Obama Claims His Critics Forced Him to Make a Mess of Syria
Obama Claims His Critics Forced Him to Make a Mess of Syria by Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post
The administration let it be known it is scrapping what it never seriously pursued, namely training of anti-regime, nonjihadist rebels. In what surely is the most cringe-worthy excuse offered by a commander-in-chief, President Obama last week complained that his critics — whom he routinely ignored and scorned — forced him to make a mess of Syria. To say it is unbecoming of a president to whine that he was only following what critics told him to do, understates just how dishonest the president is and how morally repugnant is his approach to a war that has claimed more than 200,000 lives, created millions of refugees and provided the Islamic State with a base of operations.
The New York Times reported, “Mr. Obama is arguing that he reluctantly went along with those who said it was the way to combat the Islamic State, but that he never wanted to do it and has now has been vindicated in his original judgment. The I-told-you-so argument, of course, assumes that the idea of training rebels itself was flawed and not that it was started too late and executed ineffectively, as critics maintain.” (Indeed editorial pages consistently criticized the president for belatedly, ineffectually, and halfheartedly acting or for shedding crocodile tears but taking no meaningful action to protect civilians, aid nonjihadi rebels and enforce the red line…
Finger-Pointing, but Few Answers, After a Syria Solution Fails by Peter Baker, New York Times
By any measure, President Obama’s effort to train a Syrian opposition army to fight the Islamic State on the ground has been an abysmal failure. The military acknowledged this week that just four or five American-trained fighters are actually fighting.
But the White House says it is not to blame. The finger, it says, should be pointed not at Mr. Obama but at those who pressed him to attempt training Syrian rebels in the first place — a group that, in addition to congressional Republicans, happened to include former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
At briefings this week after the disclosure of the paltry results, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, repeatedly noted that Mr. Obama always had been a skeptic of training Syrian rebels. The military was correct in concluding that “this was a more difficult endeavor than we assumed and that we need to make some changes to that program,” Mr. Earnest said. “But I think it’s also time for our critics to ‘fess up in this regard as well. They were wrong.”
In effect, Mr. Obama is arguing that he reluctantly went along with those who said it was the way to combat the Islamic State, but that he never wanted to do it and has now has been vindicated in his original judgment. The I-told-you-so argument, of course, assumes that the idea of training rebels itself was flawed and not that it was started too late and executed ineffectively, as critics maintain…
I will still stand by my constant mantra here at SWJ—this is the weakest, most unimaginative, non foreign policy focused President in over 50 years and that is sayin a lot.
Equal to this missing in action President is an equally weak NSC and a very poor DoS Kerry who from his recent statements in Sochi and now with Syria seems to be working more for the Russian Foreign Minister Larvov/Putin than for the US public.
When the President is only interested in how his legacy will be viewed in the future and he truly believes the only concept that works is soft power ie talking and HOPE we are in serious trouble as a nation.
Talking and HOPE have never made a successful US foreign policy or for that matter any other nation.
This WH shut down the outgoing JCoS and the ACoS as well as the new incoming JCoS in their comments that Russia is the existential threat to the US—by a similar argument of “the world is far to complicated for the military to understand”.
What kind of comment is that???–NOTICE US MSM never picked up on that comment BUT DoD did and shut up immediately AND that includes the SACEUR.
How many remember this President standing in a WH press conference taking questions about his strategy to dealing with IS in Iraq–WHERE he totally startled the journalists by stating “we have no policy BUT we are working on one and I will let you know about it when we get it”
Well we got it and it failed–AND it was the “other’s fault is his response”. There have been a number of secular Islamist moderate Syrian groups on the ground that where more than willing to work with the US immediately–but were ignored, ignored, ignored.
The FSA and the group around them are fighting well against both Assad and IS via the TOW but are getting the hell bombed out of them every day because the US will not supply MANPADS nor create a NFZ–OUT of fear that they will get into the hands of the wrong types and shot down airliners.
BUT WAIT the only people to shot down airliners with military grade AD missiles as been–drum roll now—- Russia.
Eastern Ukraine is literally awash with Russian advanced MANPADs and none has made it onto the black market.
There was a major Obama red line in the sand due to the use of chemical weapons in Syria –AND they are being used again and the Obama response over his very own red line in the sand–“let the UN investigate it”.
AND now to blame others is simply a “cop out”.
President Wilson would be proud of this President–isolationism here we come.
AND we have the strongest President and a strong foreign policy—not….
http://www.interpretermag.com/putin-convinced-that-whatever-he-does-obama-wont-respond-militarily-borovoy-says/
Putin Convinced That Whatever He Does, Obama Won’t Respond Militarily, Borovoy Says
September 21, 2015
Staunton, September 19 – Vladimir Putin is acting in Syria as he has in Ukraine on the basis of his conviction that no matter what Russia does, Barack Obama will not respond militarily and that as a result, Moscow has every incentive to raise the stakes in order to force negotiations and gain even more concessions from the West, according to Konstantin Borovoy.
Arguing that “a war between the US and Russia has begun” but that Putin believes he can win it without a direct military confrontation with the US, the head of the Western Choice Party says that the Kremlin leader has concluded “there is now no president in the US but instead a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.”
According to Borovoy, Putin has sent troops into Syria just as he has in Ukraine “not for the conduct of war but for its declaration, as a provocation and showing of the flag. Putin needs a casus belli but not a war” as such. And he believes that will work on the basis of his conclusion that the US is weak, something Russian intelligence agencies and lobbyists assure him is true.
The latest indication of what Putin is successfully trying to achieve, the Russian commentator continues, are the talks between the defense ministers of the US and Russia, a “pathetic” effort by the US to avoid having to acknowledge that Russia has entered the Syrian conflict against the US and the West.
“To conclude ‘agreements’ at the level of defense ministers with someone who does not observe internationally signed and ratified agreements shows naivete,” he says, because Putin will violate this “at the first opportunity” and then blame the US for the violations. And he will sacrifice Russian lives to that end as he has in the past.
“Putin’s real goal is not war but the creation of such pre-war tension that he US will be forced to enter into broadscale negotiations. The current [US] president will do everything possible in this situation not to begin military actions” and thus “will agree to talks in any format” and will be ready “in advance” to make concessions to Putin.
Putin’s demands in this situation are obvious, Borovoy says. They are “Crimea is ours, Syria is ours, Iran is ours, end all sanctions, provide financial assistance to Russia and respect the interests of Russia in the world.” And the Kremlin leader wants to be able to make those demands at a meeting with Obama and other world leaders.
In this situation, the West doesn’t have a large number of options, the Russian commentator says. It can face a long period of Russian provocations and apparent pullbacks, but it will not do anything but lose slowly because Putin believes he can act with impunity and so will continue to do so.
That will be a black day for the West, but on the other hand, Borovoy says, it will “justify” Obama’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Meanwhile, Putin will force Russians to tighten their belts, but he will succeed in convincing them that their problems have not been caused by him but by “the military provocateur Obama” and thus they will not only accept the situation but support Putin in his further aggression.
In reality, he continues, Obama has only “a single way out – supplying arms to Ukraine, and not just defensive ones but those that will allow Ukraine to attack. Russia’s armed forces in fact are not prepared for a real military conflict.” At present, however, Putin is certain that Obama won’t do that.
There remains “only one question: what in fact ought the American president to do in this situation?” Borovoy suggests two steps: “giving a military response to Putin in Syria and Ukraine, immediately, rapidly and very effectively,” and “taking up the problems of the C special services, having freed them from the influence of the network of Putin’s agents.”
Unfortunately, the Russian commentator implies, there does not seem to be much chance of either.
Even the failure of the Obama Russian Reset 2.0 is being blamed on the Europeans…….
Gordon: Russia reset was Obama plan from campaign but we discussed with the Europeans and they were overwhelmingly supportive #TARussia
“Blame-game” aside, I think we have to work through this by keeping our eye on the ball.
The overarching, overriding political objective of the United States — throughout the world — is to transform outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines.
Thus we must (1) consider the present situation (2) in Syria and elsewhere (3) from this perspective.
Thus, to ask these simple questions:
Re: Syria: What is the best way, presently, to:
a. Overcome our current obsticles? And
b. Achieve, in spite of such obsticles, the overarching, overriding political objective of the United States (as outlined at my second paragraph above)?
Herein, the “blame-game” (whether were talking Bush Jr or Obama here) seems to be a “dodge” — a distraction — as it does not seem to address (1) how we might now move forward and (2) achieve what the United States wants to achieve; in Syria, and elsewhere in the non-western/less-western world.
(Note: In making our suggestions now, we must I suggest, based on our failures/difficulties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, address what the United States et. al would do (as the Russian foreign minister spokeswoman recently pointed out) “right after,” for example, the fall of Assad.)
This is not about blame –it simply is embarrassing……..and should have never happened—suggest reading the paras 3/4.
U.S. military inspiring no confidence whatsoever, admitting it knows less than it should about #Putin’s ‘intentions
https://twitter.com/cbsMcCormick/status/646373798690877440 …
SecDef Ash Carter believes any further #Russia support for #Syria’s Assad “fanning the flames” – Pentagon spox Peter Cook
DoD if we are to believe social media had absolutely no plans—
1. They’re waiting for you and other tweeps to tell ’em what Putin is up to in #Syria. Welcome to modernity!
2. Allen couldn’t make Obama’s make-it-up-as-you-go-along #ISIS “strategy” work. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/world/middleeast/obama-seeks-500-million-to-train-and-equip-syrian-opposition.html?_r=0 …
3. Tom Nichols @RadioFreeTom
Russia exercising influence and crashing about where it pleases like no time since the 1970s isn’t genius, it’s the absence of America.
4. It ain’t that Putin is a strategic genius or a “grandmaster.” It’s that Obama has yet to appreciate, or behave as if, there’s a game at all.
Outlaw:
Re: “leadership,” let’s take a moment and consider this from former President George W. Bush’s specific thoughts in a May 17, 2012 Wall Street Journal article entitled: “George W. Bush: The Arab Spring and American Ideals.”
“We do not get to choose if a freedom revolution should begin or end in the Middle East or elsewhere. We only get to choose what side we are on.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304192704577406612351805018
Outlaw:
America today (now with limited means) wishes to be on the side of/support favorable revolutions; much as the Soviets/the communists wished to be on the side of/support favorable revolutions back in the Cold War.
Given this “role-reversal” dynamic — today v. the Cold War — what then can the United States learn from the Soviets/the communists re: “leadership:”
a. In promoting, pursuing and supporting favorable revolutions generally? And, specifically,
b. In addressing “containment” challenges? (Such as those presented by the Russians v. the U.S. in Syria and Ukraine today.)
The probability of UW being successful, like other forms of warfare, is dependent upon a number of variables. Even if all those variables are relatively positive, the outcome of UW will always have a higher degree of uncertainty compared to other forms of warfare. I’m sure military advisors told the president as much. I’m hopeful they told the president that his policies that severely limited the UW option would more than likely result in failure. The bottom line is the President made the decision, and it is his responsibility. Failure to own that responsibility speaks to his character.
