How We Got to the Syria Mess
How We Got to the Syria Mess – Washington Post
Americans and Europeans are seeing the results of four years of U.S. disengagement in the Middle East. A country destroyed, with half its people displaced from their homes. Hundreds of thousands of refugees besieging an unready Europe. And now, Russian warplanes bombing U.S.-allied forces as American officials alternate between clucking reprovingly and insisting bravely that Russian President Vladimir Putin will be sorry in the end. That is a tempting dream, but it represents the same wishful thinking that got us here in the first place.
How did we get here? It’s worth recalling, briefly, a bit of history. When Secretary of State John F. Kerry took office at the beginning of President Obama’s second term, he argued that Syria could be saved only with a political solution: The United States did not want to repeat its Iraq mistake and chase President Bashar al-Assad and his regime out of office with nothing to take their place. But, he said, the regime would not negotiate seriously until its opposition was strengthened, and so Mr. Kerry and others in the administration favored U.S. assistance, including training for the rebels, protection of safe zones where they could begin to govern without fear of Mr. Assad’s barrel bombs and chlorine gas, some arms and other military aid.
Mr. Obama would never agree; or rather, sometimes he agreed, and failed to follow through, and sometimes he just said no. Mr. Kerry was left with no option but diplomacy, in particular begging Russia and Iran to bail him out…
Amazing how OIF is not listed as one of the causes of the Syrian conflict – many of the Jihadist fighters crossed over from Iraq into Syria, during the initial phase of the Syrian conflict. But such does’t fit into the narrative being peddled, I admit.
Those aren’t realistic options provided by the author at the end of the piece.
1) RuAF now stands in the way of destroying SyAAF aviation assets, as well as carving “safe zones.” BTW “safe zones for whom? Al Qaeda and its allies? That’s really what’s left of the rebel resistance, aside from ISIL.
2) Kurdish militia numbers are exaggerated in the Ignatius piece, and NATO member Turkey will strongly object to such Kurdish empowerment.
I would argue a more practical option would be to join Russia in defeating Al-Qaeda, its allies and ISIL. Also, U.S. adoption of the Russian plan for a political solution to the crisis. But here again, I admit our American domestic politics preclude such sensible steps.
Q: How did we get into the Syrian (etc., etc., etc.,) mess?
A: In a nut-shell: Post-the Cold War, the United States adopted a strategy of enlargement — which replaced the doctrine of containment that had dominated during the Old Cold War:
“The successor to a doctrine of containment must be a strategy of enlargement — enlargement of the world’s free community of market democracies.”
“During the Cold War, even children understood America’s security mission; as they looked at those maps on their schoolroom walls, they knew we were trying to contain the creeping expansion of that big, red blob.”
“Today, at great risk of oversimplification, we might visualize our security mission as promoting the enlargement of the “blue areas” of market democracies.”
http://fas.org/news/usa/1993/usa-930921.htm
For those that enjoy Russian Propaganda porn—–
The Free Syrian Army is a phantom” & according to Sputnik the phantoms ask for Russian help
https://twitter.com/SputnikInt/status/651006433044004864 …
So ask yourself–true and or fake news—second question to judge this–would the CIA and or KSA ask for Russian support–do not think so.
https://www.rusi.org/analysis/commen…/#.VhKsKpXsmM9
Russia’s War Plan in Syria
RUSI Analysis, 2 Oct 2015
By Dr Igor Sutyagin,
Senior Research Fellow, Russian Studies
Quote:
As the pattern of Russian air strikes on Syria becomes clear, we can now discern Putin’s campaign plan
The third day of Russian air strikes in Syria finally offers some clarity about the possible war plan the Kremlin may have for its Syrian campaign. Some pieces of the jigsaw now seem to fit together:
◾President Vladimir Putin of Russia announced that the military operation in Syria will not last for long as it has limited objectives; Russia will withdraw its forces – or a major share of them – as soon as those objectives are achieved.
◾Eighty per cent of Russian targets so far are associated not with Daesh (ISIL), but with other armed opposition groups fighting against the Syrian regime.
◾President Putin publicly stated that Russia would never join the US-led coalition in Syria.
◾Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia had promised to fight all terrorist groups in Syria, not only Daesh. All groups fighting against Bashar al-Assad’s regime – such as the Free Syrian Army, Jabhat al-Nusra and Daesh – are terrorists according to Damascus policy.
◾Iranian troops have started arriving to Syria en masse.
Taken together, these produce a clear picture. There are solid reasons to argue that the supposed ‘War Plan Syria’ agreed during the talks between Russian and Iranian commands in Moscow in August, and later with the Syrian regime itself, involves a trilateral offensive of joint Syrian–Iranian land forces along with the air support provided by Russia. The strategic objective is to secure an Alawite ‘safe zone’ on the territory of ‘useful Syria’ – the densely populated Western part of the country where the major share of Syrian industry and agriculture is concentrated – leaving the eastern, desert part of the country to Daesh. As Alawites constitute approximately 12 per cent of Syrian population, and the rest of the country is at the very least moderately critical of the Assad regime, control of the whole country is politically impossible and perhaps not even considered necessary for Damascus any more.
The obvious immediate operational goals of the offensive include defeat and dispersal of the armed opposition groups in the northern and northeastern parts of Syria, as well as extermination of the opposition-controlled enclaves in the central part of regime-controlled zone between Homs and Hama – four in five Russian air strikes are concentrated in precisely those two areas. Re-establishing Damascus’s control over the territory currently controlled by Kurds is not the part of the plan as there is no Russian activity in that zone. Securing the eastern border of regime-controlled territory is also a task: the approximately 20 per cent of air strikes devoted to targets in the narrow sector around Palmyra – the only area where Daesh forces immediately contact with regime troops – indicate this. Taking into account the narrow area of contact between Daesh and regime forces, one can conclude that fighting the jihadist group is only a secondary task of the Syrian–Russian–Iranian coalition. Other nationalist and Islamist armed opposition seem to be the major targets of Russian strikes; Daesh forces serve as a secondary target, and a way to legitimate Russia’s actions.
After re-establishing control over the northern/north-eastern part of Syria currently lost to the armed opposition, Moscow and Tehran will hand over responsibility to Damascus. Moscow will withdraw the majority of its forces (most probably securing the Khmeimim air base near Latakia, where Russian air strikes originate now, for use in the future). The immediate implication of such the plan for the West and Arab countries is this: while the West bears moral responsibility for the fate of the Syrian moderate opposition against Assad, it is doomed to sit idle and watch them be hit by Russian bombs. The Kremlin’s quite correct calculation was that the West would be unwilling to use the only tool – military power – capable of immediately stopping Russian operations targeting groups the West supports; Russia would be able to achieve its goals unopposed. In this sense, the Syria campaign is the next step in development of Russia’s modus operandi after Eastern Ukraine, thus marking the general direction of Russian policy in disputed areas around the globe in the future.
