On Strategy: More Than Just a Bridge by Matt Cavanaugh, Modern War Institute
Strategy is a “bridge,” so sayeth Colin Gray, “because no other idea so well conveys the core function of strategy” which “connects two distinctive entities or phenomena that otherwise would be divided.” Gray then lays a gauntlet, that this metaphor is, of course, “open to challenge by pedants.”
So where do I sign up? I’m feelin’ up for some pedantry.
The metaphorical Strategy Bridge links resources and power to policy and purpose. This is, indeed, an exceptional metaphor, if one describes strategy as a product, an end point, a static, completed thing that has been constructed (in the past tense). This is a strategy that has already been built, what Hal Brands calls “design.” But we also know strategy functions as aprocess, dynamically adapting and reorienting according to the enemy’s zags and zigs (which Brands refers to as “adaptation”). Consider the image above as representing the would-be strategist – the “Wanderer above the Sea of Fog” – he has some distant sense of the goal, and experience informs what he expects lurking in the unknown. He requires both a map with a plan and a compass continually adjusting to true north. Again: design and adaptation. Ifwar is too big for any one academic discipline, then perhaps strategy is too big for a single metaphor.
But where might we find such a metaphor?…
Comments
Notice...not a single new thought or ideas have come out of the Obama WH concerning this new threat.....
Benitez warns of greater presence of Russian submarines in N. Atlantic "at levels we’ve not seen since the Cold War” http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/russia-s-growing-threat… …
As far as the Obama WH is concerned there is no such thing as the "new Cold War 2.0"
Putin : "Only thanks to Obama's position could we achieve such great results in Syria"
http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/news/2..._8414345.shtml …
This why it is so important to have at the national leadership level...simply put a strategy of something...anything.....and what has been so missing in the Obama WH for now over seven years......
AND IMHO this is exactly why Putin is literally racing to get agreements in place with Obama as he fears the next US President will be acting totally different towards him......
http://www.bloombergview.com/article...abilize-europe
How Russia Is 'Weaponizing' Migration to Destabilize Europe
March 24, 2016 11:19 AM EST
By
Josh Rogin
Quote:
In destabilizing Europe, Russia is trying to roll back the post-World War II order that Europe and the U.S. built over decades. The end game is to pull as many European countries as possible into the Russian sphere of influence and away from the West.
Unquote:
Obama in March 2014: Russia is a regional power and "we will judge Putin on his actions not his words....."
Kerry states today: U.S. and RF are two powerful nations in front of about 40 Russian TV cameras in MOSCOW....
Remember perception means a lot in foreign affairs....and it is perceived in Russia that Russia is now all powerful BECAUSE it is Kerry going to Putin not vice versa......
Summation of the ongoing highly successful Obama WH strategy in handling the Russian challenge in eastern Ukraine and Syria.....
Putin is back
This is what I mean by perception.....the Russians are allowing the cameras and audio to run....if you are into Russian then you will recognize this attempt to show the Russian population the US and Russia are best buddies......
Hints Russia-US aren't BFFs: Lavrov's many informal ты, Kerry avoids, translator uses both ты/Вы
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoG_CBndnSE
Do not think for a moment Russia does not drive on a strategy.....and because Obama has nothing it is hard to even think about countering the current Russian political warfare fully aimed at the US.
Here is the philosophical justification to use Islam to fight the West by Alexander Dugin.
http://openrevolt.info/2011/11/15/al...ion-and-islam/ …
1. The value of Islam. In today’s world, Islam is the world religion most actively resisting globalism’s force. It makes the Islamic factor extremely important for the front of traditionalism. In this war with Islam the United States and ideologue of the End of history Francis Fukuyama even tried to suggest the term “Islamofascism” to greater discredit the faith. United States as an empire tends to designate Islam the new enemy number one. This is a almost official U.S. position now while with Bush it was merely formal. And therefore Islam should be treated as a priority field of struggle against U.S. imperialism, the modern and post-modern world and globalization. This determines the value and importance of Islam.
2. Islam is diverse. Attitude toward Islam as something unified and coherent, as something homogeneous, is a delusion or an “empty concept”. This concept is found in three cases: in ignorant masses (which are generally always wrong, as the platitude is incompatible with the truth), in propaganda of the world’s centers of power (using it for specific political purposes); from the of mouth so-called theorists of “Pure Islam” (Salafi, Wahhabi, etc.) sometimes called conventional “Islamic fundamentalism”, “integrism.” The first two cases are clear. The third case is a perfected innovation trying to take the place of existing Islam (traditional Islam)as a confession of faith in the guise of a “return to roots.” Something similar is done by the Protestants, proposing to return to the “true”, early Christianity, but creating something entirely new which hardly has any relation to Christianity. “Pure Islam” – is close to that.
3. We must analyze Islam out of the “myths”, as it is, in its diversity. This should highlight the theological, historical, geopolitical, ethnic aspects in each of its schools. This is a gigantic task, without which we can not seriously talk about Islam. The division must go through its main lines: Sunni – Shia.
4. Shiites. It is clear that the Shiite minority is a completely separate issue – metaphysically, and geo-politically and ethnically. In general, Shiites (and any trunk duodenary and heterodox septenary, and especially rare Ishraq and Iranian Sufism) is very similar to traditionalism. It has no universalist dimension and allows for wide differences. Especially important is its messianic (Mahdi) direction, because in this way it is easier to find common ground with the traditionalist understanding of the nature of the modern and postmodern world as the “discovery of the Cosmic Egg” from the bottom and a “great parody.”
5. Sunni: Traditional Islam and Salafism. The Sunni majority to be divided by several factors: allowing Sufism and not allowing Wahhabism (in the style of the Hanbalite and proper Wahhabism).
6. At-tassavuf. Those Sunni schools that are tolerant to esoterism and thus have a dimension in which to build a rapport with the traditionalist approach. The world of sufism itself is very wide. Many Tariqa are feuding with each other. Some are going to end up proselytizing and the New Age. Others are closed and become almost folkloric ethno-sectarian. The most interesting are followers of at-tassavuf, which are rooted in its traditions, orthodox, but have a broad outlook on the reality of the modern world, in its sociological, geopolitical, axiological and economic aspects. These are few, but they are extremely important. The environment of at-tassavufa is great in whole. Obviously needed is a policy text, emphasizing the radical values and the incompatibility of “Tariqa” with modern and post-modernity also describing the general (without detail) behavioral strategy of a Sufi in the “end of the world.” Preconditions for that are numerous. But the summation work or it’s author are absent. But they should come to be.
7. Traditional Islam as a whole. There is no intellectual guide for the “last days” in the context of the usual traditional Islam. This is understandable, since it does not present any conceptual unity. Traditional Islam is present, it represents the vast majority of modern Muslims, but there is no generalizing eschatological guidance for the global ummah. All that’s found after the initial test is a sect or Salafism. This is not surprising: eschatology is concentrated in the sects, and the Salafis, in general, try to be the Ummah. And yet eschatological, anti-globalist, anti-American, anti-modern and anti-postmodern sentiment among Muslims is extremely developed. It would be desirable to have the appearance of a serial publication such as “Traditional Islam” which would serve as a platform to present the positions of particular varieties of Islamic communities.