The military is fully as culpable as the President. His parameters made doing what they wanted todo, how they wanted to do it impossible. Equally the Generals never came up with a viable approach within the parameters allowed, and to my knowledge never brought the President an option other than the one he chose that equally met his larger concerns as the policy decision maker.
Bottom line is that the only group offering the Sunni Arab people of Syria and Iraq a viable political alternative is ISIS – and as a result their plan is well supported by Sunnis from every corner of the globe (not every Sunni, but by Sunni everywhere). We must out compete, not defeat, ISIS if we hope to end up in a position of influence when the dust and blood settles.
Does anyone see the fallacy in DoS Kerry’s statement carried by BBC News today???
Russia’s military build-up in Syria appears to be limited to protecting its own forces in the country, US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday.
Mr Kerry’s comments follow reports that Russia is expanding its military presence in Syria through the development of two additional bases.
Russia’s bolstering of its military aid to Syria has concerned US officials.
But Mr Kerry said on Tuesday the US was prepared to work with Russia to end Syria’s bitter four-year war.
He urged Russian president Vladimir Putin to play a constructive part in finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict, which has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced millions.
Mr Kerry has been critical of Mr Putin’s support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which he said on Tuesday was a factor in motivating foreign fighters to travel to Syria to oppose Mr Assad.
“Limited to self protection” means exactly what again–IF INDEED for self protectionthen there is no need for two completely new bases, no need for the three Pantsir-S1s, T90s tanks and 28 fighters and ground attack aircraft.
THAT is IF they are for self protection.
BECAUSE if we are to “buy” Kerry’s statement as the administration “truth” THEN what happens when Russian troops go on the offensive against IS?????
THAT is then certainly not “self protection”?????
Iranians media sources have carried the following number of Russian “advisors/trainers” as being in Syria 20K–so why did not Putin far far earlier send in his additional airstrike, and two elite Brigades???
SO is in fact Kerry as the spokesperson for Obama “trying to lie their way out of a total US failure” by simply stating “oh it is just for self defense”…come on just how dumb do they think social media is that will shortly kick in challenging that statement????
Bill C—-
This is the perfect example to depict the total failure of US FP in Syria and non linear warfare in eastern Ukraine.
WHICH of these drones of Syria is not flying under a strategic national level UW strategy??????
Russian, US, and Iranian drones now flying over Idlib. Welcome to the new world of warfare.
Second example of our total failure—-Obama has now this week backed off his demand of immediate removal of Assad for now one of well let’s let him guide a “transition” for how long is in the stars……ALL the while even with Russia now on the ground barrel bombs just keep on raining down on civilians? So much for Russian influence just as they claim they have no influence over their own mercenaries in eastern Ukraine.
If Mr Al Assad is a friend in the war against ISIL, one wonders what an enemy would look like” http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/bashar-al-assad-is-a-far-greater-threat-than-isil#page1 …
Well it now appears as if the strategy of HOPE and blame others by Obama and Kerry has now basically run out……………..
Especially telling as Peskov is Putin’s spokeperson……….
Peskov: Russia does not intend to discuss the fate of Syria with anybody. https://twitter.com/rosbaltru/status/646622539893096448 …
AND just what that US Iraq, Syrian, eastern Ukraine strategy again…….?
Question to DoS Kerry after his press statement and to Obama–who do we blame now…….???????
We now have six major UW strategic players all in and or around Syria–Russia, Iran, IS, Hezbollah, KSA/friends and NOW China…………we are not even in the game……AND the seventh sitting on the side lines Israel.
There is an old Merkel saying–if you are in politics as a politician at the leadership level THEN you want power……..Obama and Kerry must have missed that German saying.
Military expert Vadim Lukaschewitsch expect #Russia’n ground offensive in #Syria bc 2 dozen SU-24/25 fighter jets
Reports: aircraft carrier from #China passed Suez Canal -probably heading toward #Syria’n coast
AND the Obama FP or lack thereof just keeps on getting bad…….
Another excellent Syria article from @michaeldweiss ‘Did a U.S.-Trained Syrian Rebel Commander Defect to al Qaeda?’
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/22/did-a-u-s-trained-syrian-rebel-commander-defect-to-al-qaeda.html
Maybe the WH really should listen to the voices of the Syria resistance regardless of flavor of the month–they all have the same two enemies–Assad and ISIS and belated and somewhat late to the game Russia.
My brother, he didn’t betray the US.
OBAMA betrayed Syrian opposition a long long time ago
Many who volunteered to the Div30 program did it just to build trust with the U.S hoping one day the fight will not only be bat ISIS.
Imagine you were an officer in Div30..even tolerating all empty promises u know last batch was sent in w/o any cover, like sitting ducks…
Sub group of FSA division 30 will no longer work with the US & will fight ISIS & Assad
There are strong rumors stating that the supposed US air cover never arrived as promised this group when this convoy of 75 personnel and 12 technical crossed into Syria—–What the heck……????
We the US taxpayers are spending 500M USDs to send Syrians back into to fight exactly WHO…….????
Obama, his NSC and Kerry need to urgently explain their misappropriations of US funds to the US taxpayer AND somehow truly signal they are in the game to remove Assad WHO is basically responsible for the ongoing mass refugee flow–NOT IS.
IT is time for Obama and Kerry to be honest and truthful in exactly what they have been ignoring in Syria since 2011.
What displaces civilians? #Assad razing entire neighborhoods in 2012/13 (pre-ISIS) for one. https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/01/30/razed-ground/syrias-unlawful-neighborhood-demolitions-2012-2013 …
Very Interesting. 56% of #ISIS battles are against Syrian Rebels. 29% against Kurds. 12% against Regime Forces
Years ago in the old SF UW days we were taught to inherently listen to and read anything our opponent had to say as a way of “understanding the environment one was going into–from all sides”.
We keep forgetting at the US FP level that there are any number of UW players in the Syrian game and since we the US has failed to achieve defining any UW strategic strategy we are simply “not in the game”.
Remember it was Obama in a press conference who himself stated “we have no IS strategy”–well a year or so later we truly do not have one.
BUT read what one of our UW opponents has to say about Russia and Syria and then re-ask the question— does Obama and Kerry really understand just what the heck is ongoing in Syria and for that matter the entire ME since Obama has basically all but pulled out of the region leaving a really major vacuum that everyone is rushing to fill??
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsRepo…ct-with-russia
Published: 22/09/2015 12:22 PM
Pro-Hezbollah daily says party
in Syria pact with Russia
Al-Akhbar claimed that Russian troops will fight alongside Hezbollah in Syria
BEIRUT – A leading pro-Hezbollah daily claimed on Tuesday that the party has joined a new counter-terror alliance with Moscow and that Russia will take part in military operations alongside the Syrian army and Hezbollah.
Al-Akhbar’s editor-in-chief Ibrahim al-Amin wrote that secret talks between Russia, Iran, Syria and Iraq had resulted in the birth of the new alliance, which he described as “the most important in the region and the world for many years.”
“The agreement to form the alliance includes administrative mechanisms for cooperation on [the issues of] politics and intelligence and [for] military [cooperation] on the battlefield in several parts of the Middle East, primarily in Syria and Iraq,” the commentator said, citing well-informed sources.
“The parties to the alliance are the states of Russia, Iran, Syria and Iraq, with Lebanon’s Hezbollah as the fifth party,” he also said, adding that the joint-force would be called the “4+1 alliance” – a play on words referring to the P5+1 world powers that negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran.
The Al-Akhbar article came hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly reached an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow over the latter country’s major military build-up in Syria.
Following their meeting, Netanyahu announced that Russia and Israel had agreed to “a joint mechanism for preventing misunderstandings between our forces,” and reiterated that Tel Aviv’s commitment to preventing weapon transfers from Syria to Hezbollah.
Putin, in turn, told Netanyahu that the Syrian regime was in “no position” to open a new front against Israel, which has conducted regular airstrikes in Syria targeting weapon transfers as well as in retaliation to cross-border rocket fire.
Al-Akhbar says Russia coordinating with Hezbollah, Kurdish forces
Despite the reported agreement between Tel Aviv and Moscow, Al-Akhbar’s editor-in-chief said that Russian forces were coordinating with Hezbollah in Syria.
“[Several] days ago, Russian officers accompanied by specialists… from the Russian forces arriving in Syria toured a number of positions in Hama’s Al-Ghab Plain area and carried out a field survey accompanied by Syrian Army and Hezbollah officers,” Amin claimed.
“Similar tours took place in the [areas] around Idlib and in the mountain range overlooking Latakia.”
“It has become clear that the Russian force is made up of various specializations, from air force [units] to units specialized in sniper operations and artillery officers, as well as survey and observation teams.”
He also made the startling claim that Russia will “play a prominent role on the ground and will participate in combat on the battlefield with their advanced weaponry by leading operations and taking part in artillery shelling, air [raids] and otherwise, alongside the Syrian army and Hezbollah.”
“The Russians have also set up a coordination process with Kurdish forces and parties,” the article said.
“A Russian military delegate paid a secret visit to a number of Kurdish military commanders in Hasakeh and inspected areas of confrontation between the YPG and the armed groups.”
So is everyone confident that Obama and Kerry “have a handle on this”–I for one do not.
Has anyone seen the WH fully understand this connection——-
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto…#ixzz3mZlNvOSp
The Dangerous Link Between Syria and Ukraine
Vladimir Putin has used the fighting in both countries to trap the U.S.
By Eerik-Niiles Kross and Molly K. McKew
September 22, 2015
Despite what Vladimir Putin is saying, the United States still staunchly refuses to believe Russia is engaged in a new Cold War—and that the U.S. is losing. But Russia aggressively pushes its own narrative where U.S. leadership is absent. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov seems to be everywhere in recent weeks, speaking several times with his US counterpart and others in the region, selling Russia as a partner for peace and stability when the West is faced with crisis.
Experts from the left and right alike warn that cooperation with Russia on Syria can have potentially disastrous consequences for the U.S., but too many Americans still don’t understand how closely linked these two headline conflicts are, and American policy has yet to confront the reality that Syria and Ukraine are part of the same mission for Russia—the destruction of the post-WWII architecture of the West. To achieve this goal, Russia has pursued a clear policy of disruption, chaos and destabilization—in Ukraine and in the Middle East—in order to force the West to have to partner with Russia to “resolve” the crises it has created.
Now, poised to launch a direct military campaign in Syria, Russia wants the U.S. to join a Russian-led coalition against the Islamic State and complete the rehabilitation of Bashar al Assad, or else end up in direct conflict with Russia in the Middle East. Indeed, many of the anti-aircraft and other Russian weapons systems being moved to Syria are more suited to shooting at American drones and assets than anything the Islamic State has access to.