The feeling is rapidly spreading among the Western-backed armed opposition that they have been betrayed by their supporters: to them, it looks like the West has secretly made the deal with Russia and washed its hands, letting Russian and Syrian forces methodically destroy them. This means a general weakening of the Western credibility and soft-power influence, both in Syria and elsewhere – outcomes very much welcomed by the Kremlin too. From Putin’s perspective, this is a quite reasonable war plan; and one very promising for future conflict as the West’s unwillingness to use decisive military tools is likely to remain. It may be time for the West to wake up to the recognition that the task of developing measures which might put limit of the Kremlin’s assertive activism is rapidly becoming the urgent need.
BREAKING NOT CONFIRMED——-
Syria Update# Air Duel between the Sukhoi Su – 30 Russian SM and Israeli F-15
[url]https://shar.es/17PJgN[/url] <- FYI if it ends up going hot I imagine the su30 would be needing S&R AGAIN NOT CONFIRMED
We are observing a hot war betwn #Russia & d #USA on #Syria & no longer neither “Sunni/Shia” or “war on Terrorism”. Put your safety belt on.
Russia will consider any Jet in the air as hostile if prior coordination is not carried out. This includes #Israel and #Turkey.
Another incident: #Russia/n intercepted two #Turkish jets after engaging their radars to prepare firing at the two jets who pulled away.
Come on–first CYA Statement–navigation problems NOW “weather”??????
Guess any lie in a storm is better than saying nothing—
Russian Ministry of Defence says its Su-30 entered Turkish airspace “for a few seconds” and as “a result of unfavourable weather conditions”
Few seconds WAS actually 5 minutes and 40 seconds—–
Humor—–
After realizing he flew into #NATO airspace, vacationer from #Russia needed a place to chill
pic.twitter.com/Ja2BGp0Amy
Shocker: Putin lied abt no ground forces. CNN reporting #Russia artillery+ seen moving from Latakia to Idlib.
pic.twitter.com/gcCgCYYZtm
Breaking US sees Russian ground forces moving into position for possible ground offensive not against ISIS but moderate Syrian rebels
Dayuhan said:
There were ample problems with domestic political audiences in previous wars. Plenty of hesitancy existed about commitments. Lack of early commitment contributed greatly to problems in OIF and OEF, and currently in Ukraine and Syria/Iraq. Little certainty existed that we would win and achieve goals, or that oceans away it even mattered. Thankfully, there was no exit strategy planned following Korea and WWII. What if there had been decisions not to get involved or to exit quickly afterwards? What if we had never fought or supported proxy wars like Korea, Vietnam, Arab-Israeli wars, and Afghanistan? What if we had said we had no vital national interests or certain credible allies during:
• WWI: Europe likely would have had been secured by Germany except for Great Britain.
• WWII: Pearl Harbor would not have occurred because we were minding our own business and did not impose oil sanctions. Japan would be dominating the Pacific. USSR and Germany may have still fought but that wouldn’t have been our problem. Great Britain may have fallen eventually once the USSR was defeated.
• Korea: North and South Korea would be united as communist or dominated by the Japanese.
• Vietnam: More of its neighbors would be communist to include possibly Japan.
• Cold War: No U.S. troops in Europe because we never fought in WWII. Either Germany or the USSR would be running it all.
• Arab-Israeli wars: We did not help and Israel lost. The Soviets continue to dominate the Middle East and Egypt. No strong ally exists in Israel to deter Palestinian and Arab terror. Syria is even stronger and threatens Turkey with no article 5 NATO to help because NATO does not exist. Jordan is not moderate. Lebanon is completely under Hezbollah control.
• Desert Storm: Saddaam Hussein might have continued on to Saudi Arabia and Syria.
• Balkans: USSR and Serbs would be continuing to dominate a “united Yugoslavia” through genocide, as required and demonstrated in Chechnya
• Afghanistan (both wars): The USSR would be dominating Afghanistan and Pakistan, with sights set on India. If we had let Rant Corp do his thing the first time around but did not respond to 9/11 or left immediately afterwards, the Taliban would still be in charge and we would not have access to Afghanistan through either Pakistan or the northern “stans” still controlled by the USSR. Terrorist planning by Osama bin Laden would be continuing with our sole response being cruise missiles.
• OIF: Oil prices would still be high without Iraqi supplies. The no-fly zone would have continued ineffectively. We could not have used oil as a bargaining chip against Iran due to insufficient world supply. With high oil prices, Iran, Iraq, and Russia would have had ample funds for terror/aggression elsewhere. ISIL would still exist because al Zarqawi would still be alive morphing AQI into ISIL.
In addition Dayuhan, what vital national interest existed in the Philippines during the last decade? If 90% of the country is Christian, how would their 5% Muslim population have changed much other than on a few of 7,000 mostly unimportant islands? Why did we waste our time and SF there when they could have been in Afghanistan and Iraq helping more critical efforts?
The Kelly File just showed a clip from last night’s Showtime “Homeland” where the strategy of ISIL was articulated by an actor portraying a CIA guy with a tour in Syria. He mentioned the apocalyptic and caliphate vision of al-Baghdadi and ISIL leaders that seems to draw idealistic Muslims from all over the world. We see Syrian refugees leaving for Europe with ISIL fighters no doubt embedded ready to spread terror to Europe and the U.S. while gaining more recruits. We see ISIL in north Africa, the Sinai, and Afghanistan and with their interest in Nangarhar province, Pakistan’s 200 million are next to be influenced by their fighters.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, we see Russian and Iran forces and Hezbollah spreading control of Syria and Iraq. We know Russia is using dumb bombs and bomblet munitions and has ample fuel-air explosives. Therefore, unlike our precision unitary bombs and collateral damage considerations, the Russians will have even better success in exterminating Sunnis in Syria without regard for combatant status. The release of frozen funds to the Iranians, will make Iranian IRGC, their regular forces, Hezbollah, and the Quuds forces all the more capable of cheating on the nuclear agreement in more creative ways to include underground facilities under Tehran which we never would target even with 30,000 lb massive ordnance penetrators. Of course this will lead to an Iranian nuke in far sooner than a decade which in turn will mean GCC nukes and eventually terrorist nukes infiltrated to the U.S.
No, we have no vital national interests in Syria, cough, cough. We have no strategy in Syria except hope which we know is not a plan. Our half-hearted efforts will go nowhere. Meanwhile, we see many others who do have vital interests, are going far more “all-in,” and none of their objectives seem likely to be good for us. Pick your poison: Russian/Iranian interests win; ISIL wins and spreads elsewhere to include Pakistan, eventually to India and the GCC; Israel attacks Iran or Russian/Iranian Syrian forces as they move air defenses into Lebanon; or Iranian/GCC/terrorist nuclear proliferation. Nothing dangerous there and although we have no way of knowing whether my lead counterfactuals about 20th century wars are accurate, your assertions that nothing bad can come out of Syria is much more unfounded.
You keep asking for solutions and I offered several earlier. Given the very low casualties of our forces remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is not much risk of getting “sucked in” to Syria and Iraq if we stay on and raid from FOBs created in Kurd territory of both “countries” threatened by ISIL. We could launch GMLRS unitary rounds from great distances from those FOBs and launch ATACMs missiles even farther at less expense than airpower. We could launch less costly helicopter raids involving Hellfires and SF/SOF/conventional air assaults that would not require use of Turk airspace. Tell me why it would not work using Kurds as our primary partners planning on a prolonged presence of about 10,000? Do you think Turkey or Russia would launch air attacks against FOBs we shared with the Kurds and Outlaw’s FSA?
