Why the West is Standing by Amid Russia's Campaign in Syria by Howard LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor
… The West’s inaction in the face of the recent Russian onslaught in Syria – which is in support of the army of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – has several explanations, regional experts say. Those range from a desire to keep Moscow on board the sputtering Syria peace process to the emphasis by the United States and France, since the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist attacks, on the effort to degrade the so-called Islamic State.
But the key reason appears to be that no one in the West has the appetite to confront Russia as it pursues its interests in the Middle East.
“Russia has very clear intentions and is using military means to accomplish them,” says Heather Conley, director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. “At the same time our aims are not so clear, and we are using soft means to try to accomplish those unclear goals.”…
Comments
Dayuhan....this goes to exactly what I have been repeating over and over for you....the so called use of "soft power" can really only be successful if it is backed up by "hard power"...hard power can take many different sizes and shapes BTW.
Obama/Kerry's Iran Deal while using "soft power" was only facilitated in the end with the crashing Iranian economy "brought on by a strong and growing even stronger set of economic/political sanctions" ie a form of "hardpower".
Back when the Crimea was militarily annexed by Putin and the West "talked" (and then passed really a set of weak sanctions) about sanctions I wrote here the following "turn off SWIFT"...BTW "SWIFT" is the ultimate economic nuclear threat.
This SWJ banner is interesting in that Nixon as much as he is seen badly in history was one of the last US Presidents who fully and completely understand the use of a "threat" and proved a number of times he was willing to use the "threat"...ask the NVA....
QUOTE:
''I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe that I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war.''
--Richard Nixon
You ask all the time... what to do...had Obama and Kerry had this same sort of political beliefs on the use of force as Nixon did Obama both during the Minsk 2 and now the Geneva meetings ALL of which are basic failures...he could have seriously raised the "SWIFT" stick and actually turned it off if the US had not gotten the agreements they saw fit for the Ukrainian and Syrian issues....
The Europeans actually did bring it up...OMG you missed the rapid run for cover by the Obama WH response...."we are not in the least thinking about it"....THEN Obama/Kerry ever so quietly and unknown to the EU supported the Russian application to place two Russians on the SWIFT board of governors making it nearly impossible in the future to turn it off....I know you did not know that....
HERE is another perfect mess created by a non strategic thinking Obama and Kerry.
I posted here that all three...President, CIA and CENTCOM ALL supported that grand idea of using Kurds to fight IS ie the YPG and a sub Arab force called the SDF to give the YPG the appearance of being a Kurdish Arab coalition.....
NOW that same very YGP is literally out of control and the US will not admit it and is provoking a war with Turkey WHICH Russia definitely wants as part of the "non linear war" with NATO/US.
If you had been following me on the Syrian thread you would have seen that the Shia militias have basically pulled back from Aleppo and the advance is now being carried strictly by YPG with extensive Russian CAS and Assad artillery strikes.
This is exactly what happens when you lose full control over your proxy.
So again Obama was actively participating in Syria..he just picked the wrong race horse.
Which kind of negates your thesis we have/had no business being in Syria.
By the way it is a complete mystery to me just HOW the CIA did not see the closeness of Russia and the YPG developing ...it did not occur simply overnight.
BUT I digress....NOW the YPG is releasing info warfare propaganda to support the fact that it is Turkey who is responsible for the current mess in Aleppo...NOT them but it is them who are attacking the FSA.
Remarkable pro-#YPG propaganda.
Footage from #Idlib, claimed to be #Aleppo, blames #Turkey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au_hsI2ri6g …
AND absolutely no major pushback on the former US out of control proxy YPG...
BTW the explosions seen in the video ARE from deliberate Russian air strikes on a MSF NGO hospital killing over 50 including a high number of children and women...
Summed up.....referencing Geneva and in the end Syria....
"Veiled references to "Plan B" notwithstanding, John Kerry's strategy rests on words. He has no leverage. He knows it. So does Vladimir Putin."
Awaiting your comment...because reality is still showing you and me...Obama is "still standing by" the tenor of the article....
Does the US really think anyone is listening to them?....this is exactly what happens when "you are just standing by".
US urges #Russia, #Turkey to avoid 'escalation' over #Syria: State Dept @AFP
http://news.yahoo.com/us-urges-russi...ons&soc_trk=tw …
The Turks told the US to choose and they did ...the YPG/SDF and Russia does not even believe Obama will do anything anyway.....
As we debate or not debate whether Obama is in "standing by mode"...after the massive Russian air strikes against schools, hospitals and civilians today and not a single word out of this WH..I have come to another take on the article...
He is not "standing by" WHY because Obama really does not care thus is not even involved in any decision making and is simply allowing this war to run it's course....quite simple actually...taking no action is at least "a strategy of sorts"......a bad one but one could at least call it a "strategy.....he is simply going through the motions to make it another 12 months so that his legacy is....."he got into no wars"
Turkey has clearly, concisely and often in the last two days declared their "red line" to be Azaz and if there is to be a true regional war...Turkey has thrown down the glove over Azaz.....seriously do not think both Russia and the US believe them.....but it is about to be tested.......they are so wrong right now and the next 72 hours is going to become both interesting and down right dangerous for the ME and a disaster for the US FP in the ME..BUT WAIT we do not have a FP in the ME.....
Things are about to go ballistic in a very short timeframe....
Faylaq al Sham group is on the vetted TOW approved list and is fighting in Tal Rifaat against the SDF, main recipient of US support in Syria
The CIA & CENTCOM have each empowered armed groups that directly oppose the other’s reasons for being on the ground. = Sheer hubris.
It really cannot be said enough how catastrophic the policy disconnect between (1) CIA (2) CENTCOM & (3) Obama Admin has been on Syria.
Totally bizarre seeing U.S vetted & supported Jabhat al-Shamiya & Faylaq al-Sham being attacked by U.S vetted & supported SDF in N. Aleppo.
Dayuhan...care to comment?
Russia DepFM Gatilov: Assad could have prevented the escalation if he had taken democratic reforms in time
https://www.rt.com/news/332477-assad...gc9Jh8.twitter …
BUYERS remorse......????
Since we can all agree that Obama is largely "standing by" in Syria.....the next provocative question....that spins out of Obama's "standing by" agenda.....or lack of an "agenda"....
WHO is the biggest terrorist in Syria right now?....Assad, Putin or Islamic State as based on the sheer destruction to Syrian towns, villages, critical civilians infrastructure, schools, mosques, hospitals and food supplies
AND secondly based on the sheer number of civilians being killed.
Assad first and racing to catch up...Putin.....
"It sure ain't the Islamic State" by any means.....