This suggested coalition is little more than a well-constructed trap for the White House and for Europe. Russia created the conflict in Ukraine. Their military support for Assad fuels a bloody civil war and a refugee crisis from Syria. Russian efforts have also materially aided in the creation of the Islamic State—the wealthiest, best-armed terrorist network in history.
Understanding how Russia has engineered the false choice between accepting Russia as a dominant force in its “sphere of influence” or the proliferation of conflict is essential to accepting that neither choice is the answer.
Too often policy analysts debate whether the Kremlin is strategic or merely tactical in its approach to foreign policy. But the answer doesn’t matter. They don’t need a master plan when one clear strategic objective drives decision-making: make the U.S. the enemy—and make them look weak. The Kremlin has been opportunistic and decisive in grabbing a position of strength—in the Middle East and in Europe—while U.S. attention has waned and retracted.
When the civil uprising against Assad first began in Syria, the rebellion’s leaders hoped for western support. Support for the rebels was slow to materialize, despite early calls for Assad to leave power, but Russia—eager to protect its military foothold on the Mediterranean and on the southern flank of NATO—was quick to line up against U.S. policy and supply Assad with arms, military advisers, intelligence and political support. After Syria deployed chemical weapons against rebels and civilians in August 2013, Russia brokered a deal with the U.S. to save Assad from outside military intervention.
Russian support for Assad has allowed the civil war to continue for years at such an intense level of bloodshed and destruction. But shipments of armaments were not their only tool for saving their primary regional ally. They are also involved in building an engine of terrorism to open a second front in the Syrian war.
By the time the chemical weapons deal was signed, the nature of the war in Syria had changed. Before the 2014 Sochi Olympics—as Russia issued warnings about potential attacks by North Caucasus extremists and moved military assets into the region for the seizure of Crimea—there were rumors, now confirmed by Russian investigative journalists, that Russia was actively exporting fighters from the North Caucasus to Syria. Elena Milashina, writing in Novaya Gazeta, documented how, beginning in 2011, the FSB established safe routes for militants in the North Caucasus to reach Syria via Turkey. Local FSB officers, sometimes with the help of local intermediaries and community leaders, encouraged and aided jihadis to leave Russia for the fighting in the Middle East, in many cases providing documents that allowed them to travel.
It probably wasn’t a hard sell for the FSB to make to nascent jihadis: Go fight in the desert, for infinite riches and glory, or stay in Russia, where the security services had pretty good cover to kill a lot of them.
A lot of them left. In late 2012, Russian-speaking jihadis began to arrive in Syria. According to regional intelligence sources who have closely tracked their movements and activities, the Russian-speakers negotiated the unification of the Islamic States in Syria and in Iraq, creating the current Islamic State formation.
Suddenly, the war in Syria was “confusing” to American policymakers seeking a way out of the war and an end to Assad’s regime. There were “good rebels” and “bad rebels,” and the U.S. couldn’t decide which side to support. These tactics were similar to the irregular warfare Russia would deploy in Ukraine.
The war at that point also turned away from Assad and Syria, and toward Iraq instead. The western front of ISIL was led by Russian-speakers; the eastern commanders included disenfranchised Soviet/Russian-trained Saddam-era Sunni military officers. From the beginning, their efforts were closely coordinated. There were reports from Kurdish forces of Russian operatives at secret outposts in the desert.
John Schindler @20committee
2 years ago @RadioFreeTom & I explained consequences of Obama outsourcing US #Syria policy to Putin. Here we are.
http://observer.com/2015/09/obamas-collapsing-war-on-the-islamic-state/ …
Nato official: “We had little confidence before in Obama’s ability to defeat ISIS. Now we have none.” https://twitter.com/20committee/status/646747930821574657 …
An extremely interesting question–with the CENTCOM failures–WHY was Matthis replaced as CENTCOM Commander—-?
Foreign policy is often all about perceptions–when Obama is being perceived by Putin as weak, when his actions in the face of Putin’s military move into Syria is being perceived as weak –then others can decide to play the game harder and take additional advantage of that perceived weakness.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015…tollah-demand/
Iran deal open for debate? Tehran presses new ayatollah demand
The Iranian government is pressing the U.S. and others to give even more ground to Tehran in the already-sealed nuclear agreement, posing a new headache as the Obama administration and others try to implement the deal.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei earlier this month demanded that sanctions be lifted entirely, not just suspended. A top Khamenei adviser reiterated that demand over the weekend — ahead of potential informal talks on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.
Secretary of State John Kerry plans meet in the coming days in New York with his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. According to Iran’s Fars News Agency, Iranian officials also plan to meet with all members of the P5+1 group, which negotiated the deal, in New York on Sept. 28.
These reported plans prompted one group, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), to question whether talks were being “reopened,” in order to address Khamenei’s concerns.
Asked about the speculation, a State Department official said there is no further negotiation and the U.S. expects the deal to be implemented “in good faith.”
“We’ve long said that we’re not going to comment on or react to every statement attributed to the Iranian leadership,” the official told FoxNews.com. “Our focus is on implementing the deal, and verifying that Iran completes its key nuclear steps under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. There is no renegotiation, and the nuclear-related sanctions relief that Iran will receive once the IAEA verifies that it has completed its nuclear steps is clearly spelled out in the text of the [agreement].”
But at the least, the ayatollah’s demands show the post-deal debate shifting now from Washington back to Tehran, leaving some uncertainty in the air as the U.S. and U.N. prepare to move forward.
In Washington, congressional critics have been unable to muster the votes to even send President Obama a resolution disapproving the deal. But in Tehran, the ayatollah on Sept. 3 renewed concerns about the nature of the deal’s sanctions relief.
He said in a statement that sanctions should be lifted entirely, not just suspended — and said “there will be no deal” unless this is done.
According to MEMRI’s translation, he warned that if sanctions are only suspended, Iran, in turn, will only “suspend” nuclear activities cited in the deal. He also called for a parliamentary vote on the deal, though it’s unclear whether that will happen.
Iran’s Fars News Agency over the weekend quoted ayatollah adviser Ali Akbar Velayati saying Khamenei’s views “should be materialized.” He added: “It is understood from the Supreme Leader’s remarks that balance is necessary in the two sides’ measures and in case of imbalance, nothing will be done.”
The text of the Iran nuclear agreement actually refers to the “lifting” of sanctions. But the White House has said that sanctions “will snap back into place” if Iran violates its end, indicating they indeed see the sanctions relief as reversible.
MEMRI wrote that the upcoming meeting could be a forum for all parties to “discuss the Iranian demand for further concessions.” MEMRI, though, warned that outright lifting sanctions “would constitute a fundamental change” to the deal. “This is because lifting the sanctions, rather than suspending them, will render impossible a snapback [of sanctions] in case of Iranian violations.”
The nature of the discussions being held next week is unclear.
On Sept. 20, Kerry said he planned to meet with his Russian and his Iranian counterpart, “regarding Iran and other things.” But he indicated the meeting would cover a range of topics, including the Syrian civil war.
While Fars reported that the Iranians will meet with P5+1 representatives in New York on Sept. 28, the State Department has not announced such a meeting.
Earlier this month, after Iran’s Supreme Leader spoke out against the process for sanctions relief in the deal, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest put the onus on Iran to follow through with its end before sanctions relief is even implemented.
“We’ve been crystal-clear about the fact that Iran will have to take a variety of serious steps to significantly roll back their nuclear program before any sanctions relief is offered,” he said. “… And only after those steps and several others have been effectively completed, will Iran begin to receive sanctions relief. The good news is all of this is codified in the agreement that was reached between Iran and the rest of the international community.”
Foreign policy is often all about perceptions–when Obama is being perceived by Putin as weak, when his actions in the face of Putin’s military move into Syria is being perceived as weak –then others can decide to play the game harder and take additional advantage of that perceived weakness.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015…tollah-demand/
Iran deal open for debate? Tehran presses new ayatollah demand
The Iranian government is pressing the U.S. and others to give even more ground to Tehran in the already-sealed nuclear agreement, posing a new headache as the Obama administration and others try to implement the deal.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei earlier this month demanded that sanctions be lifted entirely, not just suspended. A top Khamenei adviser reiterated that demand over the weekend — ahead of potential informal talks on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.
Secretary of State John Kerry plans meet in the coming days in New York with his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. According to Iran’s Fars News Agency, Iranian officials also plan to meet with all members of the P5+1 group, which negotiated the deal, in New York on Sept. 28.
These reported plans prompted one group, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), to question whether talks were being “reopened,” in order to address Khamenei’s concerns.
Asked about the speculation, a State Department official said there is no further negotiation and the U.S. expects the deal to be implemented “in good faith.”
“We’ve long said that we’re not going to comment on or react to every statement attributed to the Iranian leadership,” the official told FoxNews.com. “Our focus is on implementing the deal, and verifying that Iran completes its key nuclear steps under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. There is no renegotiation, and the nuclear-related sanctions relief that Iran will receive once the IAEA verifies that it has completed its nuclear steps is clearly spelled out in the text of the [agreement].”
But at the least, the ayatollah’s demands show the post-deal debate shifting now from Washington back to Tehran, leaving some uncertainty in the air as the U.S. and U.N. prepare to move forward.
In Washington, congressional critics have been unable to muster the votes to even send President Obama a resolution disapproving the deal. But in Tehran, the ayatollah on Sept. 3 renewed concerns about the nature of the deal’s sanctions relief.
He said in a statement that sanctions should be lifted entirely, not just suspended — and said “there will be no deal” unless this is done.
According to MEMRI’s translation, he warned that if sanctions are only suspended, Iran, in turn, will only “suspend” nuclear activities cited in the deal. He also called for a parliamentary vote on the deal, though it’s unclear whether that will happen.
Iran’s Fars News Agency over the weekend quoted ayatollah adviser Ali Akbar Velayati saying Khamenei’s views “should be materialized.” He added: “It is understood from the Supreme Leader’s remarks that balance is necessary in the two sides’ measures and in case of imbalance, nothing will be done.”
The text of the Iran nuclear agreement actually refers to the “lifting” of sanctions. But the White House has said that sanctions “will snap back into place” if Iran violates its end, indicating they indeed see the sanctions relief as reversible.
MEMRI wrote that the upcoming meeting could be a forum for all parties to “discuss the Iranian demand for further concessions.” MEMRI, though, warned that outright lifting sanctions “would constitute a fundamental change” to the deal. “This is because lifting the sanctions, rather than suspending them, will render impossible a snapback [of sanctions] in case of Iranian violations.”
The nature of the discussions being held next week is unclear.
On Sept. 20, Kerry said he planned to meet with his Russian and his Iranian counterpart, “regarding Iran and other things.” But he indicated the meeting would cover a range of topics, including the Syrian civil war.
While Fars reported that the Iranians will meet with P5+1 representatives in New York on Sept. 28, the State Department has not announced such a meeting.
