Trump must fight ISIS everywhere and no where.
During his Wednesday afternoon news conference, the President's intelligence blazed forth, as usual, in all its magnificence (paraphrase): I told Mr. Xi, if China could not help us with the North Korean threat, then America would have to go it alone--and "go it alone" means go it with a lot of other countries.
President Trump--by his lies, knowing and unknowing misrepresentations, misdirection and other manipulative ploys--forfeits whatever credibility he may once have had.
Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me! Shamelessly spout transparent falsehoods, fool the terminally gullible but invite the derision of the reflective and knowledgeable.
Trump is "The Little President Who Cries 'Wolf'"--and then it's up to Tillerson, Haley, Conway, Spicer, et al., to sally forth and cry: "The wolf is here!" "No, over there!" "It's behind you!" "No, in front of you!"
Then the President, just to show his flexibility and maintain his incredible unpredictibility, tweets: "The wolf is everywhere and nowhere!"
During his Wednesday afternoon news conference, the President's intelligence blazed forth, as usual, in all its magnificence (paraphrase): I told Mr. Xi, if China could not help us with the North Korean threat, then America would have to go it alone--and "go it alone" means go it with a lot of other countries.
President Trump--by his lies, knowing and unknowing misrepresentations, misdirection and other manipulative ploys--forfeits whatever credibility he may once have had.
Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me! Shamelessly spout transparent falsehoods, fool the terminally gullible but invite the derision of the reflective and knowledgeable.
Trump is "The Little President Who Cries 'Wolf'"--and then it's up to Tillerson, Haley, Conway, Spicer, et al., to sally forth and cry: "The wolf is here!" "No, over there!" "It's behind you!" "No, in front of you!"
Then the President, just to show his flexibility and maintain his incredible unpredictibility, tweets: "The wolf is everywhere and nowhere!"
6
Referencing Graeme Wood's March 2015 Atlantic article "What ISIS Really Wants"), the virtual ISIS depends on the success of the territorial ISIS for its recruitment efforts. As long as they are winning battles and expanding territory, they look like the God-ordained caliphate that every fundamentalist Muslim should want to live in, making it easier to recruit for virtual ISIS. If they are losing battles and are suffering from shrinking territory they lose legitimacy. Therefore, attacking territorial ISIS seems like an effective way to weaken virtual ISIS, which - as you correctly identify - is the primary threat to us in the West.
As to the question of why specifically the USA has to do it, leaving the messy work to the America's enemies makes sense in a rational world. However, cold rationality doesn't seem like the proper approach to dealing with terrorist threats, since the entire reason they are effective is because they leverage people's irrational fears. I think a good answer to "Why Fight ISIS" is to pose another question: How do you think the American people would respond to another ISIS attack if they knew that their government isn't taking any direct action to stop it? A plurality of Americans are already comfortable banning all Muslim refugees from entering the country because they fear the terrorist threat isn't being sufficiently addressed. How much worse do you think things will get if the official policy is to let ISIS sort itself out?
As to the question of why specifically the USA has to do it, leaving the messy work to the America's enemies makes sense in a rational world. However, cold rationality doesn't seem like the proper approach to dealing with terrorist threats, since the entire reason they are effective is because they leverage people's irrational fears. I think a good answer to "Why Fight ISIS" is to pose another question: How do you think the American people would respond to another ISIS attack if they knew that their government isn't taking any direct action to stop it? A plurality of Americans are already comfortable banning all Muslim refugees from entering the country because they fear the terrorist threat isn't being sufficiently addressed. How much worse do you think things will get if the official policy is to let ISIS sort itself out?
2
King Trump wants ratings.
You saw his ratings when he fired off his missiles. And you ask why? C'mon.
This will be 4 years of your frustration and Trump brainwashing the masses: "pay attention to what I say and not what you see"
You saw his ratings when he fired off his missiles. And you ask why? C'mon.
