For once, the wait and see strategy is used in the middle east. Isis is illogical fanaticism and there no good solution available to diminish their influence. Let Putin foolishly intervene in Syria, maybe he'll learn a lesson that we seem unable to absorb decade after decade of intervention.
1
I find it unsettling that, whenever this administration fails, it puts a spin on the result in a rather pathetic attempt to convince us that the fault lies elsewhere. From this article:
"But the White House argues that in deciding to bolster Mr. Assad, Russia is lengthening the conflict because it is not distinguishing between the Islamic State and less radical opposition groups as it bombs those fighting the government."
There is no factual or theoretic basis for that claim. Indeed, a strong Assad government allied with Russia -- who, in fear of the thousands of their citizens now in ISIS returning to commit atrocities at home, and the thousands more disaffected Russians that will join them, wants ISIS gone even more than we -- is the strongest, most motivated, most viable coalition available for destroying ISIS.
Mr. Obama, stop trying to put a positive spin on international failures. The American people are not fooled. Such mendacity does not add stature to your legacy.
"But the White House argues that in deciding to bolster Mr. Assad, Russia is lengthening the conflict because it is not distinguishing between the Islamic State and less radical opposition groups as it bombs those fighting the government."
There is no factual or theoretic basis for that claim. Indeed, a strong Assad government allied with Russia -- who, in fear of the thousands of their citizens now in ISIS returning to commit atrocities at home, and the thousands more disaffected Russians that will join them, wants ISIS gone even more than we -- is the strongest, most motivated, most viable coalition available for destroying ISIS.
Mr. Obama, stop trying to put a positive spin on international failures. The American people are not fooled. Such mendacity does not add stature to your legacy.
2
Would the people decrying the President's lack of action please do more than just complain. Tell us all exactly what you suggest would show"strength" and "leadership". I suspect none of these complainers will ever provide specific recommendations that have any chance of making a difference in the Middle East. The only thing that would make a significant difference is a World War II scale invasion and occupation. The complainers cannot bring themselves to admit this out loud.
2
I can't stand Trump. In my opinion he is a phony, and an extreme narcissus. It is not just President Obama's missteps in Syria. It amazes me that he gets all excited about "mass killings" but fails to address the thousands of black shootings and killings in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and Philidelphia to name a few. His gun talk needs to be addressed to the black youth and black gangs in those black areas of those cities. If black lives matter a good start would be for blacks to stop shooting and killing other blacks. Of course President Obama has little or nothing's to say about this tradegy. President Obama has and continues to be a weak and pathetic world leader.
The United States and it's coalition of air craft should target the Syrian military in retaliation of Russia's attack on rebel groups supported by the United States and other western powers.
Every issue starts out small. iSIS was once a small band of thugs. Any person with any intelligence knows something small can be stamped out, but a large army? Not so much. Timing matters. Obama is worried about things escalating? They already have.
We lost control of the Middle East, when the President did NOT keep his promise to do something if Assad used gas. He did, we did nothing, and from that point on it has been down hill for us in the region. NO ONE BELIEVES we will do anything that we promise.
NOW, would be a good time to do practically nothing. We should make sure that we protect the few friends or allies we have in the region, and let the Russians do what they want with the rest. They will, as Russia ALWAYS does, will overextend. If we have taken steps to properly train, arm, supply, and back up true allies like the Kurd's, Jordanian's Israeli's, and like it or not the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's when the time comes we will be, for a change, properly prepared.
NOW, would be a good time to do practically nothing. We should make sure that we protect the few friends or allies we have in the region, and let the Russians do what they want with the rest. They will, as Russia ALWAYS does, will overextend. If we have taken steps to properly train, arm, supply, and back up true allies like the Kurd's, Jordanian's Israeli's, and like it or not the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's when the time comes we will be, for a change, properly prepared.
At what point did the US have "control" of the Middle East? It has been out of control for hundreds of years, only slightly less so when we have chosen to spend billions of dollars and thousands of US lives.
3
So President Obama calls it patience. Bruce Rozenblit comment found under NYT PICKS has it right! Just another example in a long line of examples of President Obama's inability to lead. Weak and pathetic to put it mildly. Thank God only 14 1/2 months to go!!!
1
Rich, you sound like the kind of guy who thirsts for some Trump style leadership. Have you asked yourself where Mr. Trump might lead this country in the Middle East if given the opportunity? I would love to hear your, or Mr. Trump's, plan.
1
Their top priority is to avoid an accidental clash between Russian and American aircraft in the skies over Syria, a prospect that deeply worries Pentagon officials.
Their "TOP priority" is to never confront Putin? Really? We confronted the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, by giving them things like man-portable missiles to knock down Russian aircraft -- and it worked. I voted for Obama twice; but Putin has him totally intimidated out of doing anything/i>.
Their "TOP priority" is to never confront Putin? Really? We confronted the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, by giving them things like man-portable missiles to knock down Russian aircraft -- and it worked. I voted for Obama twice; but Putin has him totally intimidated out of doing anything/i>.
It was reported a no-fly zone could not now be contemplated. The Russians appear to be creating one however.
Four years ago, President Putin asked President Obama to sit at the table with the parties and talk. Our President demurred.
2
Pick at him all you like. Translate a thoughtful bent as "paralysis" -- especially laughable when this seems so clearly to describe the GOP.
This president is playing it smart. He's not going to rush in to a complex and volatile situation based on some misguided notion of strength or weakness. There is no telling where that adventure would lead but it's not hard to guess that our involvement would not make it better.
And may I remind you that we are, with difficulty, extricating ourselves from two quagmires created by the egregiously unreflective prior administration. What sane man would willfully take on a third?
This is exactly what I want my president to do. Would that his successor is made from the same sensible stuff.
This president is playing it smart. He's not going to rush in to a complex and volatile situation based on some misguided notion of strength or weakness. There is no telling where that adventure would lead but it's not hard to guess that our involvement would not make it better.
And may I remind you that we are, with difficulty, extricating ourselves from two quagmires created by the egregiously unreflective prior administration. What sane man would willfully take on a third?
This is exactly what I want my president to do. Would that his successor is made from the same sensible stuff.
3
Maybe I've been in Washington DC too long, but Obama supporters defending Obama's global humiliation and failure in Syria is bizarre.
2
And you would have done exactly what in re Syria?
3
The next day after meeting with Obama the bombing begins! Massive bombing, not the puny bombing done by the US. Even the air to surface missles Russia used were massive. Obliterating entire buildings, not just sections.
Russia is asserting it might, Putin hates Obama and sees Obama as a wimp.
We are lucky this is all Russia is doing, at least for now.
I believe this shows all along Obama never really wanted to defeat isis. The greatest super power on the planet cant defeat isis with our huge air force, navy? Don't see anything wrong with that picture?
America again looks weak, expect more moves from Russia while we have a weak president.
Sure wish we had that half billion back and the trillion spent by our military campaign. More tax dollars wasted for no reason with American falling apart, record number on food stamps, record number, over 94 million not working. 91% of recent immigrants /refugees still on food stamps, 70% of previous.
Btw, we are doomed if Obama lets in any more Syrians, especially large numbers. Guaranteed some will be terrorist. They are causing ruckus in Europe, majority never reported by main stream news.
Eyewitnesses say majority of refugees ARE young men, many scream allah akbar.
Russia is asserting it might, Putin hates Obama and sees Obama as a wimp.
We are lucky this is all Russia is doing, at least for now.
I believe this shows all along Obama never really wanted to defeat isis. The greatest super power on the planet cant defeat isis with our huge air force, navy? Don't see anything wrong with that picture?
America again looks weak, expect more moves from Russia while we have a weak president.
Sure wish we had that half billion back and the trillion spent by our military campaign. More tax dollars wasted for no reason with American falling apart, record number on food stamps, record number, over 94 million not working. 91% of recent immigrants /refugees still on food stamps, 70% of previous.
Btw, we are doomed if Obama lets in any more Syrians, especially large numbers. Guaranteed some will be terrorist. They are causing ruckus in Europe, majority never reported by main stream news.
Eyewitnesses say majority of refugees ARE young men, many scream allah akbar.
6
Where is Preaident Obama's leadership on one of the great atrocities of our day? Patiently watching massacres is not a foreign policy strategy.
2
A major part of the failure of the American foreign policy is trying to sail in two boats. If peace has to be brought into Syria it can only be done by eliminating all the rebel forces and IS. The US tries to pick and choose its allies as if they were toppings for a pizza. Calling the Taliban "Anti Afghan Force" did not work in Afghanistan and the result in Syria is the same.
5
We are hoping that the Russians will fail the same way we failed?
Wow, that is pretty low.
Our position is not only strategically inconsistent and practically unrealistic; it is becoming disgusting.
Wow, that is pretty low.
Our position is not only strategically inconsistent and practically unrealistic; it is becoming disgusting.
10
I would argue the "mistakes" mentioned at the end of the article. Without a viable replacement for Assad, arming "rebels" is just adding fuel to the fires of anarchy. Secondly, we did draw the "red line" on the chemical weapons without spilling red blood. Everyone seems to forget that Assad's chemical weapons were confiscated and destroyed. Sadly, the remarks by Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, made the case that the United States is in a box of its own creation. “You have allies who do not want to undercut ISIS because it will strengthen the center government. The U.S. is not capable of fighting ISIS because of the concerns its allies have that this will strengthen a government they find unacceptable.” Our allies are Sunni and ISIS is also Sunni. Hence, we are playing a loser's hand and would be wise to fold and take our loses now before they escalate.
3
Obama has no solution.. Does anyone?
Let us not forget, Bush set all this in motion when he invaded Iraq.
His dad has more smarts than the son.. Too bad he did not pass some of it down.
Sometimes the dictator is better than the alternative.
Let us not forget, Bush set all this in motion when he invaded Iraq.
His dad has more smarts than the son.. Too bad he did not pass some of it down.
Sometimes the dictator is better than the alternative.
4
Obama told us repeatedly that he HAD a plan in Syria.
Let us not forget ISIS didn't exist when Bush was President.
Anyone who still supports Obama after this global humiliation should avoid commenting on "smarts."
Let us not forget ISIS didn't exist when Bush was President.
Anyone who still supports Obama after this global humiliation should avoid commenting on "smarts."
2
While I generally support Mr. Obama, in this instance he is doing a perfect imitation of a deer frozen on the headlights of an oncoming Russian tank.
The commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military cannot make a decision to challenge the Russians.
Putin laughs while the world and people of Syria mourn.
The commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military cannot make a decision to challenge the Russians.
Putin laughs while the world and people of Syria mourn.
2
Will Putin still be laughing if and when Syria turns into another Afghanistan for Russia?
1
Why challenge the Russians efforts when our efforts have so obviously made things worse? Maybe they have better ideas.
3
A few years back, the Arab Spring seemed to sweep through the Middle East. There was hope for change even in Syria. The Russians were open for change, but their was a lack of mutual respect for the transformation. Wants and demands clouded the objective of change.
The Russians have intervened and this should be welcomed as ISIS has grown. The US has closed down the Syrian Rebel program. It was failing. At this point, there should be a mutual respect to destroy ISIS. ISIS is cunning and strong. Even today, an Iranian general was killed by ISIS. Such penetration demonstrates the depths to what needs to be eradicated. Cast emotions aside and focus on the objective. Israel has with Russia. The US and Europeans should do as well.
The Russians have intervened and this should be welcomed as ISIS has grown. The US has closed down the Syrian Rebel program. It was failing. At this point, there should be a mutual respect to destroy ISIS. ISIS is cunning and strong. Even today, an Iranian general was killed by ISIS. Such penetration demonstrates the depths to what needs to be eradicated. Cast emotions aside and focus on the objective. Israel has with Russia. The US and Europeans should do as well.
1
There never was an Arab spring. It was invented by Obama and the media. Obama built his Mideast policy around it. Now America is pushed to the sidelines as events spin out of control. It was all foreseeable, but Obama refused to look at hard reality. Sadly this will be legacy. How bad things will get remains to be seen.
1
It's great watching you crazies defend inaction and incompetence. Here's a tip, there is a JV team - they're located at 1600 Pennsylvania, Washington, DC 20500.
2
Thank you, President Obama, for not getting us involved in a ground war in Syria. Vietnam should be a reminder what happens when we insert ourselves into other people's civil wars, or Iraq as to what happens when we create a civil war.
2
The costs of US healthcare is so high and results no better or arguably worse than many other countries is because of our ingrained sense to intervene and take action when at times it might make sense to let the disease run it's course. Our foreign policy sometimes needs to "first do no harm" as well.
Paul McCormick
Paul McCormick
"The administration is moving forward with plans to put fresh pressure on Raqqa, the de facto capital of the Islamic State, by providing ammunition and perhaps weapons to Syrian opposition forces and increasing airstrikes there."
Huh?
Another story in this same issue of the New York Times opens,
"The Obama administration has ended the Pentagon’s $500 million program to train and equip Syrian rebels, administration officials said on Friday, in an acknowledgment that the beleaguered program had failed to produce any kind of ground combat forces capable of taking on the Islamic State in Syria."
Now this is truly madness!!!!
Huh?
Another story in this same issue of the New York Times opens,
"The Obama administration has ended the Pentagon’s $500 million program to train and equip Syrian rebels, administration officials said on Friday, in an acknowledgment that the beleaguered program had failed to produce any kind of ground combat forces capable of taking on the Islamic State in Syria."
Now this is truly madness!!!!
4
It is only madness if you take US arms sales and the gun lobby out of the picture.
1
These claims of "paralysis" and demands to "do something" can mean only one thing -- i.e., go kick some butt. What is it about humankind that this lust for power, power, power and control, control, control always, always, always trumps (oops) our ability to reason through problems? If we did us the thinking part of our brain rather than the instinctive/id part, we might acknowledge the truth that there will always be unintended consequences to kicking butt and, too often, those unintended consequences are nasty, nasty, nasty.
4
To be honest, President Obama and the West - including the UK - should have taken military action against Assad and the Syrian government when Syria crossed "the red line" with its use of chemical weapons against rebels and civilians in 2013. There might be no Assad for Russia to protect and bolster now.
Putin today is indeed reacting to circumstances in the Middle East. He sees a vacuum created by our hesitancy to fully engage in places. But let's face it - Putin is not the defender of international stability.
The US needs to create its own facts on the ground. No-fly zones and safe harbors for populations are not “half-baked” ideas. They worked before (protecting the Kurds for 12 years under Saddam Hussein) and warrant serious consideration. We will continue to have refugees until people are safe. In addition, providing robust support for Kurdish forces and Sunni tribes is important. We must create a better military balance of power on the ground if we are to seek a political solution acceptable to us and to our allies.
Furthermore, we must “de-conflict” our military activities with those of the Russians. We should never have gotten to a place where the Russians are warning us to stay out of their way. We must do so to prevent an incident between us that can escalate.
Finally, Putin and the Russians know their objective very well: Secure their interests in the Middle East by any means necessary. Time for us to realize and acknowledge that point.
Putin today is indeed reacting to circumstances in the Middle East. He sees a vacuum created by our hesitancy to fully engage in places. But let's face it - Putin is not the defender of international stability.
The US needs to create its own facts on the ground. No-fly zones and safe harbors for populations are not “half-baked” ideas. They worked before (protecting the Kurds for 12 years under Saddam Hussein) and warrant serious consideration. We will continue to have refugees until people are safe. In addition, providing robust support for Kurdish forces and Sunni tribes is important. We must create a better military balance of power on the ground if we are to seek a political solution acceptable to us and to our allies.
Furthermore, we must “de-conflict” our military activities with those of the Russians. We should never have gotten to a place where the Russians are warning us to stay out of their way. We must do so to prevent an incident between us that can escalate.
Finally, Putin and the Russians know their objective very well: Secure their interests in the Middle East by any means necessary. Time for us to realize and acknowledge that point.
2
Unfortunately without fair and independent journalism the public has no clue how successful the American bombing mission has gone. That is until we blow up a hospital and the public gets a rare glimpse at the type of casualties the state department isn't telling us about.
2
Obama's waiting game paid off. Let's not forget, there are no US ground troops in Syria, but Russia will be sucked in big time. The US can quietly ease off on the bombing of ISIS in Syria so that Russia will have to deal with them down the line. Sorted.
4
Thats running too fast and in a hurry. West is not going to return the coarse for the Arabs. They have just started. Talibans have captured a town in Afghanistan. The death toll has increased in Afghanistan. First Russia will be made to leave and then US will intervene. Bashar ul Asad has asked the Russians to come in just to show his preference for the Russians as a friend. It is a friendly gesture.
To all those who call for Obama to bomb Assad's forces (presumably, that's what you mean when you demand Obama 'do something') I ask this: do you really think Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State will do a better job of running the country? Are the Shiite-majority territories really going to welcome their rule?
1
The Russian strategy is pretty obvious. They have chosen a horse to back in this fight, Assad and will assist him in every way possible. They see this as furthering Russia's national interests. The US seems to be deeply ambivalent about backing anyone, and rightly so. This is a 5 sided argument that has been going on for centuries. Here the US has no friends, only interests such as oil. In the end we are probably better off staying out of it. We could however, give a lot more help on the refugee end. Maybe we need to increase aid to Turkey and Jordan to help these people and keep them in the region.
11
This is a much better strategy! Proposals are being drafted (honest) for meetings -sad, very sad.
The sense of ennui pervading D.C. is incredible. We know there are only about 15 months to go until the big swing and that much of that will be consumed with job interviews, but that legacy isn't going to impress if this keeps up.
The sense of ennui pervading D.C. is incredible. We know there are only about 15 months to go until the big swing and that much of that will be consumed with job interviews, but that legacy isn't going to impress if this keeps up.
I agree with the article, this will be Mr. Putin's Afghanistan. He is ruining his country and running down its currency reserves but for what?
I read somewhere that he was infuriated with Mr. Obama's remark that Mr. Putin is "like the bored kid in the back of the classroom."
Is Ukraine and Syria his way of trying to get even?
I read somewhere that he was infuriated with Mr. Obama's remark that Mr. Putin is "like the bored kid in the back of the classroom."
Is Ukraine and Syria his way of trying to get even?
3
Oh yeah, let's have yet another war in the Middle East and let's throw Russia in the mix. I'm sure that will work out well.
Seriously why is this country willing to sacrifice its owns needs for this god awful and miserable part of the world?
Oh right. I forgot that all of our actions in the Middle East aren't for our benefit but are all for Israel.
Seriously why is this country willing to sacrifice its owns needs for this god awful and miserable part of the world?
Oh right. I forgot that all of our actions in the Middle East aren't for our benefit but are all for Israel.
4
It's not our job to be the world's cop or to determine who rules in this country or that one. We've done way too much meddling in way to many countries. It's not important to us that Assad be out. We had no business getting involved in the Syrian war, and those who insisted that we get involved should not be among our leaders. I have increased respect for Obama because of his restraint and reluctance to get involved in wars. My only gripe is that we have gotten involved in taking sides against Assad (who is supported by many people in Syria, by the way). We should follow this advice we give the Russians: fight ISIS, don't be taking sides in the Syrian civil war.
1
The title of this article says it all.
"Wary of Escalation in Syria, U.S. Is Waiting Out Putin’s Moves"
President Obama has chosen the correct course of action.
The Pentagon will fall into line if he keeps them in check - assuming that they have advocated any military involvement.
Let the Syrian problem become Putin's problem.
Our strategic moves now may well be:
Encourage Syrian rebels to stand down and take refuge in safe zones in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon.
This is known as a strategic retreat or live to fight another day.
Many Syrian refugees may choose to leave the EU and move to welcome and join the rebels in the camps.
We send all types of aid to the camps.
We, other parties, and NATO retire to a negotiating table, deliberate, and send a "here we are" note to Putin/Assad.
Then we WAIT.
ISIS/Al Qaeda turn their attention on Assad and his forces and have at it.
Putin must now engage these hostile forces aligned against Assad and decide how to defeat them - all on his own.
He is forced to encourage and/or put boots on the ground to assist Assad. Home front Russia, with their past Afghanistan disaster and other current national problems, now says - Maybe we should talk this over, Comrade Putin.
We signal Putin from the negotiating table and send positive, helpful, and welcoming remarks.
The good news:
Obama is President, not some hot-headed Republican war monger.
Hope Congress and NATO keep a cool head.
Waiting is a strategy as well as a tactic.
"Wary of Escalation in Syria, U.S. Is Waiting Out Putin’s Moves"
President Obama has chosen the correct course of action.
The Pentagon will fall into line if he keeps them in check - assuming that they have advocated any military involvement.
Let the Syrian problem become Putin's problem.
Our strategic moves now may well be:
Encourage Syrian rebels to stand down and take refuge in safe zones in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon.
This is known as a strategic retreat or live to fight another day.
Many Syrian refugees may choose to leave the EU and move to welcome and join the rebels in the camps.
We send all types of aid to the camps.
We, other parties, and NATO retire to a negotiating table, deliberate, and send a "here we are" note to Putin/Assad.
Then we WAIT.
ISIS/Al Qaeda turn their attention on Assad and his forces and have at it.
Putin must now engage these hostile forces aligned against Assad and decide how to defeat them - all on his own.
He is forced to encourage and/or put boots on the ground to assist Assad. Home front Russia, with their past Afghanistan disaster and other current national problems, now says - Maybe we should talk this over, Comrade Putin.
We signal Putin from the negotiating table and send positive, helpful, and welcoming remarks.
The good news:
Obama is President, not some hot-headed Republican war monger.
Hope Congress and NATO keep a cool head.
Waiting is a strategy as well as a tactic.
4
Do any of the Israel haters here know why Israel would want to remove Assad with whom they have had a fairly stable border for years? As to our failed foreign policy, never has it caused more instability in the Middle East. When Bush left office, Obama was claiming victory in Iraq and citing Yemen as an example of all that was good. There was no refugee crisis. All our dollars were supposedly going to improve the lives of the 99%. Now we can go back to blame Bush and those evil Republicans. Blah, Blah, Blah.
1
If folks here are actually concerned about the next President being a Republican who might be very bad, considering the field, they might want to modify their thinking and urge President Obama to take the situation seriously and do something.
At the moment, it seems that the last hundred years of world history and bi-partisan American foreign policy history are not registering with the President at all.
He's making Hamlet look like Henry V, and making Jimmy Carter look like FDR.
Not incidentally, in this vein, Putin, Assad, and their ilk, left unchecked are going to make Bush-Cheney look like Doctors Without Borders.
But since many here don't really seem to care about the innocents they're going to slaughter, maybe they might be pragmatic enough to want to retain the White House in '16.
There's a reason Hillary Clinton is saying the President should be doing more. She knows that current policy could kill her, or any Democrat's, chances to win the election.
At the moment, it seems that the last hundred years of world history and bi-partisan American foreign policy history are not registering with the President at all.
He's making Hamlet look like Henry V, and making Jimmy Carter look like FDR.
Not incidentally, in this vein, Putin, Assad, and their ilk, left unchecked are going to make Bush-Cheney look like Doctors Without Borders.
But since many here don't really seem to care about the innocents they're going to slaughter, maybe they might be pragmatic enough to want to retain the White House in '16.
There's a reason Hillary Clinton is saying the President should be doing more. She knows that current policy could kill her, or any Democrat's, chances to win the election.
1
Putin is inviting us to stick our head in a hornets nest while he throw rocks at it from a safe distance. Thanks, but, no.
14
It appears that the Russians have done more damage to ISIS in the past week then the US has in the past year.
Why did the US not bomb weapons depots and training camps one year ago. If the US did, we never heard about it.
Why did the US not bomb weapons depots and training camps one year ago. If the US did, we never heard about it.
3
Why do you take the Russians at their word?
I'm no Obama hater, but the facts are the facts. When pushed, he shrinks. He doesn't fight. Even if he has the advantage. From the beginning of his presidency, when he had the votes to push through an aggressive agenda but didn't want a little fight, to now, he won't. And then he issues challenges to guys that are going to take him up on the challenge. Sad, and so much misery and destruction.
4
There are fathers that encourage their sons to fight back. For some of those sons it means coming back with a black eye or bloody nose, or both.
What good was the loss of life, the billions of dollars spent over a period of 10-12 years of our wars in the Middle East. The definition of an idiot is one who repeats the same mistakes. It is clear to anyone with any sense of reason which political party contains the most idiots.
7
Both parties share blame for the terrible decisions made regarding the ME over the last 12 yrs. Bush lied and attacked Iraq with no real justification, dismantling the country's infrastructure. Democrats supported this move. Yes, Saddam was a bad guy, but he was a bad guy who checked Iran and kept the lid on Islamic strife. Once Saddam was gone, Bush lost interest, it was 'mission accomplished', and we had yet another Islamic government in place, this time one religiously connected to Iran, with many former Saddam military people still in the country ready to organize as ISIS.
Then in steps the clueless and bewildered Obama, an articulate community organizer who understands nothing about the military or foreign policy issues. Behind the scenes, Iran is pressuring the weak Iraqi government to get rid of the US, which they do, politely asking us to leave. This opens the door to Iran on one side, ISIS on the other in Iraq, with Putin pulling the larger strings from Moscow.
And then there is Syria where both political parties have insisted that like Saddam, Assad must go. Like Saddam, he's a bad guy; and like Saddam he holds down the hatred that boils in Islamic blood. Obama continues the same disastrous policy.
So both Democrats and Republicans played critical roles in creating the mess we now find ourselves in, with Russia dealing the cards, while we sit powerless, awaiting Putin's next move. Is it any wonder that Americans are sick and tired of standard politicians?
Then in steps the clueless and bewildered Obama, an articulate community organizer who understands nothing about the military or foreign policy issues. Behind the scenes, Iran is pressuring the weak Iraqi government to get rid of the US, which they do, politely asking us to leave. This opens the door to Iran on one side, ISIS on the other in Iraq, with Putin pulling the larger strings from Moscow.
And then there is Syria where both political parties have insisted that like Saddam, Assad must go. Like Saddam, he's a bad guy; and like Saddam he holds down the hatred that boils in Islamic blood. Obama continues the same disastrous policy.
So both Democrats and Republicans played critical roles in creating the mess we now find ourselves in, with Russia dealing the cards, while we sit powerless, awaiting Putin's next move. Is it any wonder that Americans are sick and tired of standard politicians?
1
The United States ought to lead from behind in the Middle East because the idea of the United States as an imperialist hegemon drives the logic of both Hezbollah and Hamas who see Israel as a forward outpost of American power.
Meanwhile, back in South Carolina our dams are failing and flooding people ought of their homes. We need to stop spending millions training five or ten fighters and repair our infrastructure.
Meanwhile, back in South Carolina our dams are failing and flooding people ought of their homes. We need to stop spending millions training five or ten fighters and repair our infrastructure.
6
I question whether any thoughtful student of diplomacy or history would urge armed intervention in Syria, where there are 3 or 4 factions fighting each other, with Russia added as a fifth. Few would want to see American troops, boots on the ground, committed to Syria in another chapter of the Middle East conflicts.
Republicans critics and interventionists should remember the disastrous decisions of G W Bush in Iraq. Iraq, despite having a most unpleasant dictator, was the best bulwark and restraint on Iran. He was destroyed and Iraq was left in chaos, eventually giving rise to ISIS.
Republicans critics and interventionists should remember the disastrous decisions of G W Bush in Iraq. Iraq, despite having a most unpleasant dictator, was the best bulwark and restraint on Iran. He was destroyed and Iraq was left in chaos, eventually giving rise to ISIS.
22
To all "thoughtful" students of history.
Do you believe that the iranians and the Russians did not know that Russia's intervention would begin just days after the "Iran deal" was inked?
Do you believe that Russia will now join the US in "snapping back" sanctions when the Iranians cheat?
As a "thoughtful" student of history, do you believe that wishful thinking ever deferred the collapse of a country when confronted by determined adversaries?
Intervention on the side of humanity is never wrong. Just ask the NYT which waxed ecstatic in light of the "Arab Spring."
I can stand the humiliation by Russia, Iran. It takes a big man to walk away from a fight sometimes.
But I cannot help the feeling that we are walking away from history, too.
In a "thoughtful" sense.
Do you believe that the iranians and the Russians did not know that Russia's intervention would begin just days after the "Iran deal" was inked?
Do you believe that Russia will now join the US in "snapping back" sanctions when the Iranians cheat?
As a "thoughtful" student of history, do you believe that wishful thinking ever deferred the collapse of a country when confronted by determined adversaries?
Intervention on the side of humanity is never wrong. Just ask the NYT which waxed ecstatic in light of the "Arab Spring."
I can stand the humiliation by Russia, Iran. It takes a big man to walk away from a fight sometimes.
But I cannot help the feeling that we are walking away from history, too.
In a "thoughtful" sense.
1
I agree with you, PRICIPIA.
Right, Syria is half the world away from the US and a stone's throw away from Russia. This of course contradicts the recent declarations of Zbigniew Brzezinski about Russia being too far from Syria. Brzezinski's Middle East policy has failed and now, with one foot in the grave he can hardly thinks and his tought process isn't properly functioning.
Brzezinski is a drain on the Earth's supply of oxygen and he is robbing us of our oxygen quota
Right, Syria is half the world away from the US and a stone's throw away from Russia. This of course contradicts the recent declarations of Zbigniew Brzezinski about Russia being too far from Syria. Brzezinski's Middle East policy has failed and now, with one foot in the grave he can hardly thinks and his tought process isn't properly functioning.
Brzezinski is a drain on the Earth's supply of oxygen and he is robbing us of our oxygen quota
We are far too often impressed with those we think possess intellect, especially those who phrase repeatedly in Latin.
No, no, no! Isis is Obama's fault, don't you know? But I appreciate having a thoughtful leader who recognizes a quagmire when he sees one, and cares enough about our sons and daughters to defer sacrificing them to that quicksand until a clearer path is found to a solution.
President Obama leave Syrian Alone. Don't train or army any more SYrian fighters as they will just give their weapons to al Nusra as they have in the past.
Your one and only mission in the Middle East it to destroy ISIS. Concentrate on that and stop getting involved in the politics of a part of the world you don't understand.
Stop trying to keep Iraq and Syria as unitary states. They may find peace if they partition their country - but that should not be your problem and don't make it your problem. It is their problem so let them solve it by themselves.
Concentrate on the one and only thing that is important to American - that is the destruction of ISIS. We squandered too much blood and treasure on trying to make the Middle East something it does not want to be. There are no Jeffersonian Democrats hiding behind a rock waiting to be discovered so stop looking for them. Pay attention to the homeland -- which is your first duty.
Let Russia do what it wants in Syria. I suspect it is more interested in Tartus and Latakia than anything else. Leave Russia alone - let them help Assad if they want, but your duty is to safeguard the Homeland which means the destruction of ISIS.
Your one and only mission in the Middle East it to destroy ISIS. Concentrate on that and stop getting involved in the politics of a part of the world you don't understand.
Stop trying to keep Iraq and Syria as unitary states. They may find peace if they partition their country - but that should not be your problem and don't make it your problem. It is their problem so let them solve it by themselves.
Concentrate on the one and only thing that is important to American - that is the destruction of ISIS. We squandered too much blood and treasure on trying to make the Middle East something it does not want to be. There are no Jeffersonian Democrats hiding behind a rock waiting to be discovered so stop looking for them. Pay attention to the homeland -- which is your first duty.
Let Russia do what it wants in Syria. I suspect it is more interested in Tartus and Latakia than anything else. Leave Russia alone - let them help Assad if they want, but your duty is to safeguard the Homeland which means the destruction of ISIS.
3
"The only thing for certain is that Russia's increased activity in the region has significantly raised the odds that this conflict has for escalating into a serious World War."
I disagree.
I see almost no risk -- zero -- of this escalating into a US/Russia war. American pilots have been explicitly instructed to back away immediately if they come within 20 nautical miles of any Russian plane.
I give Obama a lot of credit for doing the right thing -- staying out of this, and terminating the idiotic "rebel training" program, and for having the courage to announce that he's terminating the idiotic rebel training program. (Most Presidents would have just quietly terminated it, without any announcement.)
If the US wants to help bomb ISIS, I'm all for it and I suspect Russia and Assad and everybody else would be all for it too. In that case, the US and Russian military guys should talk to each other so their planes don't crash into each other. If the US doesn't want to do that, or doesn't want to bomb ISIS at all because Russia is helping Assad, then the US should at least stay out of the way.
I disagree.
I see almost no risk -- zero -- of this escalating into a US/Russia war. American pilots have been explicitly instructed to back away immediately if they come within 20 nautical miles of any Russian plane.
I give Obama a lot of credit for doing the right thing -- staying out of this, and terminating the idiotic "rebel training" program, and for having the courage to announce that he's terminating the idiotic rebel training program. (Most Presidents would have just quietly terminated it, without any announcement.)
If the US wants to help bomb ISIS, I'm all for it and I suspect Russia and Assad and everybody else would be all for it too. In that case, the US and Russian military guys should talk to each other so their planes don't crash into each other. If the US doesn't want to do that, or doesn't want to bomb ISIS at all because Russia is helping Assad, then the US should at least stay out of the way.
9
Thank you, Mr. President. We don't need to be involved in another dumb war in the Middle East, especially one in which none of the parties are on our side. Who cares what the foreign policy establishment that lead us headlong into the Iraq fiasco thinks. These idiots have already proven they don't know diddly about the Middle East or anywhere else. We don't have a dog in this fight. Let's keep out and leave these people to favorite pass time - slaughtering one another.
6
Can the NYT or anyone actually do the following:
Identify the warring groups?
Tell us with whom they might be allied? and Why?
Identify their goals?? what ever they may be?
Name a leader? That is not some Mullah or Assad?
Does anyone know of any group there, that actually would prefer a democratic style inclusive Gov. that could fairly govern with all factions???
If not---we don't need to be there.
If we cannot answer these basic questions-- how can we be in support , or help anyone in this mess.
Identify the warring groups?
Tell us with whom they might be allied? and Why?
Identify their goals?? what ever they may be?
Name a leader? That is not some Mullah or Assad?
Does anyone know of any group there, that actually would prefer a democratic style inclusive Gov. that could fairly govern with all factions???
If not---we don't need to be there.
If we cannot answer these basic questions-- how can we be in support , or help anyone in this mess.
6
The Kurds have a democracy that includes men and women of all religions in decision making. They are defending themselves against ISIS, and can lead by example in the middle east.
Your point is valid....the Kurds may in fact deserve some support...but it gets pretty vague from their.
A Wary U.S. Is Waiting Out Putin’s Moves in Syria
Did you mean wary or weary?
Did you mean wary or weary?
1
"Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only lightness can do that."--Martin Luther King
Thank you, President Obama, for your cool head that appears to fundamentally be in agreement.
Thank you, President Obama, for your cool head that appears to fundamentally be in agreement.
7
I'm with the President on this one. Good decision, Commander.
10
"Unfortunately we have thrown our lot in with Israel which is committed to Assad's removal by any means necessary."
I'm no fan of Israel, but I don't see its hand here. Israel may not like Assad, but I don't think they like ISIS much either. While ISIS and Hezbollah might not be best buddies, if ISIS were to take control in Syria, I doubt it would mind much if Hezbollah lobbed a few missiles into Israel while ISIS was busy with other matters (such as beheading thousands of Syrians who'd supported Assad).
Israel is happy as long as chaos prevails in Syria, so the Syrians are too pre-occupied to cause trouble for Israel (and Israel, to boot, may be able to pick off a few chunks of Syrian territory while nobody's watching). But if Israel is forced to pick one group or the other, they'd pick Assad over ISIS or al Qaeda (the al Nusra Front) any day. They might pick the "moderate rebels" instead, except that Israel probably doesn't believe there ARE any "moderate rebels." That's something Americans are expected to believe, but few people outside our country probably do.
I'm no fan of Israel, but I don't see its hand here. Israel may not like Assad, but I don't think they like ISIS much either. While ISIS and Hezbollah might not be best buddies, if ISIS were to take control in Syria, I doubt it would mind much if Hezbollah lobbed a few missiles into Israel while ISIS was busy with other matters (such as beheading thousands of Syrians who'd supported Assad).
Israel is happy as long as chaos prevails in Syria, so the Syrians are too pre-occupied to cause trouble for Israel (and Israel, to boot, may be able to pick off a few chunks of Syrian territory while nobody's watching). But if Israel is forced to pick one group or the other, they'd pick Assad over ISIS or al Qaeda (the al Nusra Front) any day. They might pick the "moderate rebels" instead, except that Israel probably doesn't believe there ARE any "moderate rebels." That's something Americans are expected to believe, but few people outside our country probably do.
3
There was an actual rebellion against Assad long before ISIS arrived, and they are still there, but we can't tell friends from for there.
1
It seems as if Obama has NO CLUE as what to do ( Another President would have at least sent the 6th Fleet off Syria ) ...or Obama does not want to do anything - and is silently acquiescing to the Syrian - Russian - Iranian - Hezbollah position in Syria and the Middle East ... which will have profound Negative consequences for not only the Middle East, but also the World...