Earlier this month, after Iran’s Supreme Leader spoke out against the process for sanctions relief in the deal, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest put the onus on Iran to follow through with its end before sanctions relief is even implemented.
“We’ve been crystal-clear about the fact that Iran will have to take a variety of serious steps to significantly roll back their nuclear program before any sanctions relief is offered,” he said. “… And only after those steps and several others have been effectively completed, will Iran begin to receive sanctions relief. The good news is all of this is codified in the agreement that was reached between Iran and the rest of the international community.”
Should we say that President Obama (a) understands the following parallels and (b) the clear potential for disaster associated with same?:
During the Old Cold War, when communism was on the march, it could be argued that the United States/the West held the high hand; herein, being able to say that they (the U.S./the West) were working to:
a. Maintain local, regional and international “stability;” this,
b. By opposing such rapid and radical political, economic and social changes as the Soviets/the communists, at that time, sought to bring about throughout the world.
Today, in the New Cold War, with market-democracy now being on the march, the Russians (et. al) appear be the ones holding this same high hand. Herein, being able to say today, much as we did during the Old Cold War, that they are the ones working to:
a. Maintain local, regional and international stability; this,
b. By opposing such rapid and radical political, economic and social changes as the U.S./the West seeks to achieve throughout the world today.
(Such things as the rise of ISIS being portrayed by the Russians, et. al, as [a] local, regional and international instability [b] directly CAUSED by irrational/imprudent U.S./western efforts to [c] “transform” various states and societies more along modern western lines.)
Thus, the “tools” that we used against the Soviet/the communists during the Old Cold War and re: their expansionist efforts; these appear to be the self-same “tools” that the Russians, et. al, in the New Cold War, are using against us today and re: our expansionist designs.
Given how successful we were in using these “tools” to (1) prevent, contain and roll-back the spread of communism and (2) bring about the demise of the Soviet Union,
Should we not be concerned that, using these same tools today, the Russians, et. al, will, likewise, be able to (a) prevent, contain and roll-back our expansionist efforts and (b) bring our nation to its knees?
(This, given the fact that such ideas as “universal values,” and a like-minded “international community” built on same; these such ideas appear to have the clear potential to “lure” various and diverse great nations/empires [such as America and the former Soviet Union] to their demise?)
Putin is still blackmailing and attempting to force his political decision tempo onto the US and acting as if everything is a Russian solution and as if the US ie Obama does not exist.
Putin has three geo political goals;
1. discredit and damage NATO
2. discredit and damage the EU
3. totally disconnect the US from Europe
In a modified form the same goals are also for the ME with Russia replacing the US as the geo political hegemon.
Obama is contributing greatly to the success of Putin’s goals by the somewhat strange “leading from behind” failing foreign policy.
Foreign policy is often a game of perceptions and right now the perception is that Obama and Kerry have virtually no idea what they are doing.
From Reuters—
Russian President Vladimir Putin is preparing for unilateral air strikes against Islamic State in Syria if the United States rejects his proposal to join forces, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, citing two people familiar with the matter.
Russia has increased its military presence inside Syria and its arms supplies to the Syrian army as it steps up support of longtime ally President Bashar al-Assad, drawing warnings of further destabilization from Western countries that oppose Assad.
A Russian diplomatic source told Reuters on Wednesday that Moscow sees a growing chance to reach international agreement on fighting terrorism in Syria and end the crisis that has stretched into its fifth year.
Bloomberg reported that Putin’s preferred course of action was for the U.S. government and its allies to agree to coordinate their campaign against Islamic State militants with Russia, Iran and the Syrian army. It cited a person close to the Kremlin and an adviser to the Defense Ministry in Moscow.
Bloomberg cited a third person as saying Putin’s proposal called for a “parallel track” of joint military action accompanied by a political transition away from Assad, a key U.S. demand. Russia has communicated the proposal to the United States, according to the news service.
But one source told Bloomberg that Putin was frustrated with U.S. reticence to respond and was ready to act alone in Syria if necessary.
Did anyone notice the Russia blackmail attempt just in this press release?
Putin works in the simple “IF” and “THEN” world of foreign policy–not sure where the US is?????
“Blaming others” is rather a dumb way of conducting foreign policy with faced with political blackmail.
There has been repeated talk out of Moscow and from Putin himself over the last year of the need for a “new Yalta” to divide up “spheres of influence” among the superpowers.
SO is this meeting perception wise going to be viewed as a “new Yalta” which in theory it will be viewed as–meaning Russian sphere of influence is now the ME as it’s army is firmly entrenched in Syria and the Med, the Crimea and eastern Ukraine will remain under Russian control and the Ukraine will be thrown under the bus as many have stated —that is the Obama policy right now in exchange for his legacy that he thinks he needs Putin to help him achieve.
By the confusion being constantly caused by the “blame the others” Obama appears as a weak and ineffective President and Putin is doing everything possible in a short period of time to cement his gains until the 2017 timeframe and new President will have to clean up the mess left behind by a former weak President.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.de/…t-un-part.html
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Upcoming Obama-Putin Meeting at UN Part of a New ‘Munich,’ Illarionov Says
Paul Goble
Staunton, September 24 – The apparent agreement of US President Barack Obama to meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin next week in New York to discuss Syrian affairs represents a new Munich in which one side focuses on “peace in our time” and the other pockets recognition of his aggression while planning for more, Andrey Illarionov Says.
In a blog post this morning, following stories about American-Russian military to military talks Putin, the Russian commentator argues that what the world is seeing is “Munich-ization on the march” with eight disastrous consequences for Ukraine and the West more generally (aillarionov.livejournal.com/858406.html).
These are:
1. “The cooperation of Russia with the US on ‘the Syrian question’ in fact breaks the incomplete foreign policy isolation of Russia and removes from [Putin] the status of ‘outcast.’”
2. “All of Russia’s acquisitions in Ukraine are strengthened. Western leaders are entirely occupied with discussions about the need for talks with Assad.” They aren’t interested in talking about Ukraine.”
3. “With the valuable new ally the lifting or at a minimum softening of all sanctions is guaranteed either by the end of this year or at the beginning of next. An ally then, is that clear?”
4. “A new level of mobilization and discipline of Russian elites has been achieved. If someone in [Putin’s] entourage had been thinking that it was necessary to do something different, then to all it is perfectly clear that ‘papa has again done everything.’ Political elites, on the division of which certain hopes had been placed will again rally around the ‘alpha dog.’”
5. “The Kremlin will completely openly and legally introduce its forces into the Middle East.” Not just advisors but “real Russian forces” and apparently “now with the complete agreement and cover of the US.”
6. “The justification of Russian intervention … will not be handled not by Shoigu, Lavrov or even Peskov but by US Secretary of State Kerry: ‘In Syria, Russian soldiers are for the defense of Russian soldiers.’” The world will be struck dumb from laughter.
7. “With the support of Russia, the Shiite block of Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah will become the most powerful force. A full-blown war will break out against the Sunnis. A major war in the Middle East will become inevitable.”
8. “And what will be the price of oil under conditions of a major war in the Middle East?”
In short, Putin will gain his goals, Ukraine will be sacrificed in the name of something supposedly larger, and, just like at the time of the original Munich, those who think they have secured “peace in our time” by such an exchange will discover, as Churchill put it, that they have chosen “dishonor over war” but will get war nonetheless.
Putin’s offer:
A cooperative Russian stance in Syria in return for recognition of Moscow’s interests in Ukraine”
http://app.ft.com/cms/s/54b99d96-62ba-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html?siteedition=intl …
Bill C—hope Obama, Kerry and the NSC have read this —-so what will their responses be–“well we must meet with Putin to see if there can be any progress”????—is Putin not signaling that he has no intentions on progress other that what he dictates that progress to be for his own agenda???
How many ways can Putin state/display his intentions to Obama and yet we seem to not get it?–remember HOPE is not a strategy.
Putin goes to UN, Putin scores meeting with Obama, Putin kicks UN out of Donbass and then…? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/world/europe/un-agencies-told-to-leave-east-ukraine.html?ref=europe …
Is Russian action in Syria intended to preserve Assad? “You’re right” Putin replies in CBS interview http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11890352/Vladimir-Putin-Supporting-Syrian-regime-only-way-to-end-war.html …
Did not Obama and Kerry state over and over Assad must go and NOW?????
From the same Obama official that stated the Europeans were the ones that said for the US to do a Russian reset…………instead of accepting that Obama and his advice totally failed–they both “blamed someone else”–this time the Europeans.
You can almost feel the ground shifting in Washington. Fmr senior Obama aide calls for rethink of Syria policy http://politi.co/1MtPMQ7
So many holes in this piece arguing for deferring discussion of fate of Assad — you have to love ex advisors who work for 2 years (2013-15) then jump ship for better jobs and more money—-
ALL the while he never once in this article mentions the single truth that right now ground fighting successes have shifted to the anti Assad forces and Assad only control 15% of the country and the Assad Army can barely hold on—thus now Russia, Iran and Hezbollah enter to support him after years of support from Shia militia and IRGC–yet this ex advisor says nothing about that.
From Putin on CBS—“And there is no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism. But at the same time, urging them to engage in positive dialogue with the rational opposition and conduct reform,” Putin added.
NOTICE Putin did not say for long Assad is to stay in power–the same Assad that has killed seven times more Syrians than IS has and who is largely responsible for the current refugee crisis.
The central underlying problem — re: Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, etc., etc., etc. — is that “regime decapitation,” without a clear and viable plan (and, more importantly, a clear and viable capability) as to what to do “right after;” this such approach was and is madness.
The U.S./the West went down this road of working toward regime decapitations — without a clear and viable plan and a clear and viable capability of what to do “right after” — based on the idea that:
a. Everyone, everywhere
b. Liberated from their oppressive regimes would
c. Quickly, easily and mostly on their own
1. Throw off their old ways of life, their old ways of governance, their old values, attitudes and beliefs. And, in the place of these,
2. Adopt modern western ways.
Thus, what the U.S./the West essentially did was to:
a. Open Pandora’s box
b. With an understanding that the evils contained therein would
c. Due to the “overwhelming appeal” of our way of life, our way of governance, etc.
d. Stand up, line up and march in unison to the tune of market-democracy.
When this did not happen (or when it became clear that this would not happen), the U.S./the West then had no idea (and no real capability, even if it had an idea) of what next to do.
Now steps in Putin — pointing out the obvious (see all of the above) — and suggesting that now:
a. We halt this “regime decapitation” madness and
b. Proceed along more sensible and more viable lines.
Given the current state of affairs in the world, why would his such suggestions not have appeal?
1. To many of the people in the region.
2. To many of the people in Europe
3. And, potentially, even to many of the people here at home?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11890352/Vladimir-Putin-Supporting-Syrian-regime-only-way-to-end-war.html (This: provided by Outlaw below.)