This will be 4 years of your frustration and Trump brainwashing the masses: "pay attention to what I say and not what you see"
7
Mr. Friedman is, in effect, encouraging a sectarian war supported by both militias and states. How's that worked out so far in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc ...? He is also proposing that the U.S. lay off one of the worst human rights offenders and dangerous recruiters of terror in the world. (What do we have a military for, then, to wait around for something worse than slaughtering civilians en masse, kidnapping 1,000 Yezidi sex slaves, throwing hundreds of people into a massive ditch where they starve to death, expanding territory, etc.?) In addition, his argument lacks context:
1) If the U.S. is to stop fighting ISIS in Syria, then what's the point of fighting them in Iraq? ISIS's base is in Syria -- right over the border from Mosul. So Iraqi and U.S. forces would defeat ISIS in Mosul, only to have them run to safety in their strongholds like Deir Ezzour and Al-Raqqa?
2) Russia and Syria have made it pretty clear that their focus is on flattening the rebels and their strongholds like Aleppo. Why would they suddenly pick up the fight against ISIS, a group that rarely targets them anyway?
3) The U.S.-led International Coalition has been fighting ISIS since 2014 in Syria, and it was a goal of the Obama administration to defeat ISIS after initially trying Friedman's laissez-faire approach. Trump has talked big on defeating ISIS but changed little of Obama's ISIS policy and strategy. Given that nothing is substantially different, why is Friedman questioning it now?
1) If the U.S. is to stop fighting ISIS in Syria, then what's the point of fighting them in Iraq? ISIS's base is in Syria -- right over the border from Mosul. So Iraqi and U.S. forces would defeat ISIS in Mosul, only to have them run to safety in their strongholds like Deir Ezzour and Al-Raqqa?
2) Russia and Syria have made it pretty clear that their focus is on flattening the rebels and their strongholds like Aleppo. Why would they suddenly pick up the fight against ISIS, a group that rarely targets them anyway?
3) The U.S.-led International Coalition has been fighting ISIS since 2014 in Syria, and it was a goal of the Obama administration to defeat ISIS after initially trying Friedman's laissez-faire approach. Trump has talked big on defeating ISIS but changed little of Obama's ISIS policy and strategy. Given that nothing is substantially different, why is Friedman questioning it now?
4
Seriously, you're using " the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan" as a model for what we should do next? Do you not know the origin story of Al-Qaeda? We armed the mujahedeen, encouraged them, then left them hanging out to be destroyed when we no longer wanted to "bleed Russia in Afghanistan". Turns out, the mujahedeen didn't like being treated like pawns and left to die. They turned into Al-Qaeda, and we know how that worked out.
You're suggesting we replicate this?
You're suggesting we replicate this?
14
It sounds like the Trump people have learned from the Bush Administration. Bush removed the Taliban from Afghanistan and Saddem Hussein from Iraq. To Sunni Arab groups on the borders of Shiite Iran. Without much thought Iran was frered to act more freely throughout the Middle East.
We all owe the new president (in some cases, VERY reluctantly) some time to acclimate to the office. It's not a traditional first day on a new job.
That said, Trump bloviated his way to a job he didn't want, yet still got what he wanted...more money for Trump. He was an unserious and unthoughtful candidate, and his infant presidency reflects that. His exhalations about beating ISIS in 30 days and knowing 'more than the generals -- believe me!' were somehow taken as statements belying some thought or policy about this issue. It was a pattern repeated for every major campaign issue.
Now we see the results: incoherent policy that befuddles and worries our allies, executed by a man (Tillerson) with no experience and no feel for the job. I am wryly amused when listening to the SoS, as I recall the GOP's denunciations of HRC's and Kerry's performance as just 'flying around' and 'accomplishing nothing.' The amusing thing is, that's what the job entails: lots of talking and travel to explain positions and if possible, negotiate away from confrontation. Sadly, this nuance is lost on Trump and his acolytes.
As for Syria, I agree with Friedman. Our issues are with technology and ex-Middle East proselytizing and recruiting. We aren't welcomed in the ME, and Obama saw what happened when despots in Iraq and Libya were removed with no discernible and credible successor. Use some missiles, perhaps, but don't claim a policy victory while turning away the refugees of the crisis.