One very small mistake in this Putin led Russian game of chicken and we are into WW3–it is that easy now in Syria.
http://www.interpretermag.com/putin-in-syria-more-close-calls-between-russia-and-nato/#10277
Russia Violates Turkish Airspace For Second Time
13:48 (GMT)
Over the weekend, Russian jets crossed from Syrian airspace into Turkish airspace, a dangerous and uninvited “mistake” since Turkey is a member of NATO.
That prompted a strong response from Turkey.
And yet, today NATO says that Russian jets violated Turkish airspace twice, not just once. CNN reports:
“Russian combat aircraft have violated Turkish airspace,” Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said, according to NATO’s website. “This is unacceptable.”
Stoltenberg elaborated at a news conference.
“We also have seen two of them, two violations of Turkish airspace,” he said. “Intelligence that we have received provides me with reason to say it doesn’t look like an accident.”
The first violation of Turkey’s airspace is reported to have happened Saturday. The second was Sunday, officials said.
The headlines, then, are slightly misleading, since Turkey’s statements that it would shoot down Russian aircraft in its airspace came yesterday and both incidents occurred this past weekend.
Still, the incident has increased tensions in the region. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned today that Russia’s actions could damage the relationship between Ankara and Moscow, a relationship which has been very good lately. Russia and Turkey are cooperating on the energy front, with Turkey playing a key role in several Russian plans for new natural gas pipelines which would deliver gas to Europe while bypassing Ukraine.
France 24 reports:
“If Russia loses a friend like Turkey with whom it has a lot of cooperation it is going to lose a lot of things. It needs to know this,” Erdogan said in Belgium at a press conference alongside Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel broadcast on Turkish television.
Turkey believes that the Russian mission in Syria fundamentally changes their game plan, which was already damaged because of Western non-committal. BBC reports:
Turkey’s government has been enraged by these Russian incursions – and by Moscow’s military intervention in Syria as a whole.
First, any violation of Turkish airspace could lead to the object being shot down, which would dramatically escalate events. Second, there could be a mid-air collision close to Turkey’s borders, as this is the first time since World War Two that Russian and American combat planes have been in the skies over Syria. But third, Russia’s air strikes are the final nail in the coffin for Turkey’s “buffer zone” idea in northern Syria.
Ankara has continually pushed for this, ostensibly to allow some of the two million Syrians in Turkey to return – though critics say it’s designed to break up areas controlled by Syrian Kurds, who Turkey see as a threat.
There was already opposition in the West to the plan. But Russia’s air strikes will make it almost impossible to implement.
Today, Russia seems to have confirmed this theory — as long as Russia is in Syria, there will not be a no-fly-zone:
Russia claims that these incidents were a mistake, but NATO is clear — these cross-border infiltrations were not a mistake, and Russia is playing a dangerous game. Bloomberg reports:
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg condemned the Russian intrusion into Turkey’s airspace and on Tuesday called it deliberate provocation.
“This doesn’t look like an accident, the violation lasted for a long time compared to previous violations of airspace,” Stoltenberg told reporters in Brussels. He called on Russia to stop targeting civilians and Syria’s legitimate opposition, and to avoid coming into conflict with U.S.-led forces fighting Islamic State in Syria.
Even if Russia does not violate Turkish airspace again, however, Russian and NATO aircraft are now operating in very close proximity, increasing the chances of an international incident. The commander of the US air campaign in Syria says that Russian planes have now traveled within 20 miles of US aircraft, and even closer to unmanned drones operated by the US. This picture demonstrates the problem. Russian planes are yellow, US planes are green
For those that believe it is impossible to push back and or defeat Russian information warfare–the following.
Ah.. the power of open source analysis via social media.
BTW this was a crowdsourced project–rare actually.
Initial Findings of the Crowdsourced Geolocation and Analysis of Russian MoD Airstrike Vid via @bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2015/10/06/initial-findings-of-the-crowdsourced-geolocation-and-analysis-of-russian-mod-airstrike-videos-from-syria/ …
One hour after these findings were released Russian info war media wnet into overdrive attempting to counter the report of the poor Russian bombing campaign directed supposedly against IS.
BREAKING: #RussiaVsISIL operation prompted smear campaign in world media – @mfa_russia
http://sptnkne.ws/
As I have explained before, the way we got into the Syrian (etc., etc., etc.) mess was via:
a. A determination to transform outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines. And, via:
b. An understanding that this would be relatively easy task; this, given what we believed, post-Cold War, was the “universal appeal” of our way of life, our way of governance and our corresponding values, attitudes and beliefs.
Acting on this such determination, and these such beliefs, we proceeded to do — or to suggest — “regime change.”
Problem:
We soon learned that our “universal appeal” ideas — noted at “b” above — simply did not hold sway.
(And in those cases where populations might embrace our such ideas and ambitions, they showed absolutely no willingness to fight and die to achieve these goals. Rather, these agreeing [but non-fighting] populations simply fled to areas where others had fought and died to achieve their freedoms.)
These such matters, outlined above, effectively rendering our decision to do and/or to promote “regime change” — as our way forward in the early 21st Century — as a historically horrible idea?
The consequences of which (state and societal disintegration, terrorism, chaos and suffering, refugee flows, death and destruction, Putin stepping in to try to halt and/or deal with the madness) are now before us?
FSA-SF officer greets Russians (in ru!) & warns Putin:
Don’t let #Syria be a 2nd Afghanistan!
https://youtu.be/ClP26jJ8Zjs
FSA destroyed more than 30 regime equipment in rural Hama, including 18 tanks & 4 BMPs. pic.twitter.com/Jhv5cUrsYJ
TOW rules…………
الله @HadiAlabdallah
Hama’s hospitals overcrowded with deaths from both Assad and Russian troops. Among the killed are a Russian officer and at least 3 soldiers
Outlaw…
Again, you are avoiding the key question. Forget about TOWs, FSA, social media for a moment and focus on the basics.
What is our end state goal?
Putin has a clear goal: keep Assad in power. That may not be realistic, but it is clear, and because he has a clear goal he can have a clear strategy. You can’t have a strategy without a goal, and the reason the US is accused of having no strategy in Syria is that the US has no strategic goal, beyond staying out to the greatest possible extent.
So, clearly and simply, what do you think the strategic end state goal in Syria should be? It can’t just be about being against ISIS and Assad, we have to be for something… what is it?
All quotes are Dayuhan’s comments further below—a good debate continues.
Although it is not COIN, COIN-like concepts may and may not apply. There is no need for us to “hold” or “build” and unlike in OIF and OEF, mostly foreign fighters will have greater difficulty hiding amongst local populations. This may simplify “shape” and “clear” using the lower cost, reduced blast, and direct fire tools mentioned earlier, at some point transitioning by leaving behind limited Syrian trainers from elsewhere, small arms, ammo, and RPGs for locals during one of our air assault and attack helicopter raids. Aerial pattern-of-life analysis could identify influential businesses and households with military-aged males that are not part of ISIL. Can you envision any new armed group more evil than ISIL or as united toward an expansionist caliphate rather than localized security goals?