Thus, Russia to rescue?
a. Of the U.S./the West — from itself and
b. The world at large — from such irrational Western ideas and approaches as have been outlined above?
Current Russian KIA count for Syria—10 KIA –GRU/Marines one of which was beheaded–reported prior to the general announcement of Russian deploying into Syria.
1 GRU KIA reported 9/22
Next one—
Undercover Ansari warrior Beheads a Russian soldier in Hama city in a mall.( a Prelude to what is coming) https://twitter.com/saalh1995/status/647433623461736448 …
13 and counting—Syria is not the eastern Ukraine.
Russian, Syrian and Iranian non linear warfare is now merging in a perfect storm and Obama and Kerry seem to not see it coming straight at them.
Russia, Syria and Iran are working together in Baghdad to co-ordinate Shia militias fighting ISIS… https://apple.news/AeXK2eWefTh-5Tc6RVtrMLw …
Russians have been busy. See Russian Air Force flights to Baghdad-Tehran-Latakia to form coordination cell in Baghdad http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/24/russians-syrians-and-iranians-setting-up-military-coordination-cell-in-baghdad/ …
This might explain the total disconnect of the Obama WH and his NSC—
http://20committee.com/2014/03/16/nobody-knows-anything/
“Nobody Knows Anything”
March 16, 2014
In his memorable 1983 book Adventures in the Screen Trade, novelist and screenwriter William Goldman repeatedly cites a line, Nobody Knows Anything, meaning that, despite vast hours and sums spent by Hollywood on testing films with audiences, nobody in Tinsel Town really has a clue how a movie will do at the box office until it’s actually released. It’s all guesswork, and always has been.
Unfortunately, the recent Ukraine crisis has revealed that American foreign policy similarly has little idea what outcomes will be – here the recent and utterly unprecedented intelligence debacle engendered by Edward Snowden & Friends is surely a factor – and generally appears clueless when confronted by Putin and his merry band of Chekists in the Kremlin. That the stakes are higher here than in the entertainment world should be obvious to all. I have repeatedly explained just how weak I think the Obama foreign policy team is, filled with impressive-sounding people who clearly cannot handle a real struggle with Moscow, so there’s no need to belabor that point again. Recent weeks have made abundantly clear that the White House simply does not know what to do when confronted with hard problems being pushed by hard men who are more than willing to use cunning violence and naked intimidation as a matter of routine.
However, the rot goes far deeper than this White House, and is not confined to any party; indeed, the remarkable decline in American foreign policy over the last generation is one of our few truly bi-partisan national efforts, so there’s no point in fantasizing that an election or two will change this. This sad truth I explained in a recent post which got quite a bit of attention, particularly this part:
A related factor here surely is that the United States has groomed a whole generation of foreign policy wonks-in-training who lack any real understanding of how the world actually works. These impressive-on-paper people – let it be noted they are legion in both parties – the under-45′s who are always graduates of the right schools and first-rate players of The Game in Washington, DC (which really comes down to cultivating the right mentors who will guide you to the proper think-tank until your party returns to power), are no match for the stone-cold killers of the Kremlin, led by the Chekist-in-Chief Putin. They have grown up in a world where unipolar American power has never been challenged, and while they can utter pleasant, Davos-ready platitudes about the whole range of bien pensant issues – global warming, emerging trends in micro-finance, gender matters on the Subcontinent, et al – they have quite literally nothing to say when old-school conventional threats emerge and enemies – yes, enemies: not rivals or merely misunderstood would-be partners – emerge from the darkness with conquest and killing on their minds.
I stick by all that and I’ll add that the defect in this younger generation of wannabe foreign policy mavens – which, full disclosure, I’m part of, barely – is two-fold. The first part is a lack of courage that’s enabled by a culture of conformism in the corridors of DC power, where one false move with the wrong staffer or donor can derail a whole career before it really begins. “Speaking truth to power” features frequently in novels and films about the nation’s capital, but is seldom encountered in reality for this reason. Savvy young people on the make quickly learn to mouth platitudes and make connections with equally bland and conformist mentors: if any of these people have genuinely novel, much less daring, foreign policy ideas, they learn to suppress them awfully fast.
Second, most of these smart young people really don’t know anything. Oh, don’t get me wrong, they had great SATs and went to top schools and have mastered the art of sounding smart, attaining admirable fluency in that unnatural dialect known as Beltway-speak, but as for any deep knowledge about any particular subject relating to how the world really works, that’s about as rare in this crowd as unicorns and Bigfoot. There should be no surprise that Chekists are winning handily these days.
That said, it’s important to note that the ignorance of reality found among our Bright Young Things in DC is hardly their own fault. It can be attributed to their deformed education, especially among those who have studied International Relations, memorizing Game Theory and related unreality when what they needed to be doing was studying languages and history and getting out of the Beltway more. I won’t beat up on IR more than this, since everybody who has encountered IR lately, between zombies and related silliness, already knows how ridiculous it is.
There is no substitute for actually knowing something about a country and a region and how its people think and what they say; this cannot be learned entirely in books – though you will have to read a lot of books to build a foundation of understanding – and it cannot be done entirely in English. If you want to understand Putin’s Russia, you will need to seriously look at the history and culture of that place, and Ukraine too, and learn their languages to boot. If this is too hard for you, then don’t try. If you want to predict what Russians and Ukrainians will likely do next with any degree of accuracy, learn about Russians and Ukrainians. For Putin and his system, you will need to learn about Chekists too, since their worldview is unique and powerful to the initiated.
This diatribe against IR, and more broadly against Political Science, ought not to be taken as a defense of History, my own discipline, since it, too, has become mired in post-modern silliness. Just when its services are needed to help explain the world to decision-makers, History has self-marginalized to an alarming degree. While I would trust the guesses of random people off the street – cabbies, waitresses, bookies – over your average tenured IR guru, I’m under no illusion that your run-of-the-mill History professor is much better.
So turning to the Academy to help explain what we ought to do next is sadly a non-starter. Capturing the wisdom of the professoriate, which was more helpful than not during the Cold War, is not much of a plan these days, I’m sad to report. Everybody wants George Kennan to magically reappear, but the reality is that poor, brilliant George, were he to magically reappear among us, would immediately be run out of the room on grounds of racism, sexism, xenophobia, generic crankiness, and all-around obsolescence. He would still be brilliant, mind you, we just have lost the ability to listen to OldThink. Until we get over our own biases, hardened practitioners of OldThink, who are far more atavistic and unpleasant than anything Kennan ever pondered at Princeton, will keep winning.
Bill C–retrenchment or blatant isolationism???
“The growth of Russian influence is directly proportional to the decline of American influence…”
https://twitter.com/foreignpolicy/status/647801520961024000 …
Russia’s game plan in Syria maybe be as simple as filling the vacuum America’s left behind, writes @juliaioffe http://atfp.co/1iAN8h6
As long as policymakers mistakenly see Syrian rebel groups as proxies, they will fail to devise realistic diplomatic approaches.
Note how in all the discussions about diplomacy over Syria, one set of actors is absent: the various rebel groups. They won’t stop fighting.
Bill–so is the “blame game” of this administration just a net result of the article below???
Maybe this administration needs to recall the past in Syria—and remember it was themselves that did not follow up after the red line in the sand.
While there’s talk of easing up on Assad just a reminder of what he did to children on August 21st 2013 – https://youtu.be/mK1Nu8A1jEo
This sums up Obama’s thinking —-in reality isolationism
QUOTE
It can be explained by a fundamental flaw in President Obama’s worldview, one which Putin has repeatedly exploited: the idea that engaging rather than confronting hostile regimes incentivizes them to improve their behavior.
This mindset predates Obama’s presidency. During his first presidential campaign, Obama proposed presidential meetings with even America’s most implacable enemies, as if American foot-dragging was a principal source of global problems.
It would be “ridiculous” and “a disgrace,” then-Senator Obama argued, for the United States to refuse to meet our enemies on their terms. With a few carefully placed concessions, so his thinking went, an Obama administration would catalyze international cooperation and transform relationships by reassuring adversaries of our benevolence.
The hard realities of power politics, including the temptation to use force in places like Syria, would fade as the mesmerizing attraction of engagement took hold. An era of American paranoia would be replaced by a new period of global cooperation.
UNQUOTE
http://www.the-american-interest.com…se-with-putin/
A Failed Approach
Reversing Course with Putin
Kenneth R. Weinstein & Peter Rough
President Obama got elected promising to always engage with implacable foes of the United States. Putin, for one, has taken advantage of Obama’s outreach every single time.
On Thursday, the White House announced that President Obama would meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. For the past year, President Obama shunned the Russian strongman in an attempt to isolate him over the Russian occupation of Ukraine. What caused the president to reverse course and agree to a tête-à-tête? Obama’s decision was taken in the shadow of a significant Russian military buildup in support of the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria. By deploying Russian troops, Putin appears to have gotten what he coveted—an opening out of isolation.
Six years into the Obama presidency, the American concession in granting the Obama-Putin meeting is the latest in a long list of Kremlin victories. But the lopsided scorecard of U.S.-Russian relations during the Obama years is no coincidence. It can be explained by a fundamental flaw in President Obama’s worldview, one which Putin has repeatedly exploited: the idea that engaging rather than confronting hostile regimes incentivizes them to improve their behavior.
This mindset predates Obama’s presidency. During his first presidential campaign, Obama proposed presidential meetings with even America’s most implacable enemies, as if American foot-dragging was a principal source of global problems. It would be “ridiculous” and “a disgrace,” then-Senator Obama argued, for the United States to refuse to meet our enemies on their terms. With a few carefully placed concessions, so his thinking went, an Obama administration would catalyze international cooperation and transform relationships by reassuring adversaries of our benevolence.
The hard realities of power politics, including the temptation to use force in places like Syria, would fade as the mesmerizing attraction of engagement took hold. An era of American paranoia would be replaced by a new period of global cooperation.
Tests of this theory with Russia have repeatedly produced less than encouraging results, however. Just a few months into his first term, in April 2009 during a visit to Prague, President Obama argued that the U.S. has “a moral responsibility to act” for the elimination of nuclear weapons because it is “the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon.” Shortly thereafter, the administration negotiated an arms control agreement with Russia that required only American reductions in nuclear warheads and strategic launchers. Today, Russia issues nuclear threats and continues to violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
Similarly, in September 2009, the Obama administration canceled missile defense installations in Eastern Europe as part of its much heralded reset with the Kremlin. Less than a year later, in May 2010, the president certified that the Russian invasion of Georgia “need no longer be considered an obstacle” to nuclear cooperation with Moscow. Four years after that? Russian troops invaded Ukraine and Moscow annexed Crimea. (Russian troops remain deployed across large parts of Georgia, creeping forward by the day.)
In each instance, Obama has wagered the prestige, resources, and moral authority of the U.S. government on the hope that he can personally bend the arc of history.