That said, Trump bloviated his way to a job he didn't want, yet still got what he wanted...more money for Trump. He was an unserious and unthoughtful candidate, and his infant presidency reflects that. His exhalations about beating ISIS in 30 days and knowing 'more than the generals -- believe me!' were somehow taken as statements belying some thought or policy about this issue. It was a pattern repeated for every major campaign issue.
Now we see the results: incoherent policy that befuddles and worries our allies, executed by a man (Tillerson) with no experience and no feel for the job. I am wryly amused when listening to the SoS, as I recall the GOP's denunciations of HRC's and Kerry's performance as just 'flying around' and 'accomplishing nothing.' The amusing thing is, that's what the job entails: lots of talking and travel to explain positions and if possible, negotiate away from confrontation. Sadly, this nuance is lost on Trump and his acolytes.
As for Syria, I agree with Friedman. Our issues are with technology and ex-Middle East proselytizing and recruiting. We aren't welcomed in the ME, and Obama saw what happened when despots in Iraq and Libya were removed with no discernible and credible successor. Use some missiles, perhaps, but don't claim a policy victory while turning away the refugees of the crisis.
1
The WH certainly isn't going to tell you Mr. Friedman.
Just as I am reading your column, so are ISIS leaders. Why tell them? To satisfy your commentary? Because it's irrelevant.
Mr. Trump is a fixer, he's a finisher. He has been all his life. Another reason he was elected.
For the past eight years our President was the opposite. Mr. Obama is simply not a finisher. He demonstrated that many times. Syria, Ocare, etc. Make a speech, grandstand, lecture, then walk away. A much different style of management.
There's a new boss, not the same as the old boss. Get use to it.
Just as I am reading your column, so are ISIS leaders. Why tell them? To satisfy your commentary? Because it's irrelevant.
Mr. Trump is a fixer, he's a finisher. He has been all his life. Another reason he was elected.
For the past eight years our President was the opposite. Mr. Obama is simply not a finisher. He demonstrated that many times. Syria, Ocare, etc. Make a speech, grandstand, lecture, then walk away. A much different style of management.
There's a new boss, not the same as the old boss. Get use to it.
2
Sounds nice except for one small problem with your plan Mr. Friedman: There are no moderate rebels left. All the moderates are either dead or fled. You're left with Assad vs. Hodgepodge of competing religious extremists.
Maybe if we had acted back in late 2011 we might have had a chance at nipping things in the bud, but Obama couldn't find the strength to move decisively. So, the war grinds on.
Maybe if we had acted back in late 2011 we might have had a chance at nipping things in the bud, but Obama couldn't find the strength to move decisively. So, the war grinds on.
3
Just one thing. Our support for the mujaheddin in Afghanistan did not exactly work out all that well for anyone involved. Not for the Soviet Union, certainly. Not for the Afghan moderates we thought we were supporting, nor for the mujaheddin themselves, whom we subsequently sold down the river. Nor for the US and Western Europe, to whom the now-radicalized and battle-hardened fighters turned their attention later. Maybe we should consider not making again the mistake of trying to use someone else as a proxy in our fights.
7
"ISIS is a terrorist group that plays as dirty as Iran and Russia."
I am not a fan of Russia, but when has Russia decapited civilians like ISIS does?
I am not a fan of Russia, but when has Russia decapited civilians like ISIS does?
2
Too many words, too much complexity.
If you want to influence Trump you'll need to boil down the ISIS solution to a couple of phrases that can be tweeted and wrap it up in a Bannon or Jones approved conspiracy theory. Extra points if you can work in a snide Hillary comment.
If you want to influence Trump you'll need to boil down the ISIS solution to a couple of phrases that can be tweeted and wrap it up in a Bannon or Jones approved conspiracy theory. Extra points if you can work in a snide Hillary comment.
3
We have over 1000 troops already in Syria. What is happening with them ?