8. Salafism and the global Salafi project. Salafism, pure Islam are on the front wing of the political struggle in the Muslim sector of the modern world. It is a fact and that can not be denied. It is here that we meet the most clear and simple strategy, global thinking, well-defined goals: the establishment of the global Islamic State, the imposition of Sharia law, the organization of society on Islamic principles on a global scale, the doctrine of the “house of war” (dar al-harb) wherever there is no “house of Islam (” Dar ul-Islam “), etc. Obviously, in this program there is acceptable and unacceptable for parts for Traditionalism. Acceptable is the struggle against the common enemy; unacceptable in regard to the proposed alternative, in fact, this “Islamic Project”, is more accurately called the “Salafi project.” It is important to understand the metaphysics of the “Salafi project.” Their metaphysics are not neutral, they are built on denial of esotericism and traditionalism, which are defined here as “shirk”, a deviation from “pure Islam”. The roots of the dispute go back to the Mu’tazilites and opponents of the philosophers and Sufis. The “Salafi project,” radical anti-shia,anti-sufi, and anti-traditional. And this is not a distinctive feature of individual Salafis, but the obligatory metaphysics of all this movement. This ambiguity is reflected geopolitically in the close relations of Salafism (in particular, bin Laden and Al Qaeda), Brzezinski and the CIA during the Afghan war, that Americans have always Salafis services, giving rise to interfere in the sovereign affairs of those countries which try to resist the United States (Iraq, Libya, Syria, anti-Russian Salafism in the North Caucasus), but on the other hand it’s Salafis we also see active in anti-globalization attacking U.S. forces. This ambiguity should conceptualize time and time again to bring round this dialogue, to explain all sides in the conflict. In the global battle against the Dajjal – the role played by Salafism? We have left this question open.
9. Islam in Russia. Position, role and place of Islam in Russia, we must consider with the eschatological and traditionalist positions. For this we must seriously apply all of the previous theses to the Russian situation. Islam is a part of Russia’s space and it has developed over the centuries. But Russia has not become entrenched in their positions in the West, globalization, the U.S., liberalism, post-modernism. The position of authorities is evasive and can be interpreted in different ways. Forces of “Dajjal” are easy to speculate here. Pointing to the globalist and liberal Russian side they play against the Muslims on it, but at the same time, Russian Muslims – as “migrants”, “immigrants”, etc. This is a strategy to reduce the potential enemy of the West. We must work hard to oppose to it an eschatological alliance of Muslims and Orthodox Christians ( all Russia wide) against the U.S., Western liberalism and modernization. The closest point of contact with a Russian traditional Islam, this is not always fact, but theoretically there is clear direction for this dialogue. In the intellectual sphere, and especially even more in the Neoplatonic similarities. And at the outer level brings us together opposition to the West, liberalism and post-modernity. But here traditional Islam is often passive and limited with diplomatic formulas, rather than proposing a common strategy. The liberal pro-Western “modernization” aspects of Russian power, corruption and decay of society, traditions, manners are abhorrent to us and Muslims, we must fight it with them, fight together and not against each other. The main problems arise with Salafism. It plays the role of “scarecrow” to discredit the whole of Islam and its radical projects exacerbate the conflict between Muslims and oriented eschatology and similar orientated forces of other faiths, or merely instinctive opponents of globalization. Here, room for significant and challenging dialogue.
10. Summary: Islam and tradition. Islam is directly related to the Tradition. It is an indisputable fact. And as such it should be recognized by traditionalists. Islam is active and in favor of a traditional society. This should be supported. But Islam is not identical with the Tradition. Tradition can be un-Islamic. If Muslims accept it, agree to the terms of multipolarity, an active dialogue and close cooperation, including military, against post-modern world and the Antichrist / Dajall, should be encouraged.
Continued.......
It is really important to understand what this Russian right wing ideologue says and writes....while many in the West believe he is a tad crazy..he carries a lot of weight inside the Putin inner circle with his thinking.
But in certain phases of Putin's foreign policy he comes out of his shell makes key statements or comments that need to be understood as it points to the thinking around Putin...Putin has been quoted as placing a lot of value in Dugin's writings...
The last sentence of the point one sums up the entire article......and it is the cornerstone to the Russian political warfare fully directed at the US right now by Putin.....
QUOTE:
And therefore Islam should be treated as a priority field of struggle against U.S. imperialism, the modern and post-modern world and globalization. This determines the value and importance of Islam.
UNQUOTE:
Another perfect example of the highly successful Obama WH IS/Syrian strategy hard at work........
So now has Russia being actually training/equipping the US so called Kurdish proxy group YPG????? On the US dime???????
Russia'n General Alexander Dwornikow claim to train Kurdish #YPG & other patriotic units
NOW English @NOW_eng
#Russia admits to training #Syria Kurdish forces
http://mme.cm/N3AW00
BEIRUT – The commander of Russia’s ground forces in Syria revealed that his country’s military advisors have trained Kurdish fighters in the north of the war-torn country.
“In the shortest possible time [after our intervention] Russia’s armed forces established a system of military advisors… who successfully solves the tasks of training government, Kurdish and other patriotic troops,” Colonel-General Alexander Dvornikov said in an interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta published Wednesday.
The top Russian official praised the People’s Protection Units (YPG), saying that “despite their differences with authorities in Damascus, the Syrian Kurds took an active part in the fight against terrorists in the north of the country.”
“They continue to fight against ISIS and Al-Nusra Front,” he added.
Dvornikov’s comments were the first public admission that Moscow has taken an active military role supporting the YPG, which is also backed by the US in its fight against ISIS.
Top Kurdish officials have in past months stated they welcome coordination and assistance with Russia or any other power fighting the jihadist organization.
Shortly after the start of Russia’s military intervention in Syria in late September 2015, the commander of the YPG, Sipan Hemo, told Sputnik Türkiye—which is owned by Moscow—that his fighting force requested arms from Russia as well as general military coordination.
The YPG chief’s comments come after Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar—which has an editorial line supportive of the Syrian regime—reported that Russia had set up a coordination process with Kurdish forces and parties in northern Syria.
On February 10, Syrian Kurds opened a representative office in Moscow in the latest sign of their warming ties with Russia.
Syrian rebel groups in northern Aleppo have alleged that the YPG and their allies Jaysh al-Thuwar—an ethnic Arab fighting force—has coordinated with the Syrian regime and benefitted from Russian airstrikes.
After a regime offensive on February 3 cut off rebel groups north of Aleppo from their cohorts in Syria’s second city, Kurdish-led forces took advantage of heavy Russian bombardment to seize a number of rebel-held positions.
The mid-February Kurdish advances pushed opposition forces back to a small stretch of territory near the Turkish border, including the strategic town of Aazaz that serves as a logistical hub for the opposition in the region.
BUT WAIT...I had thought that YPG was a CIA/CENTCOM funded, trained and equipped anti IS fighting proxy...not a Russian mercenary unit????
Here is an article that talks about strategy...sadly not the US strategy....