Time after time, Putin has preyed on Obama’s goodwill, and cleaned his clock. Indeed, beneath all the resets and rhetoric is a fundamental truth: what matter is not just the intentions of the president; the calculations of our competitors and enemies matter, too—and must be taken seriously.
The implications are especially bleak for the Middle East. Obama’s commitment to ending the Iraq war helped propel him—perhaps more than any other issue—to the presidency. And his recoil from the assertion of American power and influence has only persisted. Last year, the president dismissed the need for a residual force in Iraq as “bogus” and “wrong” and declared himself undisturbed by the situation in Iraq’s neighbor to the west: “I am not haunted by my decision not to engage in another Middle Eastern war [in Syria].”
Instead, he has channeled his energies toward negotiating the Iran nuclear accord, which facilitates Iran’s breakout from international sanctions in the hopes of moderating Iranian behavior.
Today, U.S. influence in the Muslim world is at its nadir, not least because the American commitment to the moderate opposition in Syria is the laughingstock of the region, having produced only a handful of fighters. In London last week, Secretary of State John Kerry continued the charade, assuring the world that “we’re not being doctrinaire” on the timing of Assad’s departure—just the opposite, he promised, “we’re open” to “whatever.” By contrast, in conjunction with his Iranian partners, Putin has moved with alacrity and speed to deploy his forces, fill the vacuum, and shore up Assad—in Latakia, the ancestral homeland of the Assad regime, the latest reports are of up to 2,000 Russian troops on the scene, equipped with advanced fighter jets and anti-aircraft systems.
This sets up a major showdown in New York on Monday. In Syria, Putin is altering the facts on the ground. Meanwhile, President Obama envisions a grand diplomatic settlement that results in Assad’s departure.
If history is any guide, Obama is about to have his clock cleaned, yet again.
Another reason for the failed Obama policies is simply–he has no strategic level UW strategy.
What the UW strategies of say Russia, China, Iran and IS should have taught us is the brilliant flexibility that a UW strategy allows for foreign policy–it allows for dialing up and dialing down depending on the opponents own moves.
This is the example of say the evolving Russian UW strategy just in the last 1.5 years—-
From Little Green Men in Crimea to Volunteers in Donbas to Visitors in Syria
We are visitors, that’s all,” says a group of “muscular, tattooed Russians” sitting in a Lattakia hotel. http://news.yahoo.com/russian-visitors-receive-warm-welcome-coastal-syria-102147094.html …
AND never changing the strategy and matching every single situation—ah… the perfection of UW.
Sun Tzu would be proud.
This President just does not get it—-
Is in fact Obama and Kerry both supporting the Khomeini “Green Crescent” of revolutionary Islam????
I don’t remember anything in Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech about a joint Iran-Russia Shia crescent stretching from the Gulf to the Med.
Do Obama and Kerry really realize that they have placed the US now fully in support of the Sunni global community while Russia has placed itself fully in support of the Shia global community????
OR is it in the process of “selling out” what remaining US Sunni allies there are in the ME BY fully supporting Russian efforts in Syria which are totally Shia focused thus making the US a de facto Shia supporter?
Maybe that is why they blame others for their failures in the ME?
Why is it that almost all foreign policy commenters see the inherent Obama weaknesses and a lack of a coherent foreign policy but he does not see that???? Notice the comment that the Sunni States are sensing a serious betrayal on the part of the US towards them.
http://linkis.com/com/6VZJK
The Endgame in Syria
The Strategy That Dares Not Speak Its Name
Outlines of a Russian-mediated grand bargain on Syria are slowly emerging, with the deal allowing Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to remain in power during a transitional period while a coalition to combat ISIS is put together. Some kind of bargain, whether it looks like Russia’s or not, may get international support.
As we noted in yesterday’s morning email, murkily sourced reports suggest that both Saudi Arabia and Iran are guardedly open to some kind of compromise solution. Then yesterday afternoon, Germany’s Angela Merkel broke with the standing European consensus and stated that some kind of negotiated solution to Syria would include Assad, while Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Ankara was open to Assad remaining in power during a transition phase, as long as the opposition was also included, and Assad stepped down at the end of the process. Now France, too, may be hopping on the bandwagon.
But the biggest question will be what happens when President Obama sits down with President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly on Monday. There, the Administration seems to be pursuing an odd strategy: It is insulting Putin even as it agrees to meet with him. As this NYT story illustrates, the White House is going to great lengths to make it look as if Putin is desperate to meet with Obama. This is probably one more triumph of short-term PR thinking over any kind of strategic approach—an attempt at trying to make President Obama “look” strong.
Meanwhile, the West Wing’s core strategy in Syria is looking more and more like an attempt to keep the U.S. out no matter what happens—while making it look as if we care. What that strategy boils down to is letting Iran and Russia do pretty much what they want in the Middle East in the belief that the fight is too dirty for the U.S. to gain anything by participating in it. But because this strategy telegraphs weakness globally and threatens to destabilize the Middle East even more than we’ve already seen, it would go over very poorly in the U.S. if it dared to speak its own name.
Perhaps Obama is hoping that Syria will become a quagmire for Iran and Russia that ultimately does to them what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union. Perhaps he doesn’t think anything the U.S. can do will lead to a better result at an acceptable price, and so he is resigned to letting whatever hellish horrors erupt in Syria take their course. “Let the black flower blossom as it may”, as Hawthorne wrote in The Scarlet Letter.
However, it really is Obama who needs the meeting more than Putin. At earlier stages in the crisis, mostly for PR reasons (and to quiet the anguished wails of people like Samantha Power who presumably objected to becoming a bystander in the worst case of mass murder since Rwanda), President Obama and his cabinet, believing that Assad’s regime would soon collapse on its own, unwisely publicly demanded that “Assad must go.” As it turned out, Assad didn’t really have to go. He just kept murdering people by the truckload, and Obama sat passively by. Now the president needs a fig leaf, and it would help Obama a great deal if Putin and the Iranians would do him the favor of getting rid of their Syrian ally.
The other half of the president’s Syria dilemma is ISIS. Here again he needs to appear to be doing something, given the effect ISIS has had on American opinion. But his goal appears to be to look busy while doing as little as possible. A few random bombs here, some drone strikes there, a flashy-sounding train-and-equip program (that nevertheless peskily throws some truly embarrassing stories every so often into the daily news flow)—basically a PR effort that keeps the political heat off but doesn’t amount to more than the absolute minimum response.
But one can tread water like this for only so long. The Sunni Arabs, who smell a betrayal of historic proportions, want him to concentrate on kicking the Shi’a power out of Syria. If he isn’t doing that, anything he does against ISIS without also taking on Assad underlines the degree to which he seems to be shifting U.S. support from the Sunnis to the Shi’a, enflaming the region in unpredictable ways. If the Russians and Iranians will do Obama the favor of getting rid of Assad—even if it is just setting him up in a lovely dacha outside Moscow for permanent retirement—then Obama has something to show to the Sunnis. He can then continue his desultory campaign against ISIS while hoping that, for reasons of their own, the Russians and Iranians will also help him turn the tide in that fight.
So in practical terms, however it looks to the schedulers, yes, Obama needs the meeting more than Putin. The question won’t be what price will Putin pay Obama for help. It is exactly the other way around: How much will Putin charge Obama to help him out of the hole that an incoherent Syria and regional Middle East policies have left him in? One thing we can be fairly sure of, with respect to that question, is that Putin isn’t interested in helping Obama in any serious way.
Dividing America’s alliances, undermining its prestige, and weakening its global position remains the pole star of Putin’s foreign policy. Lucy hasn’t asked to see Charlie Brown, that is, to apologize for pulling the football away.
This is a counter argument to a major former Obama advisor on Syria–who has basically now suggested full support to the Russian views on Assad.
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs…ssad-conundrum
September 27, 2015
Syria: The Assad Conundrum
By Frederic C. Hof
Distinguished intellectual and former Obama administration official Philip Gordon has called for a fundamental Syria policy recalculation centering on the status of Bashar al-Assad. Gordon’s basic thesis is that if Washington and its partners drop their demand for preemptive victory—Bashar’s immediate departure—Iran and Russia may see their way clear to shuffling their noisome client off stage within a period of time broadly acceptable to all concerned. In truth, this approach has always been on the table. It is fully operative now. Neither the regime, nor Tehran, nor Moscow have demonstrated any interest in it.
Gordon was present at Geneva on June 30, 2012 when the Final Communique of the Action Group on Syria, convened by United Nations Special Envoy Kofi Annan, was signed. The permanent five (P5) members of the UN Security Council agreed on a strikingly direct approach to Syrian political transition from kleptocratic, violent despotism to the pluralistic, democratic system called for by two UN Security Council resolutions. Syrians representing the regime and the opposition would negotiate, based on mutual consent, a transitional governing body that would exercise full executive power. The name “Assad” was not mentioned in the document. This was no accident.
During the talks leading to the communique, representatives of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States argued that Assad—recognized even then as the author of serial war crimes and crimes against humanity—should be explicitly barred from partaking in Syria’s political transition. Russia objected. It did so as a matter of principle: Syrians should decide. The three allies offered a counter-proposal: anyone with blood on his or her hands should be excluded. The Russian objection was straightforward: “blood on his hands” would be seen as a synonym for Bashar al-Assad. No one at the table could disagree. In the end, it was agreed that the composition of the transitional governing body would be a Syrian decision, arrived at based on mutual consent.
According to the Geneva guidelines therefore—agreed to unanimously by the P5—it would be permissible for Assad to serve on the transitional governing body. Indeed, he could preside over it. All that was required was the consent of the opposition delegation. Similarly, delegates representing the Syrian Arab Republic—the regime and the government—could withhold consent to persons nominated by the opposition.
Is this, therefore, a wheel that requires reinvention? Gordon suggests that for “Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the other Sunni states supporting the Syrian opposition, his [Assad’s] immediate departure has been a sine qua non for even talking about ending the conflict . . .” This is actually not so. Whatever skepticism they have expressed about the readiness of the Assad regime to negotiate in good faith, they did not block the participation of the opposition Syrian National Coalition (SNC) in the Lausanne and Geneva conferences of late 2013 and early 2014. The SNC arrived at those talks fully prepared to proceed based on the 2012 Geneva Final Communique. It behaved professionally and creatively. The regime delegation make a mockery of the proceedings. Were the regime to show up now at Geneva prepared to do business in accordance with the P5 formula it would find the opposition—with the full endorsement and support of the London 11—prepared to negotiate the creation of a transitional governing body.
Gordon posits, “It might be necessary to put off agreement on Assad’s fate until the end of the process, rather than insisting on it being resolved at the beginning.” He is quite right, and this is exactly what the Geneva process envisions. Once all-Syrian negotiations create a transitional governing body, Assad will be either in or out. During the course of those talks, he would most likely retain the title and powers of President of the Syrian Arab Republic. Nothing in the Geneva formula requires him to step down in advance of the talks or before their conclusion. Indeed, nothing requires him to step down at any point provided the opposition consents to an ongoing role in the transitional governing body.