Wasn't it just a short while ago that Obama was ready to take on Russia over Ukraine ( "We have your Back" - Remember..) ... I wonder what the Ukrainians are thinking about now ... and how about the other Easter European Countries.. ? ... and how about the Israelis ( after the Iran Deal ) .. and what about Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Countries .. ? .. and what about Japan, South Korea vs. N. Korea.. ? ... and what about Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam vs. China ...? ..
Why should any of these Countries at Risk, or potentially at Risk - not "go Nuclear" .. ? - because Obama says - He has their "Back" ? ... and thinking about Iran ? ... why should Iran not "sprint" for the Bomb ? - because Obama says "All Options are on the Table" - Really ? .. (see what Dennis Ross says about this in his new Book )...
Let's face it - Obama's Foreign Policy has been a Disaster for the World and America...
15 Months.. and counting ...
"Peace in our Time" - Really ..?
Wasn't it just a short while ago that Obama was ready to take on Russia over Ukraine ( "We have your Back" - Remember..) ... I wonder what the Ukrainians are thinking about now ... and how about the other Easter European Countries.. ? ... and how about the Israelis ( after the Iran Deal ) .. and what about Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Countries .. ? .. and what about Japan, South Korea vs. N. Korea.. ? ... and what about Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam vs. China ...? ..
Why should any of these Countries at Risk, or potentially at Risk - not "go Nuclear" .. ? - because Obama says - He has their "Back" ? ... and thinking about Iran ? ... why should Iran not "sprint" for the Bomb ? - because Obama says "All Options are on the Table" - Really ? .. (see what Dennis Ross says about this in his new Book )...
Let's face it - Obama's Foreign Policy has been a Disaster for the World and America...
15 Months.. and counting ...
"Peace in our Time" - Really ..?
3
The U.S. has been "waiting out" the situation in Syria for > 4 years. In that time, neither Assad (with his rather substantial armed forces) nor his opponents (with their rather unsubstantial ones) has been able to claim "victory".
Given that backdrop, why would one presume that either the U.S. or Russia could settle things? Even temporarily -- let alone on an enduring basis?
Non-engagement is an excellent strategy, albeit one that has very troubling humanitarian outcomes. But, rather than "invest" in a military solution that is likely to fail, the better path would be to invest in humanitarian and economic aid for refugees....While it may not "solve" the problem, it will create the most positive results for now.
Given that backdrop, why would one presume that either the U.S. or Russia could settle things? Even temporarily -- let alone on an enduring basis?
Non-engagement is an excellent strategy, albeit one that has very troubling humanitarian outcomes. But, rather than "invest" in a military solution that is likely to fail, the better path would be to invest in humanitarian and economic aid for refugees....While it may not "solve" the problem, it will create the most positive results for now.
4
In my estimation, US national security interests dictate that we do whatever we can to reduce the human suffering in Syria and to stem the flow of refugees. The refugee crisis is destabilizing both the Middle East and Europe.
In the short run, that means reducing our military presence and assistance and stepping up our humanitarian assistance.
Putin has stepped into a quagmire. A foreign occupier cannot control a hostile civilian population, as the Russians learned in Afghanistan and we learned in Vietnam and Iraq. Putin will become the "Great Satan" of Syria as Assad is seen to become his puppet.
The US should welcome relinquishing that title; in fact, we should do what we can to facilitate the transfer.
In the short run, that means reducing our military presence and assistance and stepping up our humanitarian assistance.
Putin has stepped into a quagmire. A foreign occupier cannot control a hostile civilian population, as the Russians learned in Afghanistan and we learned in Vietnam and Iraq. Putin will become the "Great Satan" of Syria as Assad is seen to become his puppet.
The US should welcome relinquishing that title; in fact, we should do what we can to facilitate the transfer.
11
So many inputting how to deal with this crisis in Syria, all of this the results of that idiot George Bush's personal incursion into Iraq. Now all hell is breaking out and we are in the middle. Not acceptable and this president is correct waiting this out. This president is not paralysed by the events unfolding in Syria. Let Russia sink into this mess. With all the factions one minute loyal and next stabbing and betraying. Now that we have opened pandora's box, a price will be extracted if we dive deeper into this quagmire. When will we learn not to interfere into to the business of other countries? Let the Russians get sucked into this mess, why should we worry, let them get so bogged down in the Mid East it will be their second Afganistan. Are we willing, with the complexity of this conflict to embroil ourselves deeper, I don't think so, we sacrificed enough? Screw the couch warriors and those who cry missed opportunities to get deeper into the MidEast. Let's get out.
11
Prez Obama will still be waiting when the Russians have completed their action. In this case, his paralysis is probably good, but only sort of. It is likely that Putin has focused objectives, unlike Obama, who does not seem to have producing an outcome favorable to the the United States anywhere on his agenda. Obama IS the JV here, so best he stay in the bleachers until retirement.
3
Why do you think putin will do what we could nt
?
?
Putin is engaged in a pawn gambit. A gambit is typically a move in chess that seeks to risk less than can potentially be gained by provoking an injudicious counter move from your opponent.
The tactic behind Russian aggression using long distance bombing ostensibly to defend Assad from ISIS v. internal opposition from Syrian rebels is predicated on two positional problems in the Russian sphere of influence, or board position.
First, Russia moved its strategic forces, its army, into Crimea. This commitment of long diagonal reach can be seen at work in the deployment of Cruise missiles against Syrian rebels. But, initially, it cause world sanctions, and a threat by NATO to offset this aggression. Russia followed with mercenary forces into the Ukraine - its errant knight. This triggered the economic sanctions - in the form of Saudi cheap oil attacking the Russian Queen - its most powerful strategic piece, being the largest proximate energy supplier to Europe, but also dependent on world oil prices for its economy.
Seen in this light the gambit is to free up the queen by driving up spot oil prices on the news of international instability, but away from Russia's immediate border (Ukraine), while threatening a flank attack, ISIS abetted by Turkey seeking to weaken Kurd nationalism now has to worry about Russia. If oil prices return to better support levels, it will have been a worthwhile gambit by Russia. If the U.S. becomes directly engaged in Syria, all the better.
The tactic behind Russian aggression using long distance bombing ostensibly to defend Assad from ISIS v. internal opposition from Syrian rebels is predicated on two positional problems in the Russian sphere of influence, or board position.
First, Russia moved its strategic forces, its army, into Crimea. This commitment of long diagonal reach can be seen at work in the deployment of Cruise missiles against Syrian rebels. But, initially, it cause world sanctions, and a threat by NATO to offset this aggression. Russia followed with mercenary forces into the Ukraine - its errant knight. This triggered the economic sanctions - in the form of Saudi cheap oil attacking the Russian Queen - its most powerful strategic piece, being the largest proximate energy supplier to Europe, but also dependent on world oil prices for its economy.
Seen in this light the gambit is to free up the queen by driving up spot oil prices on the news of international instability, but away from Russia's immediate border (Ukraine), while threatening a flank attack, ISIS abetted by Turkey seeking to weaken Kurd nationalism now has to worry about Russia. If oil prices return to better support levels, it will have been a worthwhile gambit by Russia. If the U.S. becomes directly engaged in Syria, all the better.
23
No action is the best action. The US opened this door by invading Iraq!
They hate Americans....hate us! If you think in twenty years this will be resolved you are wrong. Our little invasion will haunt the US for decades. We are better off spending the money protecting the US at home then giving money to armies who hate our nation.
They hate Americans....hate us! If you think in twenty years this will be resolved you are wrong. Our little invasion will haunt the US for decades. We are better off spending the money protecting the US at home then giving money to armies who hate our nation.
4
God help us if McCain were in office. Fighting fire with fire would surely be catastrophic.
4
Or Hilary Clinton. These two are warmongering bedfellows.
Headline should read "A SMART U.S. Waits Out Putin's Moves in Syria."
7
Did the U.S. ask Russia's permission or even opinion when the U.S. meddled in countless countries, not only in the Middle East but Asia?
No? Then why should the U.S. expect Russia to ask the U.S.'s permission for a foreign invasion?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
No? Then why should the U.S. expect Russia to ask the U.S.'s permission for a foreign invasion?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
4
Putin should have asked for advice. He's going down in Syria.
We don't need their oil any more, which is why we interfered in the area in the first place, 100 years ago. Let's just get out of the Middle East entirely and let Putin inherit the mess. He deserves it.
3
It seems to me that a big problem with US foreign policy is McCain like politicians and the cowboy missionary who constantly push the Potus to take action and do somethin g about that, and to Americanize the world.
Totally correct, Obama has no strategy, so here's one for him: Accept Assad for the time being and join Russia as we did in WWII and wipe out ISIS; support the Kurds, the only group we have seen willing to die for their freedom. Realize that the majority of decisions made by the last two Administrations in the ME have been wrongheaded, evaluate if we have any real friends left in the region and start over from there, with little interest in spending our blood or gold in the sand.
13
I believe in holding back a strike when success is doubtful is a brilliant strategy! How many Republican congressmen are willing to send their children into such a quagmire? Why should we just keep on keeping on when the situation is so utterly hopeless? That, you may have heard, is one definition of insanity.
Make up your mind Louis. You start by saying we should join Russia in wiping out ISIS, then finish by pointing out that there is little interest in spending blood or gold in the sand. Like many critics of the president's path, you seem to think we can get something in the Middle East for nothing.
Yesterday Russian fighter pilots forced US planes out of the sky in Syria.
Apparently Russia wants the US to "wait him out" on the sidelines.
Thanks Obama.
Apparently Russia wants the US to "wait him out" on the sidelines.
Thanks Obama.
1
Maneuvering Russia into joining the fight against ISIS in Syria, thereby guaranteeing the defeat of ISIS, is not a great strategy? Really?
Obama is a true Shogun; he has succeeded in getting a whole cluster of rival nations, many of whom hate each other, to join together -- albeit loosely and suspiciously --in the fight against ISIS so we don't have to commit the kind of blood and treasure we squandered in the first decade of this century. He can't publicly articulate this strategy, of course, because it would endanger his ingenious alliance of opposites. Not even the legendary Talleyrand or Metternich were such clever foxes as our president. Just ask the Republicans who thought they had him on the ropes countless times, but found themselves on their backsides every time and are still wondering what happened.
Obama is a true Shogun; he has succeeded in getting a whole cluster of rival nations, many of whom hate each other, to join together -- albeit loosely and suspiciously --in the fight against ISIS so we don't have to commit the kind of blood and treasure we squandered in the first decade of this century. He can't publicly articulate this strategy, of course, because it would endanger his ingenious alliance of opposites. Not even the legendary Talleyrand or Metternich were such clever foxes as our president. Just ask the Republicans who thought they had him on the ropes countless times, but found themselves on their backsides every time and are still wondering what happened.
9
You may be giving Obama a tad too much credit to conclude that he orchestrated this. But whether he orchestrated it or is simply reacting, I think he's reacting well. We should stay out of it, other than to bomb ISIS in coordination with Russia (and any other country that wants to bomb ISIS). We should stop our expensive and pointless support of the so-called "moderate rebels" and face reality here: Exactly as the Russians present it, the choices are Assad and ISIS, and it's time for everyone to choose. We may wish there was a third choice (actually there is: al Qaeda), but sometimes you have to choose among whatever is on the list.
Isn't Obama doing exactly what you suggest?
"Well America's aerial bombardments and insurgent training now obviously fall into the stupid war category. Stop wasting our money. Withdraw from futile foreign wars now."
I give the guy credit for announcing -- now -- that he's cutting the funding for this idiotic "rebel training" program. The easier course would have been to continue it for a while, or kill it but not announce you'd done so. He's bold to both cut it and forthrightly state he's doing so.
On the merits, of course, this "rebel training" funding was indeed a "stupid war." But it's had benefits for us. Most important, the fact that we scrounged around for "good rebels" to train and only managed to come up with 50-60 told us just how large this "Free Syrian Army" really is. And then, when all but a handful of those trained rebels were captured -- and their US-supplied weapons confiscated -- within a day or two of taking the field, told us that our guys might not be the sharpest tools in the shed. And finally, when we were left with only five (or is it six -- I forget) trained rebels, after all that time and money was spent, told us what Obama has apparently figured out and acted upon: That was a really stupid idea, and merely masked the inescapable fact that there are NO good groups to back and so we shouldn't back anyone.
"Well America's aerial bombardments and insurgent training now obviously fall into the stupid war category. Stop wasting our money. Withdraw from futile foreign wars now."
I give the guy credit for announcing -- now -- that he's cutting the funding for this idiotic "rebel training" program. The easier course would have been to continue it for a while, or kill it but not announce you'd done so. He's bold to both cut it and forthrightly state he's doing so.
On the merits, of course, this "rebel training" funding was indeed a "stupid war." But it's had benefits for us. Most important, the fact that we scrounged around for "good rebels" to train and only managed to come up with 50-60 told us just how large this "Free Syrian Army" really is. And then, when all but a handful of those trained rebels were captured -- and their US-supplied weapons confiscated -- within a day or two of taking the field, told us that our guys might not be the sharpest tools in the shed. And finally, when we were left with only five (or is it six -- I forget) trained rebels, after all that time and money was spent, told us what Obama has apparently figured out and acted upon: That was a really stupid idea, and merely masked the inescapable fact that there are NO good groups to back and so we shouldn't back anyone.
4
Obama should sit back and let Putin learn the lessons that some bellicose Americans still have not learned: outside incursions into Muslim lands simply create the resentments that lead to more, not less, terrorism.
6
I have voted for Obama twice and I'm proud of it. His decision to stay out of Syria is correct and the right one. Interests of the American people first.
8
I am liberal democrat, but sadly must endorse Sarkozy's characterization of Obama made several years: weak, indecisive and arrogant. The U.S. has not had such a weak, almost cowardly person in the presidency in my lifetime. And it is frightening for the US to have someone so weak in the White House. China watched Obama's very weak,almost nonexistent reaction to Putin's Crimea/Ukraine incursions, drew the right lessons, and then began its very aggressive behavior in the South China Sea. No one is talking about having the US military engage Russia! Rather, what we have here is crisis after crisis virtually ignored by Obama --especially when they involve confrontation with bullies like Putin--dangerously ceding ground to the bullies, which then fester and worsen beyond repair at the same time these crises grow more threatening to the US and its interests.. This White House has only one answer: please let us not get involved. Pretend there is no crisis. Hide from the crisis. China and Russia have said their objective is to show US allies, and alliances in which the US is a participant, that the US is a weak and unreliable ally. The leaders of both countries undeniably have succeeded in this objective. Europeans are horrified at the lack of leadership coming from Washington. It would be difficult to see a weaker, less imaginative person in the white house than the present occupant.
3
How many times do we need to learn the lesson?
Intervention by war in the Middle East goes nowhere but bloodshed and waste of treasure.
Now there are too many factions to sort out the enemy.
Are we being threatened right now?
The bald truth is, right now, even if we poured in human effort and money we could not save Syrian lives.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results=
Insanity.
Intervention by war in the Middle East goes nowhere but bloodshed and waste of treasure.
Now there are too many factions to sort out the enemy.
Are we being threatened right now?
The bald truth is, right now, even if we poured in human effort and money we could not save Syrian lives.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results=
Insanity.
1
The insanity in the Middle East continues to suck billions of our tax dollars into a black hole. Meanwhile, young people here have no jobs to build a life with, health insurance and medical care continue to drain too much of working people's stagnant wages and a college degree is priced beyond the means of too many. Let the Russians have that mess and let Americans have jobs, healthcare and higher education.
22
I can always detect an argument with its back up against the wall when the personal insults begin. Some barrister!
This is but another consequence of the Invasion of Iraq. First it destroyed the reins of power there while simultaneously creating the monsters like al Zarqawi who would form the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) by 2006. Now our hands are tied because other world leaders and the general public were once-bitten, twice shy. No one wants to send in troops, no one wants to trust us.
Truly the best strategy at this point is to wait out these ultra-extremists who will eventually (though not necessarily quickly) collapse under their own weight, and support the local forces such as the Kurds who will keep them in check before finishing them off. As President Obama says, patience and persistence.
If Russia wants to make gains with its current handful of allies, I see no problem in letting them have their Vietnam. It will speed things up and hurt Putin more than it helps him.
Assad can be similarly waited out, as we should have done with Saddam Hussein. Regime change is best left to internal forces.
Truly the best strategy at this point is to wait out these ultra-extremists who will eventually (though not necessarily quickly) collapse under their own weight, and support the local forces such as the Kurds who will keep them in check before finishing them off. As President Obama says, patience and persistence.
If Russia wants to make gains with its current handful of allies, I see no problem in letting them have their Vietnam. It will speed things up and hurt Putin more than it helps him.
Assad can be similarly waited out, as we should have done with Saddam Hussein. Regime change is best left to internal forces.
3
The Russians in Syria are based on one need and one only.
The question that must be asked for the answer is, "what is hurting Russia the most right now?"
Power is always from the people. If you lose the people it can be a quick, slippery slope out of power. What do people require more than anything, the basics right? Food, clothing, shelter.
What impacts all three of those needs? Costs...the price required to buy them.
What is happening in Russia right now? They are going through a very difficult financial crisis based on one and only one item - OIL
Putin needs and must have higher OIL prices to help the country with its budget, slow inflation, and keep costs "for the people" low enough so they do not become disenfranchised.
Putin going into the middle east is about OIL and the price of OIL. By creating conflict he has forced the price of OIL up over 20% in the past two weeks. This is of great benefit to him, his power, and his country.
The question that must be asked for the answer is, "what is hurting Russia the most right now?"
Power is always from the people. If you lose the people it can be a quick, slippery slope out of power. What do people require more than anything, the basics right? Food, clothing, shelter.
What impacts all three of those needs? Costs...the price required to buy them.
What is happening in Russia right now? They are going through a very difficult financial crisis based on one and only one item - OIL
Putin needs and must have higher OIL prices to help the country with its budget, slow inflation, and keep costs "for the people" low enough so they do not become disenfranchised.
Putin going into the middle east is about OIL and the price of OIL. By creating conflict he has forced the price of OIL up over 20% in the past two weeks. This is of great benefit to him, his power, and his country.
1
So entangled that war as a fight between octopuses. It seem great idea to let Russia deal with these barbarian Isis beduins.
1
A commenter thinks we have more power than we do:
"Why do we - America and her NATO allies, at least - [not] put up immediate sanctions on the Russians for doing this?"
Answer:
Because US-only sanctions wouldn't have much effect and we'd have a real hard time getting other countries – even our Western European allies – to go along. The last thing they need is more economic strain, especially over some event that they really don't feel all that strongly about. We might think Putin is making Obama look like a wuss (I don't, but most of his critics do), but most of the world appears rather happy that he's stepped in to end this war. The prevalent attitude is "It's about time someone did, and if Russia wants to spend its blood and treasure doing it, more power to them."
"Why do we - America and her NATO allies, at least - [not] put up immediate sanctions on the Russians for doing this?"
Answer:
Because US-only sanctions wouldn't have much effect and we'd have a real hard time getting other countries – even our Western European allies – to go along. The last thing they need is more economic strain, especially over some event that they really don't feel all that strongly about. We might think Putin is making Obama look like a wuss (I don't, but most of his critics do), but most of the world appears rather happy that he's stepped in to end this war. The prevalent attitude is "It's about time someone did, and if Russia wants to spend its blood and treasure doing it, more power to them."
2
That's Obama's strategy for everything - just wait it out. Let's see how that's worked out.
1. Obama lost Ukraine
2. He nearly lost Egypt
3. He's alienated Israel to the point where they're making eyes at Putin.
4. He lost Yemen
5. He's lost the Saudi's too but they're too nice to tell him that.
6. The S. Koreans are terrified and he'll lose them too if he had enough time
Where is Katty Couric when you need her,
1. Obama lost Ukraine
2. He nearly lost Egypt
3. He's alienated Israel to the point where they're making eyes at Putin.
4. He lost Yemen
5. He's lost the Saudi's too but they're too nice to tell him that.
6. The S. Koreans are terrified and he'll lose them too if he had enough time
Where is Katty Couric when you need her,
3
We never owned the above countries.
They lost themselves and we cannot rescue them.
They lost themselves and we cannot rescue them.
This is but another consequence of the Invasion of Iraq. First it destroyed the reins of power there while simultaneously creating the monsters like al Zarqawi who would form the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) by 2006. Now our hands are tied because other world leaders and the general public were once-bitten, twice shy. No one wants to send in troops, no one wants to trust us.
Truly the best strategy at this point is to wait out these ultra-extremists who will eventually (though not necessarily quickly) collapse under their own weight, and support the local forces such as the Kurds who will keep them in check before finishing them off. As President Obama says, patience and persistence.
If Russia wants to make gains with its current handful of allies, I see no problem in letting them have their Vietnam. It will speed things up and hurt Putin more than it helps him.
Truly the best strategy at this point is to wait out these ultra-extremists who will eventually (though not necessarily quickly) collapse under their own weight, and support the local forces such as the Kurds who will keep them in check before finishing them off. As President Obama says, patience and persistence.
If Russia wants to make gains with its current handful of allies, I see no problem in letting them have their Vietnam. It will speed things up and hurt Putin more than it helps him.
1
Good morning from Capitol Hill.
A few points to consider for your Friday:
1. Russian fighter pilots are enforcing a no-fly zone in Syrian airspace, forcing US planes out of the sky.
2. Obama (Mr. Pouty-face, Stompy Foot) was humiliated by Putin at the UN last week, so after doing nothing, Obama is oddly stepping up airstrikes and US missions in Syria.
3. If a US warplane is shot down by a Russian fighter the WORLD will await our response. If Obama doesn't respond militarily, we're done. If he does, it's WW3.
4. Russia and China have been military allies since the early 2000s.
5. China can produce over 200 million ground troops, for a war. That's more than our adult population.
I'm not an Obama supporter. As a Black man I could never support Obama out of respect for my racial heritage and generations of sacrifice. But Obama is in a war against himself, and our troops and national security are at stake.
Either get out of Syria completely, or get out of Syria completely.
Obama's refusal to admit failure could start the next world war.
A few points to consider for your Friday:
1. Russian fighter pilots are enforcing a no-fly zone in Syrian airspace, forcing US planes out of the sky.
2. Obama (Mr. Pouty-face, Stompy Foot) was humiliated by Putin at the UN last week, so after doing nothing, Obama is oddly stepping up airstrikes and US missions in Syria.
3. If a US warplane is shot down by a Russian fighter the WORLD will await our response. If Obama doesn't respond militarily, we're done. If he does, it's WW3.
4. Russia and China have been military allies since the early 2000s.
5. China can produce over 200 million ground troops, for a war. That's more than our adult population.
I'm not an Obama supporter. As a Black man I could never support Obama out of respect for my racial heritage and generations of sacrifice. But Obama is in a war against himself, and our troops and national security are at stake.
Either get out of Syria completely, or get out of Syria completely.
Obama's refusal to admit failure could start the next world war.
1
"While the Kremlin may seem to have seized the initiative, the White House has concluded that Russia actually has ensnared itself in a tribal struggle that will defy its power just as it has Washington’s — and that Moscow may come to regret."
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Ten years ago we might have read about Afghanistan:
"While the White House may seem to have seized the initiative, the Kremlin has concluded that the US actually has ensnared itself in a tribal struggle that will defy its power just as it has Russia’s — and that Washington may come to regret."
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Ten years ago we might have read about Afghanistan:
"While the White House may seem to have seized the initiative, the Kremlin has concluded that the US actually has ensnared itself in a tribal struggle that will defy its power just as it has Russia’s — and that Washington may come to regret."
1
The idea that "pro-American rebels" were ever a viable force in Syria is silly.
1
I think it's a serious mistake not to provide whatever groups we do support in Syria with at least a limited number of defensive arms against Russian airplanes. Are we supporting these people at all or just leaving them to their own fate? If Russia obliterates them the Republicans will be asking "Who Lost Syria?".
A real statesman like the POTUS 44 knows when he doesn't have a play. A real man stops doing something when it's ineffective. A real man apologizes when he makes a mistake. 44 isn't perfect, but he is at least a real man. 43 by comparison, is a weak child.
4
As soon as the Iran deal was signed we see near instantaneous
intervention by the Russians and Iranians in Syria, proving once
again that Iran is the continuing winner in the post Bush debacle.
intervention by the Russians and Iranians in Syria, proving once
again that Iran is the continuing winner in the post Bush debacle.
1
Before Vladimir Putin got involved in Syria during 4 years, the American led coalition managed to kill 250,000 Syrians, wound a million Syrians, internally displace 3 million Syrians and expel 4 million Syrian refugees. Who does Putin think he is meddling in that kind of success?
Just this year the American led coalition has managed to increase the number of foreigners fighting for ISIS/ISIL by 100% from a mere 15,000 to 30,000 while the caliphate has also gobbled even more territory. Who can argue with that kind of record?
Since 9/11/01, only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on an American military uniform. Only to be ground to emotional, mental and physical dust by repeated deployments in support of feckless cynical strategies and tactics by ignorant immature leaders. While also allied with corrupt cowardly tyrannical "allies".
Supporting our troops requires more than clucking from military service evading war hens or yelling USA at some public event or sporting an America flag on your lapel or motor vehicle. American values must mainly guide American interests. Or all is lost and we are fighting for nothing but power.
Just this year the American led coalition has managed to increase the number of foreigners fighting for ISIS/ISIL by 100% from a mere 15,000 to 30,000 while the caliphate has also gobbled even more territory. Who can argue with that kind of record?
Since 9/11/01, only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on an American military uniform. Only to be ground to emotional, mental and physical dust by repeated deployments in support of feckless cynical strategies and tactics by ignorant immature leaders. While also allied with corrupt cowardly tyrannical "allies".
Supporting our troops requires more than clucking from military service evading war hens or yelling USA at some public event or sporting an America flag on your lapel or motor vehicle. American values must mainly guide American interests. Or all is lost and we are fighting for nothing but power.
5
None of your points , all valid, are of any concern to many running the government, K street, or the military industrial complex.
I could point out that when Obama initially proposed launching air strikes into Syria, Congress went ape--well, if you call chasing its own tail and refusing to vote "ape"--but the comments are pretty far gone down a bizarre rabbit hole in which Putin's a peace-loving hero, Assad's a beleaguered freedom-fighter, and Obama's some black guy just wandered into the White House.
We could have handled this better, sure. Show of hands on who was dying to go fight, and who was at least willing to pay extra taxes.
We could have handled this better, sure. Show of hands on who was dying to go fight, and who was at least willing to pay extra taxes.
3
Obama is some black guy who just wandered into the White House?
Correction: Bi-racial
Sincerely, those of us who are Black guys that resent the implication.
Correction: Bi-racial
Sincerely, those of us who are Black guys that resent the implication.
Actually, most readers should be outraged in how the article is expressed. Why does there have to be an American policy on Syria? It is not within the Western Hemisphere. No immediate strategic threat is posed to our nation. This is the kind of nonsense that has dictated our military and foreign policy since World War II. The immediate threat is to the nations of the Middle East, Western Europe and, also Russia. These locations are where the large concentrations of Muslim populace are located (and continue to be relocated) on the planet. European NATO, with the same military and economic footprint of the European Union, should be taking the lead in any crisis management of the situation. The EU has a combined population of over 500M and a GDP equivalent to the US. It is that region that is being threatened with collateral consequences. The financial and military resources are found there for ample options of intercession. American logistical assistance should be provided for any EU mission, but only in a limited capacity.
5
Kiss superpower-dom goobye!
This probably is going to feel quite liberating, getting that heavy weight off our backs. Maybe now we can make some real friends in this world, and not just hang around with those who want our money and our guns. Of course, now we have to learn a few manners because without our swagger to open all doors, politeness may be required.
This probably is going to feel quite liberating, getting that heavy weight off our backs. Maybe now we can make some real friends in this world, and not just hang around with those who want our money and our guns. Of course, now we have to learn a few manners because without our swagger to open all doors, politeness may be required.
12
And deny America's exceptionalism?
Where Has the Logic Gone? Western Actions in Syria Contradict Common Sense
NATO powers who bomb countries regularly 'condemn Russia's bombing in Syria'. Is there a bigger bunch of hypocrites in the world today?
"Let's reflect on this: West elites want us to hate Russia [because] it's fighting ISIS & al-Qaeda in Syria & supporting a government fighting those groups" Neil Clark
NATO powers who bomb countries regularly 'condemn Russia's bombing in Syria'. Is there a bigger bunch of hypocrites in the world today?
"Let's reflect on this: West elites want us to hate Russia [because] it's fighting ISIS & al-Qaeda in Syria & supporting a government fighting those groups" Neil Clark
2
Either way, it's a "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" situation for President Obama. If he marches into Syria with force to appease the U.S. hawks, he will be repaid with body-bags and a swollen military budget. If instead he opts out of intervening, he will be assailed as anything less than heroic.
The only thing for certain is that Russia's increased activity in the region has significantly raised the odds that this conflict has for escalating into a serious World War. Given that, it is perhaps more prudent to take a wait-and-see approach until it is time to act, or not.
The only thing for certain is that Russia's increased activity in the region has significantly raised the odds that this conflict has for escalating into a serious World War. Given that, it is perhaps more prudent to take a wait-and-see approach until it is time to act, or not.
9
I feel a lot better now. Instead of reading the articles about the Middle East, I've started to go straight to the comments, the vast majority of which are based more in reality than what this paper has to offer.
Russia sees her own relevance in the world only as a military power, nothing else and combined with weak leadership there is not much else left for them.
They have very few allies, no one wants them as allies but a half handful.
Under that assessment w e have to be prepared to see more Russian
military excursion within the vicinity of their borders or allies.
We have to strengthen our military forces and confront them when their overstep their boundaries like in Turkey. Unfortunately there is not much else we can do and of course keep the sanctions up.
They have very few allies, no one wants them as allies but a half handful.
Under that assessment w e have to be prepared to see more Russian
military excursion within the vicinity of their borders or allies.
We have to strengthen our military forces and confront them when their overstep their boundaries like in Turkey. Unfortunately there is not much else we can do and of course keep the sanctions up.
1
Obama's "no action" seems more like the administrations policy to let Russians and Iranians take care of the Sunni Islamofascism created by Saudi funded Wahabbi ideology. Being an "ally" you cant get rid of them since the oil companies wont let go off the "ally" for the oil fields. Being the commander-in-chief all he can do is decide if he should involve militarily and he did not which is smart and this "no concrete action" is a good way of getting rid of friendship with the scum of earth Saudis and their degenerate Wahabbis and their creation, the cowardly ISIS.
4
Given the economic, political and social disintegration throughout the region well beyond Russia's capacity to fix, is there any way to end the war that has some chance of success?
Would reintegrating the failed Syrian state into Turkey as a protectorate at least tamp down inter-communal warfare?
I believe it would. Protectorate status would not be a panacea. But it seems to be the least bad option among others too terrible to contemplate, with the added advantage that it's somewhat practical.
The civilized world confronts a power vacuum inside Syria that can only be partially and temporarily filled by military action. The only way to end the war is to promise the warring parties security and long-term economic reconstruction. Otherwise, the war will simply continue.
The U.N. can't do it. Too unwieldy to administer Syrian territory itself, it relies on member states' militaries to enforce armistices; forget it battling the Salafist Sunni pan-Arab Jihadi revolutionary movement at the heart of ISIS. Only established successful Sunni Muslim states with internal security directorates, standing armies and air forces can do all that and not be crushed by the burdens.
The nearest Sunni Muslim regional power capable of providing both is Turkey.
Since Turkey meddled inside Syria -- greatly assisting the Sunni tribal rebellion against the Shiite al-Assad dictatorship, effectively toppling it from power -- one might fairly call the resulting headaches "just desserts".
Would reintegrating the failed Syrian state into Turkey as a protectorate at least tamp down inter-communal warfare?
I believe it would. Protectorate status would not be a panacea. But it seems to be the least bad option among others too terrible to contemplate, with the added advantage that it's somewhat practical.
The civilized world confronts a power vacuum inside Syria that can only be partially and temporarily filled by military action. The only way to end the war is to promise the warring parties security and long-term economic reconstruction. Otherwise, the war will simply continue.
The U.N. can't do it. Too unwieldy to administer Syrian territory itself, it relies on member states' militaries to enforce armistices; forget it battling the Salafist Sunni pan-Arab Jihadi revolutionary movement at the heart of ISIS. Only established successful Sunni Muslim states with internal security directorates, standing armies and air forces can do all that and not be crushed by the burdens.
The nearest Sunni Muslim regional power capable of providing both is Turkey.
Since Turkey meddled inside Syria -- greatly assisting the Sunni tribal rebellion against the Shiite al-Assad dictatorship, effectively toppling it from power -- one might fairly call the resulting headaches "just desserts".
1939 Headline: "Wary of Escalation in Europe, U.S. is Waiting Out Hitler's Moves." Yeah, that worked out so well, thank goodness our brilliant President (hey, let's "reset with Russia!") is setting us up to do it again.
3
James, Syria is not invading other countries.
Sign up to fight Isis...or send your kids if your so gung ho!
Isn't it time you retired the phrase "moderate rebels" when talking of Syria? It's an insult to the intelligence of your readership.
4
No kidding - especially, when "moderate rebel" is the umbrella term for a coalition including the current "recognized" Al-Quaida incarnation.
Bottom line: would YOU go over there to fight as representatives of the U.S.? If YOU wouldn't, why advocate for American soldiers to risk their LIVES? Lives matter.
4
How many times have we backed the wrong guy? Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi, Pinochet, et al. Look where it's gotten us each and every time.
This chaos, what you refer to as, "stabiliz[ing] the place first," is exactly the opportunity Putin's looking for. Perhaps to do what the US does -- fill power vacuums with airbases.
Have you seen this NYT graphic? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-con...
Nearly every airstrike is against areas occupied by the guys we were trying to back, with less than a handful of strikes against ISIS-held territory. Now we learn that the US is scrapping any attempts, at a loss of half a billion bucks (US), to train any forces. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/pentagon-program-isla...®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Home%20Page&pgtype=article.
I bet Mr Putin thinks this was a wonderful idea.
This chaos, what you refer to as, "stabiliz[ing] the place first," is exactly the opportunity Putin's looking for. Perhaps to do what the US does -- fill power vacuums with airbases.
Have you seen this NYT graphic? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-con...
Nearly every airstrike is against areas occupied by the guys we were trying to back, with less than a handful of strikes against ISIS-held territory. Now we learn that the US is scrapping any attempts, at a loss of half a billion bucks (US), to train any forces. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/pentagon-program-isla...®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Home%20Page&pgtype=article.
I bet Mr Putin thinks this was a wonderful idea.
At this point, having seen the hazards and anarchy ISIS is bringing to the world, I'm all for Putin's actions, inclusive of Assad reclaiming power. At least under his regime we didn't have a mass migration of desperate Syrians taking any and all risks to escape Syrian soil.
3
We care what happens in Syria or for that matter anywhere in the Middle East because. . .?
2
"Now I saw, though too late, the Folly of beginning a Work before we count the Cost, and before we judge rightly of our own Strength to go through with it."
Robinson Crusoe
Perhaps our detachment from this intervention is not too late. The Russians should think again as well. Anything other than humanitarian aid will not solve a civil war. How many examples must we see through history. Picking winners and losers amongst the myriad of factions here is like going to the race track with bad horses and winning on a trifecta.
Robinson Crusoe
Perhaps our detachment from this intervention is not too late. The Russians should think again as well. Anything other than humanitarian aid will not solve a civil war. How many examples must we see through history. Picking winners and losers amongst the myriad of factions here is like going to the race track with bad horses and winning on a trifecta.
1
Putin has the upper hand and has backed Obama into a corner. Obama describes his inability to respond as "patience" on his part. A good PR person could not have spun it better.
6
how are we backed into a corner? Putin has now backed himself into a corner by committing himself to military action it will be hard to climb down from. We have two choices here: 1. spend a lot of money and American lives and not get the result we want and 2. not spend a lot of money and American lives and not get the result we want.
A lack of response is often justified and can not be judged as a paralysis. Putin has made Obama stop and see what happens. The situation is too fluid.
With four opposing forces dong battle in Syria what could possibly go wrong.
After the Iraq and Afghanistan experiences, I really wonder how anyone can question Obama's reluctance, caution and patience with Syria. Let's be clear, there is no military solution in the Middle East without a political solution.
5
The neocons (in both parties) continue to bully this president into war. I'll take Obama's patience and so-called paralysis over the alternative. Syria is 6,000 miles from the United States and only 700 miles from Russia, akin to Florida and Cuba.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine has been a disaster, but they keep coming back trying to bully and coerce us into more.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine has been a disaster, but they keep coming back trying to bully and coerce us into more.
6
It is to the benefit of the world that superpowers find mutual common cause to maintain the peace on a grand scale while working together to limit regional conflicts.