NOTICE when it was written and the US still has no strategy for anything.....
http://www.politico.eu/article/the-dangerous-link-between-syria-and-ukr…
[B]The dangerous link between Syria and Ukraine
Vladimir Putin has used the fighting in both countries to trap the U.S[/B].
By Eerik-Niiles Kross and Molly K. McKew
9/25/15, 11:35 AM CET
Despite what Vladimir Putin is saying, the United States still staunchly refuses to believe Russia is engaged in a new Cold War — and that the U.S. is losing. But Russia aggressively pushes its own narrative where U.S. leadership is absent. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov seems to be everywhere in recent weeks, speaking several times with his US counterpart and others in the region, selling Russia as a partner for peace and stability when the West is faced with crisis.
Experts from the left and right alike warn that cooperation with Russia on Syria can have potentially disastrous consequences for the U.S., but too many Americans still don’t understand how closely linked these two headline conflicts are, and American policy has yet to confront the reality that Syria and Ukraine are part of the same mission for Russia — the destruction of the post-WWII architecture of the West. To achieve this goal, Russia has pursued a clear policy of disruption, chaos and destabilization — in Ukraine and in the Middle East — in order to force the West to have to partner with Russia to “resolve” the crises it has created.
Now, poised to launch a direct military campaign in Syria, Russia wants the U.S. to join a Russian-led coalition against the Islamic State and complete the rehabilitation of Bashar al Assad, or else end up in direct conflict with Russia in the Middle East. Indeed, many of the anti-aircraft and other Russian weapons systems being moved to Syria are more suited to shooting at American drones and assets than anything the Islamic State has access to.
This suggested coalition is little more than a well-constructed trap for the White House and for Europe. Russia created the conflict in Ukraine. Their military support for Assad fuels a bloody civil war and a refugee crisis from Syria. Russian efforts have also materially aided in the creation of the Islamic State — the wealthiest, best-armed terrorist network in history.
Understanding how Russia has engineered the false choice between accepting Russia as a dominant force in its “sphere of influence” or the proliferation of conflict is essential to accepting that neither choice is the answer.
* * *
Too often policy analysts debate whether the Kremlin is strategic or merely tactical in its approach to foreign policy. But the answer doesn’t matter. They don’t need a master plan when one clear strategic objective drives decision-making: make the U.S. the enemy — and make them look weak. The Kremlin has been opportunistic and decisive in grabbing a position of strength — in the Middle East and in Europe — while U.S. attention has waned and retracted.
When the civil uprising against Assad first began in Syria, the rebellion’s leaders hoped for western support. Support for the rebels was slow to materialize, despite early calls for Assad to leave power, but Russia — eager to protect its military foothold on the Mediterranean and on the southern flank of NATO — was quick to line up against U.S. policy and supply Assad with arms, military advisers, intelligence and political support. After Syria deployed chemical weapons against rebels and civilians in August 2013, Russia brokered a deal with the U.S. to save Assad from outside military intervention.
Russian support for Assad has allowed the civil war to continue for years at such an intense level of bloodshed and destruction. But shipments of armaments were not their only tool for saving their primary regional ally. They are also involved in building an engine of terrorism to open a second front in the Syrian war.
By the time the chemical weapons deal was signed, the nature of the war in Syria had changed. Before the 2014 Sochi Olympics — as Russia issued warnings about potential attacks by North Caucasus extremists and moved military assets into the region for the seizure of Crimea—there were rumors, now confirmed by Russian investigative journalists, that Russia was actively exporting fighters from the North Caucasus to Syria. Elena Milashina, writing in Novaya Gazeta, documented how, beginning in 2011, the FSB established safe routes for militants in the North Caucasus to reach Syria via Turkey. Local FSB officers, sometimes with the help of local intermediaries and community leaders, encouraged and aided jihadis to leave Russia for the fighting in the Middle East, in many cases providing documents that allowed them to travel.
It probably wasn’t a hard sell for the FSB to make to nascent jihadis: Go fight in the desert, for infinite riches and glory, or stay in Russia, where the security services had pretty good cover to kill a lot of them.
A lot of them left. In late 2012, Russian-speaking jihadis began to arrive in Syria. According to regional intelligence sources who have closely tracked their movements and activities, the Russian-speakers negotiated the unification of the Islamic States in Syria and in Iraq, creating the current Islamic State formation.
Suddenly, the war in Syria was “confusing” to American policymakers seeking a way out of the war and an end to Assad’s regime. There were “good rebels” and “bad rebels,” and the U.S. couldn’t decide which side to support. These tactics were similar to the irregular warfare Russia would deploy in Ukraine.
The war at that point also turned away from Assad and Syria, and toward Iraq instead. The western front of ISIL was led by Russian-speakers; the eastern commanders included disenfranchised Soviet/Russian-trained Saddam-era Sunni military officers. From the beginning, their efforts were closely coordinated. There were reports from Kurdish forces of Russian operatives at secret outposts in the desert.
Meanwhile, back in Russia, the jihad in the North Caucasus was steadily depleted. Crimea was seized and annexed in 2014. Russia’s information war portrays Assad as a champion against terrorism, with the help of Russian and Iranian support. This Middle Eastern narrative is a key instrument for distracting attention from the war in Ukraine.
The war in the Donbas has grown quiet, and will likely stay that way until Putin makes his first speech before the UN General Assembly in 10 years on September 28. This is a part of his strategy to strong-arm the Obama White House into supporting Russia’s actions in Syria. Putin will speak about Ukraine and the war on terror — while Russian deployments to Syria escalate, with many of the same shadow special forces units launch from Sevastopol to Damascus. Syrian refugees flood Europe and create political crisis. Many European leaders have stated that Russia must be part of the solution in Syria — despite the chaos it’s purposefully creating in Ukraine.
This is, of course, exactly what Russia wants. A global expansion of the “reset:” partner with Russia to solve the crises it has created while ignoring its bad deeds.
Russia’s strategy has included the empowerment of other bad-news actors. Russia has pushed for the U.S. nuclear deal with Shiite Iran; Russia will also benefit from the deal commercially and financial and in terms of the strengthened positioned for its ally in the region. Russia has simultaneously used the dissatisfaction of regional Sunni powers to cultivate relationships with traditional American allies: increasing economic, nuclear and military cooperation with Egypt; negotiating a nuclear deal with Jordan; coordinating energy policy with the Saudis.
Russia now pushes for an anti-terrorism coalition to complete the rehabilitation of Assad, undermine the U.S. position on Syria, likely force an end to the sanctions imposed because of its actions in Ukraine and position Russia as a regional leader. As a bonus, Vladimir Putin could erase another despised democratic revolt by ending the Syrian people’s desire for freedom. In Moscow’s eyes, this is victory over the U.S.
Both in Ukraine and in Syria, Russia created chaos to become the center of all U.S. policy options in the Middle East and Europe — or so it would have the U.S. believe. Absent real leadership on U.S. foreign policy, the Kremlin has been successful at manipulating what they view as an indecisive and disinterested U.S. president into caving to their demands.
In the Kremlin’s best case scenario, the U.S. and Russia become allies, killing Chechen jihadis and re-entrenching Assad, and they receive new concessions to bolster their efforts to destabilize the government in Kyiv. With their bluster and threats, they encourage the White House to see the alternative as pursuing separate policies over Syria and ISIL and possibly end up in direct conflict — a Vietnam for the post-Cold War era.