We would attempt to negotiate with the Iranians, Assad, Sunnis, Kurds, Turks, Jordanians, Russians, and other coalition partners to achieve compromise preferences of all parties, stipulating that certain small areas should remain under Assad or new Alawite leader control. When that failed in some areas we would agree to disagree, look at reality on the ground, and our coalition would attempt to impose our will when current reality did not suffice. We would agree not to attack the Syrian Army in announced zones and promise to engage them outside those zones.
If Assad’s helicopters, airpower, and air defenses were already smoldering on the ground due to our stealth aircraft attacks, one would suspect Assad would be inclined to negotiate and comply to survive. We would leave it to the FSA, Outlaw’s TOWs, and other groups to take on any Russian ground forces venturing outside certain areas. We also could help Alawites and Sunnis, plus Iranians and Russians to partition cities like Homs, Hama, Aleppo, and Damascus using concrete T-barriers we bring to their ports for their installation using lessons of Baghdad and Sadr City.
As mentioned earlier, we know the Syrian Army already is pretty much avoiding ISIL areas, as are the Russians and Iranians. Therefore, our external coalition must clear ISIL using Joint military tools more extensive than current tens of daily airstrikes in Syrian areas. Iraq Sunni areas are trickier because it makes little sense for Shiite forces to dominate Sunni areas which might occur if we cleared ISIL from those areas for the Iraqis. If war is a battle of wills, we are losing given current half-hearted efforts to degrade ISIL’s and Assad’s “will” in Syria, and our misguided efforts to help a Shiite Iraq dominate Kurds and Sunnis. If ISIL is surviving weak air attacks or is looking heroic in fighting the Iraq Army, their recruitment efforts succeed.
Yet Kurd areas and Kurd fighters are the key to so much in both Iraq and Syria. They dominate areas within range of ISIL and assure few green-on-blue attacks in commonly occupied FOBs we would create together. Turkey likes Kurd oil. Black market oil also is making its way there via ISIL. If negotiation with Turkey fails, we postpone Kurd formal statehood but not Kurd partnership. The Beiji refinery north of the Kurd-dominated Tikrit could become the basis for revenue sharing with Sunnis. ISIL already is located primarily along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers so water and irrigated land is available for Sunnis who are not extreme. At some point the Sunnis will conclude that they will never gain control of Baghdad or the oil-and-Shiite-rich areas farther south. They will be forced to compromise or live with ISIL which has to be worse.
You continue to mention a Sunni area vacuum, Turkey intractability, and Iranian expansion that could occur if ISIL is eliminated using Kurd and Sunni partners. Unmentioned are the perils of the status quo with a worst-case ISIL that is not getting weaker, and a refugee crisis that is a humanitarian, economic, and terror nightmare. Iranians, Soleimani, and now Russia currently have no counterbalance other than ISIL and other weaker Sunni fighters in West Syria. Iraq leaders continue to withhold arms meant for the Kurds. Iraq and Syrian Sunni hatred toward everyone at the way they are being treated through commission by the Shiites and omission by the U.S. and its “allies” can only increase with current trends and relative inaction.
At some point if we are to succeed, a more Machiavellian approach is required toward all opponents and even allies in Iraq and Syria. We can continue to allow Russian Generals to walk into our embassy and demand that we withdraw from their airspace, or we can demonstrate no such intention and the fait accompli of a smoldering Syrian air force using stealth aircraft that the Russians currently cannot touch. We don’t need to down Russian aircraft but most certainly can conduct air attacks with little risk of being shot down. If we occupy FOBs in Kurd territory with Kurds and the FSA, common sense escalation risk and NATO rules would indicate that we will not be attacked in those FOBs by Russian or Turk aircraft. Russia’s Syrian bases would be vulnerable to retaliatory attacks if they struck our FOBs and don’t forget that MAD thing. An eastern Syria, Jordan, Saudi air corridor could remain even if Turkey and Iraq pulled airspace access and we had to close our embassy and withdraw our forces from non-Kurd Iraq.
Your first sentence is somewhat akin to “Bill C”-like revisionist history insofar as you did not mention the errant beliefs in the presence of WMD and “they will welcome us.” That said, you nailed it in describing the folly in believing that once Iraq fell, an inclusive and unified democracy was realistic given the Sunni-Shiite-Kurd divide. In contrast, if we had partitioned Iraq when we first achieved “Mission Accomplished” and held all the power, we could have created separate budgets and DIME approaches to all three states to include imposing oil revenue sharing. We could have transitioned three separate security forces with more incentive to hold their own territory and less inclination to become insurgents.
Yes, a new map will evolve in time, however, time is not on our side given current inaction and paralysis through poor NSC analysis. By the time January 2017 comes around, ISIL still will be in charge of large areas, gaining recruits, infiltrating fighters to spread the caliphate, and promoting increasing numbers of lone wolf attacks abroad. Russia and Iran will be entrenched doing whatever they want quite effectively with little regard for collateral damage. Meanwhile, a new administration of either party will have a much tougher job overcoming “retrenchment” than if bolder action had occurred earlier.
You keep talking goals, end states, and strategies without acknowledging that current ones are not working and are making matters worse. Furthermore, our relative inaction facilitates the goals of Putin, Assad, Soleimani, Khamenei, Baghdadi, and al-Abadi while leaving most everyday Sunnis and Kurds facing the crushing vice of Shiites on one side and ISIL on the other.
In this case, the goal is less difficult than the means of getting there as roadblocks and uncertainty exist from factors internal and external to Iraq and Syria. However, bold action and adaptation can overcome adversity and ambiguity. If these wars taught us anything it is that our military can adapt rapidly if given the chance. Add to that Patton’s lesson that “a good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.” Unfortunately, at this rate a good plan won’t even start execution until after inauguration day in 2017 and a viable plan currently is not even being contemplated.
Dayuhan–we must learn to trust civil societies regardless of just how chaotic they get—-WHY because they reside there not US citizens.
Survey of refugees in Germany
73% Fled #Syria Gov bombardment
58% Support No Fly Zone
52% Return After Assad cedes
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bild.de%2Fpolitik%2Fausland%2Fsyrien-krise%2Ferste-umfrage-unter-syrischen-fluechtlingen-42927644.bild.html&edit-text= …
SURPRISE surprise–over 52% would actually return.
Really worth listening to—he is probably one of the currently most knowledgeable journalists on the IS, Iraq and Syria right now—
.@michaeldweiss on vivacious form here, dismantling #ISIS, #Assad, @POTUS, etc, in a terse hour http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/74949365 …
Is Obama Admin on verge of strategy of humiliating abandonment of both US interest and US values in #Syria?
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-09/white-house-is-weighing-a-syria-retreat …
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini…e28_story.html
How America can counter Putin’s moves in Syria
By Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates October 8 at 9:08 PM
Condoleezza Rice was secretary of state from 2005 to 2009. Robert M. Gates was defense secretary from 2006 to 2011.
One can hear the disbelief in capitals from Washington to London to Berlin to Ankara and beyond. How can Vladimir Putin, with a sinking economy and a second-rate military, continually dictate the course of geopolitical events? Whether it’s in Ukraine or Syria, the Russian president seems always to have the upper hand.