1
It is still not the end of the first 100 days in office and he is stirring up a hornet's nest with his ISIS statements (providing no assurance they have a plan), N. Korean threat of "we will do it alone" if we have to, threatening Mexico with a wall and one that THEY are to pay for, bombing Syria while blaming the gassing on president Obama, geez....someone please pass me the Alka Seltzer and and some aspirin. The "tweeter-in-chief" is making me sick and my head throbs.
3
Where’s that Trump when we need him?
Where else, playing golf!
Where else, playing golf!
4
Let's not encourage Avenging Donald. Now that he's found the military button, he'll be insufferable. more insufferable.
6
I call on 45 or anyone looking a photo consisting of 20-30 Iraqis, Syrians, Iranians and Saudis now point out the ISSL members. This is Vietnam all over again. just who is the enemy, the guy with the weapon or the water buffalo. Short of turning the Middle East into an ashtray with 45's new toys in hardened silos how will this end well in 10-20 years from now? We will still be there.
2
Trump is fighting ISIS in Syria for the same reason Obama was fighting ISIS in Syria. Because that is one of the places they are. We are also fighting them in Iraq and part of Afghanistan. Again....because that is where they are. Other than the strike to punish Assad for the use of Chemical weapons the fight against ISIS is the same now as it was a few months ago when Obama was still President.
1
I very much respect you Mr. Friedman, but hell no on this one - "giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles." Can we really risk these falling into the hands of ISIS or Hezbollah? Please, if planes or tanks need to be taken out we can do that with drones or other weapons entirely under the control of America.
2
Trump is fighting in Syria because Obama started the war there. The one thing worst than starting an unnecessary war is a shameful hasty retreat from it.
1
Where are all those legendary and wizened "tribal elders" when you really need them?
I'm feel sure that they could impart some profound wisdom on this most chaotic and intractable situation, but unfortunately they have all been conspicuously absent during this crisis.
Oh, sorry, I've just been informed that they actually have been involved, and unfortunately have not been able to come up with any concrete solutions either. Wow, that's a stunner.
If you can't depend upon the Tribal Elders to talk some sense into the moderate and not so moderate rebels, ISIS, Assad, Russia and Iran, they who can you depend on?
Jared Kushner, that's who!
You're welcome.
I'm feel sure that they could impart some profound wisdom on this most chaotic and intractable situation, but unfortunately they have all been conspicuously absent during this crisis.
Oh, sorry, I've just been informed that they actually have been involved, and unfortunately have not been able to come up with any concrete solutions either. Wow, that's a stunner.
If you can't depend upon the Tribal Elders to talk some sense into the moderate and not so moderate rebels, ISIS, Assad, Russia and Iran, they who can you depend on?
Jared Kushner, that's who!
You're welcome.
1
I thoroughly disagree with the statement that President Obama didn't play the "embarrassment card" against Russia in 2013. It makes eminent good sense that he did, through Sec. of State Kerry.
How else explain Russia's sudden agreement to "broker" the removal of Assad's chemical weapons arsenal then, in concert with the U.S.? A threat by Kerry to kick up an international fuss about Russia's support of a regime that used nerve agent chemical weapons had to be a very heavy card indeed. An Ace of Spades against a deuce of embarrassment.
How else explain Russia's sudden agreement to "broker" the removal of Assad's chemical weapons arsenal then, in concert with the U.S.? A threat by Kerry to kick up an international fuss about Russia's support of a regime that used nerve agent chemical weapons had to be a very heavy card indeed. An Ace of Spades against a deuce of embarrassment.
3
Op-eds bashing of Shiite will delight ISIS.
And is in strange contrast to reality: all, all global terror is Sunni (Sunni is in Saudi Arabia) sponsored. The single minded focus on this - indeed - horrible chemical attack with 100 victims, forgets that every day dozens if not hundreds of victims by Sunni /wahabit motivated terror attacks in Irak, Syria, Egypt, Turkey and pending Europe.
And is in strange contrast to reality: all, all global terror is Sunni (Sunni is in Saudi Arabia) sponsored. The single minded focus on this - indeed - horrible chemical attack with 100 victims, forgets that every day dozens if not hundreds of victims by Sunni /wahabit motivated terror attacks in Irak, Syria, Egypt, Turkey and pending Europe.