It is the outcome Putin has craved since the war in Georgia in 2008 — forcing the U.S. to back down from direct confrontation, empowering the Russian exceptionalist narrative that he so hauntingly outlined when he called for the annexation of Crimea. After slow half-measures in response to two conflicts fueled by Russian money and military support, Putin feels certain that Obama will not risk even a proxy military confrontation with Moscow. And with one year left in the U.S. presidency, he sees now as the time to act.
* * *
Cultivating an engine of terrorism to save Assad and distract from Ukraine is a dangerous game — but Russia’s risk/reward calculus is far different from ours. ISIL may be more volatile than the “green men,” the Russian special forces troops deployed without national flags in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, but the potential prize is far greater: Russia doesn’t need to challenge NATO’s Article 5 collective defense principal if it can neutralize the United States. This will impact the outcome in Ukraine and across the frontier of Europe, put frontline nations in the Baltics at further risk and determine the future of NATO.
U.S. policy has failed to develop effective responses to end the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria or slow the expansion of ISIL, and now many nations are at risk. The next U.S. president will likely come to office facing a world in which U.S. interests are challenged and compromised, and in which the architecture of Western security is at risk. Without the alliance structures we have relied on to provide peace and stability since World War II, it will be more costly and dangerous for the United States to defend itself and its interests. But the current U.S. president can still act to ensure the world is not adrift to the manipulations of an alliance of tyrants.
Russia has constructed a dangerous geopolitical trap for U.S. policy. The way out requires the U.S. to develop adequate policy positions and stop equivocating about what Russia is doing in Ukraine and Syria. This policy must also be enforced, instead of revised and retreated from each time Russia manufactures a new opportunity to bully us. Provide Ukraine defensive arms and intelligence support; re-engage the Middle East and stop apologizing for Iraq; and confront Russian actions in the region and beyond. The answer to the crises in Ukraine and Syria, and the refugee crisis and the blossoming threat of ISIL, is in facing the centrality of Russia’s role in these conflicts and taking the lead.
Bill C.,
I am one of those children of the Cold War that Anthony Lake talks about.
In fact Containment was our Policy. Our Strategy was "Massive Retaliation".
This worked for a decade or so and then switched to a Staregy of "Flexible Response" meaning non-nuclear options to include what we today call COIN.
My larger point is instead of trying to make Strategy something more than what it is, we need to create a long term Policy first and then as you so aptly said.....get on with it.
Our primary failure is at the Policy level, not the Strategic level.
Slap:
I can see your point. But by that logic, could not "containment" also be seen simply as a policy; this, rather than as a strategy?
In addition, note that cir. 1993 and beginning with the Clinton administration -- and as then-National Security Advisor Anthony Lake so clearly, careful and specifically points out -- the strategy of "enlargement" (aka "expansion") officially became the successor to our old strategy of "containment:"
BEGIN QUOTE
"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. The difference, of course, is that we do not seek to expand the reach of our institutions by force, subversion or repression."
END QUOTE
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/lakedoc.html
Note that, in spite of NSA Lakes' proposed restrictions on the use of force, subversion, etc.; (these, as per his announcement above, not to be used in connection with our "enlargement"/"expansion" strategy),
a. Beginning with the Bush Jr. administration(?), the use of force -- in the service of "enlargement"/ "expansion" -- has been allowed. And that:
b. Beginning with the Obama administration(?), subversion (vis-a-vis "political warfare") is now being contemplated; this also as a means/measure that we might use to overcome obstacles/ overcome state and non-state actor resistance to our such "enlargement"/"expansion" strategic goals.
(In this light, to see how such things as "invasion,' etc., -- employed in the Old Cold War strategic context of "containment" -- and/or employed in the New/Reverse Cold War strategic context of "enlargement"/"expansion" -- how these might be seen, not so much as "strategy," but more as [a] means/measures/campaigns; these, [b] undertaken in a certain strategy's name?)
Thus, as per my and your discussion above, to see exactly how "strategy" might, in fact, and indeed, be seen as "more than just a bridge?"
We have all types of strategies, but we don't really execute them. Politicians respond to domestic noise. 9/11 attacks somehow justified invading Iraq. San Berdino attack painted as an existential threat by our media, especially our conservative media outlets. What is our response to the noise? Throw the Syrians under the bus and cooperate with Assad and Russia to put more pressure on ISIL. More pressure is still nothing more than pinpricks. It would be a great comedy if it wasn't so tragic.
Bill........
I had a interesting conversation with a number of Israeli's last night and
it might cause some heartburn with SWJ commenters......
When talk got around to Brussels....after some hours of discussion on the recent series of Russian cyber attacks here in Europe.....they shrugged their shoulders and stated....why do people forget the 60s thru 80s when bombs and terror attacks were far higher than today....it is a war and yes people get killed but it is a simple fact of life....
Actually they are right ........and they tend to constantly remind themselves of this fact and from their POV...they are right if we take the time to think it through.
All loss of life is bad but say when 500,000 Syrians are killed by a genocidal dictator does the world get so wrapped up as with say Paris and or Brussels....not really....
What it is about a black flag waving bunch of religious cultists that are not a true existential threat to anyone but themselves...that literally scares the entire West and the rest of the globe.....VS say the bombing campaigns of the IRA, PLO, PFPL, Red Army Fraction or the Red Brigades which were far more random and far more often than IS attacks which went over years.....
This will sound harsh but probably more pedestrians are killed yearly by cars in all of Europe than by IS attacks......but we take no notice of it...
BUT when there is a capable Syrian Sunni force able to deal with IS on their own terms on their own ground and fighting them daily what do we do .....?
Are they "moderate enough" is our response.
WHEN we know and can prove a deep relationship between the Russian FSB, Iranian IRGC and Assad to IS and vice versa WHAT is our response...silence.....OR we blame the Saudi's for the fundamentalism that is supposedly causing IS...
So are we in the West actually just as responsible for the IS attacks as is IS....??
If you take the time to analyze that period of history one would realize that the terrorism of the 60s thru 80s took time to work it's way through (20 plus years to calm down) and it was primarily a police and security service fight which understood how to get the local civilians involved in providing tips AND they did not have the massive technology the current police and security services have.
The US has never really ever mentally recovered from 9/11...AND after a truly lackluster 16 years of bland non descript Presidents both with virtually not a single well thought through strategy on just about everything other than legacy this is where we are with the likes of a Trump or Cruz.
If you think more about it ...even this article is showing us the dysfunction of the current American political beast.....SWJ is debating strategy and at the same time the Obama WH has none.....YET they are the governing power......how strange is that??
Why am I more sensitive to what occurs in the US than maybe most Americans....I have spent the greater part of my life residing outside the US and fighting those battles, and yet I have never forgotten as an 18 year old working summer pipeline construction to pay for college the "burning crosses of the Klan"...I have physically seen them burning (while most Americans have never seen them outside of videos or in pictures)......Saturday nights in southern Louisiana and southern Mississippi in 1964-66.