Sometimes the reaction is derision: This is a sign of weakness. Or smugness: He will regret the decision to intervene. Russia cannot possibly succeed. Or alarm: This will make an already bad situation worse. And, finally, resignation: Perhaps the Russians can be brought along to help stabilize the situation, and we could use help fighting the Islamic State.
The fact is that Putin is playing a weak hand extraordinarily well because he knows exactly what he wants to do. He is not stabilizing the situation according to our definition of stability. He is defending Russia’s interests by keeping Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power. This is not about the Islamic State. Any insurgent group that opposes Russian interests is a terrorist organization to Moscow. We saw this behavior in Ukraine, and now we’re seeing it even more aggressively — with bombing runs and cruise missile strikes — in Syria.
Putin is not a sentimental man, and if Assad becomes a liability, Putin will gladly move on to a substitute acceptable to Moscow. But for now, the Russians believe that they (and the Iranians) can save Assad. President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry say that there is no military solution to the Syrian crisis. That is true, but Moscow understands that diplomacy follows the facts on the ground, not the other way around. Russia and Iran are creating favorable facts. Once this military intervention has run its course, expect a peace proposal from Moscow that reflects its interests, including securing the Russian military base at Tartus.
We should not forget that Moscow’s definition of success is not the same as ours. The Russians have shown a willingness to accept and even encourage the creation of so-called failed states and frozen conflicts from Georgia to Moldova to Ukraine. Why should Syria be any different? If Moscow’s “people” can govern only a part of the state but make it impossible for anyone else to govern the rest of it — so be it.
And the well-being of the population is not the issue either. The Russian definition of success contains no element of concern for the dismal situation of the Syrian people. Refugees — that’s Europe’s problem. Greater sectarianism — well, it’s the Middle East! Populations attacked with barrel bombs and Assad’s chemicals, supposedly banned in the deal that Moscow itself negotiated — too bad!
Putin’s move into Syria is old-fashioned great-power politics. (Yes, people do that in the 21st century.) There is a domestic benefit to him, but he is not externalizing his problems at home. Russian domestic and international policies have always been inextricably linked. Russia feels strong at home when it is strong abroad — this is Putin’s plea to his propagandized population — and the Russian people buy it, at least for now. Russia is a great power and derives its self-worth from that. What else is there? When is the last time you bought a Russian product that wasn’t petroleum? Moscow matters again in international politics, and Russian armed forces are on the move.
Let us also realize that hectoring Putin about the bad choice he has made sounds weak. The last time the Russians regretted a foreign adventure was Afghanistan. But that didn’t happen until Ronald Reagan armed the Afghan mujahideen with Stinger missiles that started blowing Russian warplanes and helicopters out of the sky. Only then did an exhausted Soviet Union led by Mikhail Gorbachev, anxious to make accommodation with the West, decide that the Afghan adventure wasn’t worth it.
So what can we do?
First, we must reject the argument that Putin is simply reacting to world disorder. Putin, this argument would suggest, is just trying to hold together the Middle East state system in response to the chaos engendered by U.S. overreach in Iraq, Libya and beyond.
Putin is indeed reacting to circumstances in the Middle East. He sees a vacuum created by our hesitancy to fully engage in places such as Libya and to stay the course in Iraq. But Putin as the defender of international stability? Don’t go there.
Second, we have to create our own facts on the ground. No-fly zones and safe harbors for populations are not “half-baked” ideas. They worked before (protecting the Kurds for 12 years under Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror) and warrant serious consideration. We will continue to have refugees until people are safe. Moreover, providing robust support for Kurdish forces, Sunni tribes and what’s left of the Iraqi special forces is not “mumbo-jumbo.” It might just salvage our current, failing strategy. A serious commitment to these steps would also solidify our relationship with Turkey, which is reeling from the implications of Moscow’s intervention. In short, we must create a better military balance of power on the ground if we are to seek a political solution acceptable to us and to our allies.
Third, we must “de-conflict” our military activities with those of the Russians. This is distasteful, and we should never have gotten to a place where the Russians are warning us to stay out of their way. But we must do all that we can to prevent an incident between us. Presumably, even Putin shares this concern.
Finally, we need to see Putin for who he is. Stop saying that we want to better understand Russian motives. The Russians know their objective very well: Secure their interests in the Middle East by any means necessary. What’s not clear about that?
Russia’s presence in Syria created an effective NFZ in favor of ISIS, w/ the safe zone preventing coalition strikes.
Still no comments out of the WH except accusing others of “mumbo jumbo” WHILE at least the Syrian anti Assad forces the CIA are supporting are doing well in the face of Russian aggression they see as true agression–what a striking difference.
Either #Syria rebels are getting really good with TOWs or the #Russians have started building their tanks with LEGOS
Comment from rebel social media–kind of hits the point—
Dear Russian soldiers, Think Again Turn Away from #Syria
A few of the many Russian tank graveyards in Afghanistan
Reports an hour ago of a Russian jet exploding over #Hreitan, #Aleppo, reports now claim Turksish AA downed the jet after airspace violation
Reports an hour ago of a Russian jet exploding over #Hreitan, #Aleppo, reports now claim Turksish AA downed the jet after airspace violation
MF,
General Flynn did an interview on Aljarzee TV. He was head of DIA before he retired. Someone posted a link on swj a month or so ago. Watch it,the journo gave him a chance to rephrase his Crusader boast but he wasn’t interested – which I thought was a dumb move.
Dayuhan
Rice knows the Stinger was a myth, she also knows the Russian knows it. IMHO she has been given the task to de-conflict and facilitate plausible deniability for the USG. Stand-by for the spooks getting a whole load of money.
JMO
RC
Really worth listening to—-
Video: @masoudtarek on “The Arab Spring: Pathways of Repression and Reform”[/B] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2PFzCjOd-w …
Russia’s electronic warfare units are jamming Nato’s communications in #Syria
http://bit.ly/1Mk0R3B
pic.twitter.com/yvHdD7vHze
US Success of CIA TOW program makes you wonder what could have been achieved with a robust covert program.
Revolution Syria as driven by the Syrian civil society has:
Too many enemies:
•Assad regime
•Russia
•Iran
•Hezbollah
•Iraqi Shia gangs/so called militia
•Mercenaries from AFG and Pakistan
•ISIS
•PKK / PYD
•World’s hypocrisy
ADD as if this was not enough for the Syrians to deal with—- the total lack of US leadership–and we wonder why Syria is so convoluted???
They may look rag tag but they are fighting exceptionally well—-
Day Five of Hama Battle
Dispite Russian close air support Assad-forces not able to advance in northern Hama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKzoLmmdFLY …
Looking more stalemate and this was supposed to be easy portion of the Russian/Iranian campaign.
The little Russian backed Assad advancement in Tal Sukayk & Atshan seems to have been fully reversed by the rebels in Hama today
Let’s see exactly how the fight against IS is going in Syria.
1. Russians declared they had invaded Syria to attack IS–BUT somewhere along the road from Moscow to Damascus they forgot to attack IS
2. The US is not bombing IS because they are basically afraid to be in the same airspace as Russian fighter bombers
3. That leaves just the Syrians to handle IS—so much for that global war on terror both the US and Russia claim to be doing.