3
"Waiting out Putin's moves" is an inappropriate policy, to say the lest, for a great power. Especialy the US. Not taking a firm stand today, will be extremely costly tomorrow. Facing this situation doesn't mean necessarily going to war. Rather it needs strong and energetic "Leadership". "Waiting out" is not a strategy by itself. It merely can be sometimes an alternative when one has a clear grand strategy
Obama inability to effectively act in many situations, is only delaying and compounding a great power basic homework. This is not promising. Rather, it will only exasperate things and lead to great future loses.
Obama inability to effectively act in many situations, is only delaying and compounding a great power basic homework. This is not promising. Rather, it will only exasperate things and lead to great future loses.
1
I note you write from Jeddah. The optimal solution to ISIL begins with the Saud family stopping their financial and military support to ISIL.
Dear Michael, you have been misinformed.
Note that ISIL consider's Saudi Arabia to be its enemy number ONE. Every month the Saudis confront there wicked terrorist acts and preemptively unfold ISIL terrorrist plots and confront its agents and cells with an iron fist.
How can it be its financial and militery supporter ?!
SA is in forefront fighting terrorist groups. And quit effective so far. Search reliable sources for statements from US officials and security specialists witnessing to this fact, and commending SA for its combating terrorism comprehensive campaign and valuable intelligence information and cooperation.
These are the FACTS. Unfortunately baming SA became a convenient scapegoat for ignorance, superficial analysis, blackmail, and wicked intentions.
Note that ISIL consider's Saudi Arabia to be its enemy number ONE. Every month the Saudis confront there wicked terrorist acts and preemptively unfold ISIL terrorrist plots and confront its agents and cells with an iron fist.
How can it be its financial and militery supporter ?!
SA is in forefront fighting terrorist groups. And quit effective so far. Search reliable sources for statements from US officials and security specialists witnessing to this fact, and commending SA for its combating terrorism comprehensive campaign and valuable intelligence information and cooperation.
These are the FACTS. Unfortunately baming SA became a convenient scapegoat for ignorance, superficial analysis, blackmail, and wicked intentions.
Sorry Walid, but I disagree with you. I keep myself very well informed about matters in your part of the world and especially about the funding for ISIL or Desh (whatever).
Let the Russians take over the mess in Syria. The main political force that we should be helping in the middle east is the Kurds. They have an inclusive direct democracy that empowers women and members of all religions to take part in consensus based decision making, and they have been successful in growing a modern political-economy and defending themselves against ISIS (using a hyper modern leaderless command structure).
It may be that we should have set up a no fly zone over Syria at the beginning of the conflict which might have kept Assad from dropping barrel bombs and chemical weapons on his own people, but it's too late now.
Syria is traditionally a Russian client state and messing around there has gotten us no where. Syrians involved in the civil war have little interest in attacking ISIS at this time. If we are going to fight ISIS, then better to do it in Iraq, since we broke it and bought it.
There are probably pro democracy rebels in Syria but we can't seem to be able to figure out who they are or how to help them. Now we would have to fight Russia to do it, and WWIII is in nobody's interest.
It may be that we should have set up a no fly zone over Syria at the beginning of the conflict which might have kept Assad from dropping barrel bombs and chemical weapons on his own people, but it's too late now.
Syria is traditionally a Russian client state and messing around there has gotten us no where. Syrians involved in the civil war have little interest in attacking ISIS at this time. If we are going to fight ISIS, then better to do it in Iraq, since we broke it and bought it.
There are probably pro democracy rebels in Syria but we can't seem to be able to figure out who they are or how to help them. Now we would have to fight Russia to do it, and WWIII is in nobody's interest.
1
7,300 airstrikes in a year. Costly, counterproductive, and murderously immoral. Obama once said that he was not opposed to all wars, he was just opposed to stupid wars. Well America's aerial bombardments and insurgent training now obviously fall into the stupid war category. Stop wasting our money. Withdraw from futile foreign wars now.
2
Total moral and political failure on the part of the administration........going back to the beginning of the Syrian conflict........gave Putin an inch ...he takes a mile.....What else did the President and his advisors expect???????
It happened and now it's too late!!!!!!! not only a mess but PEOPLE ARE DYING...innocent people!!!!!!!!!
Ed
Virginia
It happened and now it's too late!!!!!!! not only a mess but PEOPLE ARE DYING...innocent people!!!!!!!!!
Ed
Virginia
1
If Putin wants to spend $1,000,000 per toyota pickup destroyed by missile strikes let him.
The Russian economy is in the toilet with the collapse of oil prices.
This will only make it worse.
The Trillion we wasted would have funded forty Hudson River Tunnel and bridge projects.
Cut the war machines budget and spend it at home.
The Russian economy is in the toilet with the collapse of oil prices.
This will only make it worse.
The Trillion we wasted would have funded forty Hudson River Tunnel and bridge projects.
Cut the war machines budget and spend it at home.
6
Obama vacillated for years in the ultimate role as ineptness in chief. Putin recognized that Obama was impotent and he moved in as the big swinging you know what. Now Obama gets to watch Putin have at it an have his way with the Syrian Wench... What has happened to our Country what has occurred to bring back the likes of Jimmy Carter II. Send in the UN with the Blue Hats and the Euro Sirens the USA is done defending human rights we are the gang who can not shoot straight.
4
Good! Lets not rush into WWIII
Also the Pentagon says will stop training the so called friendly rebels. This is very good news.
Now the CIA needs to stop arming alQueda.
Then the Russians can deal with this mess, and we avoid another war, more US soldiers dead, and a further trillion in the hole.
This is a good Friday.
Also the Pentagon says will stop training the so called friendly rebels. This is very good news.
Now the CIA needs to stop arming alQueda.
Then the Russians can deal with this mess, and we avoid another war, more US soldiers dead, and a further trillion in the hole.
This is a good Friday.
1
It is not only the Saudis pushing US policy.
Israel must be taking part in the management of this slow, murderous, drawn-out travesty.
Israel must be taking part in the management of this slow, murderous, drawn-out travesty.
Hi Clark
What policy are you referring to.So Israel & saudi Arabia are in cahoots & are responsible for some kind of murder. Strange combination, about as strange as your comment about Israel.Get a life !
What policy are you referring to.So Israel & saudi Arabia are in cahoots & are responsible for some kind of murder. Strange combination, about as strange as your comment about Israel.Get a life !
So Putin is taking over Syria and Iraq and will have puppet dictators in place. There will be no opposition parties for Putin to worry about. Iron fisted dictatorships have no opposition parties.
Putin is not taking over Syria. He is launching missile strikes into it. It is a diversionary move with the upside of causing oil futures to be pressured higher in response to global threats, but away from the immediate Russian border and outside of the ground rules that would trigger NATO sanctions in response to aggression in the Belarus or Ukraine. Are Russian troops marching into Syria as in Crimea? Don't think we'll see any T-34s rolling into Syria anytime, ever.
1
Russia's decisive actions will likely bring to an end the mayhem and intrigue that has defined the ME for a long time and further,will restore stability and hope to the Syrian (and by extension to the whole ME) people.
The oil reserves that will provide the means to rebuild will now be effectively in Russian and Chinese hands and neither party is likely to allow any more looting and chaos to prevent the ordered exploitation of this resource.
Is this situation a basis for WW3 ?...No!
The oil reserves that will provide the means to rebuild will now be effectively in Russian and Chinese hands and neither party is likely to allow any more looting and chaos to prevent the ordered exploitation of this resource.
Is this situation a basis for WW3 ?...No!
1
While I agree Ted Cruz is on acid with his WWIII hysterics, I disagree that 'oil reserves will provide the means to rebuild in Russian or Chinese hands.' This seems less of a land and oil grab than a distraction with the additional benefit of sending up spot oil prices to the benefit of supporting Russia's primary resource: energy. Russia already has more than enough oil and natural gas on its hands that it would like to sell at a higher price to Europe and China.
2
Doing nothing is also a course of action, and in this case the wisest course.
Obama has "done something", however--pushed the country towards renewable energy and allowed fracking here in the US. This means eventually eliminating our dependence on ME oil. That is a staggering shift of power away from ME autocrats, but few notice. (The ME autocrats are well aware of it, though). Obama plays the long game, wisely.
Obama has "done something", however--pushed the country towards renewable energy and allowed fracking here in the US. This means eventually eliminating our dependence on ME oil. That is a staggering shift of power away from ME autocrats, but few notice. (The ME autocrats are well aware of it, though). Obama plays the long game, wisely.
34
Agreed - it often takes American presidents seven years in office to learn that 'doing nothing' is usually the wisest course.
1
Who wants to be relevant in Syria. All yours Vladimir. Ciao baby.
1
We live in interesting times. The middle east is a complex interwoven hornet's nest complete with overlapping actors and interests. But there are actions the US and NATO can take. The first thing to do is respect your geopolitical opponent. Putin is good at this, very good. The second thing to do is prioritize. Trying to parse through the myriad array of Syrian opposition groups to arm the more moderate of them was doomed from the start. The better way was/is to support militarily and financially the only viable self sustaining group in the region without a country of their own, the Kurds (who will fight ISIS) - and get the Turks to swallow it. And this they will do when told that the US/NATO will come to their aid unconditionally if there are any transgressions on their territory on the part of the Russians. And this where our respect for Putin comes in. This is a power play on his part, pure and simple. He wants the West to take him seriously. And the best way to show him that we take him seriously is to tell him in no uncertain terms that if he flies over Turkey, he will get shot down. If he flies over any American military assets, he will be shot down. And if he continues this military incursion in Syria he will be faced with more NATO military assets facing him in the Baltics. We must put the ball in his court. Indeed, he is testing us. Now it is time to test him.
1
"the president and his team express a quiet confidence that Moscow almost certainly will be no more successful"
The difference is that Putin has clearly defined his strategy and is willing and able to take steps that will better his position without fear of American interference or reprisal. Russia's goal is to keep Assad in power, and is willing to take action to further that goal. Our president has (yet again) been shown to be long in thought but short on action. In the mean time, Russian, Iranian and terrorist causes get strengthened while we watch our interests wither on the vine.
To those who say "Obama's critics have not come up with a better solution" ... Obama is POTUS, he has more info than anyone...and that's HIS JOB to ensure that American interests are not trampled.
To those who say that "there is no perfect solution"...very likely true. However, there are "better" options. Our doing nothing while the situation deteriorates before our eyes is an abdication of responsibility. Truly a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
The difference is that Putin has clearly defined his strategy and is willing and able to take steps that will better his position without fear of American interference or reprisal. Russia's goal is to keep Assad in power, and is willing to take action to further that goal. Our president has (yet again) been shown to be long in thought but short on action. In the mean time, Russian, Iranian and terrorist causes get strengthened while we watch our interests wither on the vine.
To those who say "Obama's critics have not come up with a better solution" ... Obama is POTUS, he has more info than anyone...and that's HIS JOB to ensure that American interests are not trampled.
To those who say that "there is no perfect solution"...very likely true. However, there are "better" options. Our doing nothing while the situation deteriorates before our eyes is an abdication of responsibility. Truly a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
2
Negotiating the TPP with 11 nations to have the US leading the direction of 40% of the world's economy is leadership. Lobbing some cruise missiles into a war zone is not. I cannot understand why some people dismiss the first, the product of vision, years of work and fruitful collaboration, and a clear instance of American leadership, yet see the second as strong. Obama is wise to keep us out of the mire, and it won't be long until Russia regrets this "show of strength."
1
For the average person in the United States trade agreements have meant job destruction. Visit the outer ring of Mexicali, Mexico and go see where American jobs are vacationing.
Let's stop blaming this on President Obama. The American Public has made it perfectly clear that we are not interested in another trillion dollar debacle in the Middle East. Our government does not have the public support for it, nor the will to raise taxes to pay for it when we haven't paid off the $4 trillion bill for the last Middle East disaster. They know better. Thank God.
Mr Putin has given us a gift: a way out of this mess without leaving the area under the control of terrorist groups. His price for that is keeping his ally, al-Assad in power. Given the alternative leadership available in Syria, it's not such a bad choice.
Mr Putin has given us a gift: a way out of this mess without leaving the area under the control of terrorist groups. His price for that is keeping his ally, al-Assad in power. Given the alternative leadership available in Syria, it's not such a bad choice.
3
WE have to blame president OBAMA, because by arming the so call 'rebels', he prolonged the war. also he did everything to encourage Saudi Arabia and Qatar and UAE to arm the so called Rebel. Without the arms This war would have been over long back. Obama can take all the credit for prolonging this war.
1
If Putin wants to put the Russian military through another Afghanistan, I'm inclined to let him. It will either end badly again, like it did in 1989, or he will actually succeed in wiping out the superstitious savages and their "caliphate." His little puppet, Assad, would stay in power, which would more or less return us to the status quo prior to 2011. Yes, it would also mean the "moderate" opposition would be wiped out. But they never really had a chance anyway, considering they are disorganized and squeezed between the aforementioned superstitious savages and Assad, who is already backed by Hezballah, which is backed by Iran.
2
What is "bigger" news? Which one does the average American care about more? The continually deteriorating conflicts scattered across the Middle East contributing to one of the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time, or the new emoji's offered by Facebook?
And, why is his the U.S.'s mess (seemingly solely) to worry about? I am dismayed at the prospect of huge bloodshed continuing in the area. However the tribalism and warring religious factions continue to be stronger that any desire to utilize political force rather than bullets to ease the mess. It is a very sad cesspool of distrust and hatred. And more people will, sadly, die. Are Germany, France, Britain willing to put some proverbial skin into this game? It is obvious that they are equally scared to step into this muck. This, sadly, will get worse before it gets better. And Putin should be very careful what he wishes for, because he may get his wish.
3
I have traveled the world. I absolutely love Europe and especially Eastern Europe and have grown to understand the culture there. That understanding extends to Russia.
Russians are stoic people who rarely show public emotion. If you ask a Russian man how he is doing today, he won't give you an American cordial "I am fine." If he answers, he will give you a detailed description of every emotion he felt that day.
This is what makes Vladimir Putin's speech at the UN General Assembly and intervention in Syria historically profound. The NYT, CNN and the US news networks literally refused to cover Putin's speech in any detail. There were no accurate translations, summaries or explanations.
Putin stood there and begged our nation to wake up and see Obama for who he is, an arrogant, incompetent, effeminate, weak, cartoon figure without a plan or a clue. Putin carefully explained how Obama's failures have destabilized the entire Middle East, and how the refugee crisis is becoming a world crisis.
Somebody had to step in. It's not enough to go on facebook, twitter and instagram and hashtag #AssadIsAMeanie and #BeNiceToYourNeighbors or #TerrorismIsBad somebody had to take action. We see from today's NYT the result of Obama's actions in Syria, again Obama scraps a failed plan and the news media is mouse quiet.
No human being in America who works for a news organization will tell us what Obama's failures are costing the world. Putin did. And he's helping.
Russians are stoic people who rarely show public emotion. If you ask a Russian man how he is doing today, he won't give you an American cordial "I am fine." If he answers, he will give you a detailed description of every emotion he felt that day.
This is what makes Vladimir Putin's speech at the UN General Assembly and intervention in Syria historically profound. The NYT, CNN and the US news networks literally refused to cover Putin's speech in any detail. There were no accurate translations, summaries or explanations.
Putin stood there and begged our nation to wake up and see Obama for who he is, an arrogant, incompetent, effeminate, weak, cartoon figure without a plan or a clue. Putin carefully explained how Obama's failures have destabilized the entire Middle East, and how the refugee crisis is becoming a world crisis.
Somebody had to step in. It's not enough to go on facebook, twitter and instagram and hashtag #AssadIsAMeanie and #BeNiceToYourNeighbors or #TerrorismIsBad somebody had to take action. We see from today's NYT the result of Obama's actions in Syria, again Obama scraps a failed plan and the news media is mouse quiet.
No human being in America who works for a news organization will tell us what Obama's failures are costing the world. Putin did. And he's helping.
5
I mean, sure, besides the fact that Russia is only doing what's in their best interest, just as the United States has. But, I tend to agree more with our stance, and I'm sure I'm biased.The Syrian people were not free under Bashar Al-Assad's brutal regime. Russia is using all of it's military strength to further oppress the Syrian rebel forces, who fight for the people and their rights. For what reason, why would they support a dictator with a track record of murder and denying civil rights? Because their tactical and political influence in Syria, and therefore the middle east, relies on Assad remaining in power.
Sure they also want to fight ISIS, but that's just a convenient excuse to let loose their military and fight towards their real goal, which is keeping their tactical positioning, and military bases in Syria.
Sure they also want to fight ISIS, but that's just a convenient excuse to let loose their military and fight towards their real goal, which is keeping their tactical positioning, and military bases in Syria.
The "Syrian Rebel Forces" are ISIS and remnants of Al Qaeda who kill Americans for the fun of it. Obama was duped into backing our enemies.
One of the biggest challenges we face is in understanding the true nature of the forces/interests behind the American Corporate Military Junta (Deep State) responsible for the so-called U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Destabilizing the region in order to create chaos IS the policy, not to make things better, or to resolve a problem. The Deep State's Junta thrives by creating conditions that result in the never-ending transfer of billions of dollars into the coffers/pockets of the MIC.
It's about taking on weaker countries, destabilizing them, and then finding way to profit from the instability. Of course now that Russia is in the mix, the American Junta will back down. Confronting Russia militarily is something the corporatist hucksters behind the American Junta probably see as not a good investment move.
Much of our propagandized citizenry seems unable to grasp the true malevolent nature of the war profiteers behind the American Deep State MIC Junta.
Destabilizing the region in order to create chaos IS the policy, not to make things better, or to resolve a problem. The Deep State's Junta thrives by creating conditions that result in the never-ending transfer of billions of dollars into the coffers/pockets of the MIC.
It's about taking on weaker countries, destabilizing them, and then finding way to profit from the instability. Of course now that Russia is in the mix, the American Junta will back down. Confronting Russia militarily is something the corporatist hucksters behind the American Junta probably see as not a good investment move.
Much of our propagandized citizenry seems unable to grasp the true malevolent nature of the war profiteers behind the American Deep State MIC Junta.
4
"Frustrated by their own inability to resolve the crisis over more than four years, the president and his team express a quiet confidence that Moscow almost certainly will be no more successful."
This sentence should win this year's Orwell award, the New Pravda award, the Unnamed Sources award, the Non Sequitur award, the Your Own Worst Enemy award, the Clueless Elite award, the Inside Hack award, and be the sole subject of a year long graduate seminar at Harvard: Sanity Optional for Establishment VSPs.
Sweep in tough competitions.
Quiet Confidence.
No more successful.
Hehheheheh. Funny stuff. Giving reality and war and devastation and the state of nature a big ol We Don't Care raspberry. Legacy is but marketing Baby!
Quiet Confidence. With their record to date, quiet confidence.
Heheheh.
This sentence should win this year's Orwell award, the New Pravda award, the Unnamed Sources award, the Non Sequitur award, the Your Own Worst Enemy award, the Clueless Elite award, the Inside Hack award, and be the sole subject of a year long graduate seminar at Harvard: Sanity Optional for Establishment VSPs.
Sweep in tough competitions.
Quiet Confidence.
No more successful.
Hehheheheh. Funny stuff. Giving reality and war and devastation and the state of nature a big ol We Don't Care raspberry. Legacy is but marketing Baby!
Quiet Confidence. With their record to date, quiet confidence.
Heheheh.
4
The questions here are:
1 - Who are the so called "Moderate Rebels" and who created that group?
2 - Who is ISIS and who is supplying and financing them <- US has a lot of responsibility here.
3 - Why is US and NATO involved here in the first place and who gives authority to remove and put presidents in foreign countries? Wasn't Assad the defacto president of Syria?
I think this whole Asia-Mideast proxy war is more about the interest of a small group of powerful individuals in the west, business as usual. Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia are exhibits of these failed policies and this is creating more harm than good. It has been a disastrous recipe since 9/11.
It's time for the US to stop sinking its nose in foreign affairs and focus more on the domestic problems in the homeland. Those $billions expended in foreign military interventions could've been used to fix all the problems in the homeland but it seems that congress lawmakers/businessmen have other interests while there is a huge amount of people starving at home.
Give Peace a chance!
1 - Who are the so called "Moderate Rebels" and who created that group?
2 - Who is ISIS and who is supplying and financing them <- US has a lot of responsibility here.
3 - Why is US and NATO involved here in the first place and who gives authority to remove and put presidents in foreign countries? Wasn't Assad the defacto president of Syria?
I think this whole Asia-Mideast proxy war is more about the interest of a small group of powerful individuals in the west, business as usual. Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia are exhibits of these failed policies and this is creating more harm than good. It has been a disastrous recipe since 9/11.
It's time for the US to stop sinking its nose in foreign affairs and focus more on the domestic problems in the homeland. Those $billions expended in foreign military interventions could've been used to fix all the problems in the homeland but it seems that congress lawmakers/businessmen have other interests while there is a huge amount of people starving at home.
Give Peace a chance!
6
One basic factor that the administration is missing or are not eager to discuss in public is the fact that the similarity between Russian invasion/help in Afghanistan and Syria ends with the fact that in Afghanistan it was difficult to find any tribe supporting the Russians in Afghanistan whereas in Syria there a lot of tribes supporting Russia's help and they have boots on the ground to work with the Russians and the opposition we are working with includes people from the West as well as other countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan. These include the brainwashed young men and women from the West.
The problem that we are still ignoring is the ideology created about 300 years ago by Abdul Wahhab of Nejd which is being followed by the Saudis, Qataris, ISIL, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, and Al-Nusrah alike.
Unless we publicly dissociate ourselves with the ideologues countries we will not win this war. We may hold our nose and work with characters we do not agree with on other issues and solve this crises which developed by not keeping our National interest in focus but looking out for one of our so called ally in the area.
Let Russia take the lead in stabilizing Syria as it already has three partners inside Syria, Syrian Government and regional allies such as Iran Iraq, and Hezbollah. They have boots on the ground and without effective boots we cannot get rid of the cancer of humanity, ISIL
The problem that we are still ignoring is the ideology created about 300 years ago by Abdul Wahhab of Nejd which is being followed by the Saudis, Qataris, ISIL, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, and Al-Nusrah alike.
Unless we publicly dissociate ourselves with the ideologues countries we will not win this war. We may hold our nose and work with characters we do not agree with on other issues and solve this crises which developed by not keeping our National interest in focus but looking out for one of our so called ally in the area.
Let Russia take the lead in stabilizing Syria as it already has three partners inside Syria, Syrian Government and regional allies such as Iran Iraq, and Hezbollah. They have boots on the ground and without effective boots we cannot get rid of the cancer of humanity, ISIL
3
Please stop repeating the absurd propaganda that "... Mr. Assad ... has been waging war against his own population".
Assad is embroiled in a sectarian civil war. Emerging evidence is that the proximate causes of that civil war were the American invasion and destruction of Iraq and Saudi/CIA provocation, training, arming, and urging of Sunni rebels.
Assad is no more and no less "waging war against his own population" than were William Tecumseh Sherman and his Commander in Chief.
Assad is embroiled in a sectarian civil war. Emerging evidence is that the proximate causes of that civil war were the American invasion and destruction of Iraq and Saudi/CIA provocation, training, arming, and urging of Sunni rebels.
Assad is no more and no less "waging war against his own population" than were William Tecumseh Sherman and his Commander in Chief.
8
1. This particular civil war started with oeaceful demonstrations. Which Assad attacked.
2. Fighting your own pop is what a civil war is.
3. The chemical attacks and barrel bombs dumped--deliberately--on civilians did not exactly suggest a happyhappy, joyjoy Assad.
2. Fighting your own pop is what a civil war is.
3. The chemical attacks and barrel bombs dumped--deliberately--on civilians did not exactly suggest a happyhappy, joyjoy Assad.
Exactly right.
The same can be said about the smug claims that Assad has used CWs. Anyone who makes that claim must have at least one such use in mind, and, if we're lucky, some evidence. I've followed that issue very closely, and I've sure not noticed any evidence of that. Someone used CWs -- that's for sure -- but the evidence is inconclusive and tends to point to the rebels, not to Assad.
As for whom the Syrians support, why not take a secret poll and find out? Ask them this question:
"Of the four possible victors in this war, which would you prefer as the winner: Assad, ISIS, al Nusra Front, or the Free Syrian Army?"
My hunch is the vote would be roughly 70-5-10-15.
The same can be said about the smug claims that Assad has used CWs. Anyone who makes that claim must have at least one such use in mind, and, if we're lucky, some evidence. I've followed that issue very closely, and I've sure not noticed any evidence of that. Someone used CWs -- that's for sure -- but the evidence is inconclusive and tends to point to the rebels, not to Assad.
As for whom the Syrians support, why not take a secret poll and find out? Ask them this question:
"Of the four possible victors in this war, which would you prefer as the winner: Assad, ISIS, al Nusra Front, or the Free Syrian Army?"
My hunch is the vote would be roughly 70-5-10-15.
1
Hopefully the mistakes since 9/11 have taught us to us the Justice department not the military to solve crimes committed on US soil.
Why does the NYT come out with these long winded articles when they constantly skirt around the real issue and that is Obama's failed foreign policy in the Middle East. The destabilization strategies used by the United States in countries like Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen have been a complete failure. Now Obama is trying to do the same thing in Syria.
It is the same old tired strategy where the CIA goes in and help overthrow a legitimate government like they did for example in Ukraine and Libya. Once that's accomplished then the CIA put so-called moderate extremists on their payroll like they did with Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Putin has spoken often of this failed US strategy in the Middle East and refused to allow it to take place in Syria. Now I read recently where US military experts are saying that Russia bombing extremists in Syria may be more effective than the US bombing campaign because Russia has spotters or Intel embedded within the Syria army to help pinpoint the bombing.
The US bombing campaign in Syria for over two years has been a failure and hadn't slowed the advancement of ISIS. The US training of moderate extremists with only 60 militants trained so far has failed to the point that they have cancelled the program.
The best thing the US can do in Syria is nothing. Let Russia deal with Assad and the extremists in Syria. The US should abandon their bombing campaign because its seems like the US is in the way.
Talk about this NYT.
It is the same old tired strategy where the CIA goes in and help overthrow a legitimate government like they did for example in Ukraine and Libya. Once that's accomplished then the CIA put so-called moderate extremists on their payroll like they did with Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Putin has spoken often of this failed US strategy in the Middle East and refused to allow it to take place in Syria. Now I read recently where US military experts are saying that Russia bombing extremists in Syria may be more effective than the US bombing campaign because Russia has spotters or Intel embedded within the Syria army to help pinpoint the bombing.
The US bombing campaign in Syria for over two years has been a failure and hadn't slowed the advancement of ISIS. The US training of moderate extremists with only 60 militants trained so far has failed to the point that they have cancelled the program.
The best thing the US can do in Syria is nothing. Let Russia deal with Assad and the extremists in Syria. The US should abandon their bombing campaign because its seems like the US is in the way.
Talk about this NYT.
6
I may be quoting a comic (a very, very smart one, especially politically), but I really liked what Bill Maher said during his intro on HBO's political comedy "Real Time with Bill Maher". While speaking on the subject of Putin sending planes, etc. into Syria, Maher said "Sold!"
3
It's depressing that the New York Times, often seen as an ultra-liberal rag by people in the heartland, has so many journalists writing article after article egging President Obama on more military forays in far away places, hinting that he is a wuss. When did Republicans capture this paper as far as foreign policy is concerned?
8
Mr. Obama and his Administration's policy with respect to Syria has proven completely inept. So much now that the Russians are calling the shots, literally. Yes, better stand back and stay out of it now, else risking direct conflict with the Russians. What a gigantic fiasco!
1
The Assad regime has been firmly entrenched in power over Syria for four years now with no defeat in sight. Fortunately, millions of peace loving Syrians have fled Syria as refugees which is a great success in itself and all nations should be very proud for their nurturing of these fine people.
We are now faced with a massive Russian incursion in defense of Assad in which Moscow has plainly asserted that it will support and defend the Assad regime. To that I say, Oh well! You win some and you lose some, but to think that you can win it all only makes more enemies than it is worth.
Now the Russians will concentrate on securing the Syrian nation, lessening the need for us and the world to do the same. From there, once Syria is secured by Assad and Russian forces, we can work in concert with Iraq to vanquish the fragmented ISIS in that nation since the base of ISIS power is located in Raqqa Syria and will be eventually defeated there.
Perhaps we are too adversarial towards Russia because of our long history of cold war. Perhaps we should leverage the Russian incursion to our benefit and theirs by negotiating cooperation in the defeat of the greatest threat to world stability now; the cancer of ISIS.
Find comfort in the saving of millions of refugees and work together with Russia to contain the scourge of war so it does not spread. I assure you, we have common cause to stop the spread of Islamic terror that has plagued our nation as well as Russia. Find common cause.
We are now faced with a massive Russian incursion in defense of Assad in which Moscow has plainly asserted that it will support and defend the Assad regime. To that I say, Oh well! You win some and you lose some, but to think that you can win it all only makes more enemies than it is worth.
Now the Russians will concentrate on securing the Syrian nation, lessening the need for us and the world to do the same. From there, once Syria is secured by Assad and Russian forces, we can work in concert with Iraq to vanquish the fragmented ISIS in that nation since the base of ISIS power is located in Raqqa Syria and will be eventually defeated there.
Perhaps we are too adversarial towards Russia because of our long history of cold war. Perhaps we should leverage the Russian incursion to our benefit and theirs by negotiating cooperation in the defeat of the greatest threat to world stability now; the cancer of ISIS.
Find comfort in the saving of millions of refugees and work together with Russia to contain the scourge of war so it does not spread. I assure you, we have common cause to stop the spread of Islamic terror that has plagued our nation as well as Russia. Find common cause.
3
RE: Syria. In this case, the enemy (radical fundamentalist rebels) of our enemy (Assad) is STILL our enemy. And even though he got snookered by Putin, Obama has inadvertently managed to get another of our enemies, Russia, to do the dirty work. Let's sit back and watch the show in Syria, blast ISIS in Iraq and take care of our friends in the area such as Israel, Jordan and Turkey.
1
Putin is the Russian dictator. He has no constraints on his military or political activities. Anyone who criticizes him is arrested. When Russian soldiers die in conflict, the news is not released in Russia. He has no political accountability at all to the people who live in Russia. So, it is not really fair to compare his behavior with that of Obama, who is a democratically elected president.
5
The agent provocateur from KGB has bullied it´s way into Ukraine and now Syria, while the US seems to be afraid. Period.
2
Why do we - America and her NATO allies, at least - put up immediate sanctions on the Russians for doing this? Make it impossible for them to function economically in the world, freeze all Russian assets, etc. Putin is a tough guy and he's turning Obama very quickly into one of history's great fools. And we still have 15 more months!
Mr. Obama, stop with the "strategic patience." Lead...with all the economic might available to you and our allies.
Mr. Obama, stop with the "strategic patience." Lead...with all the economic might available to you and our allies.
2
A previous NYT article about a possible "intelligence gap", accurately notes, "In a tense meeting with Putin at the United Nations early last week, Obama was not given any advance notice of Russia’s attack plans, aides said."
My guess is that Putin told Obama something to the effect that, "I know Empire, sir, and you are being driven by a hidden cabal of global Empire, and I'm going to put pressure on you until you stop them from acting like a global capitalist empire. And if you can't control your own house there's going to be hell to pay, because we will expose your country's action as those of an Empire --- which we no longer are."
So, yes, Obama is justifiably very "Wary of Escalation" for the very good reason, that Obama knows he himself was lying when he said, while actually bombing civilians in Libya, "We're not here for Empire" -- and Obama knows that Putin will call him out on that lie before the entire world!
My guess is that Putin told Obama something to the effect that, "I know Empire, sir, and you are being driven by a hidden cabal of global Empire, and I'm going to put pressure on you until you stop them from acting like a global capitalist empire. And if you can't control your own house there's going to be hell to pay, because we will expose your country's action as those of an Empire --- which we no longer are."
So, yes, Obama is justifiably very "Wary of Escalation" for the very good reason, that Obama knows he himself was lying when he said, while actually bombing civilians in Libya, "We're not here for Empire" -- and Obama knows that Putin will call him out on that lie before the entire world!
2
Why would Putin not act now? He has a year. Everybody wants Assad gone but Russia. Letting Russia do the "heavy" lifting against ISIL is a hope and a prayer. When will Saudi Arabia clean up her own neighborhood?
1
An interesting day at the NYTs: We have the Tunisian quartet winning the Nobel, proving that where there is a political will, there is a way in the Middle East, without any meddling from the west. Then there are the Russians in Syria. Good luck with that Russia. And then there is Obama, who's quiet, thank goodness. My heart hurts for the families who lost their loved ones in Afghanistan last week. We do not need to be involved in these endless wars and I applaud Obama for staying out of it as much as we can. We can see what the military aged men of Syria think about fighting for their country...they think Germany is a good option. Why should we send one American kid there, when our own country's infrastructure is falling apart.
3
"Barack Obama has made it clear that he is not willing to confront Russia over the Syrian Crisis."
I agree. It's hard to misinterpret hiding under the bed in the White House clutching a teddy bear and saying "Mommy make Putin stop."
I agree. It's hard to misinterpret hiding under the bed in the White House clutching a teddy bear and saying "Mommy make Putin stop."
2
REALITY: the obama plan to train rebels to fight isis was a ruse and putin saw through it by defending the real target
3
Bush was the "take no prisoners cowboy" and Obama is the "talk softly and carry a big shtick". Obama's foreign policy mindset is classic, "Paralysis by Analysis." Kudos all around, our Mideastern policies have been a disaster.
3
I really just have one question about Obama: does he override his military advisors or does he get poor advice from the military?
2
Thank you for taking the Administration's phone call and explaining this to your readers.
It is good to know that our best strategists have concluded that, in the Middle East, paralysis is a strategy and the Russians have fallen into our trap.
This will provide solace to NATO, and to the thousands dying in the Ukraine. They probably thought the US was fulfilling the Dems Leftist desire to focus on transgender equality at the seeming expense of preventing actual slaughter in Syria and in fighting Islamic fascism.
Now, of course, the rationale behind the Iran deal is clear. There are no strategic decisions, so let us give them the Bomb in ten years instead of now. We have "contained" them. Kind of.
And if we get into trouble, the Russians will join our "snap back" sanctions against their ally Iran. I get it now.
It is good to know that our best strategists have concluded that, in the Middle East, paralysis is a strategy and the Russians have fallen into our trap.
This will provide solace to NATO, and to the thousands dying in the Ukraine. They probably thought the US was fulfilling the Dems Leftist desire to focus on transgender equality at the seeming expense of preventing actual slaughter in Syria and in fighting Islamic fascism.
Now, of course, the rationale behind the Iran deal is clear. There are no strategic decisions, so let us give them the Bomb in ten years instead of now. We have "contained" them. Kind of.
And if we get into trouble, the Russians will join our "snap back" sanctions against their ally Iran. I get it now.
6
The only way to defeat the so called Islamic State is to cut our ties with the countries supporting the Islamic State by money, manpower, and Logistics; that will have all the countries involved in recruiting, training, and equipping the so called moderates from not just Syria but other countries eager to send their people to fight in Syria. This includes at least Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and other GCC countries with Logistics provided by Turkey.
4
To do what you suggest requires that we go all out on alternative energy in order to free ourselves from being held hostage to middle eastern oil.
1
Jordan is bombing ISIS. Read much?
Peter, in a globalized world with market forces, we do not need to be wedded to any one in Mid East. They need us more than we need them. They will sell if we need to buy. BTW, we are not importing as we used to do in the 1973 embargo by the Saudis - Henri helped us learn that lesson well.
What is going on in Syria is hardly a "tribal struggle" and the armed camps hell bent on overthrowing the Assad government are hardly "rebels" and "extremist" insurgents. They are foreign mercenaries, better known as Daesh and Takfiri murderers for hire, who carry out their bloody slaughter against a pro-Palestinian government on behalf of global warmongers. When these terrorists are finally defeated and exposed hopefully war crimes tribunals like the Nuremburg ones will bring their masters and sponsors to justice.
3
But wait, Daesh is pro-Palestinian too -- they just think Hamas' form of genocide is too gentle.
There is great lesson for future Presidents - the cool head of Obama prevented the American strategy driven by the action of Putin. Putin has a simple game plan - stabilize Syria first and then determine the fate of Assad to protect the interest of Russia. So long American strategy was driven by the interests of her Middle East allies and that interest is purely based on Shia Sunni historical rivalry. American foreign policy have very little to do with this childish play of Saudi Arabia - but American can not openly face this childish game. Putin now gives the opportunity to remove this Shia Sunni fault line from the Syrian conflict and put it purely as a twenty first century foreign policy problem. Obama should not miss this opportunity to convey the massage to American Middle East friends that historical Shia Sunni battle has no place in twenty first century.
Surrender is victory! The slaughter of moderates is support of moderation!
"Hopefully the Russian's don't shoot down another passenger plane, they know how to do that."
So do we.
So do we.