AND which of the three named above poses the most existential threat to the US...meaning the ability to both threaten the US and carry put that threat with a certain level of creditability in their ability to carry out that threat....and has a nuclear capacity to do it....
Russia...end of story on the Obama "standing by"...
BTW..a direct result of that so called "standing by agenda"....
Unusual seeing US govt calling on a fellow NATO member to cease attacks on an armed group it itself has designated a terrorist organization.
That is why the Turkish call to the US of ..."lead...follow or simply get out of the way" .or the day before...of "fish or cut bait"....rings so true.
Amazing to watch a regional power basically telling a superpower you have no longer a say in what is ongoing in my region.
Currently predictable but true....another reason why Obama "is standing by" BUT the Russians are saying that in his call to Putin yesterday he 'agreed" to allow further Russian air strikes....
John Schindler @20committee
I notice the people who hyperventilate about every single US drone strike are pretty quiet as Russians keep bombing hospitals killing women and children.
From one of the best social media open source analysts on the net these days.....
Eliot Higgins @EliotHiggins
Playlist of 12 videos from the MSF hospital bombing, including two added in the last few minutes
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPC0Udeof3T7Tq9EXLp4zhbqlzd--tqG5 …
Dayuhan...hope you are watching this so called "non genocide"....
Today the Turks made a formal open and public news media statement aimed squarely at Obama..."either lead, follow or simply get out of the way" as the point of no return has long been reached with US lack of actions and the actions being conducted by Russia and Iran.....
Looks like Obama is simply "standing by" as now one of the strongest NATO militaries is engaging into Syria to defend their perceived national security interests....and from the WH silence......
BREAKING Turkish PM Davutoğlu speaks en route to Ukraine, says "Turkey will not allow Azaz fall"
Turkey non stop artillery shelling now on #YPG positions in northern #Aleppo #Syria
CNN Trk ENG @CNNTURK_ENG
#BREAKING Turkish PM says if #YPG does not withdraw from Menagh base, it will be rendered unusable
Turkish speak for they will simply bomb it/or shell it and challenge the RuAF to stop them.....as they appear to not be worried in the least by the Russian stationed S400s.
SO Dayuahn......"genocide" and or Russian "war crime" per international war...both.....
Breaking news: At least 14 dead as missiles hit hospital and school sheltering refugees in Azaz, Syria, medics and residents say
Our special needs center for children in Tel Rifaat, Aleppo struck by cluster-bombs. The town and center is empty.
The videos coming out of this attack are to brutal and way to graphic to link to....and in the years of seeing these videos they reach levels I have not seen before...the use of cluster munitions on unarmed and clearly identified civilians breaks just about every Law of Land Warfare paragraph, totally violates the international humanitarian law, the Geneva Convention on Humanitarian law, and totally violates the UNSC resolution 2254 signed even by Russian and the so called basis for Geneva......
AND Obama yesterday "approved" the continuing use of Russian air strikes per Russian news media in his Puti phone call.
So a provocative question...is Obama just as complicit as Putin is for these civilian deaths as he knowingly refuses to push back on Putin and knew the air strikes would continue????
Russian air strikes on ......
Update
Children's Hospital #Aazaz
MSF Hospital #Maarat_alNouman
School #Aourom_alKubra
School #alKajibrin
School #Kafr_Dael
#Syria FEB15
Yes Obama is "standing by".....
Since Outlaw won't articulate why we should intervene in Syria by clearly articulating U.S. interests we would advance or protect I'll take a whack at it. The conflict in Syria is a global conflict with multiple countries involved directly and indirectly. It has already spilled across borders into Iraq, Africa, and Europe. The risk to global stability and our economic interests shouldn't be underestimated. The humanitarian crisis is now a security risk to Europe, and arguably Russia and Iran are escalating it by design. As we determined for two previous world wars a stable and secure Europe is worth fighting for. Finally,since we define sustaining U.S. leadership as a strategic objective, there isn't a more compelling situation where our leadership is needed. Acting appropriately in one part of the world has positive ripple effects in other parts of the world, and of course the opposite is true. If we fail to lead others will increasingly challenge us.
Getting American voter support will require a narrative that clearly articulates what is at risk and we're acting. It is hard to get to strategic when our national narrative is solely focused on counterterrorism. While ISIL is a strategic factor, so is Russia, Iran, and China. Selling the American public on that won't be easy.
You do realize the term non linear warfare is the exact translated Russian doctrinal term...right?
You do realize that the US has had at least on four occasions a solid chance to rein in this conflict without actually getting physically involved...right?
You do realize that there was and still is even after 2000 air strikes and a massive ground offensive thrown at them by transnational shia jihadists and the Kurds in the last week that option is still on the ground and fighting back even against IS.
The FSA has actually for the last two years directly taken on IS at every opportunity and has since 2014 been driving them slowly and steadily out of their areas......but you knew that right?
They are somewhat disjointed in a typical Syrian Arab fashion meaning over 90K combat troops in over 1000 different groups based on local towns, personal family clans or tribes....but you knew that as well but have developed themselves into a very professional urban warfare army.
BUT you also know that the US disjointed debate on what is and or is not a "moderate" was deliberately used by the WH to not focus on FSA the most oblivious choice to take on IS....WHICH would have been the correct way forward, but you knew all of this smokescreen was being created in order to do exactly what you argue....nothing.
Syrians themselves fighting IS on the ground without US troops has been the so called US dream solution......it was there and what did they do...sided with the YPG who for the Turks are a known terrorist group and the SDF which has a single Arab unit of 50 men to cloud the YPG and now they are seriously paying for that mistake that many ME area specialists questioned from the very beginning...BUT again you knew all of this right?
AND when you used your own Rome excuse for not recognizing what a "genocide is, was and or might be ....even the UN stated it yesterday in more legal terms that you need to read...but you knew that it was a genocide that is ongoing.
You know that the events in Syria are in fact an open rebellion but take the Russian and western MSM view that it is a civil war..wrongly using the terms to cloud the debate much as the WH does...but you know that.
AND you know the term "complicit"...check Websters...WHEN a leader of a nation state "knowingly" accepts "genocide, massive violations of the international humanitarian law, war crimes occurring and fails to act ..the key is "knowingly" and believe me Obama knows....when that leader knows this BUT decides to do absolutely nothing.....
Obama and you might find this provocative...is just as "complicit" in a moral sense in the genocide, starvation and mass killing of civilians that Assad and Putin are carrying out this minute in Syria....whether you believe it or not.
WHY... as a Nobel Peace Prize winner has a moral responsibility to literally move earth and heaven to end it BUT have you seen him doing this?
AND all the Obama/Kerry talking in this world after the massive Russian air strikes on hospitals and schools yesterday is not going to exclude them from being "complicit" in war crimes.