Still, Gordon wishes to drop the Geneva formula in favor of a “US-led contact group” that could “explore measures” such as local ceasefires, getting the regime out of “agreed parts of the country,” an end to regime air attacks “in exchange for an end to opposition offensives,” constitutional reforms, regime-opposition “entities” that could initiate dialogue, eventual elections “in which Assad might or might not be allowed to run,” and perhaps safe areas negotiated by the regime and the opposition. Yet what would prevent any of these things being pursued with the Geneva formula still fully in place and intact?
All of these “measures” go to the very heart of the Assad regime’s existence and its strategy for staying in power, at least in a part of Syria. It does not barrel bomb to blunt opposition “offensives.” It is not interested in handing over agreed parts of Syria. Its attitude toward “constitutional reform” has been well established for decades. It jails people seeking “dialogue.” Yet Mr. Gordon counsels trading-in Geneva for a “process” in which he thinks Iran and Russia might join the United States and others in forcing a “compromise” on the Assad regime. Geneva, per se, stands in the way of nothing Mr. Gordon would like to explore.
With Geneva defunct, why would Tehran and Moscow facilitate such a process? According to Gordon, because we would no longer be asking for the immediate departure of Assad. Yet immediate departure is not now and never has been a precondition for political transition negotiations. Gordon also asserts that Iran and Russia have no particular attachment to Assad personally, and that maintaining him in power “is a costly burden to both countries.” Yet Iran sees Assad as essential to maintaining its Syria-based link to its Lebanese militia, Hezbollah. Shall we work with Tehran to produce a substitute willing and able to help Hezbollah imprison Lebanon and keep its rockets and missiles trained on Israel? Russia’s Vladimir Putin sees Assad as a neon-lighted rebuke to Washington and is now investing heavily in trying to rehabilitate his client—the man who has made Syria safe for the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL)—as an anti-terror bulwark. Should we persist in counting on Putin to be agent for political transition in Syria?
No doubt, President Barack Obama will tell his Russian counterpart—just as Secretary of State John Kerry will tell his Iranian counterpart—that Assad is an asset of incalculable value for ISIL: the gift that keeps on giving. Russia and Iran already know this. They are fine with this. They have been fully witting and supportive of Assad’s survival strategy from the beginning: the mass releases of Islamist radicals from prison; the vacuum-creating collective punishment and mass homicide campaigns; the web of economic interactions between the regime and ISIL; the respective military focus of ISIL and Assad on common enemies rather than one another. The President and the Secretary will likely double down on Gordon’s point that continued Russian and Iranian backing of Assad “will only perpetuate their costly quagmire and lead to the growing extremism that threatens us all.” A similar talking point about making a big mistake was applied to Russia’s rape of Ukraine.
There is nothing in the Geneva Final Communique that forbids the external supporters of the various parties to the conflict from pressuring their clients to cease and desist in war crimes and crimes against humanity. There is nothing in that document that prevents external parties from working together to apply pressures on all aimed at general deescalation. There is nothing the P5 agreed to in June 2012 that blocks them from discussing among themselves various creative formulas they might press upon their clients to facilitate the rapid, mutually agreed creation of a transitional governing body. Doing so would unite Syrians under one flag to fight ISIL and other violent extremists while beginning the long march to reform, reconstruction, and reconciliation.
The danger in Philip Gordon’s approach is that Iran, Russia, and Assad may see it as an administration trial balloon, one signaling that instead of action soon forthcoming to protect defenseless Syrian civilians from barrel bombs, there is anxious readiness on the part of Washington to ditch the Geneva framework in the hope of currying Russian and Iranian goodwill.
The Geneva framework need not be dropped for Moscow and Tehran to block the ongoing mass murder of Syrian civilians: relentless and remorseless slaughter that voids any prospect of political progress while boosting the prospects of ISIL. On the contrary: US officials should be telling their Russian and Iranian counterparts that if they do not take steps to get Assad out of this ISIL-facilitating mass murder business, the United States will. Doing something beyond talking is essential for any of Philip Gordon’s laudable objectives to be achieved.
We never discuss it here but as weaponization of information is a key cornerstone for the successful non linear warfare regardless from whom or by whom–THEN why does the western MSM seem to reject being a MSM that asks questions, or challenges anything that any leader of a nation says and or does.
If one really goes back 1.5 years starting with Crimea and 4 years back with Syria–it would appear that someone has been controlling the US media as there has been little to no accurate, decisive, clear and concise reporting on those two events–so it begs the question is now corporate MSM under the control of a single individual or corporation??
We know from say FB with the Russian oligarch 700M USD investment that it to a degree has become an instrument of weaponization of information but the other media???
Shame on @60minutes. This platform carries w/it responsibility to ask impt Qs w/follow up. All we got is propaganda. https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/648284339575369728 …
So Obama will meet with Putin who has ordered the Russian military into the Crimea where the UN and OSCE has condemned the curtailment of Tartar human rights and Tartars are “disappearing” in their homeland defined even by the Soviet Union AND in full violation of intentional law, agreements and treaties, Putin has ordered Russian troops into eastern Ukraine where over 9K civilians and 2K Ukrainian troops have been killed AGAIN in full violation of international law, agreements, treaties, Putin has supported Assad where over 250K have been killed and over 5M refugees have been created by Assad NOT ISIS AND THEN this yesterday from the Russian UN delegation.
TASS: Russian delegation walked out of UN during Poroshenko’s speech http://tass.ru/politika/2295200 …
So exactly just what is it that Obama “thinks he can talk about”???
Remember it was Obama in 2014 who stated to the US public and the global public via mass media “that we must judge Putin on his actions not his words”.
Appears that after 1.5 years the world has seen more than enough of Putin’s “actions” in order to form an opinion of what he wants.
SO in effect is Obama “selling himself out” to just talk–appears so based on his own words–BUT when called out over it–it is someone else’s fault.
Obama seems incapable of holding to his own very words as a US President.
Does that engender trust among US allies in regions of the world that have always looked to the US for leadership???
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/drowning-syria-to-keep-an-iran-deal-afloat.html?via=mobile&source=twitter
Refugee Policy
09.09.151:00 AM ET
Drowning Syria to Keep an Iran Deal Afloat
QUOTE
Obama cinched his foreign policy legacy the day Aylan al-Kurdi washed up on Turkey’s shores, underscoring his biggest foreign policy failure as president.
On September 10, 2013, President Obama gave a stirring speech from the White House in response to the chemical weapon attack on the Damascus suburbs of Ghouta which left over 1,400 Syrians dead—suffocating from sarin gas launched in the middle of the night on a civilian population by the Assad regime. Many of the victims were children. Their images—doll-like and waxy-skinned—haunted the world. Obama asked members of Congress and the American people to watch the videos of Syrian children dying on hospital floors. He then asked, “What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?”
It’s been almost two years since that speech. Today, we live in the world that the president described. A world in which people in powerful positions chose to look the other way. And so the daily carnage in Syria, by barrel bomb, by beheading, and yes, by chemical weapons, continued.
Today, almost half of the Syrian population has been displaced as a result of the relentless brutality of the Assad regime and the shocking violence of ISIS and Al Qaida. Eleven million people no longer live in their homes. Four million of them are refugees in neighboring countries. Over the past year, thousands of refugees have decided to risk their lives for a better future in Europe, embarking on harrowing “death routes” across sea and land.
On Wednesday, yet another horrific image from the Syrian tragedy went viral. This time it was a toddler boy, 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi, who looked like a sleeping baby, facedown on a sandy beach in Bodrum, Turkey, with the waves lapping around him. His mother had dressed him in a bright red T-shirt, navy shorts, and sturdy shoes—he was dressed for a journey to a better future in Canada. But like thousands of other Syrian refugees fleeing the war, little Aylan, his 5-year-old brother Galip and his mother, Rehan, along with nine other people on the same boat were not granted safe passage.
A Syrian woman posted on Facebook recently, “Under the Mediterranean, on the bottom of the sea, another Syria exists, one that’s full of life: children kicking soccer balls, teens doing their homework, women cooking, men working, and the elderly sipping coffee. If you visit the bottom of the sea, you will discover another Syria.” It truly does seem as if Syrians no longer belong on this Earth.
Over the past months, the world’s attention has been focused on the growing “migrant” crisis that confronts Europe. Reporters follow Syrian refugees across land and water, telling tale after harrowing tale, sometimes of survival, other times of heroism, and many times of death. The narratives often omit an honest answer to the question: “Why are there so many Syrian refugees?” Muddled words like “civil war,” “fleeing the violence,” and worse blaming the entire crisis on ISIS do not explain what has been happening in Syria for over four years.
Syrian refugees are not the result of a natural disaster. You cannot abstract them into a purely humanitarian package. Every Syrian refugee is a refugee because of the international political and military decisions and failures that empowered and chose the Assad regime over the Syrian people.
Last week, the story of the 71 Syrians who suffocated to death in a Hungarian truck caused an uproar in Europe that surprised most Syrians.
For over four years now, millions of Syrians have been asking, “Where is the world?” Now, finally, we watched people across the world rise up in action: from Germany, Austria, Ireland, Norway, Iceland, and more. Thousands opening their homes and welcoming refugees to their country. Thousands protesting in demand of better treatment of the refugees. Thousands displaying an outpour of generosity and compassion for Syrians that we have not witnessed yet.
All over the world, people are proving that humanity still exists, but most world leaders have not been so brave or kind.
Last Wednesday, we also learned that President Obama has cinched his Iran Deal—touted as a “major victory for diplomacy” and “a choice of peace over war.” How lovely. And how fitting that the passing of this “historic” deal was celebrated on the same day that a Syrian baby was washed up on a beach?
One of the biggest complaints of supporters of the Iran deal about its critics is that they oppose the deal for no real reason but the sake of opposing. Perhaps for some politicians, that’s true. Syrians, though, can’t afford the luxury of contrariness. There is one very important reason to oppose any sort of concessions with Iran: Syria. Any deal that supports the regime that fuels the Assad regime’s military is simply a deal that rewards genocide, destruction, and mass displacement of innocent people.
For every impassioned hashtag and viral image shared about the Syrian tragedy, one fact must be repeated over and over: The crisis is a global humanitarian one; but the source of terror, violence, and the never-ending waves of refugees lives in Damascus. As this brilliant young Syrian teen explained: “You just stop the war and we don’t want to go to Europe.”
“Under the Mediterranean, on the bottom of the sea, another Syria exists, one that’s full of life: children kicking soccer balls, teens doing their homework, women cooking, men working, and the elderly sipping coffee. If you visit the bottom of the sea, you will discover another Syria.”
Despite these simple facts, the deal is now done and the red lines have been crossed too many times to count and course-correction seems to be impossible. Syrian Americans are now pleading the Syrian case to the slew of presidential candidates on both parties—an act that underscores the complete loss of faith in the Obama administration. The administration of hope and change. The administration that supposedly knows how to stop a problem from hell.