BUT the Syrians are getting bombed by the Russians WHO are supporting the IS–who would have figured that??
FSA’s Suqour al-Jabal brigade are also fighting ISIS at Harbal in northern Aleppo. #Syria
http://youtu.be/at5-fjdubeU
FSA Suqour al-Jabal brigade fighting ISIS during the night at Tal Qarah, Aleppo. #Syria
http://youtu.be/87yICdoxlw4
Meanwhile as the 16th Division fought the regime in Khalidiyeh, Suqour al-Jabal tried to hold ISIS back. #Aleppo
http://youtu.be/6Ye-y1c6XM8
WHY because the Obama administration tried to forget Syria and quietly just pulled out leaving a massive vacuum to be filled by anyone.
BREAKING—-
Intense Israel jet activity over the Golan heights
BreakingNews #Assad media outlets claim AA downed 6 #Israel|i drones west of #Izra a while ago..
Unusual #Israel|i air-forces activity over #Golan #Quneitra began a while ago..
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/100915-774990-china-joining-russia-to-humiliate-us-weakened-by-obama.htm#ixzz3oHww6Jhx
China Joining Russia In Syria Brings Risks Of World War
10/09/2015 06:51 PM ET
American Decline: Chinese forces head to Syria to join with Russia in filling Obama’s power vacuum and purportedly fight the Islamic State. A false move involving NATO member Turkey could mean world war.
Russian and Chinese military sources now confirm that Chinese warships are en route to the Middle East to get in on some of the action of humiliating the U.S.
In just a week and a half, Moscow has upended the dynamics of power in the Mideast by taking on the role that President Obama relinquished: acting like a superpower in a regional conflict that has implications extending far beyond the region.
Russian ruler Vladimir Putin launched airstrikes against rebels opposing the terrorist Assad regime in Syria, first with a modest force to gauge the U.S. response and perhaps pull out if threatened. Seeing no threat, Putin has been intensifying Russian operations, even sending in Spetsnaz special forces troops.
China’s entry means two major powers are stepping in to do what the U.S. was unwilling to do against IS.
It’s a lesson in how fast the tables can turn when America displays weakness — losing wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and proving to be ineffective against IS despite fighting it for a year and three months now.
Our commander-in-chief even admits that he has no strategy against the monstrous caliphate that his very own policies of weakness brought into being.
What is apparently happening now was inconceivable before Obama sent America spiraling into decline: our two Cold War adversaries uniting militarily in an effort that will ultimately give them dominance, at our expense, in the most strategically important part of the world, the oil-rich and politically fragile Middle East.
You can’t carry out your objectives there over the course of years with the most advanced military in the world? Fine. Watch us do it, Moscow and Beijing are telling us with their actions. And in months, or perhaps only weeks.
How the next president will dig us out of this hole is hard to fathom. A new post-Cold War Brezhnev Doctrine could come into effect, in which Moscow and Beijing warn that they will not let the U.S. reassert its influence in countries they’ve “liberated” in the Mideast.
If that turns out to be the case, America will be risking war with both Russia and China if it even tries to return to its pre-Obama influence in the region.
Moreover, with Russia already more than once “accidentally” violating the airspace of Turkey, a NATO member in spite of its current anti-U.S. government, the dangers — Moscow and Beijing engaging in incursions or other provocative actions on the Syria-Turkish border — are clear.
All NATO nations are obligated by treaty to defend against an attack on any individual NATO nation. If Russia and China see what they can get away with, they could expose NATO as impotent.
Or, worse, they could trigger World War III.
Neither Obama nor the many millions who voted for him twice ever thought his policies of weakness could make things this bad.
Deleted–second copy
More from the joint Russian military Islamic State actions against the FSA in support of Assad—
This is what Russia’s “targeting ISIS” looks like.
Confused?
You should be.
http://bit.ly/1LluKUH
Notice not a word comes from the Obama WH?????
BREAKING: a new coalition has been formed in northern Syria called the ‘Syrian Democratic Forces’
The Syrian Democratic Forces (#SDF) includes the #YPG, Burkan al-Furat #FSA forces, the #MFS and al-Sanadid[/B]
Syria: creation of #SDF can also be seen as a clear message of #US to #Russia that it will not let Syria fall back into the hands of #Assad
The #SDF has approximately 30.000 fighters and includes arabs, kurds and Christians. A new force for democracy, against #Assad & #IS
Outlaw:
Consider the following difference/disparity:
The National Park Service suggests that, in America’s Civil War, the American South — in its bid for freedom — and with a white Southern population of approximately 6 million, put approximately 1 million fighters in the field against the American North.
http://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm
In stark contrast, the BBC suggests (much as you do below) that the “freedom-seeking” population of Syrian today has only been able to place approximately 100,000 persons in the field against Assad.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24403003
Obvious question: Does the above information, re: the Syria Civil War, suggest that:
a. The freedom-seeking population of Syria is so exceptionally small/tiny (numbering only in the thousands?) that it can only field 100,000 combatants? Or does the above information suggest, instead, that
b. While the freedom-seeking population of Syria is indeed large (numbering in the millions?), the number of freedom-seekers actually willing to fight is exceeding small/tiny?
(Note: Syrian population, I believe, is approximately 23 million.)
What am I missing here?
Outlaw: From the perspective and numbers offered above, might many/most American’s today come to one of the two conclusions suggested below, to wit:
a. That there are simply too few “freedom-seeking” people in Syria today? Or
b. That there are simply too few “freedom-seeking” people — in Syria today — who are willing to fight?
“Not since the end of the Cold War a quarter-century ago has Russia been as assertive or Washington as acquiescent”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/opinion/obamas-doctrine-of-restraint.html …
Free Syrian Army commander in Hama: “we have enough TOW’s to use them against each individual soldier”
Captain Mustafa, the military spokesman of the FSA’s Tajamul Ala’Azza says to Russians “You don’t know what you’ve got yourself into”
New “Syrian Democratic Forces” formed consisting of YPG, YPJ (women’s division) Free Syrian Army brigades, Assyrian units.
=30k fighters
Newsflash Assad Col Abbas Fawaz in charge of overseeing offensive in KAFR NOUDAH was KILLED…
Syria After 1 week of Regime assault backed by Russia’n airstrikes & new weapons no significant progress at northern Hama frontlines
Opposition still manages to hit &destroy SAA tanks with TOWs. “We hit 2 tanks but then 10 new ones appear in front of us,” says witness.
So how many tanks/armoured Assad army still have out of the 150 allegedly participating in northern Hama offensive? anyone keeping count?
Outlaw:
Given that, of a Syrian population of about 23 million, only 100,000 are fighting for freedom,
Does this exceptionally small number of committed freedom fighters suggest that:
a. Even if these 100,000 should somehow defeat Assad,
b. Then they would find it exceptional hard, if not impossible, to (a) hold Syria together and/or to (b) hold it against all comers?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article…source=twitter
10.16.151:02 PM ET
Cuba Is Intervening in Syria to Help Russia. It’s Not the First Time Havana’s Assisted Moscow.
Reports that Cuban forces are now fighting in Syria follow a long history of the Castro brothers working closely with their patrons in Moscow.