Most Americans have no memory of the KKK being a large, massive and widespread political organization in virtually the entire US in the 1920s up to it's being defeated by Hoover and the FBI in the 30s.
I was fortunate enough to have university professors who taught me to have an opinion and to defend it whether people liked to hear it not....defend it right or wrong but be able to defend it as your personal views.
Those Americans that now turn towards verbal violence following a rabble rouser/rousers looking for the be all end all answer to their problems are actually no different than a member of IS following the Koran as interpreted by al Baghdadi in the deserts of Iraq and Syria.....
BTW that is mildly stated as most Americans if they choose to could be literally flooded with news and information hourly WHICH a member of IS sitting in a concrete block house with a mud floor in say Mosul or Aleppo does not have in order to make an intelligent decision.
I have since eastern Ukraine and Syria come to the conclusion that most Americans really do not care about the rest of the world and are just as neo isolationist as is Obama so that is why most never challenge anything.
Everyone wants simple answers and do not want to take personal responsibly for anything.
The 21st century is highly complicated and that scares people.....BUT US rabble rousers have an ugly tendency to be on the far right of the political spectrum just as al Baghdadi is on the far right of Islam.
AND we still do not have a clear, concise, and easily understandable national strategic strategy for anything from this Obama WH who is taking his legacy victory lap around the globe at the US taxpayers expense right now instead of answering the pressing problems of IS and the true existential threat.......Putin.
This is an old political strategy, generate irrational fear and then ride in with a draconian solution that won't work. I'm not confident I know where the majority of voting Americans stand now, but I hope this message of fear doesn't resonate. In large part it this message that has made the problem worse.
Bill C....a "new bridge for you".....beginning to wonder if staying in Berlin for good makes more sense than returning to this...?????
Ted Cruz wants police empowered to 'patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods' after Brussels
http://read.bi/1U5PAwC
Re: strategy, might a proper, and seemingly more-intelligent, "naming of the bridge" be helpful?
Herein to consider that, in the Old Cold War of yesterday, the "naming of the bridge" -- as "containment" -- allowed us to:
a. Understand exactly what it was that we were expected to do (prevent the Soviets/the communists from gaining greater power, influence and control throughout the world via the spread of communism) but this such careful "naming of the bridge" did not, in any way,
b. Restrict or limit us either as to (1) the manner(s) by which we might use to accomplish this such mission or (2) a time-frame/a deadline by which we must have this mission accomplished.
In the New/Reverse Cold War of today, such a more-careful "naming of the bridge" -- for example as "expansion" -- would appear to provide us with these exact same strengths and benefits.
Thus, this such proper "naming of the bridge" allowing us to:
a. Understand exactly what it is that we are expected to do (gain greater power, influence and control throughout the world via the spread -- for lack of a better word -- of "westernism"). Yet this such "naming of the bridge" providing, much as with "containment" above, that we are not
b. Restricted or limited as to either (1) the manner(s) by which we might accomplish this mission or (2) the time-frame within which this such mission must be accomplished.
Thus, and re: strategy, this such "naming of the bridge" (as "expansion" today) to provide us with excellent -- and exceptionally important -- benefits; benefits which might serve us well in the New/Reverse Cold War of today, this, much as the "naming of the bridge" (see "containment" above) served us so well in the Old Cold War of yesterday?
Bottom Line:
The obvious beauty -- of a more-careful "naming of the bridge" -- and, this, in such broad terms as I describe above (see "containment" and "expansion") -- is that this such approach allows for exceptional flexibility, exceptional adaptability and exceptional continuity; this, across different administrations, across different challenges, and if need be, across different/subsequent generations of Americans.
And this such more-careful "naming of the bridge" allowing that we might, thus, not need to change, tweak, modify, re-name or sub-name, etc., our such "bridge" -- this, with every set-back, every positive development, every new known or unknown and every new president and/or presidential whim (etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum).
So let's get off our butts and properly "name this bridge" (as "expansion") and then drive on?
One has to seriously wonder just why Obama and Kerry have bought into Putin's non linear war directed against the US...meaning doing everything in their power to actually support it......WHEN Obama publicly stated in 2014...."we will judge Putin on his actions not his words"...THEN Putin throws both a little "action" and the US caves......
After Putin's fake withdrawal from Syria, two days later, he's threatening to bomb Syrian cease-fire violators
http://wapo.st/1ZlsnpN?tid=ss_tw …
WHICH BTW includes, Iran, Hezbollah and the Assad regime forces........
ALL thw while we have a serious ongoing slow stepped Russian ground offensive in full gear against UAF frontline positions....AND not a single public Obama nor Kerry comment on the attacks by the Russians.
ALSO notice that while the US DoS supposedly has this high tech 1-800 call center for Syrians to call in the variously CoH violations which in itself is a farce WE have never heard from DoS just who is violating the CoH.
JUST as in the Ukraine...with all of the billions spent on the ISR capabilities of the US intel community....Obama and Kerry have never called out Russia for it's constant flow of weapons and troops into Ukraine...I take that back...only once did they do it in 2014 After social media open source analysts had already released their data on the Russian military shelling's from Russia and their actual invasion of eastern Ukraine....
Another perfect example of just how driving on one's legacy as just about the only foreign policy this WH has that will be causing the next incoming President some serious heartburn whoever it is.....
If we go back to the Obama Cairo speech which in effect triggered the "Arab Springs" in the ME he basically stated two things...his support for conservative Islam, the retaining of the current ME governments but a not so subtle call to the young of the ME...there needs to be a democratic movement towards change.
So after declaring his support of conservative Islam he then batters the bastion of conservative Islam...KSA.
Now after beating them up again publicly in his Goldberg Obama Doctrine interview he is traveling to a far far different Saudi influenced GCC which is involved in numerous Tehran initiated proxy wars...not the other way around that Obama seems intent on spreading via disinformation.
NOW after he has agitated against the GCC and the Saudi's he is throwing it over the fence to the next President...SO he does have after all a strategy...all talk and no actions for eight long years of neo isolationism.....hoping that the world and the US public does not recognize it.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/opinion/a-presidential-rebuke-to-the-…
A Presidential Rebuke to the Saudis
By THE EDITORIAL BOARDMARCH 21, 2016
It is rare for an American president to skewer a friendly government publicly. But that’s what President Obama did last week in presenting a well-considered analysis of troubles in the relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Obama has long regarded Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries as repressive societies whose strict interpretation of Islam contributes to extremism. In a blunt and lengthy discussion with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, Mr. Obama included the Saudis among other “free rider” allies that ask the United States to fight their battles for them and “exploit American ‘muscle’ for their own narrow and sectarian ends.”
Mr. Obama, who has blamed Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab governments for encouraging anti-American militancy, also told Mr. Goldberg that the Saudis should try harder to “share the neighborhood” by achieving “some sort of cold peace” with their enemies in Iran.
The Saudis promptly fired back. Writing in the Arab News, Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief, argued that Mr. Obama does not appreciate all his government has done, including sharing intelligence in the fight against terrorism. But the fact is, this decades-long partnership, born of antipathy to the Soviet Union and an American reliance on Saudi oil, is growing increasingly brittle.