3
Trump has always been a lamb when it comes to Russia(which begs the question.) Why should he stop now? He has debts to pay, you know.
2
It would nice if Mr Friedman included what we need do to fight the virtual ISIS successfully. Also, as to fighting ISIS in Syria in some manner, it would seem to me that taking away territory, such as Rika, would remove planning and terrorist training grounds close to Europe as well as removing a rallying place for Jihadists. To prove the point, the numbers in new wannabe fighters to Syria are substantially down as they lose territory.
Imagine, if the Allies had left Berlin unoccupied to stand as the unconquered beacon of the 3rd Reich. Kinda silly, huh?
Imagine, if the Allies had left Berlin unoccupied to stand as the unconquered beacon of the 3rd Reich. Kinda silly, huh?
1
Trump is both fighting ISIS and working with ISIS supporters Saudi Arabia and Qatar. So he is just going around in a circle wasting men, women, and resources. All the charades playing by politicians in Syria is merely a spectacle going nowhere. And all the threats and fist shaking about chemical weapons is cover up for none of the powers controlling chemical weapons when they were supposed to. When we start opposing Saudi Arabia an Qatar in their support of ISIS we will have started fighting ISIS. Until then we are in bed with ISIS.
2
Because George Bush toppled the government of Iraq. He's the gift that keeps on giving.
3
The author refers to the moderate rebels of iblid.. a large portion of those " moderates" are in fact radical Islamists . The town that was hit by the chemical weapons is in fact controlled by Al Qaeda. Islamic extremists dominate the opposition to Assad now. There were some legitimately moderate rebels early on but many of them are dead or have fled the country.
3
"ISIS is the primary threat to us, because it has found ways to deftly pump out Sunni jihadist ideology that inspires and gives permission to those Muslims on the fringes of society who feel humiliated — from London to Paris to Cairo — to recover their dignity via headline-grabbing murders of innocents." I am confused. Until reading your article I was sure the Muslim immigrants have received extremely supportive welcome in France, UK, Sweden, Belgium, Germany just to name some. Are they humiliated because there are not enough mosques or because those countries prefer their laws instead of Sharia?
2
"Syria is not a knitting circle. Everyone there plays dirty, deviously and without mercy".
Let us just paraphrase that sentence to 'The Trump presidency is not a knitting circle. Everyone connected with it plays dirty, deviously and without mercy by hurting the most vulnerable among us and ruining the reputation of the US at the same time.
Let us just paraphrase that sentence to 'The Trump presidency is not a knitting circle. Everyone connected with it plays dirty, deviously and without mercy by hurting the most vulnerable among us and ruining the reputation of the US at the same time.
8
That would not be paraphrasing the sentence it would be re-writing it and totally changing the meaning.
What was the point of your comment other than to show the obvious. You hate our President and are not the last election.
What was the point of your comment other than to show the obvious. You hate our President and are not the last election.
Mr Friedman begins by saying that "the Trump foreign policy team has been all over the map on what to do next in Syria — topple the regime, intensify aid to rebels, respond to any new attacks on innocent civilians" but then asks whether "is it really in our interest to be focusing solely on defeating ISIS in Syria right now?" The "all over the map" statement seems contrary to the "focusing solely" statement. Who edits these articles?
3
As usual Friedman makes a great deal of sense. He said Russia was bled in Afghanistan by the mujahedeen & the same would happen if they, Assad,Iran & Hezbollah took over the reigns completely in the battle.How would the cost of the battle affect the Russian economy? Would they participate in the rebuilding of Syria? I hope the Generals who surround Trump read Friedman's column.