But you knew all of this right...?
You still have not commented on the Brookings article and side step a number of mistakes that have been pointed out.....ie rebellion vs civil war is just one of them Rome is another etc.
BTW Russian wants the eastern Ukraine invasion to also be declared a "civil war" in order to cover their own military invasion of Ukraine.....check it out.
I called "non-linear warfare" a buzzword, not UW. The silly part of it is the whole clutch-the-pearls attitude... "ooh, we're a target of mon-linear warfare, we have to do something", without, of course, any realistic evaluation of the threat or what is to be done about it.
Yes, you have pointed out those Russian objectives repeatedly, and I have repeatedly pointed out that the Russians have categorically and cataclysmically failed to advance those objectives in any way. The only people they have isolated have been themselves. Their East Ukraine campaign is bogged down and stagnant; their proxy can't win. They are in a dangerous quagmire in Syria. Their economy is collapsing. So where's the threat? Where's the need for US action when everything Putin does is just dragging him closer to oblivion?
Re this:
"Great comment BUT Dayuhan again "what are the defined US own interests" this exact minute in eastern Ukraine and Syria"
I have said it over and over again, but I will say it one more time: there aren't any, at least none even remotely worth going to war over, whether directly or by proxy.
Again, I've said this too many times to repeat, but once more: if we are going to confront the Russians, we need to do it at a time and place that matters to us, where we have actual interests at stake and the challenge will be salable on the US home front, where the appetite for aimless proxy war is not exactly high. You want to go into a proxy war to protect Sunni Muslims from Assad... do you think you can sell that in Peoria? If you try they will vote you out at the first opportunity and take up a collection to fund Assad. Proxy wars are long, nasty, and unpredictable, and there is no point in committing to something when you know the political support for that commitment is near zero.
Obama is "standing by" because there are no compelling US interests at stake, there's no clear and achievable goals to pursue, no political support for engagement on the home front, no viable allies or proxies on the ground, and a very high probability of immersion in a pointless, endless, expensive quagmire... all quite good reasons to stand by.
Obama's Syria policy is simply pragmatic. It recognizes that, even as the facts on the ground in Syria change, one thing doesn't: the US still has no compelling national interest at stake, no clear and practical goals, no viable allies or proxies on the ground, etc, etc.
We can talk all we want about no-fly zones, no-drive zones, humanitarian corridors, but what's missing is the goal. What's all this meant to accomplish? How likely is it that these means will accomplish that end? Is this something that we need to go to war over, and if so, WHY? What is the purpose?
The "ideological belief" in question is simply that it's unwise to go to war when the interests at stake don't justify it, the goals aren't clear and achievable, etc, etc. I don't see that as irrational in any way, unless you're missing for the forest for the trees, which tend to happen when you spend too much time looking at Twitter feeds.
Dayuhan..in attempting to help you along with the Brookings article....
QUOTE:
Is Obama’s foreign policy ideological?
In my work on Islamist movements, I’ve been interested in the idea of political “inelasticity”—that is, how what Islamists do (or don’t do) has little effect on how their opponents view them. That’s because secularists and liberals will view them as Islamists, regardless of anything else, because, well, that’s what they are. The problem is that beliefs, attitudes, and policies are resistant to revision, because they’re steeped in deeper philosophical and ideological divergences that are somewhat divorced from everyday politics.
Inelasticity is helpful in understanding Obama’s policies on the Middle East, and particularly on Syria.
Inelasticity is helpful in understanding Obama’s policies on the Middle East, and particularly on Syria, for similar reasons. Administration officials aren’t oblivious to what’s happening in Syria; it’s more that the facts on the ground—even though they’ve changed rapidly and repeatedly over the past five years—seem to have no real effect on the basic contours of our Syria policy. This would seem surprising, since the president has styled himself a post-ideological technocrat who’s simply interested in “what works.”
Obama’s “defensive minimalism” or “calculated dithering” on Syria and the broader Middle East is not incidental. However wrong and dangerous, it makes sense. It’s the product of a deeply held conviction that the use of American power in Syria will only make matters worse. This ideological thrust of U.S. policy helps explain why Obama has been remarkably dismissive toward the critics of his Syria policy, describing alternative proposals as “mumbo-jumbo.” They may or may not be mumbo-jumbo, depending on how you feel about U.S. military action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, including the establishment of no-fly zones, no-drive zones, and humanitarian corridors.
NOTE::::Dayuhan go back and reread the WaPo article posted here on the arrogance being displayed in that article towards myself and you among others that post here...."his successful Syrian strategy is working"..."it is that you and I do not get it and we need simply some more messaging in order to understand the WH".that sound like the Russian info war front talking not a US President... AND THAT is not arrogance per excellence...?
And, to be sure, counterfactuals are challenging and, by definition, speculative. But we can judge empirically what U.S. policy has actually been for the past five years, and we can judge whether or not it’s been successful. On this, senior U.S. officials have very little to say, except to present false choices, as Secretary of State John Kerry did when he suggested that doing more, as a humanitarian tragedy unfolds in Aleppo, would require going “to war with Russia.”
That President Obama has been unwilling to question his original assumptions on Syria, despite a rapidly evolving—and worsening—context, suggests an insularity and ideological rigidity rare among recent presidents.
This even includes, oddly enough, George W. Bush. Bush is often dismissed as the towering example of anti-intellectualism, afraid of ideas and afraid of changing them. Yet, this view of Bush, however numerous his other faults, is simply incorrect. After several years of disaster in Iraq, Bush concluded that a course correction was needed. He relented to outside criticism, when there was a strong temptation—as there always is after making a series of rather large mistakes—to double down and stay the course. He brought in outside counsel to help develop a new strategy, something that has never happened with Obama’s Syria policy, or even his broader approach to the Middle East.
KEY:
It requires an active imagination to even begin to envision a scenario where Obama, realizing that Aleppo may fall in the coming weeks, invites top Syria experts—most of whom support greater U.S. action—to discuss possible ways forward.
In some ways the entire discussion around Obama becoming President has strangely never really touched "his true political and ideological beliefs" has it.....?
I could actually find one....leftist in nature and it explains thoroughly what the author of the article is saying...but that is another long thesis.
Dayuhan...
1. interesting that you are calling UW a "buzz word"
2. Russian objectives I have stated to you over and over since Crimea and posted often here and in the Syrian and Ukrainian threads .....but slowly again
a. damaging and full discredit of NATO
b. damaging and full discredit of EU
c. total disconnect of the US from Europe and the ME
Clear enough now for you and that is being driven by another "buzz word" "political warfare against the Russian perceived threat of liberalism US style".
"Impact the pursuit of American strategic objectives"....