3
Obama is taking the right course here, so far. It is not cowardly or indecisive; it is smart. I'm very wary of GOPers who claim to want to confront Putin and show him who's in charge. That will only backfire. Have Americans learned yet that GOP foreign policy always fails?
4
The GOPers are good ones to talk, they can't even elect a Speaker!
It's not just Obama who's in a muddle about Syria; it's the entire Washington foreign policy establishment.
To begin, it appears that politicians, like generals, are always fighting the last war. Being equivocal and antagonistic to Russia in the face of an apocalyptic phenomenon like ISIS is a sobering reminder of this sad fact.
Thankfully, the Russians have stepped in. And not just the Russians but a potentially very powerful Shia Crescent coalition: Iran, Hezbollah, Iraq, and Syria. The end of ISIS (a Gulf Arab Wahabi foreign legion) is in sight. I very much hope enough of these savages are killed to greatly mitigate the chances they’ll spread their type of cancer around the world.
The Middle East is breaking into two camps: Sunni Arab autocracies allied with the West and the more moderate, tolerant and civilized Shia Muslims allied with Russia. The US is on the wrong side of history when it comes to this emerging partition.
To begin, it appears that politicians, like generals, are always fighting the last war. Being equivocal and antagonistic to Russia in the face of an apocalyptic phenomenon like ISIS is a sobering reminder of this sad fact.
Thankfully, the Russians have stepped in. And not just the Russians but a potentially very powerful Shia Crescent coalition: Iran, Hezbollah, Iraq, and Syria. The end of ISIS (a Gulf Arab Wahabi foreign legion) is in sight. I very much hope enough of these savages are killed to greatly mitigate the chances they’ll spread their type of cancer around the world.
The Middle East is breaking into two camps: Sunni Arab autocracies allied with the West and the more moderate, tolerant and civilized Shia Muslims allied with Russia. The US is on the wrong side of history when it comes to this emerging partition.
3
Meanwhile Europeans are loosing their positive spirits in terms of accepting the Muslim immigrants from Syria and Afghanistan. The increase in unemployment, higher taxes by the locals to feet them all, lack of housing, increased poverty, permanent loss of positive spirits, increase in crimes, etc. has made Europe into a social disaster and all that because of EU, NATO, US non-action for a long time now. Putin has not caused this but obviously lost patience with the US and Western Europe and has taken over. Thanks Obama - all this happened under your watch.
3
So that's our strategy; let the Russians burn out like Afganistan? Psst, Love or hate Assad, he has the backing of alot of his people and Iran, at least Russia has strategic goals, little birdie. Oh and the US refusing to talk to Russia, seems like the same temper tantrum the administration had with netanyahu. That made us look like the idiots. Get real, this mess in the Middle East and with Russia has largely been caused by not talking to others thinking that we can do what we want cause we are the only game in town. Guess what, we are not! I chuckle when The NYT quotes some "unnamed administration" source stating that the Russian planes are old and are Limey to crash. Pretty big words for a country that has not produced an effective new war bird in over 25 years.
I think 'waiting out' the Russians is highly risky because it assumes that once the Russians have propped up Assad, crushed the rebels, and hit ISIS hard, they will withdraw. The reality is the Russians are there to stay in Syria. From Syria they can orchestrate their 4+1 axis (Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah) to dominate and shape Middle East security, and challenge both Israel and the Saudis. From Syria they can project military power into the Eastern Mediterranean to challenge NATO's southern flank. From Syria they can erode US influence and access to the Middle East - a region vital to US strategic interests. This is not some tactical move to bomb ISIS - this is a strategic move directed against the US, NATO and its allies. The Obama Administration needs to start thinking in the 'bigger picture' here, and the long-term perspective - its about challenging US Strategic Interests, not doing air strikes against ISIS.
Furthermore, a passive, hesitant US response as Russia steadily escalates in the Middle East will encourage Moscow to challenge NATO along its Eastern frontier, or go further in Ukraine. Being gripped by indecision and paralysis, Obama decides its better to do nothing and 'hope' for the best, but hope is not a strategy - hope is an abdication of leadership and responsibility. This will send signals to Moscow - and to Beijing.
Furthermore, a passive, hesitant US response as Russia steadily escalates in the Middle East will encourage Moscow to challenge NATO along its Eastern frontier, or go further in Ukraine. Being gripped by indecision and paralysis, Obama decides its better to do nothing and 'hope' for the best, but hope is not a strategy - hope is an abdication of leadership and responsibility. This will send signals to Moscow - and to Beijing.
2
The Russians have been in the Middle East, particularly Syria for generations. Your concerned would be relevant if this was a board game. Obama has an intelligent policy, although you may not agree with it. Ask yourself what is US vital interest in Syria and more broadly the Middle East. Moreover, what is Russia's interest?
Thanks for the clear-headed common sense from down under. It's disheartening to see so many comments here that seem to emanate from Moscow or outer space.
If folks here are actually concerned about the next President being a Republican who might be very bad, considering the field, they might want to modify their thinking and urge President Obama to take the situation seriously and do something.
At the moment, it seems that the last hundred years of world history and bi-partisan American foreign policy history are not registering with the President at all.
He's making Hamlet look like Henry V, and making Jimmy Carter look like FDR.
Not incidentally, in this vein, Putin, Assad, and their ilk, left unchecked are going to make Bush-Cheney look like Doctors Without Borders.
But since many here don't really seem to care about the innocents they're going to slaughter, maybe they might be pragmatic enough to want to retain the White House in '16.
There's a reason Hillary Clinton is saying the President should be doing more. She knows that current policy could kill her, or any Democrat's, chances to win the election.
If folks here are actually concerned about the next President being a Republican who might be very bad, considering the field, they might want to modify their thinking and urge President Obama to take the situation seriously and do something.
At the moment, it seems that the last hundred years of world history and bi-partisan American foreign policy history are not registering with the President at all.
He's making Hamlet look like Henry V, and making Jimmy Carter look like FDR.
Not incidentally, in this vein, Putin, Assad, and their ilk, left unchecked are going to make Bush-Cheney look like Doctors Without Borders.
But since many here don't really seem to care about the innocents they're going to slaughter, maybe they might be pragmatic enough to want to retain the White House in '16.
There's a reason Hillary Clinton is saying the President should be doing more. She knows that current policy could kill her, or any Democrat's, chances to win the election.
"Don't do stupid stuff" is still the best strategy. We had eight years of bravado. I'll take a couple more of prudence.
6
A novel approach to foreign policy --- patience. Let's see how this works before we return to our other approach --- recklessness.
7
White House spokesman Josh Earnest says:
"Moderate rebels under attack by Russia, he added, “might make common cause with extremists, only exacerbating the extremist problem inside of Syria.”"
Guess what? That's already happened. And it means every dollar, every weapon, we give to the "moderate rebels" ends up in the hands of those "extremists, only exacerbating the extremist problem inside of Syria."
Our dilemma now is that we have no one to support – Putin does, but we don't. We're finally giving up kidding ourselves that this "Free Syrian Army" of moderate rebels still exists, if it ever did.
There are only three groups left to help: (1) Assad; (2) ISIS; and (3) al Qaeda. Many critics say: "Well, we can't help Assad, and we can't help ISIS. We can't help al Qaeda either, of course -- unless we first "re-brand" them as "moderate rebels." THEN we can help them.
The critics' problem is that most of us now see that the "moderate rebels" are mostly rebranded al Qaeda types, and we don't want to support al Qaeda, re-branded or not. That leaves us with nothing to do but sit this one out, which is exactly what we should do, and what Obama appears inclined to do.
It's much easier for Russia, of course. It has no qualms about supporting Assad, its long-time ally, and so that's what it's doing.
"Moderate rebels under attack by Russia, he added, “might make common cause with extremists, only exacerbating the extremist problem inside of Syria.”"
Guess what? That's already happened. And it means every dollar, every weapon, we give to the "moderate rebels" ends up in the hands of those "extremists, only exacerbating the extremist problem inside of Syria."
Our dilemma now is that we have no one to support – Putin does, but we don't. We're finally giving up kidding ourselves that this "Free Syrian Army" of moderate rebels still exists, if it ever did.
There are only three groups left to help: (1) Assad; (2) ISIS; and (3) al Qaeda. Many critics say: "Well, we can't help Assad, and we can't help ISIS. We can't help al Qaeda either, of course -- unless we first "re-brand" them as "moderate rebels." THEN we can help them.
The critics' problem is that most of us now see that the "moderate rebels" are mostly rebranded al Qaeda types, and we don't want to support al Qaeda, re-branded or not. That leaves us with nothing to do but sit this one out, which is exactly what we should do, and what Obama appears inclined to do.
It's much easier for Russia, of course. It has no qualms about supporting Assad, its long-time ally, and so that's what it's doing.
4
If the truth be known, Obama's Paralysis started when Russia invaded Crimea,& it continues today.The last thing Obama wants is an escalation of a possible conflict with Russia, while he's still in office. Putin does not respect him & has pushed him around, Nato is a boat without the American rudder, & can just gesture, by talking tough, but nothing else.The fact is no one is sure about what evil lurks in the head of Putin, & everyone is afraid to call his bluff.It's easy to say, draw a line in the sand sitting by my computer, while knowing we are in the Nuclear age.I don't envy Obama,& while I admire his reluctance to avoid war, I fear it may be inevitable.
6
Wow! Maybe something incredible will happen?
Putin will realize what Obama has for years now. Escalating violence will not work in the region and set Russia up as the primary terrorist target.
Peace will break out, never underestimate People's need and love of Peace, something the neo-cons just don't get. Feed and educate your kids and make money, that's what Americans want and probably the rest of the world too.
The Russians love their children too, so do the Syrians.
Putin will realize what Obama has for years now. Escalating violence will not work in the region and set Russia up as the primary terrorist target.
Peace will break out, never underestimate People's need and love of Peace, something the neo-cons just don't get. Feed and educate your kids and make money, that's what Americans want and probably the rest of the world too.
The Russians love their children too, so do the Syrians.
2
As to Russia, see Stalin, who, it is said, did indeed like children. As to Syrians, see Daesh, who love their children, teaching them from the early years how to saw off the heads of infidels.
I posit that those commenters and policy makers who prescribe a more bellicose strategy are longing for the america that once made the world safe for democracy. All countries need a narrative, a definition, a purpose and America is in presently in transition. a stalemated political system offers us no domestic achievements to proud of and the shifting sands,horrors and blunders in the middle east little feeling of accomplishment in securing a democratic and peaceful world.
i believe Obama is right to contain the damage. From a real politic perspective, if in the unlikely event Russia succeeds ISIS will be more contained a certain stability will return to the region. If they fail or are stuck in a quagmire, then they will draw fire from Islamic militants and once again prove that getting militarily involved in this region is a mistake.
Until America looks inward and seeks compromise and achievement over bickering and vitriol,our foreign policy initiatives and ideas will originate from a fractured country and are doomed to failure.A truly strong America is one that looks inward first and writes a new narrative.
i believe Obama is right to contain the damage. From a real politic perspective, if in the unlikely event Russia succeeds ISIS will be more contained a certain stability will return to the region. If they fail or are stuck in a quagmire, then they will draw fire from Islamic militants and once again prove that getting militarily involved in this region is a mistake.
Until America looks inward and seeks compromise and achievement over bickering and vitriol,our foreign policy initiatives and ideas will originate from a fractured country and are doomed to failure.A truly strong America is one that looks inward first and writes a new narrative.
4
I wish Russia the best of luck in their campaign. Bombing Isil and helping Assad are the correct moves. Unfortunately we have thrown our lot in with Israel which is committed to Assad's removal by any means necessary. I wonder if the day will ever come when our foreign policy will serve American interests, not Israel's.
6
For most part, and at a fundamental level (at least unless you have a weak or anti-American President), the objectives of democracies such as the US and Israel are quite similar. The Left, which seeks totalitarian control, is constantly at loggerheads with democracies, especially when the democracies are defending themselves from barbarians.
""Waiting out Putin's moves" is an inappropriate policy, to say the lest, for a great power. Especialy the US. Not taking a firm stand today, will be extremely costly tomorrow. Facing this situation doesn't mean necessarily going to war. Rather it needs strong and energetic "Leadership"."
I see -- "leadership," not war. What, exactly, does that mean?
I see -- "leadership," not war. What, exactly, does that mean?
Somebody please help me: who are the "moderate rebels"? What is this fictive force that is a fixed part of the equation? Also, it is possible to become a prisoner of one's own formulations: e.g. "Assad must go, "killing his own people". Obama's policies in the region are a lamentable failure. The very quagmire that is prayed for to ensnare Russia, has already entrapped us. The sensible way forward is for the Security Council to debate and agree on a consensus policy for dealing with both Syria and ISIL. Unilateralism is leading the region and possibly the world down the path to destruction.
2
The "moderate rebels" are the people who started the revolution against Assad's brutal and corrupt dictatorship. Thanks to Obama's abandoning them in 2011, not unlike his abandonment of the Iranian resistance in 2009, they are mostly dead. We are left with what are mostly murderous rapacious gangs of Islamist crazies on one side and the continuation of the Assad dictatorship on the other.
Obama's legacy is 250,000 murdered and countless tortured and raped bodies.
Obama's legacy is 250,000 murdered and countless tortured and raped bodies.
I am so very tired of all the killing and all the misery we have produced in the Mideast. We pretend to use the U.N. with our sham "coalitions", but everyone knows that's just a thin cover for the U.S. to pursue its own agenda there. We aid our friends (wow, what friends they are) turn a blind eye to their atrocities, commit a few of our own, and give our generals lots of practice with their ever newer and deadlier toys. I don't believe all the billions spent and millions of lives lost has endeared us to anyone over there. That same money could have been used to provide aid and medicine there and roads, social services, and a huge boost to the economy here. We will leave there a hated country. Does no one have the guts to admit we've failed and are doing much more harm than good? My vote will go to any candidate, no matter how wacko on his or her other policies who will get us out of the mideast.
4
"Russia wants to secure Assad. They are not going to war against ISIS. No one wants to war against ISIS. Only the Arabs can eliminate them and they aren't exactly lining up for the job."
Sounds right to me. Russia won't fight ISIS. It will just nail down Assad's portion of Syria and make clear to ISIS where the line is, ceding to ISIS everything east of that line in Syria (mostly desert) -- together with as much of Iraq as ISIS may then feel like taking.
ISIS will make a few unsuccessful thrusts past the "line" that Russia/Assad draw, and then will turn its attention elsewhere -- probably to more of Iraq, and to the Kurds. That will give the US government a brand new opportunity to prove it's not a wimp, and my strong hunch is that the US government will seize that opportunity. We'll be off on our next excellent Middle East adventure.
Sounds right to me. Russia won't fight ISIS. It will just nail down Assad's portion of Syria and make clear to ISIS where the line is, ceding to ISIS everything east of that line in Syria (mostly desert) -- together with as much of Iraq as ISIS may then feel like taking.
ISIS will make a few unsuccessful thrusts past the "line" that Russia/Assad draw, and then will turn its attention elsewhere -- probably to more of Iraq, and to the Kurds. That will give the US government a brand new opportunity to prove it's not a wimp, and my strong hunch is that the US government will seize that opportunity. We'll be off on our next excellent Middle East adventure.
Just who are these so called moderate rebels? Al Quaeda? I keep asking for clarification and get none. Let's see what Putin can do against ISIS. So far, not much.
1
Why has Obama waited until almost the end of his tenure to show some common sense?
2
The Obama administration is totally unable to comprehend what is happening and doesn't have the faintest idea of what to do. Meanwhile ISIS and Putin are becoming major world powers. I guess that is what Obama meant when he set out to reset relations with Russia.
2
“We own both of those mistakes,” Mr. McFaul said. “But that doesn’t mean you have the solution for today. Rethinking those mistakes doesn’t give you the solution for the moment that we’re in today.”
Huh? You admit mistakes yet are unwilling to readdress or refine your policy? Please, seek a proctologist about that migraine.
Huh? You admit mistakes yet are unwilling to readdress or refine your policy? Please, seek a proctologist about that migraine.
1
In medicine, people these days tend to be unwilling to acknowledge that some diseases are not curable — instead they attack the doctor for being incompetent. You accuse the administration of being "unwilling" to refine their policy. What if there is not much we can do right now? What's your solution? "Ready, fire, aim?" We've seen that already, in successive Republican administrations. The mission was not accomplished.
1
Wary should ready weary. I cannot understand why we don't remember Americans are war weary. We haven't won a war since WW 2, and our numerous adversaries know it. This RUssian incursion is a blessing in disguise. We should expect alot of Rhetoric about our decining worlds policem role but we are over it as they say. Another Trump idea has merit, let the Russians have at it, who cares.
1
The war in Syria has been very costly to those caught in the cross fire. This war NEEDS to end. The US and Russia should work together to end the war, but not for either of the sides currently but should end it quickly and with as much force as necessary. Then leave Russia to establish and stabilize a new government. It likely wouldn't be a very good government to americans but the war would be over and that should be the only thing that matters.
2
The breathtaking naiveté and fantasy thinking of the Obama team will take decades to unravel.
No more freshman senators who fancy themselves the greatest men on earth please.
No more freshman senators who fancy themselves the greatest men on earth please.
2
To take the position that Russia has walked itself into a hornets' nest, that it is an act of desperation by Putin, is hardly a strategy to stop the Syrian disaster or to defeat ISIS. Yes, Obama looks more paralyzed than patient, perhaps a bit scared.
3
I hope the president is right and I am wrong but how the heck did we get into this quagmire of ineffectiveness on the world stage??????
As Napoleon said, "Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake."
If Russia wants to own Syria the way we owned Iraq, let them. The US could not possibly look worse in the world's eyes regarding the Middle East than we already do, so no one will hold it against us if we stand on the sidelines while Russia makes thing worse. And if they restore Assad to power and declare "Mission Accomplished", let them hear how hollow those words will resonate just as they did for us.
Obama is avoiding WWIII with his policy of caution. The most responsible and humane course of action for the US regarding Syria would be to take in all the refugees who want to come, treat them well, and bring our military home too.
If Russia wants to own Syria the way we owned Iraq, let them. The US could not possibly look worse in the world's eyes regarding the Middle East than we already do, so no one will hold it against us if we stand on the sidelines while Russia makes thing worse. And if they restore Assad to power and declare "Mission Accomplished", let them hear how hollow those words will resonate just as they did for us.
Obama is avoiding WWIII with his policy of caution. The most responsible and humane course of action for the US regarding Syria would be to take in all the refugees who want to come, treat them well, and bring our military home too.
2
..and let all those innocent Syrians die in the cross-fire.
Do you really think innocent lives will be saved if the US increases its military involvement in Syria? You did hear about what happened in Kunduz earlier this week, right?
Russian missiles appear to have crashed in Iran by mistake, as Putin injects Russia into the Syrian Quagmire. Already he is beginning to face the unintended consequences that "infidels" confront in the Islamic world.
Meanwhile, as right wing Republican war hawks imagine that the defeat of ISIS will be a simple matter, Obama plays the long game. This president's cautious policies will look better as events unfold.
Meanwhile, as right wing Republican war hawks imagine that the defeat of ISIS will be a simple matter, Obama plays the long game. This president's cautious policies will look better as events unfold.
5
"Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread." --Alexander Pope
1
An Angel that sits on the sidelines watching a catastrophe, is worth less than a fool that tries to fix it -- Shark
Easy to criticize whether or not to start WW III. Although Bush had no problem jumping into shark infested waters, we now have a President that is looking both ways before placing the world at such peril. WHAT in the heck is soooo hard to understand about that? GOP is the party of mistakes and therefor spends it's days looking for other peoples mistakes because like an angry child, they want revenge.
Shouldn't we start punishing our heads of state for making egregious errors that cost lives like we would a regular manslaughter case?
We cannot punish our Generals for doing that or we would never succeed in any battle, but if the people who sent us to war were held accountable, we might just be singing the praises of Russia for handling this 'Nam-Afghanistan-like war' for US.
Shouldn't we start punishing our heads of state for making egregious errors that cost lives like we would a regular manslaughter case?
We cannot punish our Generals for doing that or we would never succeed in any battle, but if the people who sent us to war were held accountable, we might just be singing the praises of Russia for handling this 'Nam-Afghanistan-like war' for US.
4
We are talking about the same president right?
The one who arms alQueda, trains Nusra Front affiliates, and defends them when they get bombed. The one who sides with Saudi Arabia when the Saudi's told the UN not to investigate war crimes in Yemen. The one who supports a president who bombs his people, has a civil war at home, and drags protesters behind police vans (Turkey), right?
The one who arms alQueda, trains Nusra Front affiliates, and defends them when they get bombed. The one who sides with Saudi Arabia when the Saudi's told the UN not to investigate war crimes in Yemen. The one who supports a president who bombs his people, has a civil war at home, and drags protesters behind police vans (Turkey), right?
Obama sticks his head in the sand while Putin marches over Crimea, Ukraine, and now Syria. He has now withdrawn what few military advisors the U.S. had in Syria training the rebels who oppose Assad, virtually handing that country over to Russia. Doing nothing is not a strategy, it is capitulation. Sort of like Obama's capitulation to Iran in the nuclear "deal". Both do nothing strategies will end up in disaster for the United States.
3
Ok, but doing nothing is much better than shooting down Russian jets and igniting WWIII
Is Putin delusional? Seriously.
His army of paid trolls repeatedly talk about how Assad is an OK guy and has the support of so many Syrians. Yet, between the current Assad and his father, they've murdered tens of thousands of Syrians, often using chemical weapons as the murder weapon. And, everyone in the world knows this. So making Assad out to be some kind of good dictator (as if there even could be such a thing) is so obviously laughable.
In a way, it's a bit like Putin "scoring" seven goals in that hockey game and, apparently, not having a clue that everyone else saw it for what it was — a total farce. Putin truly is the emperor with no clothes.
His army of paid trolls repeatedly talk about how Assad is an OK guy and has the support of so many Syrians. Yet, between the current Assad and his father, they've murdered tens of thousands of Syrians, often using chemical weapons as the murder weapon. And, everyone in the world knows this. So making Assad out to be some kind of good dictator (as if there even could be such a thing) is so obviously laughable.
In a way, it's a bit like Putin "scoring" seven goals in that hockey game and, apparently, not having a clue that everyone else saw it for what it was — a total farce. Putin truly is the emperor with no clothes.
1
Well this clothesless emperor has the Crimea, part of Ukraine, Syria, Iran, and even some of Iraq on his side.........maybe not totally naked! eh?
Ed
Ed
"Strategic patience and persistence", by President Obama - very wise of him to bide his time, to avoid for the present the sticky situation of Bashar al Assad and Syria. President Putin has rushed in and grabbed the Syrian Tar Baby, the Hot Potato, and he's already rumbling over there. Iraq and Afghanistan were GWB's Tar Babies and still are. Awaiting further developments on the Syrian/ISIS/ISIL/New Caliphate is wiser than rushing in amok where angels fear to tread, which Vlad the Impaler is doing in Syria at present. Also wise of President Obama to abandon the $500,000,000 Pentagon project to train and arm Syrian rebels. Let Russia deal with the Bear Trap that is Syria. The US has been burnt (has burnt itself) too many times in the Middle East. Measured caution , biding his time, strategic patience are the right tack for President Obama to take. Now, if only we could elect Barack Hussein Obama for a third (and a fourth) term as our President.
4
Written in the comfort of your West Palm Beach home as thousand of Syrians are caught in a crossfire helped by the US initial inaction. Sleep on that if you can!
First things first.
The enemy common to everyone in area is ISIS which has backed up its vow to create an Islamic state with a reign of terror, rape and beheadings which won't cease until it has itself been beheaded.
Only then will a real possibility of stability in the region exist and hopefully effected followed by a modicum of peace, safety and prosperity for the people in the area.
That should be the priority of everyone involved regardless of who it is.
The enemy common to everyone in area is ISIS which has backed up its vow to create an Islamic state with a reign of terror, rape and beheadings which won't cease until it has itself been beheaded.
Only then will a real possibility of stability in the region exist and hopefully effected followed by a modicum of peace, safety and prosperity for the people in the area.
That should be the priority of everyone involved regardless of who it is.
2
Again, The Donald policy makes the most common sense. Let the Russian's wipe ISIS and as many other terror groups off the face of the earth as they want. None of our flag draped caskets will be coming home.
4
The United States should never have gone in to assist in Syrian rebels but the War Mongers insisted and here we are. They think full-blown war is the answer - more destruction of property and lives and more piles of OUR hard-earned taxpayer dollars wasted. It is time for the United States to pull out and form/join a strong NATO peace-keeping force to assist Good People who want to leave Syria to escape this horrendous attack against them by Mass Murderer Assad, Iran and now Russia. The world must condemn them with one voice. Let the despots, dictators and "religious" leaders destroy each other.
2
No reasonable person thinks the US should directly confront the Russians. The problem is that our utterly incompetent President's complete lack of action and support of anti-Assad allies sends a dangerous signal that he will not support long time allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia in a crisis and makes the prospects for a major war much more likely
3
Are we so concerned about Turkey's feelings that we won't throw our resources behind the Kurds?
3
I think Obama is starting a new and well thought out strategy in which we leave the M.E. conflict alone to it's own devices. The neocons , 1% and the military industrial complex will be outraged, wanting to waste more U.S. citizens and their tax dollars over sandbox real estate instead of investing in domestic issues that could really improve the standard of living for the 99%.
Tired of our politicians not being patriotic and destroying this country for those who can and will live in any country they please. What happened to the "US" in the U.S.?
Tired of our politicians not being patriotic and destroying this country for those who can and will live in any country they please. What happened to the "US" in the U.S.?
4
Maybe it’s a strategy, maybe he is in complete confusion.
The truth is that if he continues to do nothing, which means no more weapons to alQueda, no more advisors in the area, no more complaints when Nusra and alQueda get bombed, we will win quite a bit.
We can leave the area, avoid more treasury spent, more dead of US soldiers, and stand back to defend our real friends (Europe), instead of the fake imaginary friends we have right now (alQueda affiliates).
So yes, he should do nothing, and we would win.
The truth is that if he continues to do nothing, which means no more weapons to alQueda, no more advisors in the area, no more complaints when Nusra and alQueda get bombed, we will win quite a bit.
We can leave the area, avoid more treasury spent, more dead of US soldiers, and stand back to defend our real friends (Europe), instead of the fake imaginary friends we have right now (alQueda affiliates).
So yes, he should do nothing, and we would win.
While we bide our time, and instead of leaping impulsively at the various crises that seem to cry out for American resolution-by-force, wouldn't it be prudent to husband our resources ($) and consolidate our own forces after years of exhaustive deployment. We should be sure our forces are of the right size, fully trained and equipped; deployed to the right places to act at the time and place of our choosing for protection of American interests. This includes being able to protect from real aggression (1) Europe (including the Baltics, Poland, the Czech Republic) after Russia has stretched itself thin, (2) Asian interests (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia) in the face of Chinese expansionism, and (3) Israel and Jordan which have functional democratic societies and economies (well, mostly ... Jordan?). While America's situation does not allow precisely the same approach, we should watch and learn from China: You don't see the Chinese getting dragged into the Middle East fight which repays wasted money and lost lives with more hatred and more war. They are quietly spending their resources on better military technology, cyber-warfare, and a low-intensity but consistent, relentless, long-term approach to building real power. And if there ever is a shooting war, they will be equipped, trained, and ready-to-go -- instead of being engaged with a bloodied and exhausted army bogged down in Syria.
3
Get the hell out of the Middle East!!!! Let them figure this out for themslves.
6
When you lack a political vision of a post-civil war Syria "patience" will get you nowhere. Russia, by entering the war to secure a viable enclave for Bashar al-Assad around Damascus in southwestern Syria, has provided President Obama the opportunity to form a similar enclave with the Kurds in central Syria thus creating a classic pincher movement around ISIS. The Kurds have been and still are our most, and perhaps only, reliable "boots on the ground" both in Iraq and Syria. The alternative for Mr. Obama is to abandon the failed Syrian air war with its risks of serious international escalation and focus on shoring up Iraq by pushing ISIS back into Syria.
2
Arguments that there are alternatives to Obama's "patience and persistence" are almost universally based on an oxymoron: "moderate rebels." There is not now nor, in the history of the world, has there ever been any such fantastical creature as a "moderate rebel." Only fanatics take up arms, long-term, in a chaotic, splintered, multi-factional conflict. And criminals. That even the CIA program John McCain laughably calls "moderately successful" can't find more than about 1000 "moderate rebels" to arm is really a measure of how few local, independent drug lords there are left in Syria, because those are our go-to groups whenever we speak of arming "moderates" most places in the world. Genuine moderates, people who overall share our basic human values, do the sensible thing in the face of madness and mayhem. They do what most of us would do. They flee with their families. They become internal and external refugees. Let's take in more of them and just let the killers have at each other. By the time they are done and the most ruthless of the ruthless comes out on top, there won't be left a population of sufficiently talented, genuinely moderate people worth ruling.
5
"Mr. Obama views suggestions for more robust action as a prescription for disaster."
And I firmly agree. Let Russia impale itself on all the iron fences surrounding the multiple factions in Syria. Let them spend time, treasure, and troops in adding yet another set of hornets to the hornets' nests that form the Middle East.
So critics say the President should have trained and armed pro-American rebels sooner? Sure, we could have doubled the amount spent on the futile effort of trying to pick sides or trust in a people's will to fight. The armchair generals who carp from the right have a pretty sorry track record of their own in Middle East decision making. And picking sides that turn on us in such a fractious area of the world is insanity.
If you can call the policy decisions as a choice between doing nothing or doing something that's expensive, impulsive, and ill-thought out, then I opt for the President's choice: sit back and let Putin futz around in Syria and see where that gets him.
And I firmly agree. Let Russia impale itself on all the iron fences surrounding the multiple factions in Syria. Let them spend time, treasure, and troops in adding yet another set of hornets to the hornets' nests that form the Middle East.
So critics say the President should have trained and armed pro-American rebels sooner? Sure, we could have doubled the amount spent on the futile effort of trying to pick sides or trust in a people's will to fight. The armchair generals who carp from the right have a pretty sorry track record of their own in Middle East decision making. And picking sides that turn on us in such a fractious area of the world is insanity.
If you can call the policy decisions as a choice between doing nothing or doing something that's expensive, impulsive, and ill-thought out, then I opt for the President's choice: sit back and let Putin futz around in Syria and see where that gets him.
7
The Obama Administration can't end soon enough.
3
you will look back on this as a golden age, and wonder how you got so worked up about a civil war in a country we have no stake in.
We should arm the rebels with manpads and stingers to cause damage to the Russians bombing campaign of our allies. If the planes are not flying over rebel positions they don't become targets. Maybe that will encourage more attacks on ISIS positions and less on rebels. meanwhile, we should conserve our strength, and let the Russians expend theirs.
'We should arm the rebels with manpads and stingers to cause damage to the Russians bombing campaign of our allies. '
alQueda and Nusra front are our 'allies' in Syria. And yes we are arming them.
What a shame.
alQueda and Nusra front are our 'allies' in Syria. And yes we are arming them.
What a shame.
1
The present situation in Syria equals McNamara's situation with President Johnson lying about alleged attacks from North Vietnam on US vessels causing the Vietnam War and the deaths of 55.000 US GI's.
Washington's intrigues and lies are all over from Obama's speech at UNGA to the lies by defence secretary Carter and his bullhorn Jens Stoltenberg of NATO.
WW III has already started by USA with its MSM propaganda brainwashing the American people while their tax dollars are being wasted on Washington's dreams and doctrines to rule the world with the excuse of bringing democracy. All it has brought is misery to the people of sovereign nations who were happy with their lives as it was. US democracy only benefits the rich and warmongers like SOROS who will make money out of the people's misery as we see also in Ukraine. Dead people for Washington are only 'collateral damage' as we see again with the recent bombing of the Doctors without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan.
Like president Putin said to the West; Look what you have done? Millions of refugees fleeing their homes and hundred of thousands innocent women and children murdered by US/NATO bombs.
President Obama you have the blood of these innocent people on YOUR HANDS. Stop this Syrian massacre and coordinate the military efforts and give up your effort to remove a democratically elected president Assad, who already indicated that he would step down IF the SYRIAN people want that.
Until then Assad is President.
Washington's intrigues and lies are all over from Obama's speech at UNGA to the lies by defence secretary Carter and his bullhorn Jens Stoltenberg of NATO.
WW III has already started by USA with its MSM propaganda brainwashing the American people while their tax dollars are being wasted on Washington's dreams and doctrines to rule the world with the excuse of bringing democracy. All it has brought is misery to the people of sovereign nations who were happy with their lives as it was. US democracy only benefits the rich and warmongers like SOROS who will make money out of the people's misery as we see also in Ukraine. Dead people for Washington are only 'collateral damage' as we see again with the recent bombing of the Doctors without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan.
Like president Putin said to the West; Look what you have done? Millions of refugees fleeing their homes and hundred of thousands innocent women and children murdered by US/NATO bombs.
President Obama you have the blood of these innocent people on YOUR HANDS. Stop this Syrian massacre and coordinate the military efforts and give up your effort to remove a democratically elected president Assad, who already indicated that he would step down IF the SYRIAN people want that.
Until then Assad is President.
Not only can Obama not articulate what he wants to see happen in Syria, he cannot even make a coherent case against what Russia is doing there.
The fact is that those moderate rebels are fighting alongside the Islamists under a common army called the Army of Conquest, and either that army wins or is defeated. And the Obama administration does in fact want to see this army defeated because the great bulk of their fighting is being done by rebels fighting under the flag of al Quida and having them take over Syria is not a solution in anyone's book.
Russia even agreed not to target those rebel units who are moderates and are being supported by the CIA and asked the US to tell them the locations of those units and that they will not be targeted. The US refused to respond, arguing that if they tell the Russians the locations of those units then the Russians may deliberately target them.
So Obama's whole complaint against Russia, that it is targeting those rebels supported by the US is a lie, as he admits that not only does Russia have no knowledge of their locations, but that their locations must be held secret from the Russians.
Still, Obama is acting as if Russia's actions in Syria makes them a threat to world peace and so he sent NATO troops to "protect" the Baltic states from Russia. Obama should keep his personal peeves with Putin to himself, instead of talking nonsense and acting as if he has the interest of all the West in mind.
The fact is that those moderate rebels are fighting alongside the Islamists under a common army called the Army of Conquest, and either that army wins or is defeated. And the Obama administration does in fact want to see this army defeated because the great bulk of their fighting is being done by rebels fighting under the flag of al Quida and having them take over Syria is not a solution in anyone's book.
Russia even agreed not to target those rebel units who are moderates and are being supported by the CIA and asked the US to tell them the locations of those units and that they will not be targeted. The US refused to respond, arguing that if they tell the Russians the locations of those units then the Russians may deliberately target them.
So Obama's whole complaint against Russia, that it is targeting those rebels supported by the US is a lie, as he admits that not only does Russia have no knowledge of their locations, but that their locations must be held secret from the Russians.
Still, Obama is acting as if Russia's actions in Syria makes them a threat to world peace and so he sent NATO troops to "protect" the Baltic states from Russia. Obama should keep his personal peeves with Putin to himself, instead of talking nonsense and acting as if he has the interest of all the West in mind.
1
Seems like a win-win to me. If the Russians can clean up the mess in Syria, great. If they get bogged down, great - let THEM be the "Great Satan" for while and give us a break.
While campaigning for President, Mr. Obama said: "I am not against all war----I am only against stupid wars."
Mr. Obama's prudent hesitation to become further involved in Syria is proof that he understands the difference between a necessary war and a stupid war. We should have never provided arms or support to any of the so-called "rebels", and we certainly should not engage in any more direct fashion. Nothing we can do in Syria will make us safer or bring peace to a region that was completely torn apart by our illegitimate and completely failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama's prudent hesitation to become further involved in Syria is proof that he understands the difference between a necessary war and a stupid war. We should have never provided arms or support to any of the so-called "rebels", and we certainly should not engage in any more direct fashion. Nothing we can do in Syria will make us safer or bring peace to a region that was completely torn apart by our illegitimate and completely failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The ISIS wouldn`t rise without help from outside (try to find out from where, compare with Egypt or Iraq, etc). After support of radical opposition by USA (+), it was not a surprise that some terroristic organization appeared and rised.
Last whole year International coalition (headed by USA) did absolutely nothing useful during so-called “fighting against ISIS” (the main task was to spend more money to support US-military companies, traditionally related with US-elite). Instead, USA with Saud Arabia armed the army of “proper” opposition, trained troops gave them ammunition and supported by any means with the 1 only reason – to overthrow Asad`s regime. Would you please explain which rebels with arms are proper and which are not? In current context of western mass-media, “proper” opposition = against Asad and out of ISIS (doesn’t matter if they will be controlled ISIS later). From the standpoint of any responsible people, ANY anti-government action with guns in one`s hands - is the sign terroristic activity.