Photo
President Obama meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef of Saudi Arabia at the White House in 2015. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
The Saudis have become so afraid that Shiite Iran will dominate the region that they tried to kill the Iranian nuclear deal, even though it sharply curbed Tehran’s nuclear activities. The Saudi-Iranian competition has fanned proxy wars in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. The Saudis’ intervention in Yemen has further fueled a disastrous war there between a Saudi-supported government and the Iranian-backed Houthis. And they have supported some of the more radical rebel groups fighting President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who is backed by Iran.
Given all this, it’s little wonder that Prince Turki scoffed at Mr. Obama’s “share the neighborhood” idea.
As far back as 2002, Mr. Obama, in a speech, referred to Saudi Arabia and Egypt as America’s “so called” allies and said they needed to stop suppressing dissent and tolerating corruption and inequality. More recently, according to Mr. Goldberg’s article, Mr. Obama has also asserted that there can be no comprehensive solution to Islamist terrorism until Islam comes to terms with the modern world. Unfortunately, the Saudi royal family, now in the hands of a shaky new leadership team, and with the Saudi economy stressed by falling oil prices, shows no serious interest in enlightened renewal.
Mr. Obama has now forced a behind-the-scenes conversation about the Saudi-American relationship into the open. Is there anything Washington can do to encourage transformative reforms? Apart from expressing critical views, even Mr. Obama, who will visit Saudi Arabia for a meeting with Gulf leaders next month, has felt a need to maintain the alliance largely along traditional lines.
There is little time left in the president’s term to rethink how the United States and Saudi Arabia can move forward together. That task will largely belong to his successor.
this is exactly what happens when there is no strategy whatsoever outside of disinformation to cover the fact there is no strategy......
Now we are seeing the extent of the failure of the Obama Syrian FP......actually there was never one to begin with...was simply all media focused comments and no actions.....AND we see now the effects of the Iran Deal hard at work...WHEN Obama placed his entire legacy in the hands of Iranian "moderates".....
Iranian General close to Khameini calls for annexation of #Bahrain ... again -
http://beyondthelevant.com/2016/03/2...bahrain-again/ …
Some of the best combat reporting from eastern Ukraine with the UAF by a former USAF SOF type who then studied journalism......
Wonder why he never gets carried by US MSM.......?????
N.Peterson: What You Should Know About the #Ukraine War From a Journalist on the Front Lines http://dailysignal.stfi.re/2016/03/17/nolan-peterson-what-you-should-kn… …
War correspondent @nolanwpeterson: Ukraine is a real war. Media tends to downplay the seriousness of what’s at stake https://twitter.com/euromaidanpress/status/711278427823869952 …
I have been repeating over and over since the Russian military annexation of Crimea that Putin truly wants a "new Yalta 2.0".....and the Obama WH is doing it's best to assist him in that geo political goal BY not having a strategic strategy of any type....for anything......
Putin and his FM have constantly since 2008 talked about a "new Yalta 2.0"....
What Russia wants is "a formal, treaty-based say on Europe’s political and security architecture"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/18/putin-long-game-om…
When Obama leaves office and the historians take over....then in ten years we will be reading about the complete disaster of the Obama FP years....meaning his neo isolationism drove the US FP into a ditch that will take years to recover from just as Wilson did in 1920.
During the Cold war days many spent time in analysis of anything said in Moscow in order to glean out what they were thinking....I have also said one has to pay close attention to what both Putin and his FM always say.
Taken from the article.
QUOTE:
To get a glimpse into Vladimir Putin’s mind, it’s worth reading the recent writings of his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov. In a long article published this month by the Moscow-based magazine Russia in Global Affairs– translated here into English – Lavrov spells it out with clarity. What Russia wants is nothing short of fundamental change: a formal, treaty-based say on Europe’s political and security architecture. Until Russia gets that, goes the message, there will be no stability on the continent. The key sentence in the article is this: “During the last two centuries, any attempt to unite Europe without Russia and against it has inevitably led to grim tragedies.”
Lavrov is not a free thinker able to operate independently of his boss, Putin. He is a technocrat – post-Soviet Russia’s longest serving foreign minister (he has held the job since 2004). He plays the diplomatic instrument to a tune set solely by the president. It’s true western officials say Lavrov was privately incensed in 2014 by Putin’s sudden decision to annex Crimea – a move that flew in the face of Russia’s traditional claims of wanting to uphold “international law” – but he stuck to the official script. It is no coincidence that Lavrov’s article ran just as Russia was playing for high stakes in Syria, and the Europeans were scrambling for a policy on migrants.
The first paragraph is the KEY and there is nothing in the current publicly stated Obama Doctrine that counters this extremely well defined Russian geo political goal......BTW it underlies the entire concept of non linear warfare in support of the current Russian political warfare aimed directly at the US....
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine…
Why Credibility Matters
Stephen Sestanovich
Mar 14, 2016
There’s no getting around it: Barack Obama is a phenomenal arguer. He’s got superb legal training; he’s got point-by-point debating skill; he’s got a feel for nuance; he’s got historical examples and counter-examples at the ready. And, as a politician who’s been around the track a few times, he’s not above a little sophistry or rhetorical sleight-of-hand.
All these tools are on dazzling display in Jeffrey Goldberg’s extraordinary cover story in this month’s Atlantic. “The Obama Doctrine” gives us the best picture we may ever have of how this president thinks and talks about foreign policy. It will leave many readers wondering which candidate to succeed him could be half so persuasive.
And yet, for all his talents, Obama does not exactly make the sale. To my mind, he doesn’t even fully acknowledge the nature of the problem he faces. He claims to believe that the United States remains the “indispensable” global leader. But he also wants to make indispensability less expensive and risky, more focused and discriminating. He wants to discipline American policy by defining the country’s interests more narrowly and acting more deliberately. He’d like, aides say, to leave his successor a nice “clean barn.”
Now, does the resulting U.S. role feel a little downsized? Do America’s allies feel a little less sure of our support? Are adversaries emboldened? Does the foreign-policy “establishment” (of which Obama has such a low opinion) feel the United States is not really going to be leading at all? The president waves aside these concerns. Credibility—in the form of pressure to act when no real interest is threatened—must not become a fetish, he suggests. Friends and allies need to do more to defend their own interests. The U.S. can’t lead if it keeps doing “stupid shit.”
Obama is not wrong about any of this. Yet turning his sensible principles into an effective foreign policy is harder than he admits. The president is so locked into an angry debate with Washington conventional wisdom that he may not understand how unthoughtful some of his explanations sound.
Take his comments about credibility—what he ridicules as “dropping bombs on someone to prove that you’re willing to drop bombs on someone.” It’s a good line, but Obama’s reason for treating credibility as an empty concept is not so good. He wants to persuade us that, when he retreated from the famous “red line” over the use of chemical weapons in Syria in 2013, nothing much was at stake and nothing bad happened as a result.
Alas, something was—and something did. Just hours before he changed course, Obama himself said that if you do nothing when a major international norm is violated, the norm becomes meaningless. A great power values credibility so opponents know not to challenge its interests. That’s why Susan Rice, his own national-security adviser, said the damage done by backtracking on the “red line” would be severe.