CARE to define those as you fully know this President and his own DoS have not clearly and concisely defined anything nearing "strategic national interests" other than "fighting IS" WHICH he really is not doing or have you seriously seen any decline in IS under this President....nowhere to be seen is it?
"Creditability is achieved when other nations know you are willing to support your own interests"
Great comment BUT Dayuhan again "what are the defined US own interests" this exact minute in eastern Ukraine and Syria AND that is exactly what the Turks are openly and fully stating to the US.."lead...follow ...or simply get out of the way" .....there are none .
Define exactly in a sentence or two EXACTLY what the "defined Obama strategy is in say Syria"......BUT WAIT Kerry defined it for you...."I cannot go to war over starvation, humanitarian aid and the killing of 100Ks .....why should I do that...?
Now that sentence alone is a clear declaration the US has fully and completely retrenched to Wilson 1920.
What did it cost the US when it had to come out of that self imposed isolationism in 1941.
Challenge you to state that the Obama FP is not an exact copy of Wilson 1920.
Just as you sidestepped the "moderate Syrian" challenge you keep repeating basically the same thing....and answering nothing when questioned.
You also completely failed to read the posted Brookings article WHICH defines clearly WHY he is "standing by" or better "standing out in the rain"....and it was written not by myself.
Probably one of the best explanations out there right now.
If you think that article is wrong then define why instead of creating a circular argument?
Remember that so called Obama "red line" over the use of chemical weapons....WELL DoD was ready to strike when the order came..BUT if the story is correct...AFTER a long walk in the Rose Garden with his closest political advisor who has also never served a single day in the military nor for that matter has never ever held any major think tank position or academic position ....he suddenly decided to not engage totally surprising virtually the world AND with no explanation....THAT is leadership?????
Again suggest you read the Brookings article before you answer.
What you miss is the clear objective: to avoid commitment to an aimless conflict in which the US has no compelling national interest at stake, no clear and achievable goal, no viable ally or proxy in the ground, and very little probability of favorable outcome. In all your rants against the White Houise, you seem to omit any mention of what you think should have been done and what you think the strategic goals of intervention should be.You seem limityed to a vague conviction that the US must be involved in every fight in the world, with or without any clear objective.
Forget about the "non-linear war" construct, it's just another pointless buzzword. Focus on the realities: what are the Russian objectives, what means do they have to achieve those objectives, and how do those impact the US pursuit of American strategic objectives.
Credibility is achieved when other nations know you are willing to act in support of your own interests. Action without clearly defined interests and goals is not credible, it's dumb.
What do you want to achieve in Syria? How do you proposed to achieve it? Does that strategy offer a realistic probability of achieving those goals? Until proponents of intervention can credibly answer those questions, the clear policy of non-commitment remains the only available option.
Did we the US after Bosnia proclaim to the world no more genocide...appears it was all just talk is it not......reason enough to separate the warring factions long enough to get humanitarian aid in...which is literally sitting on the border going nowhere AND it was Russia who said it could come in at Geneva...read the press comments....
When will this administration fully understand they are already in a non linear war, it might not be a shooting war but inherently it is far more dangerous as it targets the civil society of the target nation state....or did I miss the part where the Obama WH fully understands this and states so in their constant stream of statments....
Doubt you will agree with me on this one...a superpower's inherent strength is in it's creditability...meaning all others fully understand that when it says something it delivers on it or it goes down attempting to deliver on it....you just keep dancing around my condemnation of this Obama WH.....there is absolutely no clear and concise FP, strategy, thoughts or anything that vaguely resembles one of these.
OR did I miss them as we have been debating?
Dayuhan...BTW now in our ongoing debate..respond to this article if you can which I doubt as it virtually is saying the same things I have been saying and you reject.....
BTW...in international law and I pointed to the article here...if a nation state is fully aware of ongoing genocide and Obama believe me is fully informed every morning...AND then does nothing to stop it...that nation state is as complicit in the genocide as are those that carry it out and could be made liable in the Den Hague for their inactions...there is enough case law after Nuremberg to make the case....
AT least morally complicit.....
Tones from the Islamic Arab States is getting louder and stronger....
Qatar Foreign Minister: Sending an "Arab Islamic" ground force is an urgent need which can't be delayed
Reports Turkish tanks entered 5 KMs inside Syria as the YPG Kurdish militia backed by RuAF prepare to attack Azaz & Tal Riaat north #Aleppo.
This in a short version is exactly why the West ie Obama is "standing by"....and doing nothing ............
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/02/10-obama-syria-poli…
Why doesn’t Obama seem to listen to Syria experts?
U.S. policy toward Syria is a fascinating, if depressing, case study. Many of my friends and colleagues who work on Syria—nearly all of them, in fact—have been baffled by President Obama’s approach to the Syrian conflict.
...
Inelasticity is helpful in understanding Obama’s policies on the Middle East, and particularly on Syria, for similar reasons. Administration officials aren’t oblivious to what’s happening in Syria; it’s more that the facts on the ground—even though they’ve changed rapidly and repeatedly over the past five years—seem to have no real effect on the basic contours of our Syria policy. This would seem surprising, since the president has styled himself a post-ideological technocrat who’s simply interested in “what works.”
...
It’s the product of a deeply held conviction that the use of American power in Syria will only make matters worse. This ideological thrust of U.S. policy helps explain why Obama has been remarkably dismissive toward the critics of his Syria policy, describing alternative proposals as “mumbo-jumbo.”
...
And, to be sure, counterfactuals are challenging and, by definition, speculative. But we can judge empirically what U.S. policy has actually been for the past five years, and we can judge whether or not it’s been successful. On this, senior U.S. officials have very little to say, except to present false choices, as Secretary of State John Kerry did when he suggested that doing more, as a humanitarian tragedy unfolds in Aleppo, would require going “to war with Russia.”
...
That President Obama has been unwilling to question his original assumptions on Syria, despite a rapidly evolving—and worsening—context, suggests an insularity and ideological rigidity rare among recent presidents.
...
President Bill Clinton, after falling under the sway of the “ancient hatreds” thesis, managed to shift American policy as the Bosnian genocide unfolded, but it required him to come to terms with his own role in looking away amidst the slaughter. Some, today, are sounding similar notes. The moral urgency is undeniable. As Michael Ignatieff and Leon Wieseltier write, we may very well end up being “complicit in crimes of war,” and that “if we do not do everything we can to put a stop to the suffering that is the defining and most damaging abomination of our time, Aleppo will be a stain on our conscience forever.”
...