Even if the next president will change the current non-strategy on Syria (which is highly unlikely), that will be 17 long months from now. Seventeen more months of watching our people die. Seventeen more months of barrel bombs. Seventeen more months of ISIS terror. Seventeen more months of babies washing up on beaches.
UNQUOTE:
AND still Obama wants to talk—this Presidency will be marked by an abject lack of the will to take action, any action even WHEN it states it will take action.
That is what again –so called “US leadership”????
Obama’s own words are coming back to haunt him and yet he blames others for his own failures.
“We will judge Putin by his actions not his words”
“We have no strategy yet for ISIS but we are formulating one”
Charlie Rose: Do you respect sovereignty of Ukraine? Putin: “Of course.” http://liveuamap.com/en/2015/28-september-charlie-rose-do-you-respect-sovereignty-of-ukraine …
pic.twitter.com/rO0s1HIbe5
Putin: “Our view of respect of sovereignty of other countries is to not allow unconstitutional change of government in them”
Putin: “I consider totally unacceptable to have regime change color revolutions in former Soviet states
What does Obama, Kerry and the entire NSC not fully understand with these Putin statements?
Putin is flatly stating I can do whatever I want to in the former Soviet Republics–and he flatly ignores historical developments.
BTW–he can in fact extend these comments to the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldavia, and Georgia any time he chooses. Simply going to a democratic government in these above countries could be viewed as “unconstitutional changes” because they had not asked permission from the Russian government the “declared inheritor of the Soviet Union”.
So what is there to talk about with Putin that Obama does not already know based on Putin’s own actions?? Putin will not change so what does Obama think he can in fact accomplish via talking?
Kunduz collapsed faster than Mosul . The lesson we have learned today is that we never learn lessons.
Deleted–was a repeat of previous comment.
Under the rubric–“this cannot be true”?????
Pentagon officials tell me they’re watching Obama’s #UNGA speech in search of clarity on U.S. strategy towards #ISIS. That can’t be good.
Pentagon’s top Russia official stepping down day after Obama’s handshake photo with Putin is a clear sign of protest
[url]http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/pro-defense-farkas-wrightewing-214223[/url] …
Following Pres Obama-Putin talks, Defense Sec Carter has directed his staff to open lines of communication with Russia on “deconfliction”
AND there is no confusion in the DoD being caused by this WH???????
AND he backs away from his own very words and yet blames others?????
One 2013 quote from US President Barack Obama shows how much the administration has backed away from its “red lines” in Syria.
During a September 2013 speech, in response to a devastating Syrian-regime chemical-weapons attack that killed 1,400 people in four hours, Obama asked:
“What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?”
Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, noted on Twitter that it’s “incredible to think that Obama actually said this two years ago.”
As The Daily Beast pointed out, we now “live in the world that the president described,” in which “people in powerful positions chose to look the other way.”
Sorry Outlaw must disagree with the comparison.
There are huge Operational differences between capturing and holding Mosul and doing the same in Kunduz. The logistical tail for IS from Mosul back to their support in the KSA is either down a major highway or across flat desert. The logistical tail supporting the Talibs capturing and holding Kunduz City goes over the toughest mountain passes in AF.
They will all close in October to pack animals (if they’re not already) and man-pack by the beginning of November. The passes are near enough to 5000 m ASL so the loads are minimal and the danger posed by severe blizzards from now on until they close is very high. They will remain closed until late April early May, wherein only minimal load (10 kg) man-packing will be possible at night over ice-covered deep snow.
A thousand Talib fighters assaulting a city the size of Kunduz will burn thru a year’s worth of small-arms ammo (7.62, 12.7 & RPGs) provided by a fully function supply route in days. The supply of 107mm rockets and 83mm mortar rounds will last hours.
By comparison the supply by the KSA is literally bottomless and includes everything up to and including hundreds of TOW missile systems as well as supply and maintenance for artillery and heavy armor.
IMHO the only way the assault on Kunduz avoids being a disaster for the Talibs is if we pull the plug on the ANSF.
Having said that it could be a feint (ala Khe Sanh & Tet) for a major Pak attack on a major centre nearer the AF/PAK border before winter.
Dostrum (whom I seriously dislike) will take the fighting in Kunduz as a personal insult and feel honor-bound to expel the Talibs – unless of course they are his men who are attacking the city.
RC
The comparisons are as follows–all assumed with a very large A that neither city would fall AND fall as fast if attacked, all with a big A assumed that the security forces would hold as all with a big A assumed they had been well trained, and the vey big A all assumed both the IS and Taliban incapable of pulling off a large scale raid on a major town and hold it once captured as well.
The assumptions can keep on coming………the assumption with a very very big A that a 400K security force is success in both Iraq and AFG.
Deleted –double
Back to the critique of a NSC and President–they did not see this coming…we are then in some serious way if so.
More cities in #Homs province come under intense bombardment.
Absolute calm in #ISIS land.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVE7U9yw1PU … pic.twitter.com/5cY7sqyTGZ
BREAKING: Senior #US official tells @JenGriffinFNC #Russia|n officials demand US warplanes exit #Syria immediately
Russians tell US to remove warplanes from Syria, senior official says http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/09…/?intcmp=hpbt1 … .”Marks a major escalation in ongoing tensions”
Again do not tell me Obama and his entire 700 person NSC DID NOT see this coming…….
Appears that Russian air strikes are against anti Assad forces that use the TOW as it has been the great equalizer.
NOT A SINGLE AIR STRIKE ON ISIS——–
VIDEO: Alleged Russian air-strikes hit #US backed “Tajamu Ala’azza’” HQ. TOW vetted operators –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqJPVlDdLek …
Putin/Assad today bombed ISIS militants 18+!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW_PfDoR-60&feature=youtu.be …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgox5E1erVs&feature=youtu.be …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNZkylN9Vic …
pic.twitter.com/P1nJKsxoq0
Putin just depicted Obama as a simplistic fool ——
DID NOT the US via DoD and Kerry and yes even comments from Obama’s inner circle STATE–engage IS BUT do not engage the moderate anti Assad forces.
THERE were in those comments a not so subtle threat.
HERE is the Putin response—–
Russia today attacks in Syria targeted one of the few moderated rebel groups https://twitter.com/green_lemonnn/status/649185925281529857 …
AND the Obama response is………………s i l e n c e nothing but
s i l e n c e…..
That my friends is some really great leadership–even a third year law student at the University of Houston gets it and a Harvard law grad does not???
Further massive intel leak on the Obama watch—-first OPM and now Baghdad.
Let’s save some trouble here: All of it.
Everything USG told Baghdad they’ve told Moscow. Or will soon.
Got it?
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/pentagon-scrambling-know-what-us-secrets-iraq-tells-russia/122372/ …
Has Obama and his entire NSC and especially Kerry realized that they have signed up for a “Holy War”— a “Crusade” of Christians against Muslims when they decided that by talking to Putin they would get somehow to a resolution–has not worked in the Ukraine and it will never work now in Syria–by killing civilians Putin has in fact sided now with Assad.
What the flying heck were they thinking in DC—????
Has Obama sold out his own values of “humanity” in the name of a legacy and the thoughts he can simply talk to resolve core issues with an individual named Putin??
Has Putin now taken the entire world into a “Holy War” between Christians and Muslims?????????
Russia’s Orthodox Church says Putin is fighting a “holy war” against terrorism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQPmwzMopJw …
From today on #Russia will be held responsible for every civilian death in #Syria no matter what caused it. Pandora box is wide open.
As if murdering children in broad daylight wasn’t enough crusaders declared a war on Islam.
Looks like we can expect lots of attempts by Russian propagandists and Putin fanboys to debunk the Talbiseh videos of kids killed by Russia
Russian propagandists now trying to use dodgy claims to make out the Talbiseh videos are from 2011 https://twitter.com/korobkov/status/649232919865782272 …
She must have inherently known this was coming after attempting to get the Obama administration to “see” the true Russian threat for what it was– an “existential threat to the US”.
Farkhas picked a good week to resign.
AND the rest of DoD after the news of Russian air strike on civilians—
US officials who yesterday said “knock yourselves out” are today very pissed how Russia shat on deconflict protocols.
Are there any adults left in this administration?????
So after tens of comments stating that this President and his NSC are the weakest in 50 plus years do I find any takers to defend them??
Social media was all over this within minutes after the news starting coming out of Syria complete with combat videos and Russian pilot intercepted conversations.
We the US taxpayer spent literally billions on the US intelligence community and yet they did not see this coming????
It has been the blogger community that identified the number and composition of the Russian fighters coming into Syria even before Kerry and or Obama could say a single word–just how can that be?
It has been before the meeting between Obama and Putin that bloggers stated his targets would be the anti Assad forces not IS–now very true.
Putin Bombs in Syria, Orders U.S. Out
A Russian general asked the U.S. to remove its planes from Syrian airspace Wednesday, just hours before Russian airstrikes began. In Moscow, lawmakers had earlier approved Vladimir Putin’s request to use armed forces abroad.
American officials said they would not alter their activities in the region.
The Russian three-star general, who was part of the newly formed intelligence cell, arrived in Baghdad at 9 a.m. local time and informed U.S. officials that Russian strikes would be starting imminently — and that the U.S. should refrain from conducting strikes and move any personnel out.
The only notice the U.S. received about his visit was a phone call one hour earlier.
So far, defense officials said they only believe Homs had been hit, but could not say what kind of strikes, the targets or the platform used. They also could not confirm reports of large civilian casualties.
There are limited tactical assets around Homs, making is harder for U.S. officials to sort out the details, a defense official explained.
“We will know but it is going to take some time,” he said.
The Local Coordination Committees of Syria, opposition-linked on-the-ground monitors of the conflict, estimate that 36 people were killed in Homs alone, one of three ISIS-free provinces Russia bombed today. The airstrikes targeted five northern suburbs of Homs: Talbiseh, Al Ghantoo, Al Rastan, Al Zafrana and Al Mukarramiyah.
As American officials scrambled to onfirm the impact of the strikes, they conceded the operation was a rebuke of talks between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin about deconfliction.
‘This bypasses legitimate discussion,” a senior defense official told The Daily Beast.
Indeed, just yesterday, the Pentagon said it had ordered staff and senior officials to begin such talks. U.S. officials believe there are under 1,000 Russians joined ISIS.
So now let the Obama blame games begin again……..
How much more sand will Putin kick in the face of Obama–KNOWING full well he will not respond????
Ah………….now we fully understand the true target of the Russian air strike—
Russian air strikes kill US-backed Free Syrian Army commander in Syria
https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/649245100392886272
Notice this info did not come from US mainstream media
AND Obama and his entire NSC did not see this coming at them…..?
As expected, Russia plays the ‘We’re bombing IS so drop sanctions’ card https://twitter.com/rianru/status/649293908355080192 …