Now, as Russia started to destroy terrorists in truth (with the mandate from legal Syrian government), many western TV-clowns started to cry about “wrong” actions of Russians. Western people (tv-show nation) are talking too much with unchecked information usage. Russians don’t like to argufy, they do what they must (good example for imitation). The advice is to step away, watch how you must to fight against terrorism, and shut up if you cant do the same.
Last whole year International coalition (headed by USA) did absolutely nothing useful during so-called “fighting against ISIS” (the main task was to spend more money to support US-military companies, traditionally related with US-elite). Instead, USA with Saud Arabia armed the army of “proper” opposition, trained troops gave them ammunition and supported by any means with the 1 only reason – to overthrow Asad`s regime. Would you please explain which rebels with arms are proper and which are not? In current context of western mass-media, “proper” opposition = against Asad and out of ISIS (doesn’t matter if they will be controlled ISIS later). From the standpoint of any responsible people, ANY anti-government action with guns in one`s hands - is the sign terroristic activity.
Now, as Russia started to destroy terrorists in truth (with the mandate from legal Syrian government), many western TV-clowns started to cry about “wrong” actions of Russians. Western people (tv-show nation) are talking too much with unchecked information usage. Russians don’t like to argufy, they do what they must (good example for imitation). The advice is to step away, watch how you must to fight against terrorism, and shut up if you cant do the same.
The fact that the United States finds itself with no influence over the forces in Syria or Iraq demonstrates the TOTAL COLLAPSE of US Middle East policy since in 1948.
Pubs can complain and Hillary can bluster, but the plain truth is that we are left with no good solutions.
Two measures to restore credibility and thus leverage: First, ORDER the Saudis and Qataris (privately of course) to STOP FUNDING TERRORISTS in Syria, Iraq, Libya and other places; second, CUT FUNDING to Israel until implements what it has already agreed to implement, starting with the dismantlement of the settlements deemed illegal by Israeli law. Tie AID to progress in peace, just as we already due (ruthlessly) with the Palestinians. Back up our words in ALL the international finance bodies with strong action to reduce funding to these countries to a minimum!
Their supporters will scream that we are anti-Jewish and anti-Arab, but this is the ONLY way to re-establish a semblance of credibility in the region. With our credibility restored, the US can be powerful force for good, instead of apologists for EVIL.
Pubs can complain and Hillary can bluster, but the plain truth is that we are left with no good solutions.
Two measures to restore credibility and thus leverage: First, ORDER the Saudis and Qataris (privately of course) to STOP FUNDING TERRORISTS in Syria, Iraq, Libya and other places; second, CUT FUNDING to Israel until implements what it has already agreed to implement, starting with the dismantlement of the settlements deemed illegal by Israeli law. Tie AID to progress in peace, just as we already due (ruthlessly) with the Palestinians. Back up our words in ALL the international finance bodies with strong action to reduce funding to these countries to a minimum!
Their supporters will scream that we are anti-Jewish and anti-Arab, but this is the ONLY way to re-establish a semblance of credibility in the region. With our credibility restored, the US can be powerful force for good, instead of apologists for EVIL.
Obama wants us to go from sole superpower to a co-superpower (sharing status with Russia)
One more thing for President Trump to reverse.....
One more thing for President Trump to reverse.....
It's time our ex-community activist, half-term U.S. Senator, amateur politician hopelessly out of his depths, but peerless rhetorician POTUS stand aside the fracas and let Russia walk into the quagmire. Since Obama issued so many warnings against the Assad regime -- "the red line," et. al. -- but none he had the strategy and courage to impose, let Putin do the clean up work.
If Putin's intervention destroys ISIL but leaves the Assad regime in power, so be it. He'd remove the threat of a barbaric, bloodthirsty, and obscurantist religio-terrorist horde bent on imposing a seventh-century regressive ideology on the 21st century. In fact, the experience of American interventions in the Middle East over the past 60 years has been uniformly dismal. Whenever we have inserted ourselves into the region and tried to impose "secularism and democracy" on people who incidentally care not a whit for them nor transcend their sectarian and tribal mores and values, we've failed miserably. Our leaders don't understand but continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over hoping for a different outcome is that the Arab world is not socially, politically and religiously conditioned into accepting the values the West holds so dear. Despots and hereditary rulers -- witness Iraq, Libya and now Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies -- succeed because they know precisely how to keep their citizens under repressive control.
Let's not misguidedly intervene and get the genie out of the bottle.
If Putin's intervention destroys ISIL but leaves the Assad regime in power, so be it. He'd remove the threat of a barbaric, bloodthirsty, and obscurantist religio-terrorist horde bent on imposing a seventh-century regressive ideology on the 21st century. In fact, the experience of American interventions in the Middle East over the past 60 years has been uniformly dismal. Whenever we have inserted ourselves into the region and tried to impose "secularism and democracy" on people who incidentally care not a whit for them nor transcend their sectarian and tribal mores and values, we've failed miserably. Our leaders don't understand but continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over hoping for a different outcome is that the Arab world is not socially, politically and religiously conditioned into accepting the values the West holds so dear. Despots and hereditary rulers -- witness Iraq, Libya and now Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies -- succeed because they know precisely how to keep their citizens under repressive control.
Let's not misguidedly intervene and get the genie out of the bottle.
Could it be that doing nothing, and having no policy for further invention is the wisest policy? Would we really suffer by having Russia take hold of the hot potato and become the focal point of future Islamic hatred?
15
Watch this brief speech by one of America's great Generals if you want to 1. Understand what's really going on over the last 2 decades, 2. You want to intelligently talk about it, and 3. You want to develop your own ideas about our foreign policy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84924572&x-yt-ts=1422411861&am...
After you've seen it then the question is: Exactly how did Obama become a captive of the forces that got us into the Middle East. By captive I mean slave captive. It was apparent from the moment he kept on so many of the key people of the Bush administration and they or their like kinds are still there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84924572&x-yt-ts=1422411861&am...
After you've seen it then the question is: Exactly how did Obama become a captive of the forces that got us into the Middle East. By captive I mean slave captive. It was apparent from the moment he kept on so many of the key people of the Bush administration and they or their like kinds are still there.
2
Here's my strategy:
Admit that our Air Farce is just that. Ask any military historian how wars are won, and you'll be told "by boots on the ground."
Reinstitute the Draft and send in 250,000 troops. No deferments this time. The offspring of the Senators and Congressmen will be at the top of the list.
Admit that our Air Farce is just that. Ask any military historian how wars are won, and you'll be told "by boots on the ground."
Reinstitute the Draft and send in 250,000 troops. No deferments this time. The offspring of the Senators and Congressmen will be at the top of the list.
1
Yeah, send in 250,000 of our boys. a large number of which will die or be maimed, so we can topple Asad and replace him with radical muslims ruling a fragmentary Syria. Great idea!
Yes, wars are won by boots on the ground. Do we really want to send in troops to a region where allegiances are as fluid as sand through fingers?
A bit of a generalization about the boots, isn't that. Serbia? Libya?
Depends on your opponent, though, don't you think? But probably true in Syria.
Depends on your opponent, though, don't you think? But probably true in Syria.
This is the normal and expected reaction to our financial sanction over Putin's Russia. Did we really expect him to say "UNCLE".
2
Putin gives the U.S. a perfect opportunity to depart the quagmire in the Middle East. Let the Russians get bogged down in an unsolvable mess killing their soldiers and burning through billions of rubles.
8
1. If the opportunity is so perfect to leave Syria, why is Obama ramping up US military activity there?
2. Russia burning through rubles to fix what Obama totally screwed up won't replace the billions of dollars Obama burned through in Syria, but its a start.
You should be thanking Putin, not vilifying him.
2. Russia burning through rubles to fix what Obama totally screwed up won't replace the billions of dollars Obama burned through in Syria, but its a start.
You should be thanking Putin, not vilifying him.
1
Russian goal is different ,though. They want to demonstrate to Obama, and, accordingly, to McCain and others that Russia is not a marginal 3rd world country with miserable economics. Surely, these people know this,but they like to tease the bear and to calm down the US population. This happens to be risky. Russia would never dare to airstrike Syria without Chinese support. Such turn of events was not planned in the heads of US strategists. Furthermore, all these talks about China being harmless to US serve a very bad service to US interests. But, I am afraid, now is too little and to late.The train is gone.....
The lack of leadership on the president and congress's part is distressing. We don't go in with boots on the ground because we fear that they will chop the heads off of a soldier or burn them alive on youtube. Instead of massing overwhelming force, we do almost nothing and our allies pick up on our trepidation. Putin, Iran, Assad even ISIS and the Taliban know this. We shouldn't jump into every struggle, but this is the main struggle of the day and there is a leadership vacuum that dispirits everyone even tangentially on our side. It seems like every group or country we don't like has become more powerful and buoyed by each other while at the same time our allies and friends have become distant from us and frightened around the world with the exception of Colombia, not an intercontinental player, and that has been a very long term project stretching back I believe to the very end of the Clinton administration. Our allies are willing to fight to the last Syrian? Isn't that what we are doing? Waiting to see if Russia suffers casualties or it ends by attrition? Waiting to see if enough Syrians flee or kill one another that they can't fight anymore? How can we or anyone can now even attempt to oust Assad without shooting at Russia? We know the hesitation and appeasement that led to WWII and we have forgotten the lessons of it. This is why those who project power, like Trump and Putin, are admired by so many.
An aspect that is being overlooked is that, very soon the Military Industrial Complex in Russia will come to the realization of how profitable war is to their coffers. When that happens, Russia will be more assertive on the international stage
2
Looking back - Sept. 2013 - when chemical weapons had been used in Syria, this is how America was planning to deal with the problem:
"Members of the Senate Foreign Relations committee hammered out a deal on Tuesday evening that would set a 60-day deadline for military action in Syria, with one 30-day extension possible, according to a draft of the resolution.
The proposal, drafted by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., would also bar the involvement of U.S. ground forces in Syria, according to the draft. Menendez is the chairman of the foreign relations committee and Corker is the top Republican.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/03/senate-resolution...
Nothing came of it ... to bring us where we are today. We cannot do anything by "committee".
Still "waiting"!
"Members of the Senate Foreign Relations committee hammered out a deal on Tuesday evening that would set a 60-day deadline for military action in Syria, with one 30-day extension possible, according to a draft of the resolution.
The proposal, drafted by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., would also bar the involvement of U.S. ground forces in Syria, according to the draft. Menendez is the chairman of the foreign relations committee and Corker is the top Republican.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/03/senate-resolution...
Nothing came of it ... to bring us where we are today. We cannot do anything by "committee".
Still "waiting"!
Trying to solve the problems of the Middle East with military action is like trying to cure schizophrenia with brain surgery.
10
Who exactly are the "moderates" in this equation? The main opposition Jaish al-Fatah is composed mostly of Al Qaida elements (al-Nusra). So we are going to risk a hot war with Russia in support of Al Qaida? There are actually some geniuses out there who would urge President Obama to engage in this strategic lunacy.
7
U.S. officials are turning handsprings to convince the world that they are still relevant to all this, but increasingly they are not. Putin probably doesn't care what Washington thinks one way or another. He obviously is pursuing a very logical and deliberate strategy to destroy the Chechen-led Islamic State before it can metastasize further into Russia itself. Obama is to be commended for ignoring the Beltway cowboys who advocate belligerent U.S. action to interfere with Russia's strategy.
5
I have my calendar marked, and cross off each day until President Obama is out of office. It is a learning lesson to me in politics how important it is to select the right person for the right job and Mr. Obama was not the correct person for the Presidency. His foreign policy is in tatters, inconceivably in disrepair. 'Sitting it out and waiting to see the next move of Mr. Putin'. Oh, how the mighty have fallen, America. Whether Democrat/Republican/Independent, we require a strong Presidency in the coming years.
2
What foreign policy?
1
a foreign policy where few American troops are in harm's way is a successful foreign policy. you are seeing strength - the easy and weak thing to do is lob missiles for the appearance of doing something and being strong.
We have no real allies in the opposition rebel forces fighting against troops loyal to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. And the NYT recently reported officials in the Obama administration have finally admitted after the US had spent $500 million for training our supposed allies, they have placed a mere four or five of these rebels in the field. Maybe that's also part of the this Orwellian "Rubik's Cube Syndrome." to distinguish this debacle from a previous one that the US fought and blamed on the "Vietnam Syndrome." So I wish President Putin well. He can't do any worse that we have done. And he has surprised critics in the past with his strategy in the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Obama's run out of options. He knows it. Putin knows it. Americans people know it. Maybe Putin can redeploy some of his "little green men" from eastern Ukraine into Syria? Obama's clearly entered the lameduck phase of his presidency, and he probably just wants to leave the White House without committing another major military blunder after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Especially, I would think after all that "collateral damage" in Kunduz which a NYT editorial condemned as "outrageous" and "dehumanizing," Americans have had it with war. They've got no skin in the game with a volunteer armed forces. Hawks tried to resurrect the ghost of America as policeman to the world. Well, they got mugged. And the policeman never showed up even to file a report. Enough is enough already.
3
Obama knows that he and his Administration lack the will, strategy and knowledge to foster outcomes that in any way advance US interests in the Mideast, and so he does nothing. Into the vacuum come players who do want to shape things to their advantage and they are doing so - ISIS, the Kurds, Assad, Iran, and now Putin. Obama's non-intervention is not costless - he has ceded leadership in the region to these other groups, he has watched 250,000 people die, he has watched half a country's population be displaced, he has watched IS build a Caliphate, and now he is watching Russia and Assad create a rump state in alliance with Hezbollah and Iran. Inaction, indecision, and inability to formulate and execute a strategy beneficial to the USA has huge costs for everyone.
2
REPETERS: I would never pretend to be the "national conscience " of the US, or claim that I know more than some of the experts in STATE or NSC who r telecommanding our foreign policy in SYRIA, but only a fool could not see that we r being humiliated by the unholy alliance of ASSAD, ROUHANNI and PUTIN, who, together re wreaking havoc and mayhem on the Syrian civilian population , including our allies, the FSA.whom we have betrayed not once,but twice.One look at the footage on CNN of injured, dead children, far away from the combat zones, victims of Russian and Syrian attacks, makes you realize that there is something wrong, immoral with this picture, and that we as a nation have abdicated our role in the ME to scoundrels. Fair is fair, but the responsibility comes from within the WH, and O's determination to please, ingratiate himself to genuflect to our worst enemies.Jokingly, you call it a "sandbox?"Why not call it a "charnier(mass grave) for the victims of barrel bombs targeting women."A qui la faute?" One should look no further than the OVAL OFFICE, to those who r in over their heads. Where r the Allen DULLES's and the JOHN J. MCLOY's, real professionals,when we need them most?Under O, we have become an easy mark, pushovers for international ,"meurtriers" who don't mind seeing blood spilled, so long as it is not their own.I wonder if O and his team sleep well at night, or r bothered by images of those suffering children?
E E, WW (East is East, West is West). Christian West killings of Muslims: US in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Iraq (again). Russia: Afghanistan, Chechnya. Now, Syria.
==========
==========
Waiting out Putin is not a strategy, it is a refusal to confront the problem. More important, it plays directly into Putin's hand. In the meantime, while we are waiting, Putin will continue to enhance Russia's image as a reemerging world power as he attempts to rebuild the Soviet Union. He will certainly also increase Russia's power, prestige, and influence within the region.
As a result of the indecision and reluctance of the US to act, Putin will also soon be suggesting that he has neutralized the US and put it in its place. This will have long term implications as some countries in the region will certainly become more aligned with Russia and less so with the US, which will not be seen as the reliable ally it once was.
It will be interesting to see what the Palestinians do in in response to these developments and the support they would get from Putin, if they moved in his direction. The increased Palestinian related violence in Israel may be a precursor of things to come.
As a result of the indecision and reluctance of the US to act, Putin will also soon be suggesting that he has neutralized the US and put it in its place. This will have long term implications as some countries in the region will certainly become more aligned with Russia and less so with the US, which will not be seen as the reliable ally it once was.
It will be interesting to see what the Palestinians do in in response to these developments and the support they would get from Putin, if they moved in his direction. The increased Palestinian related violence in Israel may be a precursor of things to come.
2
Critics argue that "Obama should have armed pro-American rebels much earlier and either should never have drawn a “red line” warning against the use of chemical weapons or followed through on his threat to launch missile strikes against Mr. Assad for violating it."
Obama's advisers shouldn't say that "those decisions were wrong in hindsight." Russia would still have been able to step in and prop up the Assad regime. Remember the op-ed Putin placed in the NYT on September 11, 2013? He was pleading with Obama for "caution". Had the US launched airstrikes against Syria, Assad would definitely have begged Putin for help, and the latter would certainly have joined the fray.
The administration is doing the right thing by "waiting out Putin's moves". Assad is desperate, but time is not on Russia's side neither, and Putin will no doubt make mistakes. There is nothing the world can do but to "wait for Russia to bog down the way it did in Afghanistan."
Obama's advisers shouldn't say that "those decisions were wrong in hindsight." Russia would still have been able to step in and prop up the Assad regime. Remember the op-ed Putin placed in the NYT on September 11, 2013? He was pleading with Obama for "caution". Had the US launched airstrikes against Syria, Assad would definitely have begged Putin for help, and the latter would certainly have joined the fray.
The administration is doing the right thing by "waiting out Putin's moves". Assad is desperate, but time is not on Russia's side neither, and Putin will no doubt make mistakes. There is nothing the world can do but to "wait for Russia to bog down the way it did in Afghanistan."
2
The Russian’s seemingly endless pursuit to mock, taunt and troll the Obama administration ramped up today when the Kremlin released secret video of a meeting with U.S. officials – posting it for all to laugh at on YouTube.
The fact that the Russian’s are brazen enough to record and publicly release any part of a supposed confidential meeting with U.S. officials is a freighting prospect.
The meeting was held to discuss “air safety,” and to add insult to injury, Russian fighter jets took to the Syrian skies to literally push American jets out of Syrian airspace. As CNN reported, Russian planes came within 20 nautical miles of U.S. planes, forcing them to retreat. The U.S. is losing its superpower status at an alarming rate, if it’s not completely gone already.
Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/10/08/humiliating-russians-relentlessly...
The fact that the Russian’s are brazen enough to record and publicly release any part of a supposed confidential meeting with U.S. officials is a freighting prospect.
The meeting was held to discuss “air safety,” and to add insult to injury, Russian fighter jets took to the Syrian skies to literally push American jets out of Syrian airspace. As CNN reported, Russian planes came within 20 nautical miles of U.S. planes, forcing them to retreat. The U.S. is losing its superpower status at an alarming rate, if it’s not completely gone already.
Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/10/08/humiliating-russians-relentlessly...
6
So our missives and missiles are ineffective and, possibly, Putin's are? What's the difference? Is Putin the Trump of geopolitics?
Incidentally, I heard Putin will rename Russia. The country's new name is Vladimir Goes Topless.
Incidentally, I heard Putin will rename Russia. The country's new name is Vladimir Goes Topless.
You have this backwards. The US is leaving and the Russians are getting themselves into quagmire.
Superpowers don't waste assets on a quagmire they save them for when they are actually needed.
Superpowers don't waste assets on a quagmire they save them for when they are actually needed.
1
We were already in this same problem in Afghanistan.
The Soviets were our Cold War enemy, and confronting them was our first priority.
Unfortunately, they were on the right side in Afghanistan. They had the Westernized secular modernizing government. We had the Islamic jihadis who became the Taliban.
So after we ran out the Russians, we changed sides. We called their old friends the Northern Alliance, and we gave it our Special Forces and air support to overthrow the Taliban.
Then we threw in far more money than the Russians ever had to offer, and the old Russian friends went totally corrupt, not just our money but drug money too. They did not do that under the Russians. That was our mismanagement of an unstable post war politics, in which we let corruption run wild because the corrupt were also the most malleable, and would let us do whatever we wanted. Remember the first two "Afghan Presidents" were effectively appointed by the US, as Proconsuls with no domestic base and deep US ties.
Now this articles "the critics" want to do the same in Syria, supporting something even worse than the Taliban, hoping to end up with Assad's government without Assad as our puppet.
This didn't work when we tried it before, and it won't work any better this time if the same critics get us to do it.
The Soviets were our Cold War enemy, and confronting them was our first priority.
Unfortunately, they were on the right side in Afghanistan. They had the Westernized secular modernizing government. We had the Islamic jihadis who became the Taliban.
So after we ran out the Russians, we changed sides. We called their old friends the Northern Alliance, and we gave it our Special Forces and air support to overthrow the Taliban.
Then we threw in far more money than the Russians ever had to offer, and the old Russian friends went totally corrupt, not just our money but drug money too. They did not do that under the Russians. That was our mismanagement of an unstable post war politics, in which we let corruption run wild because the corrupt were also the most malleable, and would let us do whatever we wanted. Remember the first two "Afghan Presidents" were effectively appointed by the US, as Proconsuls with no domestic base and deep US ties.
Now this articles "the critics" want to do the same in Syria, supporting something even worse than the Taliban, hoping to end up with Assad's government without Assad as our puppet.
This didn't work when we tried it before, and it won't work any better this time if the same critics get us to do it.
8
@ Mark Thompson: "they (The Russians) were on the right side in Afghanistan."
The USSR invaded Afghanistan. They were on the right side?
What an amazing distortion from a leftist!
The USSR invaded Afghanistan. They were on the right side?
What an amazing distortion from a leftist!
2
It's comforting that everyone seems to think that the role the US is taking is the best even though the administration and our president has not even explained their strategy - or lack thereof. If we are keeping out of the conflict in the Middle East, what are our planes - manned and unmanned - doing over there? This isn't just about Syria. It's about the whole region. To say we are fighting ISIS is a joke. You can't pick your battles in this region - it all seems to be intertwined. If we want to stay out of it, get our planes, drones and missiles out of it as well. Maybe it is about time the administration explains its role to the American people.
1
Repeated US attempts to alternately moderate and exploit the Sunni/Shiite divide have been a disaster for all concerned and have only exacerbated the conflict. As for Russia, the US foolishly expended all of its political capital over the fate of the eastern one-tenth of Ukraine. While Russia might have been a useful partner in engineering a peaceful transition in Syria, it is now the equivalent of the US House of Representatives, instinctively undermining anything Mr. Obama might try to do, just on principle.
2
Keep increasing the sanctions against Putin; he will eventually wear out his welcome in Syria and at home. Then after he slaughters thousands of protesters in the streets of Moscow, he'll be run out of town, hopefully long before it becomes another Syria.
4
It could have all unfolded much differently. Even with the fundamental disagreements on Syria. President Obama and Putin met right after giving speeches at the UN. Obama could have said; Do you have room for a buff cell at your latakia airbase? After sorting out the terminology on B52's, I am sure the Russians would ask what Obama had in mind. A little carpet bombing on the outskirts of Raqqa, for phsychological operations. Plus to dent defenses and make it easier for the Kurds and allies to move forward on Raqqa offensive. This would not take long and would have maximum effect on ISIS. They seem to be more nervous of the Russians, turning off the electricity at night now. What about a cell escorted by SU-30's. (leaflets delivered first). Blowing out eardrums a half mile away is bound to have an impact on recruitment.
I doubt Putin and Russia would have ever agreed but their refusal would have made his speeaking of the ww2 alliance moot. If agreed follow through. I suppose a plan having all supplies delivered by UPS planes would be best. First thing in should be Air Force disaster relief kitchen trailer with rations etc. Of course for the duration of operations Russian servicemen would be welcome at the mess. All other operations except food service should be minimized. UPS planes would deliver mail and of course Amazon purchases shipped via UPS. 30-60 sorties would be sufficient to put a sort of cordon around Raqqa. You might ask why, well why not. Nothing ventured ....
I doubt Putin and Russia would have ever agreed but their refusal would have made his speeaking of the ww2 alliance moot. If agreed follow through. I suppose a plan having all supplies delivered by UPS planes would be best. First thing in should be Air Force disaster relief kitchen trailer with rations etc. Of course for the duration of operations Russian servicemen would be welcome at the mess. All other operations except food service should be minimized. UPS planes would deliver mail and of course Amazon purchases shipped via UPS. 30-60 sorties would be sufficient to put a sort of cordon around Raqqa. You might ask why, well why not. Nothing ventured ....
Staying out of a sovereign nation's civil war is pretty good foreign policy. Leave the Russians to it. And good luck to them.
The only ones who can settle this thousand year old mess is the Syrians themselves.
The only ones who can settle this thousand year old mess is the Syrians themselves.
4
Why on earth did we decide all of the sudden that Assad was intolerable after a decade of his running Syria in a stable effective way and start carpet bombing that country even after Congress voted against it? My bet is the Neocons of dual citizenship in this country demanded it so they could steal the Golan Heights and Obama went along to placate the most warring people on the planet. Destroying Syria is every bit as inane as destroying Iraq, all done because we could, but for no other rational reason. Russia is restoring stability we destroyed, creating ISIL in the process, with our inexplicable need to bomb the bejeezus out of someone. Get out of the Middle East and leave it to the war mongers. As always, Peter Baker's writing is so politically polluted as to be taken with a grain of salt.
2
What options does Obama have? This seems like another Afghanistan for Russia. Let them have it.
We have our own Afghanistan. Afghanistan!
What do we do? Give arms to ISIS militants? They would use them against America and its allies just as well. We are not assured of where those weapons will go.
There is no good side in this conflict. There is no one to support.
Let Russia deplete itself in Syria.
There is a good probability that they will be dug in there for years.
It is unnecessary for us to choose sides just because Russia has decided to support Assad.
The side we would have supported has been absorbed into ISIS or have become the refugees fleeing the conflict.
Our side is no longer there.
We have our own Afghanistan. Afghanistan!
What do we do? Give arms to ISIS militants? They would use them against America and its allies just as well. We are not assured of where those weapons will go.
There is no good side in this conflict. There is no one to support.
Let Russia deplete itself in Syria.
There is a good probability that they will be dug in there for years.
It is unnecessary for us to choose sides just because Russia has decided to support Assad.
The side we would have supported has been absorbed into ISIS or have become the refugees fleeing the conflict.
Our side is no longer there.
1
$300 million dollars in US military weapons went missing last year in Iraq and Libya. The US military failed to secure these weapons for whatever reason. US-backed Kurdish fighters while battling ISIS in Syria found these very same weapons on dead ISIS members.
So to answer your question ISIS already have US weapons.
So to answer your question ISIS already have US weapons.
When you have no plan its best to do nothing and wait till another leader takes over. Looking back over the last eight years it is clear Obama has had no plan and the middle east has exploded into a mess he cannot handle. One thing is sure it will be worse for the next president than it was for Obama when he took over.
2
If I understand the article correctly, Obama will do nothing about the Russian's attacking Assad's other enemies while the US will keep attacking ISIS. That sounds like a victory for Putin and Assad, with the US doing half of their dirty work for them.
Strategic patience indeed. If Obama truly had strategic patience, perhaps he would have waited for declaring support for the alleged "moderate rebels" and a crusade against ISIS. Obama has now committed himself to acting as Assad's hatchetman against ISIS.
Strategic patience indeed. If Obama truly had strategic patience, perhaps he would have waited for declaring support for the alleged "moderate rebels" and a crusade against ISIS. Obama has now committed himself to acting as Assad's hatchetman against ISIS.
1
"Strategic patience and persistence" is looking a lot like "Only a year to go, and it will be the next guy's problem." That has been the administration's foreign policy since 2013. Wait it out, and claim victories where they can be found by a path of least resistance, including through acquiescence or appeasement (Iran, Cuba). Leadership is defined by this White House as being the nation's and world's leading scold. Congress is stupid. Republicans are stupid. Putin is stupid. Assad is a stupid monster. Opponents of the Iran deal? Stupid. And crazy. Whether or not these are accurate criticisms, the growing carnage in the Middle East suggests leading from the sidelines does not work.
1
Don't detect a groundswell in the US for either removing Assad or challenging Russia in its sphere of action, so Obama is in line with that thinking. The popular support for US military is geared towards assisting the Kurds and containing ISIS; and here Obama is not passive. And in those plans the US is best able to check Putin's unknown ambitions.
ISIS needs to be contained - defeated if possible. There can be no let up here. ISIS remains the greatest challenge to Middle East stability; and to world wide terrorists threats. In this regard, Assad is a non-player; so why question Obama? Unfortunately that doesn't mean the US can ignore Putin as he engages in muscle flexing. Europe is uncomfortably feeling the Putin heat and questioning US commitment.
In Europe Obama has been unjustifiably timid with NATO developments which leaves Putin free to act on his empire restoration dreams. That's a failure of Obama and his team that is very significant in the long term.
ISIS needs to be contained - defeated if possible. There can be no let up here. ISIS remains the greatest challenge to Middle East stability; and to world wide terrorists threats. In this regard, Assad is a non-player; so why question Obama? Unfortunately that doesn't mean the US can ignore Putin as he engages in muscle flexing. Europe is uncomfortably feeling the Putin heat and questioning US commitment.
In Europe Obama has been unjustifiably timid with NATO developments which leaves Putin free to act on his empire restoration dreams. That's a failure of Obama and his team that is very significant in the long term.
2
Russia has an intense interest in maintaining Assad control on the Mediterranean coast of Syria as the Russians use the airfields and Latakia is the main Russian naval base in the Mediterranean. So they will fight the anti-Assad rebels and ISIS or anyone who is likely to threaten those facilities. Like many a US president has said before (about so-called US 'property), they "are just protecting their interests'. They WILL fight ISIS but others as well
1
Syria must not be treated as battle ground for any party rather all the stakeholders while showing supreme level of wisdom, tolerance and non-violence should sincerely work together to restore peace and normalcy in this troubled land. It is unfortunate that the major actors hardly think of humanitarian crisis and doing arms trade on the blood of innocents. The United Nations must intervene in this matter to ensure a peaceful transformation of conflict to rescue the humanity sandwiched therein.
Weapons that should have been provided to the opposition but was not. Once again this did not occur because of America's relationship with Israel. Israel is and always will be a pain in the side of America.
The Palestinian cause has been the fuel that nations of the Middle East despise America. But America is bound to back the bully on the block. And ISIS has now become the future threat to Israel. If ISIS has the audacity to challenge America, well the tiny country of Israel is in trouble years down the road.
Perhaps when this occurs, Israel will be begging for peace? Nope. America will back Israel regardless of their aggression.
Until America allows Israel to defend itself without America's intervention, the Middle East will continue to be a quagmire for America. So sad that one tiny nation can have such a profound affect on such a great wealthy nation. As the previous President of Iran stated "If America loves Israel that much, why don't you give them Florida".
The Palestinian cause has been the fuel that nations of the Middle East despise America. But America is bound to back the bully on the block. And ISIS has now become the future threat to Israel. If ISIS has the audacity to challenge America, well the tiny country of Israel is in trouble years down the road.
Perhaps when this occurs, Israel will be begging for peace? Nope. America will back Israel regardless of their aggression.
Until America allows Israel to defend itself without America's intervention, the Middle East will continue to be a quagmire for America. So sad that one tiny nation can have such a profound affect on such a great wealthy nation. As the previous President of Iran stated "If America loves Israel that much, why don't you give them Florida".
Don't beat around the bush, what is your final solution?
Putin is is a rational and practical leader , not ideological as his USSR predecessor .
In three - four months from now on . Putin will disengage in Syria and will have some extra oil coming from Mid East, plus 8-9 billions of arms sale , plus some of the world oil price in his control , plus greater world leverage, and few other benefits .
If Iraq, Libya make enough attractive offers to Putin , he will carry on with intervention on their behalf .
USA has to make up its mind rather sooner than latter , will it be Chinese's or Russia's honest and sincere ally . It can't fight against both and it can't be ally to both . Then it will have to redraw the wold sphere of influence . That is the only way for USA to keep some of its world leverage till further notice .
Syria is definitely lost for USA .Instead of wasting more time and money there , USA should should try not to loose Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan , Pakistan . The writing is on the wall.
Sorry , Gentlemen, for not being in line with your posts , but that is the reality for the next 10 or so years .
In three - four months from now on . Putin will disengage in Syria and will have some extra oil coming from Mid East, plus 8-9 billions of arms sale , plus some of the world oil price in his control , plus greater world leverage, and few other benefits .
If Iraq, Libya make enough attractive offers to Putin , he will carry on with intervention on their behalf .
USA has to make up its mind rather sooner than latter , will it be Chinese's or Russia's honest and sincere ally . It can't fight against both and it can't be ally to both . Then it will have to redraw the wold sphere of influence . That is the only way for USA to keep some of its world leverage till further notice .
Syria is definitely lost for USA .Instead of wasting more time and money there , USA should should try not to loose Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan , Pakistan . The writing is on the wall.
Sorry , Gentlemen, for not being in line with your posts , but that is the reality for the next 10 or so years .
1
We have the Russian model for intervention, Crimea, Ukraine and Afghanistan. Hopefully the Russian's don't shoot down another passenger plane, they know how to do that.
3
I voted for Obama twice, but way too many Obama supporters are ignoring Obama's mistakes and playing cheerleader. Just because Obama is "your guy" doesn't mean you should be blind to his mistakes. It reminds me of Republicans who swore we were winning the counter-insurgency in Iraq even as the place was falling to pieces in the mid 2000's.
Obama has not been at all patient in Syria. On the contrary, Obama has gotten the US entangled deeper and deeper in Syria. Obama keeps committing the US into positions that we cannot or are not willing to back up. Obama has been preaching a crusader against both Assad and ISIS, which now puts US in a position where we bomb ISIS for Putin and Assad while they eliminate US-backed groups and other regime enemies. It's a pretty beneficial arrangement for Putin and Assad.
Meanwhile, the US gets drawn deeper back into Iraq, backing a corrupt and ineffectual regime, which was quick to go behind Obama's back to make a intelligence deal with Putin.
Obama has not been at all patient in Syria. On the contrary, Obama has gotten the US entangled deeper and deeper in Syria. Obama keeps committing the US into positions that we cannot or are not willing to back up. Obama has been preaching a crusader against both Assad and ISIS, which now puts US in a position where we bomb ISIS for Putin and Assad while they eliminate US-backed groups and other regime enemies. It's a pretty beneficial arrangement for Putin and Assad.
Meanwhile, the US gets drawn deeper back into Iraq, backing a corrupt and ineffectual regime, which was quick to go behind Obama's back to make a intelligence deal with Putin.
5
"So they wait for Russia to bog down the way it did in Afghanistan in the 1980s."
Sounds like an ominous reference to the Carter-Brzezinski-Reagan-Casey enterprise of backing Afghan jihadists during the 1980s - the same old Road to 9/11. Should the US foolishly try for a repetition in supporting the head-chopping raping ISIS, then it may reap consequences far more dire than 9/11.
Better to let the Russians obliterate the ISIS pestilence and let them keep their traditional client Assad. The US has tolerated the Assad regime for the past 45 years - why the heck is it suddenly racing to get rid of Assad now? The Assad regime has bombarded civilians before, without the US doing anything about it - the uprisings in Hama in '64 and '82 were clear examples of that. Why the sudden rush for regime change, when Democrats spent the previous dozen years snarling at Bush for overthrowing Saddam?
To me, it looks like the US is suddenly rushing to re-make the Middle East, not Russia which has a traditional relationship with Assad. What is the US trying to prove - an Orwellian tendency to overturn and deny past realities?
ISIS is the most malevolent force in the Middle East - even on the planet - and therefore this petty obsolete American rivalry with Russia has absolutely no utility or importance relative to this great evil of our times. It's Washington which needs to be shown some regime change because they can't get their priorities straight. At least Trump will do a better job there.
Sounds like an ominous reference to the Carter-Brzezinski-Reagan-Casey enterprise of backing Afghan jihadists during the 1980s - the same old Road to 9/11. Should the US foolishly try for a repetition in supporting the head-chopping raping ISIS, then it may reap consequences far more dire than 9/11.
Better to let the Russians obliterate the ISIS pestilence and let them keep their traditional client Assad. The US has tolerated the Assad regime for the past 45 years - why the heck is it suddenly racing to get rid of Assad now? The Assad regime has bombarded civilians before, without the US doing anything about it - the uprisings in Hama in '64 and '82 were clear examples of that. Why the sudden rush for regime change, when Democrats spent the previous dozen years snarling at Bush for overthrowing Saddam?
To me, it looks like the US is suddenly rushing to re-make the Middle East, not Russia which has a traditional relationship with Assad. What is the US trying to prove - an Orwellian tendency to overturn and deny past realities?
ISIS is the most malevolent force in the Middle East - even on the planet - and therefore this petty obsolete American rivalry with Russia has absolutely no utility or importance relative to this great evil of our times. It's Washington which needs to be shown some regime change because they can't get their priorities straight. At least Trump will do a better job there.
4
This isn't rocket science. The US does nothing because the US objective is to overthrow the Syrian government, a goal they share with ISIS. Since ISIS is doing the fighting in order to bring that about, the US only seeks to "contain" the situation, that is, let ISIS do the fighting for us. Hence, ISIS and the US are de facto allies.