NATO ordered #Russia to dismantle it's s400 missiles in #Syria FEB 14
VIDEO: Egyptian soldiers arriving at King Saud Air base to participate in Northern Storm - @FaisalbinFarhan
BREAKING: Turkish PM tells Germany’s Merkel: #Turkey will continue to respond to Kurdish militia attacks in #Syria - @AlArabiya_Eng
ISRAEL: Russia has allegedly given #Hezbollah advanced radar systems capable of locking onto Israeli aircraft.
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel...i-fighter-jets …
Breaking
"We will help Syria w/all our strength, if the Syrian government invites us to do that."
- #Iran's #AirForce chief Farzad Esmaeili
We are seriously inching ever closer to a full scale regional war both Russia and especially Iran wants as payback for the 80-88 war....
Both Obama and Kerry not have a clue how on to stop it....as it would now require force he does not want to ever use.......
Another side effect of "standing by"..."namely unintended consequences"....
al Baghdadi has got to be counting his great luck right now......after his not getting constantly bombed by Assad and Putin........
He must be very confused watching reports of anti-IS forces shelling anti-IS forces after anti-IS forces advanced against anti-IS forces with the US and Russia CAS supporting those anti-Is forces.....attacking anti-IS forces.......make sense to anyone other than myself????
When Russia and the US are finally finished IS will be the strongest anti-IS force in Syria and the ME.
Now that is truly "power politics".....
This is another example of what happens "when the West ie the US" decides to "sit it out" in their own declared war on terrorism......notice a deep discussion of this development is being seen nowhere in US MSM.....
Isis has been thwarted militarily. But now it could seize chance to advance
Hassan Hassan
Sunday 14 February 2016 00.05 GMT
In January 2014 newly organised rebel factions in northern Syria declared war on Islamic State (Isis), and this culminated in the expulsion of the group from all of the city of Idlib and most of Aleppo. Rebel forces in Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and Hasaka similarly rose up to root out the increasingly overbearing foreign organisation.
The anti-Isis offensive reportedly cost the rebels about 7,000 fighters. The group’s presence in Syria was seriously threatened, receding to Raqqa and pockets in Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor and Hasaka, until the summer of that year, when Isis swiftly took over Deir ez-Zor and consolidated its presence in eastern Aleppo, southern Hasaka and Raqqa. It was helped by momentum and the advanced weapons it seized after it took over Mosul in mid-June and the Iraqi army there collapsed.
But the advancing hordes of Isis still failed to reclaim control in Idlib or the rest of Aleppo. That remains true today. Local rebel factions have resisted the group’s incessant attempts to return. The rebels’ resilience in those areas is remarkable, especially considering Isis’s control of al-Bab and Manbij west of Aleppo, two significant strongholds for, respectively, Isis’s economic activities and its manpower.
But what Isis failed to achieve with advanced weapons and momentum could be achieved with the changing military landscape in Aleppo and northern Syria at large. Isis and other extremists may benefit from the weakening of local forces – the ones that proved effective in repelling Isis’s attacks and infiltration of these areas – and become more dominant. This risk is particularly real if the Assad regime’s campaign disrupts the rebels’ hold without providing enough forces to effectively defend and police those areas. Almost all the regime’s ground advances in Aleppo were spearheaded by government-aligned foreign Shia militias. Those included the breaking of the sieges around the Kweiris airbase in November and around the towns of Nubbol and Zahraa on 3 February. In November, for example, Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Sulaimani appeared in southern Aleppo, celebrating with a crowd who raised the flag of Iraq’s Harakat Hizbollah al-Nujaba paramilitaries.
Elsewhere the regime relies on army units or local militias, organised under the National Defence Forces, to take and then hold territory. But these local militias are effective in their own areas, not in opposition strongholds. The danger is that foreign militias could defeat rebel forces – with the crucial help of Russian airstrikes –without necessarily having the local support or experience to hold territory, which will inevitably create an opening for Isis forces that have already been attempting to control those areas. The regime’s reliance on foreign militias suggests it does not have enough manpower to fight for it everywhere. More importantly, the growing public appearance of foreign sectarian militias on the frontlines of predominantly Sunni Aleppo is a gift for sectarian forces from the other side. Shia operatives have recently released videos using clearly sectarian language: one Shia cleric is shown shouting anti-Sunni slogans from a Sunni mosque pulpit in Aleppo. This is new in Aleppo, and has increased since November.
What makes such sentiments potentially more consequential is that Jabhat al-Nusra, too, has a strategy to increase its grip in Aleppo at the expense of other forces. Such attempts have taken tensions with local factions, sometimes including its ally, Ahrar al-Sham, to boiling point since October. After the regime broke the siege of Nubbol and Zahraa, a massive Jabhat al-Nusra convoy of around 100 vehicles moved inside Aleppo last week, as did one of its factions in Deraa in December and another from Azaz in August.
The continuing relentless airstrikes by Russia, the majority of which target opponents of Isis, as western officials have frequently said, is finally putting President Assad’s regime back on the offensive. While the campaign is unlikely to help the regime take back all of Aleppo in the foreseeable future, it will certainly shake up dynamics in this strategic city and adjacent areas. And extremists appear better prepared to steer these changes in their favour.
You confuse lack of aggressive action with absence of strategy. If the policy goal is to avoid commitment to a conflict in which the US has no compelling national interest at stake, no clear and achievable strategic goals and no viable allies or proxies, inaction becomes a perfectly viable alternative.
The collapse of Syria only represents a failure of US policy if the goal of US policy was to prevent such a collapse. If the primary policy goal was to avoid commitment, that does not represent failure, it represents success. Yes, the Syrian ship is simking... but at least we're not in it.
If I were to define "dumb power" it would look something like this: "the use of force without clear or achievable goals or in a manner inconsistent with the achievement of those goals". You're welcome to submit your own definition, but I can't see how recognition that the application of force is unlikely to serve any purpose consistent with US interests is dumb.
Since you yourself first used the term "dumb power" which really is another form of "no power which actually translates in no strategy".....perfect example of your so called Obama "dumb power" super hard at work....and why Obama is standing so far out in the Med. he cannot even see landfall....
What a wimp of a Obama WH......now they are even recycling their "old statements" and that takes absolutely no intellectual effort.....
In 2014 Obama stated concerning the heavy fighting after the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine.....
"we will judge Putin on his actions not his words".....
NOW 2016......
US Wants to See Russia’s Commitment to Ceasefire Translated into “Concrete Actions” Syria
http://ow.ly/YhZ20
BUT WAIT.....that is the same thing Kerry and Obama keep saying about the Russian non implementation of a single point of Minsk 2.."we want to see full Russian implementation" whatever that means.
Even you Dayuhan must admit these two statements take absolutely no intellectual effort and is actually the perfect example of "dumb power, meaning no power" meaning "no strategy".....