Thomas Friedman talks about "moderate Sunnis" But who are those moderate Sunnis? ISIS, Al Quaeda, the Wahabbi fanatics, the Yemen genociders, Saudi Arabia's oligarchic, autocratic, disgustingly sexist rulers? In effect Mr. Friedman has long been an errand-boy for Sunni and Saudi dominance in the mid-east, and now he sees it possibly coming true. He is a smart observer, and in the last years, he was wise enough to see that it was the unprincipled Sunni-inspired, CIA supported external regime change in Syria that was responsible for the incredible blood-bath that Syria became and the total wreckage of its state. But now with the steady new cold-war drive of our confident militaristic establishment and Trump's reversal, he sees a chance for the disastrous policy he supported to at least win out in the horrible aftermath of the civil war he touted. Pyrrhic victory of guilt!
3
He's fulfilling campaign promises by getting rid of the most heinous organization since the Nazis. It's actually a good thing....go with it!
Thanks. An excellent analysis which Trump will ignore as he is too dense.
3
Mr. Friedman has it half right.
But first- It is a sad fact that Americans are ignorant of what really started WW II. Yet one can Google the Front pages of EVERY German 090139 newspaper and know: Polish Troops attacked a German radio transmitter. There are even photos. And yet France and the UK, declared war...
(Just parenthetically here... clearly the Russkies allowed an out for the current DC regime, to allow that bombing by Syria had unmasked a jihadist stockpile of nerve gas. Since Trump will not go for that out, the only counter explanation left is that jihadies decided the pictures of dead babies, in order to excuse US interventions, allowed them to set up such gas to be detonated after a conventional bombing came close enough to leave a surveillance trail back to an air base...
Unfortunately this indicates US collusion in that plot, a war crime...)
The half right is we exit Syria. The other correct half is we get out of Iraq at the same time. The governments of Iraq, Syria and Iran in cooperation will make short work of the problem. We are expending too much in trying to wall off half of the Shia crescent from the rest (for our dear Sharia friends in the Gulf). In any even,t after recharging from Aleppo the Syrians are ready to go into Idlib, and the gas distraction will not stop that.
As to the stupid move on Poland's part: the German news folk reported honestly. For the honest truth was not one had spine to stand in front of the tanks.
But first- It is a sad fact that Americans are ignorant of what really started WW II. Yet one can Google the Front pages of EVERY German 090139 newspaper and know: Polish Troops attacked a German radio transmitter. There are even photos. And yet France and the UK, declared war...
(Just parenthetically here... clearly the Russkies allowed an out for the current DC regime, to allow that bombing by Syria had unmasked a jihadist stockpile of nerve gas. Since Trump will not go for that out, the only counter explanation left is that jihadies decided the pictures of dead babies, in order to excuse US interventions, allowed them to set up such gas to be detonated after a conventional bombing came close enough to leave a surveillance trail back to an air base...
Unfortunately this indicates US collusion in that plot, a war crime...)
The half right is we exit Syria. The other correct half is we get out of Iraq at the same time. The governments of Iraq, Syria and Iran in cooperation will make short work of the problem. We are expending too much in trying to wall off half of the Shia crescent from the rest (for our dear Sharia friends in the Gulf). In any even,t after recharging from Aleppo the Syrians are ready to go into Idlib, and the gas distraction will not stop that.
As to the stupid move on Poland's part: the German news folk reported honestly. For the honest truth was not one had spine to stand in front of the tanks.
1
So you said it, Mr. Friedman. ISIS should be American tool in regime change. No lessons learnt from decades of playing with the devil in the Muslim world.
2
The problem in Syria is that Trump and Tillerson are learning political science and diplomacy in office, since they didn't learn even the foundations of them in school. Learning by doing is great in Elementary School, but not at the head of a huge and powerful nation. Not when Syria is such a knotty problem.
Trump and Tillerson are trying to figure out how to run the US like a business and can't figure out how Syria fits into the bottom line.
I don't claim to know what Trump should be doing, but I suspect it is not bombing Syria. Or anyplace in Iraq. I think that, if he could arrange it, he should have a serious sit down with Hillary Clinton for a lesson on Middle East politics. She understands it better than anyone working for Trump, now. In fact, if he were smart he would ask her to replace Tillerson who seems completely lost.
Trump has no problem switching policies. Let's try getting Hillary on board.
Trump and Tillerson are trying to figure out how to run the US like a business and can't figure out how Syria fits into the bottom line.