The president plays the blame game in part because he too resists doing more.
Has it been? Obama says no, but surely he understands that if he had taken out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s air force in 2013, as many were urging him to do (and as he clearly could have done), Vladimir Putin would never have intervened in Syria in 2015. Obama may not ask himself why Putin would have held back, but the answer is very clear. He would have worried about taking on the United States. Now he doesn’t. Putin has taught us that credibility means something.
Obama, of course, has a different view. Putin, he tells Goldberg, has gained nothing from intervening in Syria. To think he has “is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of power in foreign affairs or in the world generally.” Propping up Assad, Obama claims, “doesn’t suddenly make [Putin] a player.” Why, he says, “there’s not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any of the issues that are important.” (You have to wonder what Putin will make of this passage when he reads it: The president of the United States really believes setting the agenda of the next totally forgettable G20 meeting matters more than deciding who wins the civil war in Syria?)
There’s some of the same self-justification in the way Obama talks about “free riders”—the small and medium countries that count on the U.S. to provide for their security, without ponying up much on their own. “Free riders aggravate me” is already one of the most quoted lines of “The Obama Doctrine.” Virtually all American presidents have probably felt the same way, and future ones will too. They have wanted—and will want—allies who actually contribute to the common defense. of Europe left to talk about.” So what has the leader whom Obama respects most, who has done the most for him, who has set out a vision most like his, and who has had the most trouble implementing it, gotten from him in return? The U.S. has admitted a trickle of refugees, NATO-member navies have begun to regulate the migrant flow in Greek and Turkish waters, the Pentagon continues to study the problem of a “safe zone” in Syria—and the White House continues to express doubts about it. Measured against the “existential” crisis facing America’s most important allies, this isn’t much. It may well be what Obama means by American “leadership,” but he shouldn’t be surprised if others—just as careful and thoughtful as he—consider it too little too late.
The president has been criticized for treating “don’t do stupid shit” (a phrase first shared with reporters by his aides) as a useful statement of American foreign-policy strategy. Hillary Clinton mocked the phrase—to none other than Jeffrey Goldberg—as “not an organizing principle.” Yet the formula has real meaning. “Don’t do stupid shit” is a kind of strategy—if you have a clear enough idea of what’s stupid and real determination not to do it. Obama has both of these, and he has made them the organizing framework of a downsized, less expensive, more risk-averse foreign policy. For better or worse, this is his “doctrine.” It is helping him to clean the barn. What it may not do is sustain the American role in the world that he himself claims to want.
Obama has good reason to be unhappy with America’s friends. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, and others have undercut his policies. In Europe he sees institutional dysfunction rivaling that of Washington. Yet the president plays the blame game in part because he too resists doing more. I recently heard a reporter ask a senior administration official whether the U.S. has ever told its Middle Eastern partners that it would be ready to commit a limited contingent of military personnel in Syria as long as they would do the same—an increased and coordinated effort. The (commendably honest) answer: “No.”
“Don’t do stupid shit” is a kind of strategy—if you have a clear enough idea of what’s stupid and real determination not to do it.
“Free-rider” problems preoccupy social scientists for the same reason they exasperate policymakers: They’re hard to fix. So hard that American presidents have often concluded that there was only one viable solution. To bring wrong-headed allies along—and limit their worst impulses—the U.S. itself had to do more, not less. Sure, doing less might force some allies to exert themselves more, but not necessarily in a way that served U.S. interests. Obama is probably right that the Turks and Saudis have made things worse in Syria. He seems not to ask himself whether a more determined U.S. role might have kept them in line.
The debate about Syria, now five years old, will outlast this administration. But it’s not the only example of Obama’s alliance management that undermines his complaints about “free riders.” There is, as Goldberg tells us, just about no foreign leader the president respects more than Angela Merkel. Nor is there one who has done more to help him. (Were it not for Merkel’s support on sanctions against Russia, Obama’s Ukraine policy would barely exist.) No European leader has tried harder to articulate a tolerant, Obama-style approach to the Syrian refugee crisis. Nor has anyone paid a greater price for doing so. Merkel faces both the possible end of her political career and the possible collapse of the European Union.
White House aides acknowledge the problem. “If Europe has a 2016 anything like 2015,” one of them has told me, “there won’t be much of Europe left to talk about.” So what has the leader whom Obama respects most, who has done the most for him, who has set out a vision most like his, and who has had the most trouble implementing it, gotten from him in return? The U.S. has admitted a trickle of refugees, NATO-member navies have begun to regulate the migrant flow in Greek and Turkish waters, the Pentagon continues to study the problem of a “safe zone” in Syria—and the White House continues to express doubts about it. Measured against the “existential” crisis facing America’s most important allies, this isn’t much. It may well be what Obama means by American “leadership,” but he shouldn’t be surprised if others—just as careful and thoughtful as he—consider it too little too late.
The president has been criticized for treating “don’t do stupid shit” (a phrase first shared with reporters by his aides) as a useful statement of American foreign-policy strategy. Hillary Clinton mocked the phrase—to none other than Jeffrey Goldberg—as “not an organizing principle.” Yet the formula has real meaning. “Don’t do stupid shit” is a kind of strategy—if you have a clear enough idea of what’s stupid and real determination not to do it. Obama has both of these, and he has made them the organizing framework of a downsized, less expensive, more risk-averse foreign policy. For better or worse, this is his “doctrine.” It is helping him to clean the barn. What it may not do is sustain the American role in the world that he himself claims to want.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/17/...ampaign=buffer
THAT Obama GCC meeting is really going to be a tad awkward outside of smiling for the press not sure what he can say to coverup his Obama Doctrine interview nor his ME perceived full tilt to Iran....nor his use of the term "cold peace" in the Goldberg interview......a sitting President should never burn his bridges until he is out of office......
What the President Really Thinks About Saudi Arabia
By Dov Zakheim
March 17, 2016 - 10:42 am
Gone are the days when the long-smoldering friction between President Obama and the leaders of Saudi Arabia was some (not-so-well kept) Washington secret. Obama has made it clear that he has little taste for America’s erstwhile Saudi allies. For their part, the Saudis, in the form of a letter by the oft-outspoken Prince Turki bin Faisal, have shot back that they resent being dissed by the president of a country they have supported for decades.
As in most spats, there is some truth on both sides. The Saudis minimize the impact that their export of Wahhabism, primarily through the schools and madrasas they support, has contributed to radicalizing many Muslims across the world, from Southeast Asia to northern Virginia. The President has minimized, or totally overlooked, a host of Saudi efforts that have bolstered Washington’s political, military, and economic objectives in the Middle East and beyond. These include: supporting American anti-Soviet policies during the Cold War; providing financial support for economically strapped American allies, such as Jordan and Morocco; coordinating with American efforts to rid Afghanistan of the Soviets; participating militarily in Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein’s tender mercies in 1991; hosting American troops throughout the 1990s; taking the lead in offering Israel peace, in the form of the Arab Peace Initiative (to which, unfortunately, Israel gave scant consideration); and funding the opposition to both Bashar al-Assad and the Islamic State.