2
It's fun to see someone else exposing himself to the vagaries of a Middle East battlefield. Well it would be fun if it were a game, but there are lives to be lost--mostly civilian I fear--and so it's just another impossible-to-fathom move by just another fool who's running a country instead of running his mouth on a barstool somewhere where he can do no damage.
At least our fool is on his barstool--so far--on this one.
At least our fool is on his barstool--so far--on this one.
Very sad for our country we need an Eisenhower or a Reagan in the White House now.
1
Are the so-called 'critics', read neocons, concerned about the wellbeing of the Syrian civilians, or are they just disappointed that their plan to install a puppet government supported by US that would be friendly with Israel went poof with Putin's curveball?
1
"Moderate rebels under attack by Russia, he added, “might make common cause with extremists, only exacerbating the extremist problem inside of Syria.”"
People who prefer to fight the secular government instead of ISIS are by definition NOT moderate.
We are hostage to our so-called allies that are fine with genocide as long as they get their puppet government.
People who prefer to fight the secular government instead of ISIS are by definition NOT moderate.
We are hostage to our so-called allies that are fine with genocide as long as they get their puppet government.
2
It will be remembered well that Obama's patience and willingness to let Russia clear the mess...
"sitting out"? Strange way of "sitting out" that adopted by the USA, which has armed and financed terrorist organizations, like Al Nustra, the heir to Al Qaida. Perhaps Americans do not realize that their country is financing and arming precisely the group responsible for 9/11.
Despite the NYT fudging the issue, the CIA has been arming and financing these groups at the tune of 1 billion US$, in addition to the 500 million US$ spent training and arming 5 soldiers of the FSA. If you call that "sitting out"..
Despite the NYT fudging the issue, the CIA has been arming and financing these groups at the tune of 1 billion US$, in addition to the 500 million US$ spent training and arming 5 soldiers of the FSA. If you call that "sitting out"..
2
"Waiting out Putin's moves" is an inappropriate policy, to say the lest, for a great power. Especialy the US. Not taking a firm stand today, will be extremely costly tomorrow. Facing this situation doesn't mean necessarily going to war. Rather it needs strong and energetic "Leadership". "Waiting out" is not a strategy by itself. It merely can be sometimes an alternative when one has a clear grand strategy
Obama inability to effectivly act in many situations, is only delaying and compounding a great power basic homework. This is not promising, it will only exasperates things and leads to great future loses.
Obama inability to effectivly act in many situations, is only delaying and compounding a great power basic homework. This is not promising, it will only exasperates things and leads to great future loses.
1
Orchestrate a mass exodus to refugee camps and underwrite keeping the innocent safe. At least this helps protect some. And makes lemonade out of lemons. Dare Russian planes and cruise missiles to attack Red Cross columns.
Let Russia take over killing Sunnis. See suicide bombers run into the kremlin.
Let Russia take over killing Sunnis. See suicide bombers run into the kremlin.
1
As someone on the Right, the non- Trump-W-Jeb-Bush Right, I actually agree with the Leftists here to some degree. Why should the US put blood and treasure into intractable civil wars in the Middle East? (Did the Left conveniently forget they wanted to install democracies in the Middle East before '02? It'll never work because of Islam) That said, the US is facing it's greatest threat since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Putin is a sociopathic, 19-century dictator spoiling for a fight. War with Russia is certainly to be avoided, but at some point, we must face an aggressor now using something called asymmetric war. It's a scary scenario,, but repeatedly not confronting Putin will only invite more aggression.
1
Why are we wasting our time. We have no business in Syria. We should use this time to do good at home. Thank god the international criminal Dubya is not in charge now! We can't sit in the White House and demand who should and who shouldn't step down. Syria is of the Syrians, and they alone have the right to do what they please. Let us back off and use all that money saved, at home to improve infra structure.
5
Why does the Obama administration insist that it is correct when they have literally been wrong on every foreign policy decision regarding the Middle East for the past six or seven years? The time has passed whereby inaction and passivity will reduce the probability of conflict and instead is setting the stage for a direct and unintended confrontation with Russia.
2
"...fighting the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL,"
Nothing proves this administration's utter confusion more than its failure to NAME THE ENEMY.
Drop the "Levant" and call it "Syria" like the rest of the world.
The enemy laughs. We dither over semantics, lead from behind, and vote present.
Nothing proves this administration's utter confusion more than its failure to NAME THE ENEMY.
Drop the "Levant" and call it "Syria" like the rest of the world.
The enemy laughs. We dither over semantics, lead from behind, and vote present.
3
The Russians bombing and inflaming Muslims against them may be the best thing that's happened to us in the area in a good long time; doubtless more effective at keeping terrorists from our shores than the delusional effort to arm so-called "moderate rebels." There's no such thing as "moderate rebels." It's only fanatics of one stripe or another that take up arms in a chaotic conflict and only the most ruthless fanatics who emerge at the top when it is all done. That's just how war works. Real moderates do the sensible thing for themselves and their families: they become refugees. And while we are facing reality, let's stop pretending the Russian escalation in the conflict is some encroachment upon us, as if Syria were, but for this civil war, somehow "ours" and not already a long-time Russian client state. The dream of an "American Century" may be a rosy one, but there was something convenient in the Cold War divvying up of the status of hated global imperialist.
3
Good for President Obama. Without his cool head this would escalate into WWIII very quickly. I just find all of this Putin bashing more than a little hypocritical, when we have been arming groups that just a year ago were considered terrorists. This loose group of anti-Assad cells are not backed by the people of Syria, only by other countries, including the US and Saudi Arabia, who clear have economic interests there, so the West has no business arming them. Assad is accused of waging war on his people, but isn't every group over there waging war on the people? Strangely Putin seems right...stabilize the place first, and then look at replacing him....
38
“We own both of those mistakes,” Mr. McFaul said.
No. Those were not mistakes. We would only have produced another Libya, unless we finally sent in troops and made it Iraq again next door, a double country worth of the same.
The mistake has been allowing the regime change crowd to lead us into the domestic life of hellholes.
No. Those were not mistakes. We would only have produced another Libya, unless we finally sent in troops and made it Iraq again next door, a double country worth of the same.
The mistake has been allowing the regime change crowd to lead us into the domestic life of hellholes.
14
Putin's Syria policy is an act of desperation. Assad's atrocious misrule is going to collapse. This would be a major blow to Putin's prestige. The notion that the US could or should have intervened effectively in Syria is plain wrong. A fools errand if there ever was one.
4
If our 7,300 airstrikes over 4 years did not change the situation on the ground, then the Russians with a few score airstrikes from a few dozen planes in a few weeks of effort are not going to bring a revolution in the situation on the ground.
Let them see for themselves how useless that is.
Don't panic. Don't give in to the hawks who still want what they always wanted, a new and bigger war. Critics may call that paralysis paralysis. I call those critics fools who want to rush in, who have a shiny new excuse for what they have wanted to do all along.
Let them see for themselves how useless that is.
Don't panic. Don't give in to the hawks who still want what they always wanted, a new and bigger war. Critics may call that paralysis paralysis. I call those critics fools who want to rush in, who have a shiny new excuse for what they have wanted to do all along.
16
Wjy would Putin worry about the USA? He knows Obama won't do anything. I'm surprised the Chinese haven't made big moves as well. Iran will feel enboldened. Obama marks the beginning of the end of US leadership in the world. Exactly as he had planned from the beginning. Change is coming to America!
1
Not having a defined strategy may be the best we can do right now, even if it is frustrating and embarrassing to people who are addicted to the conviction that America can do anything as long as we put our minds to it. As fellow commenter Vexray stated earlier: "Waiting is tiresome when no end of the journey is in sight..." He's right; it is tiresome, and being tired is what we have to endure as responsible human beings, when the alternative is mindless hubris.
I need to offer this warning: I am around a great number of conservative hawks in my day-to-day life, and let me assure you that Obama's "restraint" is often cited with outright fury. I hear all the time about Obama's "failure" to "deal" with Isis "in time," and how he is now "responsible for everything" that may happen in the future- they believe that Bush has been absolved of all blame by the Obama interregnum. As usual, the only acceptable outcome to them is one in which the U.S. accomplishes all its goals. They envision, once again, total victory with almost no sacrifice. Iraq has taught them no wisdom whatsoever. And these are the colleagues of mine whom I like well enough to talk to.
From what I hear around me, if a Republican is elected President, America will go to war in Syria and Iraq as soon as they can find the flimsiest excuse. The blood is already boiling, and Obama is just holding it back until January 2017. That reality needs to be made clear to every American before the 2016 election.
I need to offer this warning: I am around a great number of conservative hawks in my day-to-day life, and let me assure you that Obama's "restraint" is often cited with outright fury. I hear all the time about Obama's "failure" to "deal" with Isis "in time," and how he is now "responsible for everything" that may happen in the future- they believe that Bush has been absolved of all blame by the Obama interregnum. As usual, the only acceptable outcome to them is one in which the U.S. accomplishes all its goals. They envision, once again, total victory with almost no sacrifice. Iraq has taught them no wisdom whatsoever. And these are the colleagues of mine whom I like well enough to talk to.
From what I hear around me, if a Republican is elected President, America will go to war in Syria and Iraq as soon as they can find the flimsiest excuse. The blood is already boiling, and Obama is just holding it back until January 2017. That reality needs to be made clear to every American before the 2016 election.
5
Is that really a fair assessment of conservative values an opinions? Keep in mind that it's very likely the liberal media aka NYT that is forming those conclusions to you. That would be all well and good except our kids aren't buying it. Don't ask me why. Hanging out and waiting for Putin to stumble looks like a decent plan for the moment.
For all those conservatives out there with boiling blood. Don't think for a minute that Obama wouldn't act if he thought it was appropriate.
Look at the state of out welfare system and growing poor.
For all those conservatives out there with boiling blood. Don't think for a minute that Obama wouldn't act if he thought it was appropriate.
Look at the state of out welfare system and growing poor.
Let's see. Putin is fighting against rebels for the sitting government in Syria. The US is supplying weapons for the "moderate opposition" while apparently incapable of defeating ISIS. By what international law is the US even in Syria? Because helping the Mujahadeen Salafists overthrow the Afghan government worked out so well? Almost as good as overthrowing Saddam. That worked out well. Just like how overthrowing the elected Ukrainian government by jackbooted Nazi wannabes has worked out so well for Ukraine. Or how well overthrowing Khadafy has worked out so well for Libyans.
6
"The Saudis want to topple the Syrian government."
The US is taking sides with the Saudis. Why so? Are the Saudis any better than Assad? I strongly doubt that. Assad is notorious for the use of force against civilians who took part in the protests. Putting aside the question of WHO hepled organise the protests (see the first two sentences), just think, would the Saudi government react any less aggressively if people of their OWN country wanted to protest against them?
Maybe it's not about Assad at all, but about the fight between population groups such as the Shiites and the Sunnis? And also about the fact that the Saudis are using the US to reach their own personal goals (to topple Assad), while the US is using the Saudis to achieve their own goals, which are many in the region?
For Russia it is a lot more straightforward and Putin has been consistently expressing it for years - Assad is Syria's legitimate president (not the most democratic one, but at least, he is someone who kept the country stable and much safer until the foreign powers became involved). And the groups fighting Assad are terrorists. Which is also true, as we all know, some of them are Al Quaeda's affiliates. These groups pose a threat to Russia as well, because of their participants and the relative proximity of Syria to Russia's borders.
Isn't that true?
The US is taking sides with the Saudis. Why so? Are the Saudis any better than Assad? I strongly doubt that. Assad is notorious for the use of force against civilians who took part in the protests. Putting aside the question of WHO hepled organise the protests (see the first two sentences), just think, would the Saudi government react any less aggressively if people of their OWN country wanted to protest against them?
Maybe it's not about Assad at all, but about the fight between population groups such as the Shiites and the Sunnis? And also about the fact that the Saudis are using the US to reach their own personal goals (to topple Assad), while the US is using the Saudis to achieve their own goals, which are many in the region?
For Russia it is a lot more straightforward and Putin has been consistently expressing it for years - Assad is Syria's legitimate president (not the most democratic one, but at least, he is someone who kept the country stable and much safer until the foreign powers became involved). And the groups fighting Assad are terrorists. Which is also true, as we all know, some of them are Al Quaeda's affiliates. These groups pose a threat to Russia as well, because of their participants and the relative proximity of Syria to Russia's borders.
Isn't that true?
3
There is no organized "moderate" opposition to Assad... just two sides: The Islamist jihadis (ISIS, al Nusra etc) and the Assad forces that have the political support of at least 50% of the population and all the ethnic/ religious minorities.
Putin understands this reality and with his Iranians allies and the Syrian Army have a good chance at cutting off supply lines to ISIS and snuffing out this pestilence.
Putin understands this reality and with his Iranians allies and the Syrian Army have a good chance at cutting off supply lines to ISIS and snuffing out this pestilence.
4
That two sided nature is the truth. We don't like the truth. "The critics" cited in this article "can't handle the truth" in Jack Nicholson's famous expression. But not liking reality is not a better option in Syria.
"Instead, they have been left to puzzle out the Rubik’s Cube of Middle East politics in which the move of each interlocking part seems to put a coherent solution even further out of reach."
It's just so complicated! Makes my head hurt! Sometimes, doing nothing IS a strategy. If so, this Administration is doing very well. I suppose.
But how does Mr. Putin seem to know an answer. The answer being that there is no answer and so what must be done is the best answer available. Which is to assert Russian power in the US vacuum.
But Putin cannot be correct. Is not Russia in a "quagmire" in Crimea and the Ukraine? Or has Russian effectively asserted its military power and shown NATO to be a bunch of dithering clowns who will not come to each other's defense. But wait, if doing nothing is strategic, then NATO is also copying Mr. Obama's manner of strategic defense.
"We own those mistakes." Well, OK. But do you "own" it the way Hillary "owns" the server mistakes? Such as in , "I take responsibility" without atoning and without going forward with a different approach. No. Because this Administration claims that although "owning" their mistakes, there is no answer to the Mideast "Rubick Cube", just "containment."
And the above is why the Left fought so hard for the Iran deal. After all, doing nothing is a strategy, and containment is the best we can do, and who likes Israel anyway?
At least Mr. Obama strategically calls the Times to explain his current thinking.
It's just so complicated! Makes my head hurt! Sometimes, doing nothing IS a strategy. If so, this Administration is doing very well. I suppose.
But how does Mr. Putin seem to know an answer. The answer being that there is no answer and so what must be done is the best answer available. Which is to assert Russian power in the US vacuum.
But Putin cannot be correct. Is not Russia in a "quagmire" in Crimea and the Ukraine? Or has Russian effectively asserted its military power and shown NATO to be a bunch of dithering clowns who will not come to each other's defense. But wait, if doing nothing is strategic, then NATO is also copying Mr. Obama's manner of strategic defense.
"We own those mistakes." Well, OK. But do you "own" it the way Hillary "owns" the server mistakes? Such as in , "I take responsibility" without atoning and without going forward with a different approach. No. Because this Administration claims that although "owning" their mistakes, there is no answer to the Mideast "Rubick Cube", just "containment."
And the above is why the Left fought so hard for the Iran deal. After all, doing nothing is a strategy, and containment is the best we can do, and who likes Israel anyway?
At least Mr. Obama strategically calls the Times to explain his current thinking.
"and who likes Israel anyway?"
So this is about Israel? "The critics" are about Israel too.
Enough of that.
So this is about Israel? "The critics" are about Israel too.
Enough of that.
Those advisers should go and get different jobs. It was also the advisers that influenced Bush to start the war in Iraq. "Moderate" rebels, nonsense. You won't find those in the Middle East. Washington didn't learn from its past mistakes. Don't forget, Washington trained and armed "moderates" like Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein in the past. Why is such a big stink made about Bashar, we supported Mubarak for a long time, another dictator. Bashar killed people, well so did the war in Iraq, just about as many.
5
There's nothing that can be done short term? Really?
Obama contemplated two years ago and ISIS appeared. Yesterday, two F-16 moved out of the way while a Russian fighter went on its way to bomb rebel targets. We need to enforce a no-fly zone or at least give our allies a few ground-to-air missiles.
Obama contemplated two years ago and ISIS appeared. Yesterday, two F-16 moved out of the way while a Russian fighter went on its way to bomb rebel targets. We need to enforce a no-fly zone or at least give our allies a few ground-to-air missiles.
1
Our two F-16's were there with bombs, and meant to bomb the same place. No, we don't need to defend the people we are bombing, just because the Russians bomb them too.
How about we work to make Russia's experience in Syria every bit as enjoyable as their experience in Afghanistan? How soon until we get treated to POW Russians in orange suits getting their heads cut off? That would make for great distress in Moscow. The Russians are establishing themselves as the enemy of Sunni Muslims, the largest of the world's branches of Islam. You don't think there's a way that the Russians putting themselves in opposition to about a billion Muslims could, in the long-term, be turned to our advantage?
The USA should have never joined enemies of the US Constitution calling for regime change when all the opposition intends to establishment of religious regime. The USA has degraded and will defeat the 1st Amendment of the Constitution if religious regime is established in Syria.
Obama's policy is very scary. By clearly indicating to Putin that he is not willing to escalate the crisis in Syria what does the Russian President understand from that? Clearly he understands the U.S. and Obama in particular, are paralyzed by fear of any armed conflict and barring nuking New York the Russians can get away with virtually anything while Obama still sits in the White House. Putin will push the envelope not only in the Middle East but also where ever he thinks he can get away with it. He did it in Crimea and the Ukraine and if he does it in the Baltic countries does anyone believe NATO or the U.S. will really risk war? Obama should consult with Kissinger and not the benign group of advisers sitting in the White House who are just a group of yes men and yes women going along with an appeasement policy and isolationism that can only end in disaster.
3
"Obama's policy is very scary. . . . barring nuking New York the Russians can get away with virtually anything while Obama still sits in the White House."
That is hysteria. It is pure Netanyahu, and I note it does come from Israel.
Listening to that crowd is how we got into these messes. They offer no way out, just more and more of the same disasters.
That is hysteria. It is pure Netanyahu, and I note it does come from Israel.
Listening to that crowd is how we got into these messes. They offer no way out, just more and more of the same disasters.
5
We were the ones pushing the envelope in the Ukraine. Expanding NATO right up to Russia's border was provocative, and they called us on it.
Syria was always a Russian client state, so they are operating in their sphere of influence.
Syria was always a Russian client state, so they are operating in their sphere of influence.
1
Peretz, keep in mind that Putin's ventures into the Crimea and the Ukraine happen to be in Russia's own back yard, in countries that were part of the Soviet bloc for nearly half a century, and that his decision to get militarily involved in Syria reflects an historically much closer relationship with that country than the U.S. has ever had. The Russians could easily have countered U.S. moves in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 14 years, but having been burned there themselves, perhaps wisely chose to allow the Western "Coalition" to get their own taste of that medicine. But apparently their own time of waiting for the U.S. to do something progressive in the middle East is over.
The U.S. has been engaged in reckless adventurism in the middle East for so long that we have begun to think we own the place. Their cultures have existed for thousands of years longer than ours and despite all our efforts to reshape and "democratize" (read: destroy) it, they will in all probability outlast us.
As for Israel's role in all this, how can you expect to establish and maintain a sovereign state while at the same time denying your Palestinian brothers the same right? Walls and nuclear weapons will not provide you the security you seek, and the tactics you have adopted in Gaza have stripped you of the right to claim you are the sole persecuted people.
The U.S. has been engaged in reckless adventurism in the middle East for so long that we have begun to think we own the place. Their cultures have existed for thousands of years longer than ours and despite all our efforts to reshape and "democratize" (read: destroy) it, they will in all probability outlast us.
As for Israel's role in all this, how can you expect to establish and maintain a sovereign state while at the same time denying your Palestinian brothers the same right? Walls and nuclear weapons will not provide you the security you seek, and the tactics you have adopted in Gaza have stripped you of the right to claim you are the sole persecuted people.
1
While I don't blame Obama for getting us into the mess that is the Middle East / Afghanistan fiasco, I can't give him any credit for making it better either. Look, we've been 14 bloody years - FOURTEEN - in Afghanistan and we haven't accomplished our goals there. BILLIONS of dollars and thousands of lives and we're still bogged down. In Iraq/Syria, the situation is even more dire. It seems to me that we either have to be IN IT TO WIN IT or we should PACK IT IN. These half-hearted measures of the last many years have led to what? Where's the beef? Now the Russians, seeing our weakness, are exploiting it and we remain impotent to do anything. What a sad and sorry state of affairs we're in, ladies and gentlemen.
5
"Mr. Obama views suggestions for more robust action as a prescription for disaster. "
Most likely, President Obama is right. Have any good reasons been given to take 'robust action'? Why is it necessary to have a confrontation with Russia?
Yet, the barbarity of ISIS, aka ISIL, is an abomination that needs to be erased from our world. Criticism of Russia's actions, at this point, may be counter-productive.
Whatever the faults and/or crimes of the Assad regime, we need to set our highest priority as the ending of the Atrocities of ISIS. Such as the awful account found at:
http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/10/isis-chops-off-christian-boys-fingertips-b...
All nations need to set aside their differences to deal with and prevent these horrible acts and insane armies.
Most likely, President Obama is right. Have any good reasons been given to take 'robust action'? Why is it necessary to have a confrontation with Russia?
Yet, the barbarity of ISIS, aka ISIL, is an abomination that needs to be erased from our world. Criticism of Russia's actions, at this point, may be counter-productive.
Whatever the faults and/or crimes of the Assad regime, we need to set our highest priority as the ending of the Atrocities of ISIS. Such as the awful account found at:
http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/10/isis-chops-off-christian-boys-fingertips-b...
All nations need to set aside their differences to deal with and prevent these horrible acts and insane armies.
5
The Assad regime seems to be killing at least as many people as ISIS.
The problem is that we don't have a defined objective, yet we continue to drop bombs and kill people. If we're gonna kill people, at least we should have some defined end point so we can say we accomplished our goal. This is absolute madness. I think Obama is trying to cater to everyone and we end up with this mess.
5
You have some illusion that this region can be fixed? I'm sad to say we have a couple of hundred years of conflict in this region as the people there figure out if and how they can live in a nation/state. The best anyone is going to accomplish is containment of this conflict. Somehow national borders are going to need to be moved, and tribal or religious affiliations have to become less important while national identity has to become more important for peace to prevail. Can you see that happening in a time frame shorter than "generations"? I can't.
Prediction: Russia will be far more successful fighting ISIS than the US. Why? Because the US and ISIS are actually allies in the effort to overthrow the government of Syria. The US campaign against ISIS is a hoax.
5
When Churchill wanted to go from Italy to an invasion of Europe via Greece and the Balkans, the US said "no." Churchill then tried to do it anyway, and FDR and Marshall stepped back and let him fail. It was the last German win, and a serious check Churchill did not expect we'd do. See Operation Accolade/Hercules (September-November 1943).
Eisenhower did it again in 1956, when he made Britain, France, and Israel get out of Egypt, rather than letting them do the sort of occupation we are now doing in Iraq and "the critics" want to do in Syria. What Eisenhower did worked out better than what W did.
There is a need sometimes to say no, and make it stick. That can be painful for all concerned, as wars are violence and people get killed.
Obama is going the FDR/Marsahll/Eisenhower route rather than the W route. Thank God for that.
Eisenhower did it again in 1956, when he made Britain, France, and Israel get out of Egypt, rather than letting them do the sort of occupation we are now doing in Iraq and "the critics" want to do in Syria. What Eisenhower did worked out better than what W did.
There is a need sometimes to say no, and make it stick. That can be painful for all concerned, as wars are violence and people get killed.
Obama is going the FDR/Marsahll/Eisenhower route rather than the W route. Thank God for that.
6
The main challenge in winning a country is not just to conquer the battle, not just winning the recognition that conquers are also good people, not just winning the propaganda war, but to win over and synthesize a philosophy that would guide the civil society. Both Soviets and Americans, when they failed (Afghanistan, Middle East), failed to win that philosophical debate - debate over individual freedom, debate over the form of social justice, debate over separation of state and religion. It is that debate I did not see Bush/Obama to be interested about stroking in the conquered countries. A nation needs a guiding light - Jefferson, Lenin, Gandhi or whoever that is - whose ideas and rhetoric in abstraction provide guidance for generations.
4
Yes, and we don't like their guiding lights. They don't agree with us. They are one of another version of Islamic, more or less radical. So we can't empower democracy or encourage their guiding lights, because we oppose what they want and the lights they have.
To be fair, they would not have liked our guiding lights any better, not Lenin, but not Jefferson either (who edited down his own Bible, remember).
To be fair, they would not have liked our guiding lights any better, not Lenin, but not Jefferson either (who edited down his own Bible, remember).
2
The group that is actually practicing inclusive direct democracy and defending itself against ISIS is the Kurds. We should be supporting them. We could encourage refugees to join them and then support their economy to absorb the refugees.
I think President Obama is the only adult in the room. He's right to hold back and not risk even an accidental warplane collision between the US and Russia. And the chances of Russia deliberately creating such an 'accidental' collision are high. Putin is flexing his muscles everywhere. He wants military confrontation with the US and its allies.
In the long term he's shooting himself in the foot by supporting tyrants. Russians don't seem strong enough to stand up to him and penetrate his massive PR, but other citizens of other countries are much more conscious, angry and courageous. Eventually they'll win.
And somebody is going to want to take Putin down. He’s making himself a stationary mark. Plus he’s targeting ISIL and getting huge publicity for it. It's as if he's clamoring to be at the top of their list entitled "public enemy number one". I bet we start hearing about ISIL attacks in Russia.
Putin is a testosterone-overloaded fool. But in the short term he's a dangerous man. He doesn't care about democracy—in fact he thinks it's a negative thing—and he wants military confrontation with US allies. I’m sure he’d love another global confrontation. So I'm very relieved that Obama has taken an accurate measure of him and is choosing not to stir that hornet's nest.
In the long term he's shooting himself in the foot by supporting tyrants. Russians don't seem strong enough to stand up to him and penetrate his massive PR, but other citizens of other countries are much more conscious, angry and courageous. Eventually they'll win.
And somebody is going to want to take Putin down. He’s making himself a stationary mark. Plus he’s targeting ISIL and getting huge publicity for it. It's as if he's clamoring to be at the top of their list entitled "public enemy number one". I bet we start hearing about ISIL attacks in Russia.
Putin is a testosterone-overloaded fool. But in the short term he's a dangerous man. He doesn't care about democracy—in fact he thinks it's a negative thing—and he wants military confrontation with US allies. I’m sure he’d love another global confrontation. So I'm very relieved that Obama has taken an accurate measure of him and is choosing not to stir that hornet's nest.
39
--- He wants military confrontation with the US and its allies.
Do you mean nuclear war?
--- supporting tyrants
Putin supports Assad, 700 princes of Saudi are much better?
Do you mean nuclear war?
--- supporting tyrants
Putin supports Assad, 700 princes of Saudi are much better?
Putin is all about posturing and position.
This is not about fighting ISIS or helping Assad. This is a show of force to showcase Russia as a world power, deflect economic criticism at home, deflect attention from Ukraine, thumb his nose at the US- and likely, although no one seems to be talking about this, pad his significant personal net worth by many more millions from what's left of Assad's accounts.
Putin has a great nose for low hanging power vacuums, and Obama seems to leave a trail of them behind him through sloppy exit strategies and weak foreign policy.
The overall Obama strategy is to always take a short term political/populist gain, at the expense of any hard won long-term policy cost– as long as the inevitable negative consequences can be staved off long enough to pass on to the next guy (or gal.)
US foreign policy has a significant weakness; its commitments only last as long as a presidential term. This is overcome by a tacit bipartisan understanding to respect those long term commitments, at least to the extent of adjusting changes in a responsible way. Obama's greedy strategy of sloppily exchanging difficult, multi-term foreign policy objectives, for short term political gain is collapsing all over. He severely underestimated how quickly others like ISIS in Iraq, Taliban in Afghanistan, and now Putin in Syria would fill the vacuum.
It's like watching a Pac-Man game: Hey! There's another low hanging Obama cherry! Flash. Flash. Gobble. Gobble. Ding. Ding.
This is not about fighting ISIS or helping Assad. This is a show of force to showcase Russia as a world power, deflect economic criticism at home, deflect attention from Ukraine, thumb his nose at the US- and likely, although no one seems to be talking about this, pad his significant personal net worth by many more millions from what's left of Assad's accounts.
Putin has a great nose for low hanging power vacuums, and Obama seems to leave a trail of them behind him through sloppy exit strategies and weak foreign policy.
The overall Obama strategy is to always take a short term political/populist gain, at the expense of any hard won long-term policy cost– as long as the inevitable negative consequences can be staved off long enough to pass on to the next guy (or gal.)
US foreign policy has a significant weakness; its commitments only last as long as a presidential term. This is overcome by a tacit bipartisan understanding to respect those long term commitments, at least to the extent of adjusting changes in a responsible way. Obama's greedy strategy of sloppily exchanging difficult, multi-term foreign policy objectives, for short term political gain is collapsing all over. He severely underestimated how quickly others like ISIS in Iraq, Taliban in Afghanistan, and now Putin in Syria would fill the vacuum.
It's like watching a Pac-Man game: Hey! There's another low hanging Obama cherry! Flash. Flash. Gobble. Gobble. Ding. Ding.
15
You are advocating for perpetual war. You are advocating that we engage with troops on the ground in every hot spot on earth. Or at least those with strategic economic importance.
1
That's not true, strategic commitments to NATO and (alas) Saudi Arabia have lasted for decades. Now that the post-WWI order on the Arabian peninsula has been destroyed, perhaps you would like to enlighten us on your strategy for the next phase. Is it governance by bombing?
you forgot one part of Obama's strategy, don't get Americans killed.
I like that part, and I like that he can stick to it despite all the "foreign policy objectives" being thrown around.
I like that part, and I like that he can stick to it despite all the "foreign policy objectives" being thrown around.
The chaos and furor in the middle east has it,s origins in the invasion of Iraq,Iraq a nation that did not attack America at any time and was not a threat to America, hundreds of thousands in their graves, trillions spent, to what result
2
Nothing wrong with waiting it out. No matter how the media in Russia or America try to gin it up the people in both countries are not interested in 'having it out' as it were.
Putin has told no lies. With the help of Iran and Hezbollah he is re propping up Assad.
Here is the fun part. Should he be successful, Putin thinks his alliances will last.
We know better.
The alliances will last a week - if that.
By then it will be Russians spilling blood over moving sand.
Putin has told no lies. With the help of Iran and Hezbollah he is re propping up Assad.
Here is the fun part. Should he be successful, Putin thinks his alliances will last.
We know better.
The alliances will last a week - if that.
By then it will be Russians spilling blood over moving sand.
My advice to Obama and his team is to do another "Mission Accomplished" aboard some airplane carrier, just as GWB did about Iraq.
Rational and sensible countries would say: Thank you President Putin for taking our big load of mess that we have been hiding for 5 years. But not the peacocks in in our government. They want to look tough and defying both as they enter into quagmires and as they exit.
Rational and sensible countries would say: Thank you President Putin for taking our big load of mess that we have been hiding for 5 years. But not the peacocks in in our government. They want to look tough and defying both as they enter into quagmires and as they exit.
2
It is no secret now that Americans have been checkmated in Syria by the Russians. Interestingly enough, Americans have started to acknowledge their own weaknesses when it comes to laying out a clear cut strategy to defeat ISIL. The western coalition have flown thousands of sorties over Iraq and Syria, but have not been successful; however, only one week of Russian airstrikes has prompted the Syrian ground forces to launch a major offensive against the rebels. The more prudent policy for the Americans would be to coordinate their military actions with the Russians and the Syrian forces. The Syrian opposition consists of a myriad of forces: from radical Al-Qaeda to largely secular Free Syrian Army, and it is highly unlikely that these forces would agree to a common political settlement. Betting on anti regime forces is a doomed strategy.
1
Is totalitarianism the only counter to fundamentalist Islamism?
Putin and Assad are betting yes.
Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi thought so.
Liberal Democracy doesn't seem to have counter-argument strong enough to carry the day.
Putin and Assad are betting yes.
Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi thought so.
Liberal Democracy doesn't seem to have counter-argument strong enough to carry the day.
1
To understand what is going on in Syria and the Middle East, one must understand the mentality of the People. A leader or government that is respected by the People is one that is authoritarian and does not allow dissent. The People will follow whoever is the toughest even if it means changing sides multiple times. We naïvely thought the Arab Spring would result in a western style democracy, but what it did was create chaos and a leadership vacuum ripe for ISIS. Putin understands this mentality and is making his moves based on a history of similar Russian tactics. To Putin, all rebels are the enemy, not just ISIS. The more brutal the attacks against rebel groups, the more successful he will be in gaining back territory presently held by both American supported rebel groups and ISIS. Once the Syrian government is firmly back in control, ISIS will fade into the woodwork or take their fight elsewhere. Assad may be eased out (given asylum in Russia), but you can be sure the person he will be replaced with will be pro-Russian all the way.
Obama is doing the right thing by staying clear. This is a war that we cannot win as strategies for stability in the Middle East are totally foreign to our way of thinking, as is western style democratic rule. Even a policemen we will always be considered the enemy by most that live there. As soon as we leave (no matter how long we stay), all that had built would be torn down as they return to what they are used to, authoritarian rule.
Obama is doing the right thing by staying clear. This is a war that we cannot win as strategies for stability in the Middle East are totally foreign to our way of thinking, as is western style democratic rule. Even a policemen we will always be considered the enemy by most that live there. As soon as we leave (no matter how long we stay), all that had built would be torn down as they return to what they are used to, authoritarian rule.
This scenario seems worse than the Iraq war ever was. Terrorist Islamists are overrunning and killing Islamists in adjoining countries. Recently, the Turkish president warned of some thirty Islamist factions that are at some level of odds with each other. Obama’s refraining from jumping into the fray has allowed enough time to expose the true colors of each Middle Eastern country, so many of which are shamelessly lackluster in their concern and directed action. Then there’s Russia’s Putin, a man whose word means absolutely nothing. Obama is discrediting him by refusing to engage him, although Putin is doing an excellent job of that himself.
If our government weren't run by wimps, we'd send the Syrian opposition surface to air missiles capable of shooting down Syrian helicopters (putting an end to barrel bomb attacks) and Russian ground attack aircraft.
If we'd done this a couple of years ago, the Russians wouldn't be there, Assad would have been long gone, there would be several million fewer refugees and a hundred thousand fewer dead. If Obama has a conscience, those should weigh on it.
If we'd done this a couple of years ago, the Russians wouldn't be there, Assad would have been long gone, there would be several million fewer refugees and a hundred thousand fewer dead. If Obama has a conscience, those should weigh on it.
1
Ironic that everyone calls the U.S. the world police and bully!
1
This is the best decision by obama,stay away frm middle east .
As far as i know hillary(reluctantly obama) armed the rebels and its a mess since then.
By the way putin good luck with syria
As far as i know hillary(reluctantly obama) armed the rebels and its a mess since then.
By the way putin good luck with syria
While Putin is busy in Syria, we should do exactly the same thing in the Ukraine.
Putin gives speeches in calculated measured tones, betraying no emotion, while using ponderous bureaucratic words. Stalin did exactly the same thing, (According to some the point was to distinguish himself from Hitler's emotional speeches.) Putin is a Stalin wannabe. He is following the Stalin playbook down to the last letter. Perhaps we are severely underestimating this man's ambitions.
2
After decades of hegemony, the West is getting some pushback - Russian and Chinese power projection. Let's see how they like it . . .
4
Didn't Our Founding Fathers teach us not to poke our noses into foreign entanglements. Syria, Iraq & Iran have invited Russia to destroy ISIS.
The Congress has not authorized President Obama to fight against ISIS for eight months since he asked for war authorization. He needs to stay away from it.
The Congress has not authorized President Obama to fight against ISIS for eight months since he asked for war authorization. He needs to stay away from it.
4
Did we forget our "shock and awe" bombardments.. Hight of arrogance and hip racy to criticize Russia.
4
WE want "Regime Change in Syria" so to "Contain Iran's Influence in the Middle East" and "Appease the House of Saud".
THE question is: "WHOM the Saudis want to install in Syria"?
AS it stands now, if Mr. Assad's Regime falls, ISIS will take over Syria.
IS that what we want?
Mr. Assad Seems To Be The Best Of All The Bad Options.
THE question is: "WHOM the Saudis want to install in Syria"?
AS it stands now, if Mr. Assad's Regime falls, ISIS will take over Syria.
IS that what we want?
Mr. Assad Seems To Be The Best Of All The Bad Options.
I suspect that none of the factions in the middle east are especially pro-USA except as a matter of convenience. And so sides and allegiances are fluid. The group we support today can easily become our opposition tomorrow.
We're waded into ideological battles that are over a thousand years old -- it's a nightmare, especially for the citizens of the affected countries.
