal brokered in Syria and the Iraqi state gets its act together in fighting ISIL in Iraq, the Kurds not being able to do it all.

I'd vote for the British joining this, rather than say some more marginal airstrikes instead.

I don't want no goddamn Din Bin Foo.

[Razgovory]

Grumbler was once very religious, he was the Ensi of Anu back in his hometown.

[mongers]

A Franco-American operation on the Iraq-Syria border ?

Say the equivalent of an old fashion airmobile brigade takes control of two or three former airbases in the border region, cuting the Eurphates 'valley' supply line down into ISIL occupied Iraq. Islamic State is now divided into two, this expeditionary or blocking force has the Iraqi Kurds on one flank and the Syrian Kurds/YPG on the other, though with the Turks at their backs, so not all plain sailing by any means.

This force could be supplied via the M40/10 out of Jordan and would be a first step in cutting up and killing IS; boots on the ground, yes, but that will eventually have to happen once the list of IS attacks in the West grows too long or do we just keep waiting and hoping it'll go away.

And this probably only works if there's also a political deal brokered in Syria and the Iraqi state gets its act together in fighting ISIL in Iraq, the Kurds not being able to do it all.

I'd vote for the British joining this, rather than say some more marginal airstrikes instead.

I don't want no goddamn Din Bin Foo.

Glad you got the reference, though I think using blocking force was over-egging it, though I do think the plan has some merit.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think we're ignoring the most important question...

Does God need a starship, or not?

A more important question: if god is omnipotent, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?

Yes.
And then he would eat it anyways.

[jimmy olsen]

Greece still has a big army doesn't it? How about France hire them as mercanaries on the national level by paying off the country's debt?

[Tonitrus]

Greece still has a big army doesn't it? How about France hire them as mercanaries on the national level by paying off the country's debt?

I think if we're going to get Byzantium involved in the ME again, they should at least take back Constantinople first.

[DGuller]

I think we're ignoring the most important question...

Does God need a starship, or not?

A more important question: if god is omnipotent, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?

Yes.
And then he would eat it anyways.

I think Mnsky will not be short of employment opportunities even in afterlife.

[Berkut]

I would agree that it is largely pointless to argue about whether theists all believe in the same god or different gods - it just kind of annoys from a logical standpoint.

A "thing", whatever it is -  god, table, idea, whatever - has attributes that define it. The label we give it is NOT an attribute, it is just a label.

To say that a thing exists, is to say that some object with a set of attributes exists.

Fine so define God to be an omnipotent being that created the universe.  No other known attributes.

OK.

Now the argument against can't be simply that Hannah and Mary and Aisha tell different stories about it.

I never made an argument against based on different stories.

Just pointed out that if the stories are in fact different, then the god in question is not one god but more than one, and hence the "See, we all believe in this thing together!" bit isn't really true.