Not for the first time Cuban forces are doing Russia’s dirty work, this time in Syria. On Wednesday it was reported that a U.S. official had confirmed to Fox News that Cuban paramilitary and Special Forces units were on the ground in Syria. Reportedly transported to the region in Russian planes, the Cubans are rumoured to be experts at operating Russian tanks.
For President Obama, who has staked his legacy on rapprochement with America’s adversaries, the entrance of Cuba into the bloody Syrian civil is one more embarrassment. Russia, Iran and Cuba—three regimes which Obama has sought to bring in from the cold—are now helping to prop up the regime of Bashar al-Assad, ruler of a fourth regime he also tried in vain to court early on in his presidency. Obama has been holding his hand out in a gesture of goodwill to America’s adversaries only for them to blow him a raspberry back in his face—while standing atop a pile of Syrian corpses.
Yet for seasoned Cuba-watchers the entrance of the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces into the Syrian civil war is a surprise but hardly a shock. A surprise because Cuba was forced two decades ago to curtail its military adventurism by a deteriorating economy (the Cuban military has been reduced by 80 per cent since 1991).
Largely thanks to the involvement of Cuban troops in the fight against Apartheid South African in Angola in the 70s and 80s (not to mention the more recent medical “missions” to disaster-stricken parts of the world) Cuba has gained something of a reputation for internationalism. At one point the Cuban presence in Angola reached 55,000 soldiers, inflicting a defeat on South African forces which helped precipitate the end of Apartheid. “The [Cuban army’s] decisive defeat of the aggressive apartheid forces [in Angola] destroyed the myth of the invincibility of the white oppressor,” Mandela told the Cuban leader on a visit to Havana in 1991.
In recent years Angola has lent the Castro regime a romantic penumbra which says that, for all its faults, the Cuban revolution is on balance progressive (watch the film Comandante by the ludicrous Oliver Stone to get a sense of what I mean).
Yet while everyone remembers Cuban heroics in Angola, few remembers Cuban terror in Ethiopia.
Those of us who are old enough probably recall the Live Aid concert organised by Bob Geldof in 1985, put on to raise money to help alleviate Ethiopia’s worst famine in a century. 400,000 people died in the famine of 1984/85, and while many people remember the gut-wrenching television images of fly-speckled children with pronounced rib cages and distended stomachs, few know that the tragedy was largely a consequence of the policies pursued by the Communist dictatorship that ruled Ethiopia at the time—a regime propped up by Cuba and the Soviet Union.
The Russians airlifted 17,000 Cuban troops to Ethiopia over the 14 years the Dergue—the dictatorship which ruled Ethiopia—were in power. During 1977-78 it is estimated that over 30,000 Ethiopians perished as a result of the Red Terror unleashed by the Communist government. During the terror, Sweden’s Save the Children Fund denounced the execution of 1,000 children—children whom the communist regime had preposterously labelled “liaison agents of the counter revolutionaries”.
As with Stalin’s war on the kulaks in the thirties, Ethiopia’s Marxist government embarked on its own utopian ventures in the countryside, forcing between 12 and 15 million Ethiopians into collectivized farms. According to Alexander De Waal, one of the foremost experts on the Horn of Africa, “more than half this mortality [400,000] can be attributed to human rights abuses that caused the famine to come earlier, strike harder, and extend further than would otherwise have been the case.” The Ethiopian army, reinforced by Cuban troops, prevented the distribution of food to areas of the country whose inhabitants were rumored to be sympathetic to opposition groups.
Following Russia’s lead, Cuba’s alliance with African nationalism extended to support for the bloody regimes of Nguema Macias in Equatorial Guinea and Idi Amin in Uganda. Cuba also gave political cover to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan—an odd position for a member of the non-aligned group of nations to take, until you consider that the Soviet Union might have limited the massive aid it sent to the island had Cuba stepped out of line.
A genuine affinity certainly exists between many of the world’s dictatorships based on a common hatred of the liberal democracies. Quickly sensing the way the wind was blowing in Tehran, the former Cuban President Fidel Castro was one of the first heads of state to recognize the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, informing then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini (disingenuously for someone who had previously interned religious believers in labor camps) that there was “no contradiction between revolution and religion.” Similarly cordial relations have also long existed between Cuba and Syria, where Cuba has intervened militarily in the past. From 1973 to 1975 a Cuban tank brigade was stationed facing the Golan Heights after the Israeli victory in the Yom Kippur War. In 1985, then Syrian President Hafez al-Assad wrote to Fidel Castro honouring the friendship between both countries as beneficial “for the two peoples in their joint struggle against world imperialism and its allies..
Ultimately, though, Cuba’s reported entrance into the conflict in Syria should be seen as the island paying new dues to its benefactor in the Kremlin. While the Obama-Castro relationship has filled the headlines in recent months, the overtures the Russian leader Vladimir Putin has been making towards Cuba have gone largely unnoticed. Last year Putin wrote off a massive $32 billion of Cuba’s debts to Russia – a 90 per cent reduction in what was previously owed. Putin also pledged to assist oil exploration projects off Cuba’s northern coast and re-opened Russia’s Cold War spy base in Lourdes, south of Havana.
Putin is reportedly indignant at the U.S. for what the Russian President considers to be U.S. meddling in his country’s “backyard” in Ukraine. Putin’s generosity towards Cuba is thus an attempt to wrestle back the initiative by discomfiting the United States 90 miles off the coast of Florida. But Russia’s new-found enthusiasm for Cuba has another happy side effect: just like in old times a Russian leader can ask its Cuban padawan to get its hands dirty.
SO was Putin’s move in to Syria really just all about oil and gas???????
Russian Gen.Maj. Vladimirov – chemical weapons will be deployed to stop refugees flow into Europe
http://portal-kultura.ru/articles/ar…vody-v-evropu/ …
Russia w/ help of SAR must take control of all gas pipelines in the Middle East, topple monarchs in Qatar, SaudiArabia ”
Vladimirov says that FSA 50/50 supports Assad/Daesh
He also said that Russia is aimed at “rearranging the Middle East and thus, saving Europe”
THIS is a perfect example of the Russian “altered state of reality” that has it’s finger on a nuclear trigger and will use it if necessary—this is not the old Soviet Union we are talking about……….at least they understood MAD–these guys do not.
From the perspective of realpolitik, I fail to see why Syria is an American mess.
Syria is Iran’s closest ally and its formidable air defenses complicated any strikes being contemplated by the US or Israel. Yet now, instead of augmenting Iran’s power, Syria is a drain. Hezbollah is in no position to threaten Israel whilst the war continues, and Syria has effectively been removed from the chessboard.
Speaking of removal, Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile has also been eliminated.
Moreover, American’s “partners” in the region, upset about the nuclear deal, get to fight Iran in a contained proxy war without disturbing the Strait of Hormuz. And Turkey gets to play regional power rather than be relegated to begging to be let into the EU or being an “ally” of Israel. Finally, Russia is now bogged down, which will prevent Moscow running interference on other US endeavors.
Yes, we could have tried to establish no-fly zones, but the SEAD campaign would have been more extensive than even OIF. We would have essentially had to go to war with Syria. Even now, the anti-ISIS coalition still must have an “arrangement” with Assad to ensure pilot safety.