We cannot be certain, at this point, as to which of any path forward that we might envision is actually likely to be the best path. So I support Obama's hesitancy.
It's all really sad. Surely Muhammed, a man who advocated for compassion and the Golden Rule, would be horrified.
We're waded into ideological battles that are over a thousand years old -- it's a nightmare, especially for the citizens of the affected countries.
We cannot be certain, at this point, as to which of any path forward that we might envision is actually likely to be the best path. So I support Obama's hesitancy.
It's all really sad. Surely Muhammed, a man who advocated for compassion and the Golden Rule, would be horrified.
If you want to take a deeper look at the Anti-Assad rebel movement, up close and personal, I would highly recommend the documentary "Return To Homs," it's on Netflix. If ever you needed to nourish a nascent suspicion that human life might actually be irredeemably unendurable, and absurd, I'd recommend watching that film: I found it a portrait of human folly/heroism at its most profound - warring, manic humans, twisted by death and destruction, each side dug into a fatal illusion of separateness. The older generation in Syria warned the revolutionary youth: "This regime will see Syria drown in its own blood before they allow themselves to be overthrown." The revolutionary youth, (of whichever faction) declared peaceful means impossible, took up arms and here we are. Neither side WILL EVER back down. Ever. Ultimately, there's no one to blame because there is NO SELF. Each human being merely an aperture of The Universe, each equal in its manifest mystery. This is all tragic, entropic and beyond imagining...
This is the perfect situation to lead from behind. Too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak. Let Assad and his forces, Putin and his forces, and ISIS fight it out. A coherent policy could be applied once we know who is the last one standing.
And what better way to give Jihadists another target in Russia - remember they have their own insurgency problem in Chechnya.
And what better way to give Jihadists another target in Russia - remember they have their own insurgency problem in Chechnya.
1
This is the first sensible thing I've heard Obama say since the UN General Assembly dueling speeches. Russia is taking the huge load of mess we helped create over nearly 5 years, but the propaganda never ceases here by both the media and Pentagon. But then confessing that it is best to to wait it out as the president while using your cabinet members to escalate is not very sensible.
The Pentagon chief, Ash Cater, issuing warnings and threats, does not intimidate the bear. And neither do Press Secretary, Josh Ernest, predictable canned responses.
Even CNN thinks it is qualified to determine that Russia's Cruise missiles launched from the Caspian Sea towards Syria have fallen down on Iran.
Well, both Russia and Iran are laughing right now while negating CNN's fake reports.
The Pentagon chief, Ash Cater, issuing warnings and threats, does not intimidate the bear. And neither do Press Secretary, Josh Ernest, predictable canned responses.
Even CNN thinks it is qualified to determine that Russia's Cruise missiles launched from the Caspian Sea towards Syria have fallen down on Iran.
Well, both Russia and Iran are laughing right now while negating CNN's fake reports.
I have a solution. It's called the DIAMOND DOCTRINE. The first major doctrine concerning the United States and the Middle East area and well as the Balkans was the Monroe Doctrine. Most remember it for telling Europe "hands off the Western Hemisphere." The flip side to that was the U.S. would not involve itself in the Greek movement for independence from the Ottoman Empire (Modern Turkey). The Truman and Eisenhower Doctrines involved the Middle East and Turkey in our containment of the Soviet Union. The DIAMOND DOCTRINE goes back to the Monroe Doctrine. Simply put, Get out of the Middle East, NOW! Yes, I have written the President of these United States.
Putin has duped our "JV" president and has essentially declared war against the United States. He is systematically killing the people Obama haves been arming and training in Syria to fight Assad.
Meanwhile ISIS is becoming stronger and has made numerous attempts to buy nuclear material from Russian smugglers.
Iran now has $150 billion dollars to sponsor terrorism and will shortly have nuclear weapons thanks to the agreement Obama negotiated.
President Obama's only concern is that he doesn't want to confront Putin for risk of escalation.
Meanwhile ISIS is becoming stronger and has made numerous attempts to buy nuclear material from Russian smugglers.
Iran now has $150 billion dollars to sponsor terrorism and will shortly have nuclear weapons thanks to the agreement Obama negotiated.
President Obama's only concern is that he doesn't want to confront Putin for risk of escalation.
The whole Obama time has been a delusion but at least not this one. Hopefully he after his Syrian misadventure earlier, has figured out that non action is the best action.
We, the US owe this to no one but ourselves....the paragon of democracy destabilizing everyone including the mother of all, Iraq and then, on Iran and Mosadeq, let me not even get started.
We, the US owe this to no one but ourselves....the paragon of democracy destabilizing everyone including the mother of all, Iraq and then, on Iran and Mosadeq, let me not even get started.
someone knows who are those allies on the ground really? Do we have any of consequence? It seems like a boiler plate journalistic formula to me...
The Empire of Chaos can only create chaos in a vacuum - real serious people are another matter - ask Ho Chi Minh - we are witnessing the Vietnam debacle one more time
For the Boomers who have seen the show before - all the same signs were there for overreach and hubris
Iran will take over with their Partner - Iraq - and clean house - the Saudi's are not warriors - they are lovers - their objective is mansions in London, Paris and LA with Ferrari's everywhere
time to read the tea leaves and take the helicopter off the roof of the embassy and get out of town
For the Boomers who have seen the show before - all the same signs were there for overreach and hubris
Iran will take over with their Partner - Iraq - and clean house - the Saudi's are not warriors - they are lovers - their objective is mansions in London, Paris and LA with Ferrari's everywhere
time to read the tea leaves and take the helicopter off the roof of the embassy and get out of town
2
Why does your report not include the fact that the US taking action in this raises massive issues of international law? Why is that so absent from most of the reporting?
2
Didn't you know? International law doesn't apply to the U.S. Or rather, international law adapts according to how the U.S. behaves.
1/ U.S. bombs Yugoslavia. Legal!
2/ U.S. invades Afghanistan. Legal!
3/ U.S. invades Iraq. Legal!
1/ U.S. bombs Yugoslavia. Legal!
2/ U.S. invades Afghanistan. Legal!
3/ U.S. invades Iraq. Legal!
2
Obama has always looked like a bit fool when calling for 'Assad to step down'.
These dictators' whole world view is to rule with an iron fist, there is no such thing as stepping down.. Putin understands that completely.. Obama not so much... -Constitutional scholars don't get much traction over there.-
Obama should have sent in a cruise missile the minute he heard about chemical weapons.. -It's way to late for the US to do anything now.
These dictators' whole world view is to rule with an iron fist, there is no such thing as stepping down.. Putin understands that completely.. Obama not so much... -Constitutional scholars don't get much traction over there.-
Obama should have sent in a cruise missile the minute he heard about chemical weapons.. -It's way to late for the US to do anything now.
Taking an arm chair approach:
Russia sends a dangerous message with its airstrikes in Syria.
The opening moves take place.
Russia bombs the Syrian rebels - not ISIS and Al Qaeda’s Syrian force.
We are not happy with these unforeseen events.
Assad breathes a sigh of relief and Putin's game shifts from chess to checkers.
Our strategic moves now may well be:
Encourage Syrian rebels to stand down and take refuge in safe zones in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon.
This is known as a strategic retreat or live to fight another day.
Many Syrian refugees may choose to leave the EU and move to welcome and join the rebels in the camps.
We send all types of aid to the camps.
We, other parties, and NATO retire to a negotiating table, deliberate, and send a "here we are" note to Putin/Assad.
Then we WAIT.
ISIS/Al Qaeda turn their attention on Assad and his forces and have at it.
Putin must now engage these hostile forces aligned against Assad and decide how to defeat them - all on his own.
He is forced to encourage and/or put boots on the ground to assist Assad. Home front Russia, with their past Afghanistan disaster and other current national problems, now says - Maybe we should talk this over, Comrade Putin.
We signal Putin from the negotiating table and send positive, helpful, and welcoming remarks.
The good news:
Obama is President, not some hot-headed Republican war monger.
Hope Congress and NATO keep a cool head.
Above scenario may lack vital detail. Do add to it.
Russia sends a dangerous message with its airstrikes in Syria.
The opening moves take place.
Russia bombs the Syrian rebels - not ISIS and Al Qaeda’s Syrian force.
We are not happy with these unforeseen events.
Assad breathes a sigh of relief and Putin's game shifts from chess to checkers.
Our strategic moves now may well be:
Encourage Syrian rebels to stand down and take refuge in safe zones in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon.
This is known as a strategic retreat or live to fight another day.
Many Syrian refugees may choose to leave the EU and move to welcome and join the rebels in the camps.
We send all types of aid to the camps.
We, other parties, and NATO retire to a negotiating table, deliberate, and send a "here we are" note to Putin/Assad.
Then we WAIT.
ISIS/Al Qaeda turn their attention on Assad and his forces and have at it.
Putin must now engage these hostile forces aligned against Assad and decide how to defeat them - all on his own.
He is forced to encourage and/or put boots on the ground to assist Assad. Home front Russia, with their past Afghanistan disaster and other current national problems, now says - Maybe we should talk this over, Comrade Putin.
We signal Putin from the negotiating table and send positive, helpful, and welcoming remarks.
The good news:
Obama is President, not some hot-headed Republican war monger.
Hope Congress and NATO keep a cool head.
Above scenario may lack vital detail. Do add to it.
Let the indisputable facts speak. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are Sunni countries. They are supporting the so called moderate rebel forces who are Sunnis. Assad and the non-Sunni Alawites are under seige. The US believes. without any basis, that there will not be a complete genocide of the non-Sunnis in Syria after the so called moderate rebels win. Also the US believes harsh sharia law disadvantaging all non-Sunnis will not result, or that tribal warfare like Afghanistan and Libya will not break out after Assad is defeated. As in Libya, again the US hopes to be on the winning Sunni side. Why is the US pro-genocide and against non-Sunnis?
Obama is playing a patient game.It's the right game. Syria is not a vital American national security interest, despite Republican rhetoric.The American Crisis mentality has imprisoned Republican politicians for 50 years.Their ill advised addiction to military intervention was wrong a half century ago and it would be wrong now.Addicts of serial interventionism like John McCain and his doppelgänger Lindsey Graham need to go through "military mind set"detox.They have a record of being serially wrong like their guru,Henry Kissinger.The man was wrong on Vietnam, Iraq, and a national disgrace for his policy role in Pinochet's murderous coup in Chile. John McCain has to say "the surge"and "General David Petraeus" at least 14 times a day or he goes into acute withdrawal.Two words make it impossible to take anything he says seriously,Sarah Palin.The hard cold facts are these.No Sunni group in Syria can be openly pro American and survive.They willingly accept American weapons,but not democratic pluralism. Russia has had bases in Syria since 1971.Putin sees saving Assad as the key to preserving Russian influence in the Middle East. He wants no radical Jihadi's going back to Russia. Maybe he has forgotten the Afghan debacle.
2
I don't agree that not arming "good" rebels was a mistake. We have a track record of picking sides only to later rue the day we did that as those rebels turn against us down the road using the weapons we gave them. Should we have bombed Assad for using chemical weapons? Perhaps. I keep thinking of Libya. We helped to get rid of their brutal dictator, but there is now a chaotic mess, which is fertile ground for extremists like ISIS. On the one hand, unlike Mr. Putin, we do not/should not support propping up brutal dictators because they maintain "stability." On the other hand, helping to remove them often demolishes the nation as a nation state and/or puts in self-serving, weak governments (Iraq comes to mind) who do neither the USA nor their people any good. As painful as it is to watch civil war and the devastation it brings, often staying out of the mix is the only sane answer. We have a fresh and painful example of what going into a country to remove a dictator looks like in Iraq and Libya. So we need more of that?
17
The US has a long history of propping up brutal dictators in South America, Asia, Africa, and the MIdeast.
"Strategic patience", waiting for the next administration to make a decision is just another Obama term for his continued "thought paralysis" commenced several years ago with his initial red line threat for Assad's usage of chemical weapons, which he never completed. Thereafter, he never adequately armed the moderate rebels to fight Assad, to the point where the rebels who recently trained were reduced to four people.
Now, he is refusing to arm rebels with anti-aircraft weapons so they can fend off Putin's air attacks against them. To do so, doesn't commit us to put boots on the ground. And, it could perhaps reduce Putin's slaughter of innocent Syrians with his air attacks, and decrease the exodus of millions of Syrians, for which the rest of the world now has responsibility. Either way Putin for all his braggadocio is stepping in quicksand, not us.
Now, he is refusing to arm rebels with anti-aircraft weapons so they can fend off Putin's air attacks against them. To do so, doesn't commit us to put boots on the ground. And, it could perhaps reduce Putin's slaughter of innocent Syrians with his air attacks, and decrease the exodus of millions of Syrians, for which the rest of the world now has responsibility. Either way Putin for all his braggadocio is stepping in quicksand, not us.
6
But remember the adage... If you don't have anything nice to say about Obama, don't work at the NYT!
It's not what you do as President, it's often what you don't do that makes a difference. Staying out of that sandbox is the right decision, but the right will hammer President Obama for it and probably he'll here from some democrats as well. This country could have saved itself from a lot of misery and lost lives if it had just avoided the big mistakes.
79
I agree, smart move by Obama. This of course will be fodder for the presidential candidates, especially the ones leading in the poles.
Unfortunately we are already in that sandbox and clueless on how to get out; hence the very story we're both commenting on. Or are you satisfied with our involvement to date?
What you fail to realize is that he's in the middle of making a giant mistake in Syria. When he says our goal is to see Assad go, yet does nothing compelling to make that happen while Russia rushes to Assad's defense,what you have is a feckless and ineffective President. He has no idea how to accomplish non-domestic policy objectives.
It's really too bad that Obama is limited to just two terms because the chances are whoever follows him will make the miscalculation of a deeper involvement in Syria - much to our cost. He has been absolutely right to minimize our military commitment; in fact, he went too far with the bombing campaign and with his red line.
We have enough on our plate trying to get Iraqis to fight for their country and eject ISIS. Syria is none of our business; the country is and has been for many years a client state of the old Soviet Union and now Russia. It's no surprise that with Assad's army failing, Russia stepped up to help him. Better they get into a quagmire than us.
We have enough on our plate trying to get Iraqis to fight for their country and eject ISIS. Syria is none of our business; the country is and has been for many years a client state of the old Soviet Union and now Russia. It's no surprise that with Assad's army failing, Russia stepped up to help him. Better they get into a quagmire than us.
61
I used to think that inside every American, of whatever political persuasion, this moral call still meant something:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Those, such as yourself, who would surrender the legitimate democratic yearings of Syrians or Ukrainians due to some crude calculation of spheres of interest or, more honestly, cultural unfamiliarity sadden me. It is ethical cowardice and moral cherrypicking writ large. Exactly how ignorant of history must one be to so desire to acquiesce to an obvious neo-fascist like Putin?
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Those, such as yourself, who would surrender the legitimate democratic yearings of Syrians or Ukrainians due to some crude calculation of spheres of interest or, more honestly, cultural unfamiliarity sadden me. It is ethical cowardice and moral cherrypicking writ large. Exactly how ignorant of history must one be to so desire to acquiesce to an obvious neo-fascist like Putin?
"....another term for OB.....you must be kidding...."redline".....did he use invisible ink? And to listen to war sec Carter, so indecisive and weak sounding....is it any surprise they'd embrace someone like Putin....it will still be many years while our brave men and women continue to die or suffer with no end in sight.
"Trying to get Iraqis to fight for their country"? Iraq is a, "country," only on maps. The people that live within those lines belong to the three tribes of Iraq, that for the most part, hate each other. So, there will never be a situation where one faction will willlingly fight, and perhaps die, for the welfare of the other. Never.
Bush one, knew this. Bush two, ignored it. Obama, knows it. Pointlessness, is not a reason to interfere. Isis can be fought from afar by the superpowers, (droned), and those on the ground that are with us, but who are only equivalent to Saddam Hussain. (A ruthless tyrant).
It's really like voting here in the U.S., where you close your eyes and pull the lever, for the lesser of two evils. Al least we are doing the best we can.
Bush one, knew this. Bush two, ignored it. Obama, knows it. Pointlessness, is not a reason to interfere. Isis can be fought from afar by the superpowers, (droned), and those on the ground that are with us, but who are only equivalent to Saddam Hussain. (A ruthless tyrant).
It's really like voting here in the U.S., where you close your eyes and pull the lever, for the lesser of two evils. Al least we are doing the best we can.
Of course President Obama is wary of escalation, why step into that bear trap? It's as if Mr. Baker cannot grasp that there is this thing called a Sunni vs. Shiite war that has been going on a lot longer than the existence of good o'l USA. It would be of great assistance to the general public to know that as well, and place the war against ISIS and the civil war in Syria into such context.
Mr. Putin is brilliantly attacking Mr. Assad's immediate threat, presumably that includes the very minority group of US backed rebels, and he's tangentially leaving it up to America and their allies to truly go after ISIS.
The infamous "Red Line" comment was clearly a talking point from a Neocon staffer to set up Obama. The fact chemical weapons were used begs the question as to whether Assad or some other party eager for American involvement launched the chemical attack.
Of course, President Obama deserves criticism for his "red line" statement, but he made a brilliant move by asking for Congressional authorization to attack Syria. Shortly after that a CNN poll revealed that 70% of the American public were against Congressional authorization. So blame or salute the American public. All options are bad, but sending in US troops would be the worst thing to do, thank you, President Barack Obama for minimizing America's risk in a wasteland of bad options.
Mr. Putin is brilliantly attacking Mr. Assad's immediate threat, presumably that includes the very minority group of US backed rebels, and he's tangentially leaving it up to America and their allies to truly go after ISIS.
The infamous "Red Line" comment was clearly a talking point from a Neocon staffer to set up Obama. The fact chemical weapons were used begs the question as to whether Assad or some other party eager for American involvement launched the chemical attack.
Of course, President Obama deserves criticism for his "red line" statement, but he made a brilliant move by asking for Congressional authorization to attack Syria. Shortly after that a CNN poll revealed that 70% of the American public were against Congressional authorization. So blame or salute the American public. All options are bad, but sending in US troops would be the worst thing to do, thank you, President Barack Obama for minimizing America's risk in a wasteland of bad options.
34
Brilliant move? After repeated vacillation on the red line, Obama realized he had no support from the American people, his own party, a good majority of the opposition party, and even the international community rejected this pln ( or lack thereof). He had to bailed out by Putin. Again America lost stature. From day one, we had no idea who were the so called good rebels. We had no business getting involved in the first place, just as we had no reason to invade Iraq. Obama has learned nothing from the gross missteps of his predecessor. Was his complicity in the take down of Qaddafi and Mubarak also brilliant moves?
I hope the next president will be brilliant enough disengage from all military involvement in the Mideast, and all other foreign civil wars.
I hope the next president will be brilliant enough disengage from all military involvement in the Mideast, and all other foreign civil wars.
As someone who did NOT vote for Obama, either time, I agree with your comments (though I wonder about your basis for saying some "Neocon..set up Obama")and am thankful we've had a President who has been wary of military action. This is, essentially, a religious war that we should stay out of.
REZDUDE: While u r writing an apologia for O's reticence even to offer the mildest criticism of VP's and ASSAD'S aggression against innocent civilians in Syria, victims of ASSAD's willingness to drop barrel bombs on them, with the tacit approval of the US, all part of 0's "grand design" to propitiate Iran and Russia, You r also failing to understand that O admires PUTIN, and wishes that he had the power that VP has. Any CIA analyst will tell you that. "Pin prick" air strikes against ASSAD's air force, "coups de bistouri " would have shown the world and ASSAD that we still had some credibility left as a world leader."Helas," we r stuck with a c-in-c who has been in over his head from the outset, who has shown contempt on many occasions for his fellow citizens, and is biding his time until he can cash in as an ex president on the lucrative lecture circuit. Compare O to Charles de Gaulle: 5 star general, innovator of tank warfare, wounded at Verdun, head of the FFL and the savior of France, author of books which he wrote himself, and well, you get the idea: We have not been spoiled in terms of leadership over the past 7 years. On the contrary.
This Administration has utterly no idea how to proceed. At this point, I think it's best to wait the situation out until someone else takes over. Just like the Iranian hostage crises.
Nothing good can come from this dithering.
Nothing good can come from this dithering.
23
We need to elect a Texan, no dithering, guns blazing. Let's keep making the same old mistakes!
1
Jimmy Carter played hardball with Iran over the hostages but was undone by bad luck and the US military's failure to execute the task on the day. A second hardball attempt demanded by Carter fizzled when the modified C-130 proposed for the second rescue crashed in a demonstration. Carter then negotiated the release of the hostages. While the hostages were actually released 20 minutes or so into the term of the following administration, the change in administration had nothing whatsoever to do with the outcome nor did Reagan play any role. You seem to be conflating the Iranian hostage crisis of the Iranian revolutionary period with the Iran-Contra affair, where Reagan's men, if not Reagan himself, acted illegally.
1
Read what others are writing--intelligently. There is absolutely nothing that the US can do to make this better. Obama is being wise in staying out---and if Putin wants to jump in with both feet, then so be it. Or if Saudi Arabia wants to depose Assad, let them. And if Europe wants to deal with the cause of the refugee crisis at their doorstep, let them figure out what to do. This is just not our problem---and only the neocons/chicken hawks/ Dick Cheney et al want to jump in---again.
Entering the Syrian conflict was a mistake. Getting rid of a leader like Bashar al-Assad, who clearly has the support of enough Syrians to hold on to power, can never really be justified. And so the Islamic State became a convenient excuse for the 'non-war' that Obama is waging in Syria. Indeed, no other group or individual has been given as much front page coverage by The New York Times as the Islamic State; not even the President. But what business does the United States have diving into a tribal and sectarian conflict that is older than the American republic?
At least give some credit to Obama for admitting that he had made the wrong call and for finally having the having the courage to stand up to the war mongers. It may be humiliating to pull back, but at least no American troops died senselessly in a war that America has no real, defined strategic interests. If he sticks to his guns and refuse to send anymore aid to the now hapless rebels, those of you who voted for Obama may take some comfort in knowing that when push came to shove, this President put American interests first.
At least give some credit to Obama for admitting that he had made the wrong call and for finally having the having the courage to stand up to the war mongers. It may be humiliating to pull back, but at least no American troops died senselessly in a war that America has no real, defined strategic interests. If he sticks to his guns and refuse to send anymore aid to the now hapless rebels, those of you who voted for Obama may take some comfort in knowing that when push came to shove, this President put American interests first.
80
Indeed, even those of us who did NOT vote for him take comfort in the fact that the President has been wary of entering the Syrian conflict.
Sometimes doing nothing is the best, strongest position. I am glad Obama is mostly sitting this out. I would rather that he do so entirely, meaning not even airstrikes. Not because I am a pacifist, but because there are no powerful "good guys" in Syria. The only "good guys" are the refugees who just want to get out. This is a region-wide civil war whose roots go back centuries. Bush made the mistake of thinking he could democratize these societies and change history. He actually did very little, despite Republicans saying he did good and Democrats saying he created the whole mess. What he did do was negative (Saddam at least kept the religious nut jobs in check). But the history of this civil war between Shiites and Sunnis marches on. Putin is a fool; this is Afghanistan all over again. Stay out, and let them fight their war. This is not our war.
31
Amen, Amen, Amen!
I must say I'm a bit mystified by the comments of those who insist the US should "do something."
What, exactly?
Some people say "Attack the Russians if they cross into Turkish airspace again." Others say "Attack them even if they don't." Still others say "Declare a no-fly zone in Syria" -- which means, of course, "Attack the Russians" if they ignore our declaration as, needless to say, they would.
The reality -- excuse me: the realities -- are that (1) we can't do anything about what the Russians are doing, unless we're prepared to declare war on Russia over Syria (almost too absurd even to write); and (2) even if we could, why would we? The Russians are taking action to end this war. The only part we don't like is that their ally (Assad) will end up on top. Maybe some people consider that to be too big a price to pay to end this horrible war. I don't, and I think most people don't.
What, exactly?
Some people say "Attack the Russians if they cross into Turkish airspace again." Others say "Attack them even if they don't." Still others say "Declare a no-fly zone in Syria" -- which means, of course, "Attack the Russians" if they ignore our declaration as, needless to say, they would.
The reality -- excuse me: the realities -- are that (1) we can't do anything about what the Russians are doing, unless we're prepared to declare war on Russia over Syria (almost too absurd even to write); and (2) even if we could, why would we? The Russians are taking action to end this war. The only part we don't like is that their ally (Assad) will end up on top. Maybe some people consider that to be too big a price to pay to end this horrible war. I don't, and I think most people don't.
111
The only thing that will help against ISIS is boots on the ground. If we're not willing to commit then we need to work with someone who is, like Assad. Putin has realized this.
Do nothing and stay the hell out of it. The less Obama does in the Middle East the better.
170
Obama's "strategic patience and persistence" is an strategy that is digging our Nation into a hole. It is incredibly naïve to think Putin will end his interventions in Syria. This is just his beginning moves and each success will be exploited further.
In the long run, Syria's Assad is a close ally with Iran. One can only dread what will happen as Putin, Assad and Iran align their interests and become dominating Powers. The ISIS threat will be miniscule in comparison. The longer Obama waits the higher the price we will have to pay to stop this debacle. Hope someone will come up with a strategy that will reassert US National interests in the area.
In the long run, Syria's Assad is a close ally with Iran. One can only dread what will happen as Putin, Assad and Iran align their interests and become dominating Powers. The ISIS threat will be miniscule in comparison. The longer Obama waits the higher the price we will have to pay to stop this debacle. Hope someone will come up with a strategy that will reassert US National interests in the area.
8
Why do we Americans think that military power projection is only our God-given entitlement? Russians and Chinese are not doing anything West hasn't done for decades . . . The West should stop whining and accept New Reality.
and exactly what are our interests in the region? Cheap oil? This is not our fight....we cant wake up every morning and remake the world in our image. Every comment on here is intelligent--except this one
Why don't you just come out and say it without mincing words - you want the US to support ISIS. You don't care about the monstrous executions, the monstrous persecutions, the rapes, etc. You'd be willing to join hands with the Devil himself just to spit in Putin's eye. Well, then you shouldn't feel insulted when others tell you where to go.
The US never should have supported this latest round of regime change gamesmanship, because it was always going to throw many lives up in the air. Now it's raining bodies, and all some myopes care about is squawking at Putin. There's no moral highground in that - you'd better start fabricating some evidence on WMDs.
The next Bin Laden is going to have a field day, just like the last one did, courtesy of these blinkered navel-gazing Cold Warriors.
The US never should have supported this latest round of regime change gamesmanship, because it was always going to throw many lives up in the air. Now it's raining bodies, and all some myopes care about is squawking at Putin. There's no moral highground in that - you'd better start fabricating some evidence on WMDs.
The next Bin Laden is going to have a field day, just like the last one did, courtesy of these blinkered navel-gazing Cold Warriors.
1
There probably are ways through cyber warfare and other methods that Putin can be frustrated. However, it would be better to not disclose them. This is not a football game. There is no fourth quarter.
2
The real risk here is not Syria. Or even the Middle East. This is shaping up to be a much more dangerous build up of tensions on a global level. The US has not just angered Russians over Ukraine; the US is also about to test China's willingness to defend it's claims in the South China Seas.
When the US is on the edge of active fighting with the two most powerful nations on earth, it's scary to think of the things that can go wrong.
When the US is on the edge of active fighting with the two most powerful nations on earth, it's scary to think of the things that can go wrong.
16
I realize it's a slap in the face when Putin ignores Obama's words and does what he wants in Syria, but let's not do the knee jerk testosterone dance. There will be consequences to Russia's actions, but they don't have to come directly from us. Even if Putin deals a blow to the rebels, there is still ISIS. Syria is almost nonexistent as a country and Assad can't stand alone. Looks like a long commitment if Russia wants to control the outcome. Putin may soon regret his decision to take action. Let's pack up, put our money into our country and let the chips fall where they may. We simply can not contain the middle east. Nor can Russia.
38
Quick -- what's the unstated but critical premise in this passage:
"So let's not forget that Russia was forced out of Afghanistan because its attack jets and helicopters became vulnerable to the manpads provided to the mujahedin by the US. But Obama is unwilling to provide the Syrian opposition with any such defensive weaponry."
It's this: What's most important here is that the "Syrian opposition" win -- not that the war end soon, regardless of who wins. Having the war end soon would be fine, but the most important thing is that the Syrian opposition win -- even if supplying them with weapons means the war will drag on indefinitely.
But what is in fact important -- for the Syrian people (remember them?) -- is that the war end soon, regardless of who wins. Maybe the Russians are helping out only because they know their help will lead to their guy winning, and they wouldn't have helped if they thought their help would lead to the rebels winning. Frankly, I suspect that's the case: the Russians aren't in the "selfless saviors" business – never have been. Nonetheless, if we really care about helping the long-suffering Syrian people, we should not interfere with the Russians. One of two results will occur: either the Russians will get bogged down, in which case those who oppose them can say "See, told you so. Quagmire, another Vietnam." OR the Russians will NOT get bogged down and will end this brutal war soon. Either way, we win -- and so do the long-suffering Syrian people.
"So let's not forget that Russia was forced out of Afghanistan because its attack jets and helicopters became vulnerable to the manpads provided to the mujahedin by the US. But Obama is unwilling to provide the Syrian opposition with any such defensive weaponry."
It's this: What's most important here is that the "Syrian opposition" win -- not that the war end soon, regardless of who wins. Having the war end soon would be fine, but the most important thing is that the Syrian opposition win -- even if supplying them with weapons means the war will drag on indefinitely.
But what is in fact important -- for the Syrian people (remember them?) -- is that the war end soon, regardless of who wins. Maybe the Russians are helping out only because they know their help will lead to their guy winning, and they wouldn't have helped if they thought their help would lead to the rebels winning. Frankly, I suspect that's the case: the Russians aren't in the "selfless saviors" business – never have been. Nonetheless, if we really care about helping the long-suffering Syrian people, we should not interfere with the Russians. One of two results will occur: either the Russians will get bogged down, in which case those who oppose them can say "See, told you so. Quagmire, another Vietnam." OR the Russians will NOT get bogged down and will end this brutal war soon. Either way, we win -- and so do the long-suffering Syrian people.
12
If the Russians get bogged down, the Syrian people don't win. If the Russians finish off ISIS quickly and decisively, then the Syrians win because they see an end to their conflict quicker. These Islamist rebels aren't going to create any Jeffersonian democracy, so there's no point in anybody helping them fight on. That the Russians would gain a better strategic position is dubious, because they're just keeping alive the same old Assad regime that's been their client for the past 50 years. It's the US which suddenly finds Assad's continuation intolerable - and let's be honest, that has nothing to do with Assad bombing civilians - it has to do with the unacknowledged vulnerability America's interests in the wake of Saddam's overthrow. Because Iraq is now reverting to Persian/Iranian control, it's the US which has the sudden new need of a pliable regime in Syria. That's not Assad's fault - that's America's/Bush's fault for rushing headlong into Iraq, where wiser men would have feared to tread.
This ugly tendency for Americans to play hell with large numbers of third world lives, like capricious Greek gods, is the answer to that old American question: "Why Do They Hate Us?"
This ugly tendency for Americans to play hell with large numbers of third world lives, like capricious Greek gods, is the answer to that old American question: "Why Do They Hate Us?"
Obama and the US public largely created this mess through our premature withdrawal from Iraq. We should have hunkered down during Maliki's tenure, and kept large numbers of troops at their bases as well as on operations with the Iraqi army. And thus we would have continued serving as a fair broker for the Sunnis, in spite of Maliki.
This would have denied ISIS their Iraqi power base.
Once we withdrew our troops we ceded our influence to Iran, and the rest is history. We Americans just can't manage to think like an empire - which is to say, long-term - even though, as a super-power, we need to.
This would have denied ISIS their Iraqi power base.
Once we withdrew our troops we ceded our influence to Iran, and the rest is history. We Americans just can't manage to think like an empire - which is to say, long-term - even though, as a super-power, we need to.
11
Although logical, not realistic. We could be in the Iraq for a 100 years and the day we leave the population will return to the authoritarian rule they are used to. It is really naïve to believe we could have made a difference if we had stayed in Iraq, just like it is naïve to believe those that we train and equip in Syria would fight against ISIS. For all practical purposes they could be ISIS with a different name. It was a mistake to meddle in Middle Eastern governance in the first place. Obama is doing the right thing. We should cut our losses and get out.
19
George Bush had an agreement on a pull out date. Obama honored that agreement when he could not come to terms with Maliki on a continued American presence. Its the Iraqi's that caused us to withdraw, not President Obama. If we had stayed, wouldn't we just be another army of occupation? Is that our role in a sovereign nation?
18
Obama didn't withdraw from Iraq. Bush signed the agreement to withdraw all troops by 2011.
ISIS grew out of the insurgency during the Iraq war, so the Bush administration, by invading Iraq and excluding the Bathists from the military and government created the conditions from which ISIS formed.
ISIS grew out of the insurgency during the Iraq war, so the Bush administration, by invading Iraq and excluding the Bathists from the military and government created the conditions from which ISIS formed.
1
Wait it out forever and let Putin take on these tribes.
We couldn't go all-out against ISIS b/c Saudi Arabia, our BFF ally. We shouldn't be criticizing Russia when we're helping SA bomb Yemen to bits--such hypocrisy.
I'm very grateful we're not engaging in this mess.
Our insistence on Assad going in midst of war, when there are no moderates left- some Syrian Chalabi must be whispering in our military's ear for them to keep repeating this as if we'll believe it if they keep repeating it. But we don't.
Comments from those apparently wishing we were fully engaged over there: Iraq, Afghanistan, let alone Vietnam, taught us nothing?
Or else these are mercenaries and others of the MIC posting.
Keep us out. No arming of rebels anywhere anymore. We once armed Bin Laden and hailed him as a Freedom Fighter against Russia.
Let's sit this one out. One thing I agree with Trump on.
We couldn't go all-out against ISIS b/c Saudi Arabia, our BFF ally. We shouldn't be criticizing Russia when we're helping SA bomb Yemen to bits--such hypocrisy.
I'm very grateful we're not engaging in this mess.
Our insistence on Assad going in midst of war, when there are no moderates left- some Syrian Chalabi must be whispering in our military's ear for them to keep repeating this as if we'll believe it if they keep repeating it. But we don't.
Comments from those apparently wishing we were fully engaged over there: Iraq, Afghanistan, let alone Vietnam, taught us nothing?
Or else these are mercenaries and others of the MIC posting.
Keep us out. No arming of rebels anywhere anymore. We once armed Bin Laden and hailed him as a Freedom Fighter against Russia.
Let's sit this one out. One thing I agree with Trump on.
52
Jon DePeter quoted a famous Yogi Berra saying in his comment:
"It ain't over till it's over."
He might have picked another one:
"It's deja vu all over again."
Once again, we claim to be concerned with the suffering of innocent people, but when someone else steps in to end the suffering of millions of innocent civilians – who, truth be known, really couldn't care less who's calling the shots from Damascus – we object because that stepping-in probably means the guy we don't like will end up winning. In other words, we're eager to see those poor civilians stop suffering -- but not all that eager.
"It ain't over till it's over."
He might have picked another one:
"It's deja vu all over again."
Once again, we claim to be concerned with the suffering of innocent people, but when someone else steps in to end the suffering of millions of innocent civilians – who, truth be known, really couldn't care less who's calling the shots from Damascus – we object because that stepping-in probably means the guy we don't like will end up winning. In other words, we're eager to see those poor civilians stop suffering -- but not all that eager.
8
The Russians are keeping Assad in power, and the barrel bombs falling.
Russia isn't going after ISIS, it's pretty clear that Russia is pushing ISIS towards Turkey. There is no way ISIS will be able to break through Russia's defense for Assad, so they have no choice BUT to move on to Turkey. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. How about a little meddling in Ukraine? I don't think Russia can handle being at war at two fronts.
3
Call President Obama all the negative words you want. Call him weak. It's easy to criticize considering we're all sitting in a comfortable room, with our laptops, and perhaps a cup of tea. I am. It's easy to be an armchair general.
I, for one do not wish for the United States to get mired in a quagmire that is Syria. I do not want my country to go to war. I did not support the Vietnam war, nor the Iraq war. The price in blood is too high. I might be the only one who feels strongly that President Obama is taking the right approach. For those who call him weak; what would be their solution?
I agree with those of you who write that it must be the Arab world to solve the ISIS problem. I don't believe any Western power, nor the Russians will be able to eliminate ISIS.
We need to be realistic here.
I, for one do not wish for the United States to get mired in a quagmire that is Syria. I do not want my country to go to war. I did not support the Vietnam war, nor the Iraq war. The price in blood is too high. I might be the only one who feels strongly that President Obama is taking the right approach. For those who call him weak; what would be their solution?
I agree with those of you who write that it must be the Arab world to solve the ISIS problem. I don't believe any Western power, nor the Russians will be able to eliminate ISIS.