"Soft power goals" do not exist. Goals are simply goals. Hard power, soft power, smart power, dumb power are means by which goals are pursued.
The use of force without clear, practical, and achievable goals might be credibly called "dumb power", and if the US has a clear, practical, achievable goal in Syria it is a well kept secret. In the absence of compelling national interests or practical objectives it is hard to see any good reason to use force.
This is now the near perfect storm that the Obama WH has created themselves by never really wanting to create a long term US strategic vison for their FP in both the ME and Europe.......that even considers the use of force if necessary to accomplish their "soft power goals"....
US DoS statement yesterday
We have urged Syrian Kurdish & other forces affiliated with YPG not to take advantage of a confused situation by seizing new territory.
Hassan Hassan
@hxhassan
By visiting YPG commanders as they were advancing west of the Euphrates despite a previous US-Turkish understanding
The PYD & its armed wing the YPG, is in all respects possible, an integral component of the PKK and KCK.
Naive to claim anything else.
Exactly why the Turks told the US.....make a choice Turkey and NATO or the PKK......
Russia-backed separatists in DNR in talks to host Syrian Kurdish embassy in Donetsk
http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2016/0..._8071685.shtml …
After opening their main office in Moscow....this week...
Steimeier questions Iraqi #Kurds about the use of weapons supplied by #Germany,warns them agnst indep. referendum https://twitter.com/dw_ukrainian/sta...60803550420992 …
الخالدي @khalidi_4_sham
Breaking: what appears like Drones coming from Turkish airspace entered reef Aleppo presumably to find YPG targets 4 artillery
الخالدي @khalidi_4_sham
Breaking: Turkey has reportedly carried out its first airstrike targeting reef North Aleppo YPG
Civil war and genocide are different things... not mutually exclusive, but different.
What a Syrian moderate fighter looks like is completely irrelevant. We all know that "moderate" is US code for "has objectives that are consistent with ours". Such fighters undoubtedly exist, but unless they are sufficiently organized to credibly contend for power and to wield it effectively if they get it, their existence doesn't really matter much. Adopting a proxy that can't win and can't even stay on its feet without eternal escalation of support is one of the greatest mistakes anyone can make in a proxy war, and it's a mistake that the US should have learned by now to avoid.
It would be very silly for the US to regress back into Cold War thinking and assume that every action from Russia requires an equal (or greater) and opposite reaction from the US. That attitude caused nothing but trouble in the Cold War and it is not likely to do any better now. If the US is going to confront Russia it should do so at a time and place where the US has clear interests at stake, a coherent and achievable goal, and, if by proxy, credible and effective proxies available. None of these conditions are present in Syria.
If you had read the Obama last National Strategic Strategy document released late 2015 you would have found a section on just how critical it is to US FP to eliminate issues like genocide as it "directly impacts the security of the US"...but hey you missed it.
Secondly you still owe me a definition of what exactly "a moderate Syrian rebel fighter looks like and acts like"....you cannot and that was the intention of the Obama WH in starting this debate...go back and review who actually started that discussion...Kerry.......as long as there is a "debate of sorts"....Obama needs to do nothing...as he argues then and now "we do not know who to talk to".....
Well he knew enough to support YPG...did he not....?
AND he knew enough to ignore the Turkish threat...choose NATO or YPG..and he/Kerry assumed it was a bluff....oh how wrong was that decision.....
AND there is no intertwining of eastern Ukraine and Syria in the current Russian non linear war against the US.....?
Russia-backed separatists in DNR in talks to host Syrian Kurdish embassy in Donetsk http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2016/02/12_a_8071685.shtml …
What does any of this have to do with the US or US policy?
Keeping Syria in order and mediating the Syrian Civil War is not the responsibility of the US. Restraining the Russians is not the responsibility of the US. The responsibility of the US is to look after US interests, and there is no US interest in play here that even remotely justifies the risk of commitment to a conflict with no clear policy goal, no viable allies, and nearly infinite quagmire potential. I understand that the US feels the need to maintain a superficial show of engagement, but going beyond that would be simply irrational.
The absence of a US commitment in Syria is evidence of foreign policy success, not failure. Ain't nothin' for us to do there beyond digging deeper into the scheisse and making a bad situation worse.
This just how confused the Obama WH is right now this evening in Aleppo and Azaz.....
Turkey (NATO member) is bombing YPG (backed by US, Russian CAS, which is fighting along side Hezbollah against FSA) & SDF (backed by US also fighting against FSA), for attacking FSA (backed by US, Turkey & Saudi and who is fighting against Assad and IS).
NOW US asks Turkey to quit shelling YPG who is attacking FSA and closing off the Aleppo corridor together with Hezbollah.....AFTER Turkey tells the US to make a choice...Turkey or YPG.....
Russia is bombing IS only 12% of air their strikes the rest 88% hit FSA and YPG has largely in their move to Aleppo refrained from attacking IS and the transnational shia jihadi's are attacking FSA and forgetting IS.......and YPG is fighting together now with Hezbollah and Russian CAS.....and Assad/Russia are actively working with IS.
AND the only one fighting IS is FSA and JaN (AQ).
Make sense to anyone...???
It should...it is the Obama successful Syrian strategy gone completely astray....
Please provide examples for 1 thru 3.
1. It seems Russia's actions in the Ukraine may have reinvigorated NATO?
2. Maybe, but the financial crisis in Europe had already exposed seems in the EU. As a defense entity they were never there.
3. I don't see any sign of the U.S. disconnecting from the ME, NATO, or the EU. I do see our influence waning, but that can change almost overnight when we get a new administration. Also the lack of effective and coherent leadership now may create opportunities for the next administration to fill. That is all speculative of course.
Bill...as one who first argued that the Russian non linear warfare had "lost" in Donbas...due to five single points of failure.....the moves Russia has made in correcting their inherent single points of failure in their doctrine and their opening of a second non linear war front points to the general over "success of the doctrine".
I would argue that Russian "success" is being largely facilitated by the extremely weak US response by a WH that has not come to grips with the three core geo political goals of this new form of UW warfare being conducted one step below actual combat.
1. damage and discrediting NATO
2. damage and discrediting EU
3. completely disconnecting the US from EU and ME and NATO
Actually when we look at these goals Putin has in fact made a strong forward leap in achieving them matched by a equally strong pulling back by the Obama WH and not wishing for a direct confrontation with Putin.
Russia's non linear strategy failed in the Ukraine, so Russia resorted to tried and true use of conventional force threats with its flash exercises and threats to use tactical nukes in Europe.