The list of ways in which the Saudis have supported American interests is actually longer and is simply too exhaustive for Obama to dismiss the them, and, for that matter, their Gulf partners, as “free riders.” Even worse, his disdain for Riyadh in particular is simply solidifying the distrust of America’s other Arab allies, who have yet to get over Washington’s callous indifference to the fate of long time ally Hosni Mubarak. It is noteworthy that Prince Turki mentioned Mubarak in his letter, but President Obama does not mention his former Egyptian counterpart in any of the quotes that appear in Jeffrey Goldberg’s Atlantic article.
What has most upset the Saudis, however, is the President’s notion that they must “share” the Gulf with Iran. It is one thing for Washington to negotiate an end to Iran’s nuclear weapons program; the Gulf states may not have liked the American approach, much less the actual agreement, but they understand what motivated Washington to seek an accord. It is quite another thing for the President to equate Saudi Arabia, indeed all the Gulf states, with their Iranian rival. Iran has not cut back on its support for terrorists, be they Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, or others operating in Bahrain and elsewhere. Nor has Tehran lessened its anti-Israel rhetoric or its support for Palestinian suicide bombers. And it is not the Gulf countries that have tested ballistic missiles with “death to Israel” written in Hebrew. Yet Obama is quite prepared to have them “share” the region with its most destabilizing regime.
Perhaps the Saudis and their Gulf partners can take solace in the fact that they are not the only targets of Obama’s spleen. He has called the Europeans free riders too. And it is well known that he has no patience for the Israelis.
The Goldberg piece makes it clear that the American president would rather walk away from the Middle East and leave it to its own devices. Unfortunately, doing so will not promote the peaceful, stable world Mr. Obama dreams of. To the contrary: burying America’s head in the Middle Eastern sand guarantees not only more conflict in the region itself, but an increase in the flood of refugees that is wreaking havoc in Europe. But then, Obama seems equally less than interested in Europe’s travails. Maybe what Goldberg termed the Obama Doctrine should be renamed the Ostrich Doctrine — this would certainly describe how many outside the United States view what passes for policy in Washington.
Obama's "gang nach Canossa" just got a lot harder...since the US Kurdish YPG proxy supported by Obama, CIA and CENTCOM just literally went off the reservation........
Kurdsih #PYD announces own Federalism goverment
for "#Rojava" in northern #Syria
FRANCE 24 Breaking
✔ @BreakingF24 #BREAKING - Kurds declare federal region in Syria's north, says country's main Kurdish party
http://f24.my/1QZWz7L
Reports saying that #YPG announced the areas they control (including 50% Arab areas) as a Kurdish state in #Syria
Talk about a bridge "to far to cross"........
Obama in his 20,000 word Goldberg Obama Doctrine discourse as it was not really an interview but rather a "legacy statement" literally BURNT bridges both in his words and his actions with virtually the entire Sunni Arab ME and especially after his blunt shift sorry "tilt" to Iran and his calling for a "cold peace" between KSA and Iran.........
NOW this announcement.....
President Obama to visit Saudi Arabia on April 21 for GCC summit https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/16/statement-press-… …
ONE single word defines this statement......especially after the GCC has declared Hezbollah a terror organization......which answers directly to Khamenei and the IRGC....
"Awkward"
The Germans have a saying....."Gang nach Canossa" concerning Henry the 4th's trip to the Pope........
This is exactly what happens when there is no adult leadership in the WH.... strategy discussions aside.....
Senior #PYD figure reveals territorial ambitions for self-ruled Kurdish zone in N #Syria; to be announced in 5 days:
Senior PYD official, Idris Nassan, says Rojava's federal system aims to include Azaz & Jarablus, and the official formation will be on 21/3.
WHAT is staring now Obama and CENTCOM in the face is a full scale potential Turkish intervention into Syria to hinder this as they view these moves to be fully aimed at Turkish national security and have so stated this a number of times and it also places YPG in the cross hairs of the Saudi's as the KSA has stated yesterday they will indeed enter Syria to take on IS directly.
For the KSA YPG is just another extension now of the Assad regime...simple as that....
THIS is exactly what happens when the NCA displays no leadership NOR strategic thinking and or strategic aims that are clearly defined for all players to fully understand and yes that even includes Putin.
International relations is often viewed as a chess game BUT as with all "games" if there are no rules...chaos reigns......AND that is where the US is right now...BUT WAIT there is an IR concept called chaos theory......maybe that is where Obama is coming from??
Obama has a serious problem with this "vision thing".....and all that Harvard education seems to not have helped....
THERE is a Turkish saying......
"if the pray of dog was accepted bones would rain from skies"
When the National Command Authority displays an inherent lack of any clear, concise and coherent national level strategy for just about anything other than his/their whim of the moment moves...you get massive "cross talk" and nothing goes anywhere.....
CENTCOM backs PYD/YPG to the hilt, empowering it to consider self-ruled zone.
State Dept. insists no territory would receive recognition.
AND Turkey has openly declared any Kurdish self rule zone on their border is a total red line and that they would hinder it...appears to have been completely overlooked/overheard.....
What has been amazing to me in this whole debate around IS is the simple fact that US has had a large Arab Sunni Syrian army made up of Syrian Sunni's more than willing to take on IS and in fact have done so for over three years AND the NCA and CENTCOM totally ignores them under the guise of "they are not moderate enough for us"....or "we cannot determine who is or is not moderate enough for us"......
Who the heck cares how "moderate" a group is or is not as long as they are willing to take on IS in their own country.....then we just need to sit back and let them work it out....which in the end the Syrian civil society is fully capable of doing on it's own....
If one is intently watching Syria right now this is exactly what is ongoing with the AQ group JaN trying to push out true moderate FSA forces in Ibid and being openly challenged rather successfully by the "Syrian street" demonstrations that forced them to pull back....
RC Jones, no I did not wake up grumpy, just got back from VA Hospital that will make you grumpy.
As to your post. I agree is one of the better academics. Gray is important since he points out Ends, Ways and Means is not Strategy but a Policy framework for civilians to use. Then Generals create a Strategy....To strike the right place at the right time with the right force. That is one of the DIME ways to create a good Policy.
Damn Slap, wake up grumpy today?? Though, I catch your point. There was a time when perhaps strategy was generalship. It is not that strategy has changed, rather it is the role of the general that has abandoned strategy. Now generals are mid-level managers, bureaucrats, and command what once was the realm of Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels. Alexander did strategy. Napoleon did strategy. Nelson did strategy. MacArthur did strategy. Modern Generals? No.
In fact, not only do generals not do strategy, but they increasingly don't have much appetite for strategy either - finding comfort in chairing meeting and VTCs, and making decisions about how to execute a budget. This is not the fault of the generals, this is just what the current system expects them to do.
But strategy is so much more than that. I can work with Colin Gray's analogy of a bridge. I would just ask that when one builds such a bridge that they do so upon a deep, sturdy foundation of understanding. Too often when we build a strategy bridge, it either goes nowhere, or it is built upon the sand of hearsay, legend and institutional bias.
Strategy is Generalship! That is what it always was and always will be. These modern academic concepts are nothing but commie propaganda techniques(don't like the meaning of a word then change it)used to justify their huge undeserved salaries and pensions and to disguise the fact that they give bad (loosing advice).