We need to be realistic here.
56
Assad may be a dictator, but he held the country together, didn't particularly persecute religious minorities and left Israel alone. Our backing of the so-called "Arab Spring" threw the whole region into turmoil, after if had been pretty quite. I hope the Syrian people will forgive us for our feckless foreign policy decisions.
12
Right now Assad is dropping barrel bombs (and not long ago nerve gas) on cities. The victims are mostly a religious majority, but they are still human.
One good eay to raise the price of oil and thereby put a few more rubles in the Russian coffers is a threat of war. Watch for it!
4
Syria doesn't produce oil, so .....
Yes, let's break out the measuring sticks for Obama and Putin. That seems like a great reason to get mired in WWIII. Let Russia have a whack at it first. They had huge success in this part of the world in the 80s. Let's learn from that lesson and stay out of it. Should we really get bent out of shape because Putin is going to war when we aren't?
12
A middle east controlled by Putin is going to be nightmare. Watch Russia control the price of oil if he wins in Syria.This intervention is not about Assad it is about the economy of the oil dependent Russia.
2
When Syria has been Moscow's client for over half a century, then how is Syria's continuation as Moscow's client then supposed to bring the apocalypse? The sudden need for the US to have a pro-American regime in Damascus is the fault of US meddling in Iraq. It's only the USA which direly needs regime change, not everybody else. The Syrians would have been better off continuing to live under Assad's half-century old regime, rather than being tossed from the frying pan into the fire. It's only because the USA's ill-conceived upheaval of Iraq has now inevitably brought it back under historical Persian/Iranian influence that the US now has this new need to further alter the Middle East. Maybe Americans should take time out to stop riding the tiger of regime change.
We have a president who believes his charm will solve all the issues of the world. A slap on the back, a hand shake, having a beer togeather. Putin has no respect for him. He looks at this president and sees a weak leader, an empty suit.
15
At least Obama keeps his shirt on.
You're description of Obama is a fiction. The person you just described is George W. Bush, who, despite that Republicans think that history started on January 20, 2009 at 12:01 PM, created this mess that no subsequent president could find a way out of. Until the right wing gets that they will forever live in a fantasy bubble of their own making.
I think the Obama Administration is correct in thinking that the least bad choice is to wait until Russia gets bogged down like it did in Afghanistan in the eighties. Putin and the Russians stand to pay dearly for their efforts in Syria.
In any case, we can't fight a nuclear armed Russia, and our interests in Syria are not worth billions of dollars and the lives of thousands of Americans and others.
I also agree with those who believe that pointing out the possible past mistakes of the Administration and blaming it for the current situation has absolutely no value. Pointing fingers doesn't help anyone.
In any case, we can't fight a nuclear armed Russia, and our interests in Syria are not worth billions of dollars and the lives of thousands of Americans and others.
I also agree with those who believe that pointing out the possible past mistakes of the Administration and blaming it for the current situation has absolutely no value. Pointing fingers doesn't help anyone.
7
I've clicked at "open graphics" and found that Syrian opposition at the moment is composed of 7000 fractions. Suppose that Russia did nothing and would do nothing, I wonder how US and Western Europe would help the opposition to find a common denominator. How many years it would require to reach a consensus between 7000 fractions and to form another government? May be somebody can clarify for me how this could be achieved.
10
The two term limit is providential.
6
Even prior to the Russian intervention the Western military effort had come to a point of virtual failure without making any difference to the Syrian crisis situation. Now with a dramatic entry of Russia and its Shiite nations alliance- Iran, Iraq, Syria, and the Lebanese Hezbollah-into the fray not only the situation has become more complex but seemingly turned to the Russian advantage, at least, in short term, leaving the West clueless. Under the circumstances Obama and his Western allies could do nothing but to let Russia get dragged deeper and deeper into the Syrian quagmire and exhaust. For, given the worsening economic and political situation at home and limitations of his own resource starved military effort, and the likely escalation of the raging civil war and refugee exodus, Putin is bound to search some exit point, and it's then only Obama and his Western allies could force their diplomatic hand on Putin to bring him back to the negotiations. That way Obama could turn his missed Syria moment into an opportunity.
10
The operative words in the White House should not be "wait it out", but rather, "get on with our own business". Syria is not our business and of no strategic value to American national security.
In Syria, as with the multiple civil wars raging in the mid-East, there are at least two sides (or three or four) to every conflict, and it is difficult to decipher which side is more murderously evil than the other.
The problem is that politicians, both Democratic and Republican, never want to appear weak. But this shallow machismo attitude got us into Vietnam and Iraq, and all we have to show for it is trillions of dollars lost, tens of thousands of American soldiers killed, and hundreds of thousands of citizens in foreign countries slaughtered by our 'noble intentions'.
Time to grow up. And get out. We have better business to attend to.
In Syria, as with the multiple civil wars raging in the mid-East, there are at least two sides (or three or four) to every conflict, and it is difficult to decipher which side is more murderously evil than the other.
The problem is that politicians, both Democratic and Republican, never want to appear weak. But this shallow machismo attitude got us into Vietnam and Iraq, and all we have to show for it is trillions of dollars lost, tens of thousands of American soldiers killed, and hundreds of thousands of citizens in foreign countries slaughtered by our 'noble intentions'.
Time to grow up. And get out. We have better business to attend to.
190
I agree, but I would point out pointless bluster like Obama's "red line" speech makes American leaders look much weaker than a more reserved position. The "red line," where neither Congress nor UK Parliament was willing to support Obama's call for airstrikes, is like bluffing then showing you have no cards in your hand.
At one point during the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama was asked what were his foreign credentials. He answered, in part, that he majored in International Relations in college.
I teach International Relations and it just so happens that this week in my introductory international politics course the topic is foreign policy and decision-making. Obama is a textbook case of foreign policy indecision. Lacking all the information he thinks he needs to make rational choices, Obama is paralyzed by his fear of being thought of as someone who misperceives situations.
Obama seems as if he desperately to want to put use what he learned in his International Relations classes. But without a clear foreign policy vision he is afraid of making bad decisions which leads him to avoid actually making those decisions. As the rock band Rush once sang, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
I teach International Relations and it just so happens that this week in my introductory international politics course the topic is foreign policy and decision-making. Obama is a textbook case of foreign policy indecision. Lacking all the information he thinks he needs to make rational choices, Obama is paralyzed by his fear of being thought of as someone who misperceives situations.
Obama seems as if he desperately to want to put use what he learned in his International Relations classes. But without a clear foreign policy vision he is afraid of making bad decisions which leads him to avoid actually making those decisions. As the rock band Rush once sang, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
6
I keep thinking of the old adage that "those who fail to remember the past are condemned to repeat it." So let's not forget that Russia was forced out of Afghanistan because its attack jets and helicopters became vulnerable to the manpads provided to the mujahedin by the US. But Obama is unwilling to provide the Syrian opposition with any such defensive weaponry.
Let the next US president deal with the problem says Obama. And so, under Obama's leadership from behind, the refugee crisis continues unabated.
Too bad that the EU is unwilling to step up to the plate and confront Assad and the Russians.
Let the next US president deal with the problem says Obama. And so, under Obama's leadership from behind, the refugee crisis continues unabated.
Too bad that the EU is unwilling to step up to the plate and confront Assad and the Russians.
By taking in thousands of Syrian men of military age every day, one might argue that Germany has done more to cripple Assad than any other other country or non-state actor. At the rate we're going -- a brigade or two's worth a day -- soon there won't be anyone left to fight for the government. No amount of Russian hardware is likely to change this.
5
Before you lament that Europe, now flooded with refugees from the mid-East, to "step up to the plate" with military action, state what it is that they would get out of it. The answer is; absolutely nothing.
Do not ask other people to fight wars on behalf of your animus.
Do not ask other people to fight wars on behalf of your animus.
3
Re: "But Obama is unwilling to provide the Syrian opposition with any such defensive weaponry."
As inept as Obama has been been in Syria, what with thundering that Assad must go but doing nothing to make it happen other than blustering about erasable red lines, he has a point here - we would be giving anti-aircraft weapons to groups fighting alongside al Qaeda affiliates. If, as seems likely, some of those weapons were lost to or captured by al Qaeda and airliners started getting shot down in Europe or the US, well, oops.
As inept as Obama has been been in Syria, what with thundering that Assad must go but doing nothing to make it happen other than blustering about erasable red lines, he has a point here - we would be giving anti-aircraft weapons to groups fighting alongside al Qaeda affiliates. If, as seems likely, some of those weapons were lost to or captured by al Qaeda and airliners started getting shot down in Europe or the US, well, oops.
4
Perhaps a tad too much naivete in this suggested solution:
"The President has to openly declare to take up the cause of the Sunni faction in the struggle in the Middle East. He does not have to put boots on the ground. Once he makes that declaration the Arab states will take up the fight without the needs of the Americans."
If I understand this correctly, all Obama had to do is say "We're for the Sunnis in this one!" And then the Arab states would say: "Thanks, Barack -- that's all we needed! Now that our people know that you're on our side, they'll be lining up at recruiting offices first thing in the morning. We can handle it from here."
Sounds like a plan. Have you considered running for President? No? Good.
"The President has to openly declare to take up the cause of the Sunni faction in the struggle in the Middle East. He does not have to put boots on the ground. Once he makes that declaration the Arab states will take up the fight without the needs of the Americans."
If I understand this correctly, all Obama had to do is say "We're for the Sunnis in this one!" And then the Arab states would say: "Thanks, Barack -- that's all we needed! Now that our people know that you're on our side, they'll be lining up at recruiting offices first thing in the morning. We can handle it from here."
Sounds like a plan. Have you considered running for President? No? Good.
7
Keep out of this hornet's nest. All that will come of it will be thousands of American lives lost and a trillion dollars spent. We've been through this in Iraq and we know the outcome. Stay put and let Putin fire his stupid missiles. Let the troops enjoy the holidays with their families. We have no cause to be there. Think, think of American lives before doing something stupid and tragic.
50
Not rushing to reaction is in fact a strategy itself. While it's a shame in my view that Obama cannot argue to his local critics that partnering with Russia could be a very good thing -- in Syria and beyond -- at least he isn't blathering threateningly about 'the Russians are coming'. Surely Obama can use the cause and effect calculus we were all born with to see that reining in the baiting by his own neo-con dominated foreign policy clique is better than listening to them .... again.
12
"Strategic Patience and Persistence".
The only thing that the Obama administrations seems to persist in is "patience". It is hard to see how it is strategic and indeed it seems very much like paralysis.
Russia wants to keep Assad in power and embarrass the West. It will most likely continue to do so and Mr. Obama will strategically do nothing.
The only thing that the Obama administrations seems to persist in is "patience". It is hard to see how it is strategic and indeed it seems very much like paralysis.
Russia wants to keep Assad in power and embarrass the West. It will most likely continue to do so and Mr. Obama will strategically do nothing.
2
Actually, it's not the worst possible strategy. On Monday, Wednesday and Friday we oppose Putin. On Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, we work with him. Sundays we take off. We win half the time and lose half the time. When you consider how things have been going for the U.S. lately in the Middle East, 50 percent is better than nothing.
2
Waiting?
For what?
Some one new in the White House? A new President in Russia, Iran, Syria?
Waiting and hoping for "mission accomplished"?
Waiting is tiresome when no end of the journey is in sight and not even known.
For what?
Some one new in the White House? A new President in Russia, Iran, Syria?
Waiting and hoping for "mission accomplished"?
Waiting is tiresome when no end of the journey is in sight and not even known.
16
Waiting for what?
To get a clue about what all to do.
As another has noted, we don't have one yet, if we ever will. No one does other than Russia who simply wants Assad to stay in power.
What we are witnessing is the beginning of the end of the colonial order established after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. There is no way to predict where it will all lead.
To get a clue about what all to do.
As another has noted, we don't have one yet, if we ever will. No one does other than Russia who simply wants Assad to stay in power.
What we are witnessing is the beginning of the end of the colonial order established after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. There is no way to predict where it will all lead.
Waiting for the end of hydrocarbon addiction and a profound disinterest in the Middle East that will allow it to slip back into an obscure desert.
Put it this way. Major U.S. commitments to control outcomes in Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq did not work out. Major Soviet commitments to control Afghanistan and Eastern Europe did not work out, not in the medium term (Czechoslovakia, Hungary) nor in the long term. Now you think that a dozen Russian warplanes in the Assad shard of former Syria is a brilliant strategy?
1
Famous Last Words:
“Gov. Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that al Qaeda is a threat,” Obama said, “because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia.”
“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years,” Obama said.
“Gov. Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that al Qaeda is a threat,” Obama said, “because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia.”
“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years,” Obama said.
7
We don't need to figure out how to get in deeper. What keeps happening with all these "offensives" by the Syrian government we keep hearing about this week? The answer is NOTHING. Same result as before the Russians arrived. Now Russia and Iran can decide whether they want to commit 100,000+ soldiers to get the job done themselves, or leave with nothing accomplished whatsoever. What a choice.
6
On a day when Morning Joe was celebrating as Mr. Putin, man of action, played hockey on his birthday, the egomaniacal sociopath sent Russian troops to begin a ground war in Syria to fight for Asaad's government.
Here's an idea whose time has come. Get us out of there, and everywhere else, President Obama, and let Mr. Putin absorb the vengeance of ISIL and wreck the Russian economy in the quagmire that is Syria.
Please stop dropping bombs everywhere and provide humanitarian aid only, outside the war zones. When we commit to this as a country, the violence can begin to subside in the world.
Then watch as Russia implodes.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Putin.
mlouisemarkle
State College, PA.
Here's an idea whose time has come. Get us out of there, and everywhere else, President Obama, and let Mr. Putin absorb the vengeance of ISIL and wreck the Russian economy in the quagmire that is Syria.
Please stop dropping bombs everywhere and provide humanitarian aid only, outside the war zones. When we commit to this as a country, the violence can begin to subside in the world.
Then watch as Russia implodes.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Putin.
mlouisemarkle
State College, PA.
19
No matter what is officially proclaimed, the only thing that matters are the facts on the ground. Those are:
1) Assad isn't going anywhere.
2) Our so called Free Syrian Army is too splintered, disorganized, poorly equipped, and untrained to mount a serious offensive against Assad or ISIS or any other force. We are incapable of transforming it.
3) There is no way the US or NATO will engage in combat with Russia. We can threaten and posture all we want, but Russia knows they can do what they want with impunity.
4) The Arab states will not commit ground troops to the conflict. Their air strikes are primarily symbolic with questionable effectiveness.
5) ISIS has already won.
6) We don't have a clue what to do.
Russia wants to secure Assad. They are not going to war against ISIS. No one wants to war against ISIS. Only the Arabs can eliminate them and they aren't exactly lining up for the job.
All that's left is talk. This goose is cooked. Might as well start redrawing the maps.
1) Assad isn't going anywhere.
2) Our so called Free Syrian Army is too splintered, disorganized, poorly equipped, and untrained to mount a serious offensive against Assad or ISIS or any other force. We are incapable of transforming it.
3) There is no way the US or NATO will engage in combat with Russia. We can threaten and posture all we want, but Russia knows they can do what they want with impunity.
4) The Arab states will not commit ground troops to the conflict. Their air strikes are primarily symbolic with questionable effectiveness.
5) ISIS has already won.
6) We don't have a clue what to do.
Russia wants to secure Assad. They are not going to war against ISIS. No one wants to war against ISIS. Only the Arabs can eliminate them and they aren't exactly lining up for the job.
All that's left is talk. This goose is cooked. Might as well start redrawing the maps.
143
You can't talk to ISIS. They won't talk. Only thing is to kill them.
All of them.
All of them.
ISIS has nothing. They temporarily hold territory, but their extreme form of theocracy never lasts long. And before it crumbles from within, it will be destroyed by some combination of the enemies it has made of the entire world (save the equally self-destructive Taliban).
I can only guess that the support on here for your pessimistic assessment stems from the public conditioning by media trends seemingly obsessed with failure, catastrophe and dystopian futures, even when the reality shows a wealth of promise.
I can only guess that the support on here for your pessimistic assessment stems from the public conditioning by media trends seemingly obsessed with failure, catastrophe and dystopian futures, even when the reality shows a wealth of promise.
Actually, Russia has won much more than sustaining the Assad regime.
For 500 years Russia has lusted after a warm water port. The Syrian port of Latakia is the base for Russian operations in Syria. Russia is not going to leave.
The balance of power in the Mediterranean has changed.
For 500 years Russia has lusted after a warm water port. The Syrian port of Latakia is the base for Russian operations in Syria. Russia is not going to leave.
The balance of power in the Mediterranean has changed.
President Obama’s Syrian war is contradictory. We claim opposition to radical Islam in our bombing of ISIS and support the Army of Conquest with the declaration that some of the elements are trained and armed by us. Our failure to turn back ISIS is matched by our failure to produce moderate rebels. The rise of the Nusra Front saw it destroy Suqour al-Ghab and absorb Division 13 fighters. The al Qaeda organization overwhelmed our $500 million-man army when the few dozen fighters either melted away or joined al Qaeda bringing with them the weapons we provided. Essentially there are no moderate rebels, only those who follow al Qaeda’s leadership. The Nusra Front and ISIS share identical beliefs and politcal goals. Before we start a shooting war with Russia, the American public should be presented with the unvarnished truth that a no-fly zone will protect the terrorists we have been fighting for over fourteen years so as to remove a dictator who is allied with Iran, a country we have just concluded an agreement.
15
It's deja-vu all over again to watch the Administration trumpet a policy of supporting rebels who are the mirror image of the 'mujahedin' we supported to oppose the cold war Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Those same mujahedin morphed into the Taliban and Al-qaeda who we have now spent 14 years and uncountable sums fighting -- with ISIS now thrown into the mix.
A coherent post cold war policy in the context of our times would see us allied with the Russians in a common effort. But clearly, now as then, we seem compelled to let the Saudis call the shots with our support so that the "cost" to the Russians can be raised and the conflict prolonged interminably.
A coherent post cold war policy in the context of our times would see us allied with the Russians in a common effort. But clearly, now as then, we seem compelled to let the Saudis call the shots with our support so that the "cost" to the Russians can be raised and the conflict prolonged interminably.
6
Putin will play this aggressive hand with little reaction from Obama. He will get bored, see no endgame, then leave. We are doing the right thing by not engaging. Let him make his stupid move.
22
Putin has never proven one who partners but a shrewd dictator who invades. All we need is for these "allies" to turn on the US troops and we will have a WW3 on our hands. The social media has been so used by anarchists who want to break the Americas, and marketeers in business bought into the pressure to cater to groups that have little life experience to balance and judge, so the ships tilt in the wind and fools follow. For God's sake and Nation's sake, get a grip America. We do not need to babysit, accommodate, instigate or placate any other nation. This century looks like a long damn haul already.
6
I am very glad our President is demonstrating strategic patience. Too many people, mostly men, treat this as some type of athletic event, where the conversation is turned into some type of ESPN chatter with back and forth on a daily basis about who is the winner and who is the loser. Here's a bit of advice from a real sports legend " It ain't over till it's over ". Which in this case means a President that recognizes the fact that the American people do not want to be dragged into another useless military adventure in the Middle East, so he will have to play the long game. Sorry sports fans, this will have to go into overtime before you can claim your coach blew the game.
55
Obama has already dragged the US into a military adventure. Did you not read the part of the article where the US is supporting rebel groups being bombed by Russians, while we bomb Assad's other enemy: ISIS.
1
Washington's fetish to get rid of Assad is the most dangerous aspect of this crisis. Washington refuses to accede to a transition that leaves Assad -- and the institutions of Syrian governance and the Syrian military -- in place until a meaningful cease fire is agreed and elections can determine sometime down the road who will assume the reins in Syria.
There is one and only one reason the USA continues to undermine Assad militarily rather than to work with him, the Russians, and Iranians to quell ISIS, and that reason is Iran, bete noir of Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the other Sunni states. This is madness, particularly in view of the chaos that bringing down Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi left in their wakes.
Washington's problem is not Assad. It is the dogs with whom it has chosen to lie down. Washington is supporting their interests not its own and defending a rationale publicly that is political, emotionally manipulative, and indefensible on neither tactical nor strategic grounds.
With Russia now active in Syria and China in the wings the USA is risking world war to defend other nations' interests. Listening to this indefensible position being sold by Washington is maddening and scary. The wrong people are running American foreign policy, and their aims do not promote the interests of the American people.
There is one and only one reason the USA continues to undermine Assad militarily rather than to work with him, the Russians, and Iranians to quell ISIS, and that reason is Iran, bete noir of Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the other Sunni states. This is madness, particularly in view of the chaos that bringing down Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi left in their wakes.
Washington's problem is not Assad. It is the dogs with whom it has chosen to lie down. Washington is supporting their interests not its own and defending a rationale publicly that is political, emotionally manipulative, and indefensible on neither tactical nor strategic grounds.
With Russia now active in Syria and China in the wings the USA is risking world war to defend other nations' interests. Listening to this indefensible position being sold by Washington is maddening and scary. The wrong people are running American foreign policy, and their aims do not promote the interests of the American people.
104
I fully agree. The Saudis and Turkey are fulfilling their intolerant Sunni Islamic duty by funding Sunni terrorists against Assad. Their only goal is Sunni victory, regardless of the cost in human lives. The US does not dare to state this openly because it may offend Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
5
You nailed it, Bill.
3
If the us is "wary of escalation", perhaps the US should quit escalating, as our government has been doing against Russia for so long now.
And it is laughable to the point of the pathetic - "waiting out moves" - this is a cute way of saying that Russia has seized the initiative, and is acting decisively, and that the result is going to be that the momentum of change in the Middle East will no longer be driven by our government.
Given the horrifying history we have created, this is probably better.
I am tired of laughing bitterly at the US approach to Russia and the US foreign policy in the Middle East. The US has not had serious leadership in a very, very long time. The US has had opportunistic members of dynasties ruling the roost in their own class and personal interests instead. The result has been devastation.
Let's see what Putin can do. If he establishes a frozen conflict and therefore stability in Syria, he already outdid our government, and should be given afterwards the benefit of the doubt in the Middle East.
And it is laughable to the point of the pathetic - "waiting out moves" - this is a cute way of saying that Russia has seized the initiative, and is acting decisively, and that the result is going to be that the momentum of change in the Middle East will no longer be driven by our government.
Given the horrifying history we have created, this is probably better.
I am tired of laughing bitterly at the US approach to Russia and the US foreign policy in the Middle East. The US has not had serious leadership in a very, very long time. The US has had opportunistic members of dynasties ruling the roost in their own class and personal interests instead. The result has been devastation.
Let's see what Putin can do. If he establishes a frozen conflict and therefore stability in Syria, he already outdid our government, and should be given afterwards the benefit of the doubt in the Middle East.
8
Obama has been outplayed by a smarter and more astute Putin. Strategically Putin is also right that addressing the Assad issue should come after eliminating ISIS. Putin has pushed the hesitating and weak Obama aside and has re-established Russia in the Middle East.
Who would have believed that our current President would be beat Jimmy Carter's (negative) foreign policy record ?
Who would have believed that our current President would be beat Jimmy Carter's (negative) foreign policy record ?
16
Reestablished...because it went so well before.
2
I am hard pressed to understand why NYT reporters persist in labeling as "allies" anybody with interests compatible with ours. None of the anti-Assad forces is an ally. They may be our clients, or they may be our stooges, but they're not our allies.
Obama's no-strategy strategy is the prudent stance. Nobody who has complained about Obama's "lack of strategy" has been able to offer one that promises success. McCain, I'm talking about you and, Hillary, you too if you're tempted to campaign as a tough cookie.
Obama's no-strategy strategy is the prudent stance. Nobody who has complained about Obama's "lack of strategy" has been able to offer one that promises success. McCain, I'm talking about you and, Hillary, you too if you're tempted to campaign as a tough cookie.
269
Obama's no-strategy strategy has committed to US to fighting ISIS on Assad's behalf.
You don't see them as allies due to ideological bias. Which is another word for "Islamophobia". Aside form al-Qaeda affiliates, all other Islamist rebels have never done or planned to do any harm in the US. They only wish to see a dictator gone. You on other hand are being an ally to the devil himself which dropped chemicals on children.
Syria is not a simple story of good vs evil. GWB snatched people and sent them to Syria to be tortured. not a good idea.
Then the Arab spring arose. in Syria, it was countered by ruthless brutality, including gassing of civilian population. That was a line crossed by Assad that meant that he had to go.
But then, after a while, we figured that all the possible alternatives to Assad were as bad or worse than him. so then, we switched from being against Assad and ISSIS to being against ISSIS.
Enter the Russians. They are for Assad, always have been. Period. All the others are terrorists, including the ones we once thought we reasonable substitutes. We are stuck up a tree with nowhere to go.
Our presence in Syria is illegal. Russia's is legal because Assad asked for their help. We are between this rock and a hard place because we owe the Saudis who's motives have nothing to do with human rights.
Time to let the Saudis and all of our other "allies" in the Middle East fight their own wars, settle their own accounts and differences. Enough blood and treasure wasted.
Then the Arab spring arose. in Syria, it was countered by ruthless brutality, including gassing of civilian population. That was a line crossed by Assad that meant that he had to go.
But then, after a while, we figured that all the possible alternatives to Assad were as bad or worse than him. so then, we switched from being against Assad and ISSIS to being against ISSIS.
Enter the Russians. They are for Assad, always have been. Period. All the others are terrorists, including the ones we once thought we reasonable substitutes. We are stuck up a tree with nowhere to go.
Our presence in Syria is illegal. Russia's is legal because Assad asked for their help. We are between this rock and a hard place because we owe the Saudis who's motives have nothing to do with human rights.
Time to let the Saudis and all of our other "allies" in the Middle East fight their own wars, settle their own accounts and differences. Enough blood and treasure wasted.
222
"Our presence in Syria is illegal. Russia's is legal because Assad asked for their help."
How so? Assad is a war criminal against his own people. He belongs in the Hague standing trial for the countless tens of thousands he has murdered. He has forfeited his right to rule a sovereign nation. Perhaps the UN should be weighing in on this matter. Very strongly.
How so? Assad is a war criminal against his own people. He belongs in the Hague standing trial for the countless tens of thousands he has murdered. He has forfeited his right to rule a sovereign nation. Perhaps the UN should be weighing in on this matter. Very strongly.
Sure Assad is all you say he is, and probably more. And you are right about the UN. But unless we are at war against Syria, which we aren't, or unless we are acting with the UN, which we aren't either, we just can't bomb an other sovereign country, unless that country asks us to help it defeat their enemy. Assad asked Russia to help him, he didn't ask us.
Let Putin put Russia in the middle of this. The sad fact is that Syria as a country would be better off with Assad (a murderous dictator who serves a purpose). Arab countries in the Middle East apparently do better with authoritarian rule, as uncomfortable as it might be for the West. We opened the proverbial Pandora's box and have created a disaster in the process.
22
The President just does not get it. I have been saying it over and over again. The President has to openly declare to take up the cause of the Sunni faction in the struggle in the Middle East. He does not have to put boots on the ground. Once he makes that declaration the Arab states will take up the fight without the needs of the Americans. Obama does not have to protect the Shite faction in Iraq since Iran is doing it without him. The Sunni element in the area will itself sooner or later get rid of the Islamic State. It is a win win situation, even though not a political correct one.
4
So, you're solution is to vocally choose a side in a centuries old sectarian war?
Don't quit your day job.
Don't quit your day job.
1
President Obama is right not to confront the Russians and risk escalation
but letting the world know what he will or will not do is giving Putin carte-blanche to do whatever he wants to do without fear of U.S. intervention.
The president should be tight-lipped.
but letting the world know what he will or will not do is giving Putin carte-blanche to do whatever he wants to do without fear of U.S. intervention.
The president should be tight-lipped.
6
Here is a simple thought - We have no interest or business in Syria. Let Assad win (with the Russians help) then Isis will disappear, the refugee problem for Europe will disappear, and all will be well. And if the Syrian people are a little worse off (not clear) its their own fault for letting and supporting dictators like Assad for a long time, and their inability to have a successful revolution and oust him from power. But none of this is our concern.
29
This delusion that the U.S. can or should fix the Middle East simply has to be ended. We do have national interests there, yes, but none of them justify the sacrifice of American armed forces personnel and the country's treasure in yet another misguided military adventure.
If Putin's Russia wants to waste lives and rubles on an epic fool's errand, let it. That country, like ours, will soon learn that the Middle East is the place where economies, and democracies, go to die.
Stay home, America.
If Putin's Russia wants to waste lives and rubles on an epic fool's errand, let it. That country, like ours, will soon learn that the Middle East is the place where economies, and democracies, go to die.
Stay home, America.
46
The U.S. simply does not have the power to fix this situation in the Middle East, because there are so many actors on the field with their own, shifting agenda. A coalition of 500,000 troops a la Desert Storm might work, but from whence would they come?
Building an alliance under these circumstances is impossible and if we -- in a fantasy -- committed ourselves fully to fighting ISIS, the Taliban, and Assad (forgetting the Russians and Iranians for the moment) where would we end up? Exactly where we have ended up after all this time -- beset on all sides by enemies and untrustworthy allies, drained of blood and treasure. Nightmare.
Building an alliance under these circumstances is impossible and if we -- in a fantasy -- committed ourselves fully to fighting ISIS, the Taliban, and Assad (forgetting the Russians and Iranians for the moment) where would we end up? Exactly where we have ended up after all this time -- beset on all sides by enemies and untrustworthy allies, drained of blood and treasure. Nightmare.
107
Wisely put and extremely well written.
5
We have a ready-made alliance in Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Asaad -- and no doubt many others. It worked well enough in WWII, and it works very well in peacetime, as seen in the International Space Station and in dozens of scientific projects. It's time to reconsider our expensive genuflection with the Arabian Sunnis and that other ME nation. the one lusting over Syrian lands.
6
If Obama were the CEO of any corporation he would have been fired years ago for incompetence, lack of leadership and dereliction of duties. Unfortunately he holds a much more important position.
The people who elected him only care that he is black and democratic putting their own lives and futures in peril.
As Obama said "elections have consequences" These consequences will be a middle east controlled by Putin, Assad, and a nuclear armed Iran all intent on killing Americans.
The people who elected him only care that he is black and democratic putting their own lives and futures in peril.
As Obama said "elections have consequences" These consequences will be a middle east controlled by Putin, Assad, and a nuclear armed Iran all intent on killing Americans.
8
The myth that things were going great in the middle east prior to Obama? Except for those failed wars that cost $4 trillion+ and accomplished NOTHING. Is that the price for doing our "duty?" $4 trillion per decade on wars that accomplish nothing?
18
That's quite all right. Clearly, Vlad the Impaler has a strategy, even if we don't; and it involves annihilating Islamist jihadists of WHATEVER flavor, even if that means that Assad keeps his power. We should back off since just as clearly we haven't the stomach for the expense or the risks; yet, if truth were told, we share Putin's objective.
In concert with allies primary among which should be Europe and Turkey, we should be carving out a piece of Syria, protecting it absolutely with no-fly zones, and repatriate Syrian refugees and vast numbers of internally displaced to that area. We can help them rebuild Syrian lives in Syria instead of in Germany.
In concert with allies primary among which should be Europe and Turkey, we should be carving out a piece of Syria, protecting it absolutely with no-fly zones, and repatriate Syrian refugees and vast numbers of internally displaced to that area. We can help them rebuild Syrian lives in Syria instead of in Germany.
20
I think this is really a big military parade for Vlad. The Russian people are eating this up. As easily manipulated Americans are, the Russian people are wild for this stuff.
4
I think I agree more with the commentator who identifies Putin's action as directed to supporting oil pricing, which has been hammering Russia's economy.
So what exactly do you armchair generals suggest?
That the President do a GW Bush/Dick Cheney and send a few hundred thousand American men and women over to that hopeless sandbox to die, get maimed, and continue to enrich the military industrial complex?
Half a billion dollars gone missing and only 4 Syrian soldiers to show for it. Which military contractors stole the money? Criminals!
That the President do a GW Bush/Dick Cheney and send a few hundred thousand American men and women over to that hopeless sandbox to die, get maimed, and continue to enrich the military industrial complex?
Half a billion dollars gone missing and only 4 Syrian soldiers to show for it. Which military contractors stole the money? Criminals!
236
Get out. You've got to know when to play them and know when to fold them. Time to fold them. Period!
3
Good question.
Denying and misstating the facts doesn't change anything. If you ignore people whose stated goal is your destruction you end up dead. Ask the people in the world trade centers.
Your political ideology is blinding you. The war was supported by both Democrats and Republicans including people like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.
Your political ideology is blinding you. The war was supported by both Democrats and Republicans including people like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.
1
The only junior varsity team here seems to belong to Mr. Obama.
A shame we don't have any professionals running the Departments of State and Defense.
A shame we don't have any professionals running the Departments of State and Defense.
20
Who has ISIS defeated? The Iraqi army?
Calling them a JV team is a complement. Why are you so afraid of them?
Calling them a JV team is a complement. Why are you so afraid of them?
President Obama already decided to confront the Russians when he made regime change in Syria his official policy. What he did not count on was that President Putin would choose to confront US over his client. That was a miscalculation, albeit an understandable one, as over the last 20 years Russia repeatedly let US/NATO have their way without a pip: in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, in Lybia, in all multiple expansions of NATO taking the alliance all the way to Russia's borders. Russian's were weak and there was no reason to take their views and objections into account. Putin would let Obama have Syria too, but Ukraine was where US/NATO went too far and overstepped Putin's red line. After Ukraine Syria was an easy call for Putin, but somehow Obama still seems surprised. There is no great mystery here, only clueless US policymakers can feint bewilderment at Putin's behaviour. After Ukraine, the only thing left for Russians to defend is Russia itself. And defend it Putin will - anywhere and at any cost.
67
Mr. Obama is terrorized and will wait long before doing anything. In the mean time he thinks of and thinks a lot.
You make some very good points, David - but your last sentence confuses me. If the only thing that Russia will defend is Russia, how do you explain Putin's defense of Assad in Syria?
Right, right. Because Putin had "dibs".
I for one am glad that Obama doesn't feel the need to have a knee-jerk response and shoot Putin's planes out of the air simply to appear "powerful". Power is seen in the long game. (Though there is a small part of me that wouldn't mind seeing Putin humiliated--the better part knows that dead Russian pilots, who are pawns in this, helps nothing.) I do hope (trust) the US is getting Syrian rebels some back door support.
As for Putin, his actions just show (in Trump-speak) what a "loser" he is. What kind of person wants to help a monster like Assad? Will Putin also drop chemical weapons on the Syrian people as Assad did? Ohhh. How "powerful" he will seem then. Pathetic.
As for Putin, his actions just show (in Trump-speak) what a "loser" he is. What kind of person wants to help a monster like Assad? Will Putin also drop chemical weapons on the Syrian people as Assad did? Ohhh. How "powerful" he will seem then. Pathetic.
12
"The 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back.."
Time to admit that Mitt Romney was 100% correct on Putin and Russia. And Obama doesn't have a strategy at this point. Or a clue.
Time to admit that Mitt Romney was 100% correct on Putin and Russia. And Obama doesn't have a strategy at this point. Or a clue.
21
Wrong Josh, absolutely wrong. President Obama is perfectly aware of the situation. In the Middle East either way is the wrong way. Up, down, right, left or center. So the best way to go, he knows, is to go nowhere, stay foot. That very important decision of his has saved thousands upon thousands of lives just by the simple fact of staying foot. Our soldiers are safe at home enjoying a life, their families, not getting killed for nothing or any lunatic muslin and returning home in coffins.
58
There is another way: enter into discussion with Assad about the fate of the Alawites, Assad's coreligionists. The Alawites are neither Sunni nor Shia; many Arabs do not consider them to be Muslims at all, and they would most likely be exterminated if Assad were not there to protect them. So, as part of an agreement with Assad, perhaps preparing for his exit, discuss how the US and NATO would guarantee the safety of the Alawites. Don't be obstinate; understand why Assad will not want to leave if his people are left unprotected and at the mercy of all the nations that want them destroyed. It is only a change of perspective, but one that may open the door to solutions that may not be that difficult to achieve.
3
I disagree. Once the US pulls out it big Colt Peacemaker, which by the way is way bigger than Russia's gun, you have to think what next? So World War Three and the end of mankind is it?
6
We are waiting out Putin's moves in Crimea and Ukraine also. And Assad's moves in Syria, and Iran's movies on military build up. Waiting out, watching, frozen like deer in headlights. Where is our administration and our foreign policy?
16
They're worrying about America and America's problems, not the unsolvable quandaries of a far-away region that does not want, and will not accept, our "help."
Stay home, America.
Stay home, America.
9
We are waiting out Putin's moves because, like it or not, that is the best option.
Think there is a better one? Go ahead, suggest it.
Think there is a better one? Go ahead, suggest it.
6
Why should US soldiers be killed for Syria? Or Crimea, etc?
4