Yes, we can better train and equip the Kurds. Yet this would enrage Ankara and Baghdad and Tehran. And yes the Kurds are interested in protecting themselves, but they are in no position to liberate all of Syria.
So Wapo really has no good ideas. On the one hand, people don’t want America to intervene. On the other, America has to solve all of the world’s problems.
Based upon what was a brief outpouring of sympathy for Syrian refugees, Angela Merkel has created fundamental changes in Europe that will have ramifications for decades, even though the news cycle has largely moved on to other issues. Is Obama to blame for that as well?
Russian/Syrian information warfare is getting extremely serious now on Twitter–this never happened during the Ukraine events SO why is it that social media is so suddenly threatening to Russia, Syria and Iran???
Entering week 2 of the @twitter hacking scandal and giant #spam attack vs. me.
600+ reported.
No @Support so far…
Remember Twitter has Russian oligarch investment money in the hundreds of millions.
Maybe because it is the only source of “truth” and fights their “narrative” since MSM has basically stopped critical reporting on the Ukraine, Syria and Yemen.
Azor–more indicating the depth of the Sunni Shia war in the ME that our last two Presidents seemed to not fully understand.
BTW–the Iranian KH–has a ton of American blood on their hands as they were the main drivers of the EFP IED campaign against US troops that killed, wounded and or maimed hundreds.
BTW–these videos and follow on social media comments have not appeared in US MSM.
Breaking: Kata’ib Hizballah announced via video their brigades are in #Syria.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgMwrX-nVOE&feature=youtu.be
This was after many in the MSM denied that the Iranians would stand by they statements of sending in between 1-2K troops.
But hey Obama “hopes” Iran will “mellow”.
Brought with them all their T72s carrying reactive armor—–
Kata’ib Hizballah was slowly releasing info they deployed units to #Syria since August.
In my latest @WashInstitute policy watch, I mentioned recent reports of KH deployments to #Syria: [url]https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-iraqi-shiite-proxies-increase-their-deployment-to-syria[/url] …
KH claimed it has thousands of fighters. Deployments to Syria make sense in moves of bigger pic Iraqi Iran proxies.
KH also has personnel deployed to Yemen augmenting the Qods Force and LH personnel in-country…
BTW–the KSA has recently captured IRGC and KH personnel in Yemen which confirms the above comment—
In both the Ukraine and Syria–the western MSM has not been in the information war fight for a single minute in the last 18 months.
It appears that the MSM has a hard time understanding the Russian and now Syrian “narratives” and pushing back.
Social media has stepped in and is far more effective even with their daily glitches than the all powerful MSM.
When you have the entire Russian info warriors and Syrian info warriors focusing strictly on you and social media then you are in fact driving the “narrative” and countering info warfare.
This has been done by a dedicated band of merry warriors who earn not a single dime for their efforts and it is the dime that drives MSM.
Bellingcat has revolutionized open source analysis, as well a merry band of ten twitter accounts and or bloggers are now engaging Russia in ways most western leaders have not figured out how to.
Russia Today has created an entire arm dedicated to refuting @thedailybeast reporting on RT:
https://russian.rt.com/fiction_fact
https://russian.rt.com/fiction_fact
This on top of a massive spamming campaign targeting several twitter accounts and the thousands of Russian now Syrian trolls.
I AM UNDER CONSTANT SPAMMING ATTACK FOR EIGHT DAYS NOW AND @TWITTER @SUPPORT DIDN’T DO ANYTHING TO EASE THE SITUATION.
UNABLE OR UNWILLING?!
So after a lot of articles on non linear warfare, talk about UW and information warfare–where are the western nations in their info war pushback–nowhere to be seen.
That has contributed to the mess we are in–let’s accept at least that.
Outlaw 09:
It’s obvious that the Muslim world is in the throes of its own version of the Thirty Years War that ravaged continental Europe in the 17th Century. In this context, Operation Iraqi Freedom was a tragic error, although not an apparent one at the time. OIF lit the match in a tinderbox of arbitrary state borders, underdeveloped national identities, warlords masquerading as general officers, terrorism, and of course, extreme sectarian hatreds.
And just like during the Thirty Years War, as outside powers struggled for advantage, their interference only came back to haunt them. Moreover, just as the uninvolved powers benefited (England, Russia, the Netherlands), China is expanding its economic clout in the region.
No wants to or is in a position to deal with this conflict. Any solutions would upset the international order and balance of power, and if the conflagration can be contained so much the better.
Perhaps Obama has been overly cautious, although I think the Europeans’ overreach in Libya contributed greatly. Basically the strategy of striking ISIS and providing low-level support to the Kurds and FSyA, as well as overall humanitarian aid is likely the smartest one. The idea of the “Pacific Pivot” was a sound one, but it will remain an idea until the US can extricate itself from the quagmire of Muslim Arab civilization imploding.
Sounds uncannily like the Bush “Mission Accomplished” statement—
Thanks to positive results of Syria airstrikes, long term solution based on inclusive political process is possible, Putin tells Assad.
Does Putin truly realize just what he has said–again typical Russian “altered state of reality” seen in eastern Ukraine.
Worth listening to……
JustinStearns & @Joshua_Landis go at it: #Syria, Alawis “primordial” &”constructed” identity
https://youtu.be/yNciQy8PlPg
Outlaw 09:
At this point only the US and Israel are preventing an invasion of MANPADs into Syria, which would neutralize both Assad and Russia, and curtail Hezbollah and the IRGC. However, if Russia continues to strike at NATO/GCC-sponsored rebels and civilians with abandon, it is doubtful if this prohibition can be continued.
Over at “War on the Rocks”, there seems to be acceptance of Assad remaining in power, at least temporarily, and of Russia retaining its foothold and expanding its influence throughout the Middle East, even including rapprochement with Saudi Arabia.
Firstly, I don’t see how Moscow can cozy up to Riyadh without throwing Teheran and Damascus under the bus. After all, the impetus to contain Iran and remove Assad is more pronounced in the GCC and Turkey than Israel or the West, and these are the same countries that have been training and equipping anti-Assad forces prior to any CIA involvement.
Secondly, much has been made of Putin’s outreach to Egypt. Yet Egypt has a collapsing economy and will bend to the will of the highest bidder; moreover, Sisi has been trying to shore up the legitimacy of his rule and welcomes any supporter.
Third, oddly enough ISIS is more of a concern to Iran and the West than to either Israel or the GCC. Iran is worried about losing control in Iraq, but the GCC seems more preoccupied with Shia rebels in Yemen. The West is simply horrified by their atrocities and potential for strikes into the West itself by returning volunteers. Even the Iraqi Shias seem content to let ISIS run amok in the Sunni areas, while they cross the border to fight with Hezbollah.
Given that with small arms and technicals, ISIS accomplished what the hardened SyAA couldn’t, this might say more about local ambivalence than any particular military prowess. If Iraqi Sunnis and Shias were prepared to let ISIS roll up to the gates of Baghdad than perhaps we should have left it to the Iranians to deal with. Maybe Obama’s dismissive comments were actually right? And while the GCC and Jordan are appreciative of US interest, they have continued to focus on the Alawites and Houthis…