Their actions in Syria are related to the larger strategy, and it is no surprise that hard power trumps soft power in the Middle East. Hopefully not a surprise to our foreign policy winks. Russia probably didn't forsee the impact of the refugee crisis on Europe, but now that they do it makes sense for them to expliot it to weaken Europe. It also gives Russia a larger voice in the international order because they have to be part of the solution. Without risking all out war with Russia, what should our next move be?
This is exactly why Obama is standing on the sidelines.....
What the heck is this.......for four years Obama states Assad must go...THEN he caves along with Kerry in order to agree with Assad and Putin THAT he can stay until mid 2017 at least and participate in elections....THEN Kerry states there can be no preconditions ie those stated in UNSC resolution 2254.......
NOW after massive Russia air strikes and a major ground offensive using transnational shia jihadi's......THEN after Munich 1938 we get the Obama Kerry shift backwards for four years..........
John Kerry to Orient News: No peace in #Syria with Assad there
http://youtu.be/bqDsFuFPs5Q
This is exactly why there is total confusion on exactly where does the US stand on just about anything when it comes to Putin.....
The video I posted a few days ago on the Syrian thread depicted the IFVs for two Saudi armored brigades being moved near the Jordanian border and the Russians laughed it off......
NOW this..Kuwaiti flights are now going into Turkey with unmarked flight numbers ....some Turkish rumors indicate MANPADs for the FSA...
The US no longer has any influence in the ME and that is what Obama has been saying he wanted is it not???
Kuwaiti Air Force @Boeing C-17 Globemaster, no identification tracking, in final approach to IST Ataturk 5/23runway
Accepting bets on what's inside, A/S weapons for KSA's F-15? SAM systems?
I have stated here that Kerry and Obama are over their heads...and warned the Turks and Saudi's were not bluffing.....they were not...
Turkey's answer is now being received in Syria and Russia has not said a thing yet via their massive propaganda....
After Russia's power show & massive air campaign on rural #Aleppo today, Turkish artillery pounding Russia's new allies & drawing red lines.
Pro-AKP "Yeni Şafak" reports "howitzers and heavy weapons" are used "to stop terrorists with Russian support from encircling Azaz".
Breaking
Pro-Turkish government media reports, Turkish artillery also hits "YPG-held #Sijaraz, 500 m from #Azaz".
Türkish artillery hitting YPG controlled areas of Azez, Maarnaz, Sicaraz, Minag, Malikiye, Keştear
http://www.yenisafak.com/en/news/tur...z-town-2411302 …
I am just not the only one seeing this direct Russian geo political threat being directed fully at the EU, NATO and especially the US.
If @POTUS doesn't finally act in Syria, unraveling of Europe on his watch may become his legacy. Via @POLITICOEurope http://www.politico.eu/article/berlin-made-barack-obama-now-berlin-need… …
As one who has lived and worked a long number of years in Berlin and Europe...Europe is literally tread milling in a deep hole of water as there is limited to virtually no US leadership being seen anywhere on the European horizon.
BUT WAIT maybe this is exactly what Obama wanted in his retrenchment a la Wilson 1920.....and that is in fact "a strategy.....?
You apparently do not fully understand Russian and Iranian non linear warfare which is now being successfully implemented on two war fronts and YET NATO and Obama has done nothing to truly counter it.
If you do not fully understand that there is actually an ongoing war between Russia and the US ....just one small step under armed conflict then you really do need to reread the Russian non linear warfare doctrine being used in their political warfare against the US and West in general.
This is a #Devaltseve 2.0.
Maximum Russian force before "ceasefire" comes into effect in 6 days.
For those that think the two non linear war fronts are not inherently intertwined...think again...then you have been sleeping the last two years...
Putin has never veered off his three core non linear war geo political goals and I have been stating them since Crimea and Putin and his FM have also repeated them a number of times in their various press conferences, speeches, interviews and PRs...they are not hiding them from the world.
1. damage and discredit NATO
2. damage and discredit EU
3. totally discredit and disconnect the US from both the EU and ME and inside NATO
Right now Putin is "winning"......his declared war on the current Russian feared "liberalism US style"...rule of law, transparency, and good governance and lately the US model for economic development.
"Soft power" is failing....in this direct confrontation.
IS Kerry and Obama ready for the coming political fallout over the blatantly failed Munich 1938...there is not even a ceasefire anywhere to be seen, there is no humanitarian aid being delivered as Kerry spoke of AND Russia is attempting to literally flatten Aleppo and Azaz.....
Rebel areas in N. #Aleppo, #Syria today are witnessing the fiercest airstrikes by at least 20 #Russia|n jets; dozens of airstrikes reported
I cannot even keep up the incoming social media air strike reports and civilians loses...it is that bad.....
BUT if we believe Dayuhan...there is no geo political reason for the US to even be in the ME...well at least that matches the current Obama ME FP......
This has got to be the utter proof of what I was previously saying.....
Lavrov complains that too many people here in Munich trying to convince #Russia to stop bombing. #MSC2016
They truly do not think they are in the wrong.....why Putin stated it at the UNGA.....anyone carrying an AK47 and resists Assad as a "terrorist" that makes the entire resistance movement to Assad "fair game"....
That is why when you hear them say...we will continue to bomb IS, JaN and "other terrorists" that is what they mean with "other terrorists"....
But again this stupid game in the US of defining what is and or is not a "moderate Syrian" actually feeds this Putin concept....
AND this proves just how bad Kerry and company FP has gotten and yet he does not seem to realize it....
Kerry today: "coming weeks critical to peace process."
Kerry few days ago: "coming days are critical"#RussianCeasefire
Kerry's comments are just designed to follow the direction the wind is blowing the flag.....and yet he somehow thinks no one is tracking his comments....
This is the standard Russian farce that is repeating itself over and over from Minsk 2 to Munich 1938.
Yet the West seems to not take away anything from the "lessons learned"....
#Lavrov clearly saying they'll continue attacking terrorists willfully confusing #IS with all armed opposition. Dangerous. #MSC2016
If nothing changes when why does the US need a DoS Sec who never achieves anything where there is shooting involved......
Perfect example of the way the Russians explain themselves ........and the worst thing is they believe their own propaganda.....
Important + confusing statement by Lavrov questioning "ceasefire agreement": "US only wants us to stop bombing but they won't." #MSC2016
WHAT the heck does he mean by this....?
I have been dealing for years with first the SU, and now Russia and speak Russian BUT I have literally have no explanation for this statement.....
THEY truly do not believe in all seriousness that they are bombing and killing civilians.....truly do not believe it in their "Russian world"....AND that is extremely dangerous as they have a itchy nuclear trigger finger...and they repeat that fact over and over.....almost like a mantra to comfort themselves that they think they are a superpower equal to the US.....
Stand corrected.....
BUT the core is correct...if one wants to be successful in diplomacy the other side must fully understand that you are ready and willing to use force to back up your negotiations.
THIS is exactly why Kerry failed again in Munich 1938...there will be no truce, ceasefire, cessation of hostilities or firing cease fire...simply because Russia did exactly what it did in Debaltseve six days after Minsk 2 was signed....they attacked using a full Russian armored brigade and took a city that was Ukrainian under the agreement while Putin demanded in Minsk he wanted it to be Russian.....and crowed about the UAF defeat at the hands of truck drivers and miners when in fact they were not defeated.
Interesting that Russia demanded a ceasefire in seven days very similar to the six days they needed at Debaltseve for the ceasefire to go into effect....AND not a single pushback by Kerry/Obama...does he not have a memory of what exactly occurred in Debaltseve.....BUT WAIT the Us was not even involved in Minsk 2 as Russia elegantly blocked Obama from attending......
DAY TWO after Munich 1938 and this just came in via social media...and that is a seriously bad indicator for civilians on the ground......
Local activists: The largest #RuAF squadron since the Russian intervention in #Syria of over 20 jets spotted over Idlib headed to Aleppo.
Will flip the question...why not confront Russia....there is an old Kissinger concept that we often forget he pushed....you if take the time to go back and look at the Paris negotiations he was conducting with the NVA they had reached an impasse very similar as we have seen in eastern Ukraine.
Really go back and what was then the US response to that impasse.....BTW you can say what you want about Nixon and Kissinger THEY HAD a clear vision of US FP...Obama does not.
WHAT was exactly the response....Rolling Thunder which cost the US a bunch of B52s and their crews but rained literally tons of explosives on the NVA and it's industrial areas and military installations.
Suddenly NVA "found a voice" and negotiated....
There are times that diplomacy using "soft power" must react if that diplomacy is to succeed.
Based on your assumptions here then Ukraine must write off Crimea and eastern Ukraine why because the simple threat of force is not in your vocabulary....short sighted in this two front non linear war BTW it is a actual war....Obama and company have just not "seen/heard" it...
This goes to the heart of what you still do not get.....from yesterday.
QUOTE;
John Kerry: Hezbollah militia and the Iraqi militias will be targeted in case they do not respect the ceasefire
NOW Dayuhan based on the sheer amount of vast "creditability" of Kerry and Obama DO you really believe they will back this up.............
Yeah right.............
Putin's respone.........yawn.....
I posted an interesting comment yesterday..."if I do not understand exactly where a red line is for the US just how is Putin suppose to".....
The unanswered - and seemingly unasked - question:
Why would the US want to confront Russia in Syria? What would the US have to gain from it? Is it rational or desirable to stage a confrontation in a theater where you have no compelling interests at stake and no clear or achievable policy goals?
This seems a relic of the cold war mentality... an assumption that everything Russia does must be "countered" by an equal and opposite (or greater and opposite) reaction. The wisdom of such a reactionary policy has to be questioned.
Given that the change-over -- from a "strongman" Greater Middle East to a more-democratic/capitalist Greater Middle East -- appears to have been undertaken much too early,
There apparently being:
a. Far too few individuals who are (1) interested in joining together under the democratic-capitalist banner and (2) being willing to fight and die to achieve same. And
b. Far too many individuals still having other, more-provencial/parochial agenda. (And, in sharp contrast to "a" immediately above, being willing to "go the distance" to achieve such goals),
Then does the move by Russia -- to reinstate/shore-up "strongmen" -- not make good sound strategic sense?
This, until such time as:
a. There IS, in the Greater ME and elsewhere, a sufficient ground-swell of desire for a more-cosmopolitan democratic-capitalist way of life and way of government? And until such time as:
b. There ARE sufficient numbers of individuals willing to fight and die to achieve these objectives?
Bottom Line:
We pulled the "liberation" trigger much too early in the Greater ME; this, based on such invalid concepts as western "universal values."
Now we have to go back to "square one" (strongmen) -- (if, indeed, we can) -- this, as Putin (acting knowingly or inadvertently in our and the world's behalf?) is now attempting to do.
This explaining why the U.S. is "standing by amid Russia's campaign in Syria?"
(Putin, thus, giving us "political cover" and achieving objectives which, given the circumstances outlined above, we [1] totally agree with but which, for obvious reasons, we [2] cannot undertake ourselves?)
As someone who has followed the CSM political analysis work on just about any topic since the 70s they are always close to the truth.
This is the core part of this article and it goes to the heart of the overall Obama and Kerry failures in confronting Putin who is forcing himself back into superpower status and who wants a "new Yalta" largely supported by the failures of Obama and Kerry to confront him on just about anything...especially the Russian breaking of the INF.
If one looks at the Obama mantra first in eastern Ukraine and now in Syria it is eerily the same thing...
"the conflict cannot be militarily won and it has to have a political solution"
ALL the while Putin and his MoD are actively and actually pushing a "military solution"...
We see that with the TOW arguments in Ukraine where Obama and Kerry basically declared them "an offensive weapon which turned the truth upside-down and they often stated.....if we supply them then Putin will escalate".....AND Putin escalated at every twist and turn and the US did what nothing except demand the Ukraine accept the political points in Minsk 2 without the Russians even fulfilling reciprocally even the simple point of POW exchanges.
In Syria we see the exact same Obama and Kerry argument for the last four years....."there is no military solution it has to have a political solution"...AND who places the entire game on a military win...Putin AND what does Obama and Kerry do.....cut off the flow fo weapons to the anit Assad forces and virtually demands they surrender in Geneva in order to get a "ceasefire".
BTW the same "ceasefire" in eastern Ukraine has never been fulfilled by Russia so why would they honor one in Syria???
Never answered by the WH when that question is placed to them...BUT WAIT US MSM never asks that question does it?
QUOTE:
“Russia has very clear intentions and is using military means to accomplish them,” says Heather Conley, director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. “At the same time our aims are not so clear, and we are using soft means to try to accomplish those unclear goals.”
The Obama administration has been caught off guard by the ferocity of Russia’s recent escalation in Syria, some say. But that surprise, they add, has only reinforced a determination not to end up in a conflict with Russia in a region that the US, under President Obama, is trying to play down.
“The administration does not like what the Russians are doing, but they’ve been set off balance by this recent escalation and they don’t seem to feel there is anything they can do about it,” says Andrew Tabler, a Syria specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Given Mr. Obama’s desire to stay out of Middle East crises as much as possible, he adds, “The US is not about to do anything that would involve going up against Russia and risk a confrontation in Syria.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin “has a plan” for rescuing Mr. Assad and reinvigorating Russia’s role in the Middle East, Mr. Tabler says, “and I don’t think they [the administration] care enough to do something about it.”