I don't claim to know what Trump should be doing, but I suspect it is not bombing Syria. Or anyplace in Iraq. I think that, if he could arrange it, he should have a serious sit down with Hillary Clinton for a lesson on Middle East politics. She understands it better than anyone working for Trump, now. In fact, if he were smart he would ask her to replace Tillerson who seems completely lost.
Trump has no problem switching policies. Let's try getting Hillary on board.
2
Once again Friedman can't see the forest for the trees. Dictator's who use poison gas won't be "eased" out of power. Also asking Trump to use his Twitter feed strategically is totally misunderstanding who Trump is, you can't ask a spoiled petulant 10 year old to be strategic.
After being a cheerleader for the disastrous war in Iraq why does Friedman or anyone else take his Middle East advice seriously?
After being a cheerleader for the disastrous war in Iraq why does Friedman or anyone else take his Middle East advice seriously?
2
This column is silly.
Here is the situation: Assad has all but defeated the rebels and won the civil war. Once he consolidates power, life will be better for ordinary Syrians. Letting him do that is the most humanitarian thing we can do. Once Assad consolidates power, he and his allies can go after ISIS. (If I thought Trump had a brain, I would suspect this was his secret plan to defeat ISIS.) It’s easy for us. We don’t have to do anything. The downside is that at the end of this process Russia and Syria will be regional powers. But we aren’t interested in power are we? No. Our motives are pure altruism, to relieve the suffering of the Syrian people. Well, letting Assad win is the way to do it.
As for Friedman’s idea of Trump shaming anyone by his tweets, that’s about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
Here is the situation: Assad has all but defeated the rebels and won the civil war. Once he consolidates power, life will be better for ordinary Syrians. Letting him do that is the most humanitarian thing we can do. Once Assad consolidates power, he and his allies can go after ISIS. (If I thought Trump had a brain, I would suspect this was his secret plan to defeat ISIS.) It’s easy for us. We don’t have to do anything. The downside is that at the end of this process Russia and Syria will be regional powers. But we aren’t interested in power are we? No. Our motives are pure altruism, to relieve the suffering of the Syrian people. Well, letting Assad win is the way to do it.
As for Friedman’s idea of Trump shaming anyone by his tweets, that’s about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
4
To add: had outsiders not gotten involved at the very beginning, there wouldn't have been a civil war, with millions displaced and hundreds of thousands dead. There would have been a crackdown for sure (after all, it is a dictatorship, albeit a fairly forward-thinking secular one) but with minimal loss of life and property, cities and walls would still be standing, trade and commerce would still be going.
All dictatorships come to an end at some point, some in a bloody upheaval, others simply morph into something else, with the former dictator retiring to a nice country house in Switzerland.
I do not believe Assad wants to do this until he's 90.
All dictatorships come to an end at some point, some in a bloody upheaval, others simply morph into something else, with the former dictator retiring to a nice country house in Switzerland.
I do not believe Assad wants to do this until he's 90.
2
I'm not sure Trump could find Syria on a map. In an interview he thought the missiles were headed toward Iraq. That said, I find it hard to believe he knows much about the struggles there, who is fighting whom and why, or what alignments have been formed.
Trump is triggered by what he sees on TV. It doesn't go deeper than that. If policy were part of this he might actually devise a strategy. This is not his forte.
Winning in front of the cameras for the optics is what he cares most about. Life is a rally and a golf game. Keep it simple.
I don't look to him for answers or actions that make sense. Reality is, no plan, no real Trump. What we see is what we get and it all depends on Fox and Friends, Hannity and who or what gets his attention last.
This is a ceremonial POTUS. Not invested fully in anything unless it benefits his bank account or enormously pampered ego.
Trump is triggered by what he sees on TV. It doesn't go deeper than that. If policy were part of this he might actually devise a strategy. This is not his forte.
Winning in front of the cameras for the optics is what he cares most about. Life is a rally and a golf game. Keep it simple.
I don't look to him for answers or actions that make sense. Reality is, no plan, no real Trump. What we see is what we get and it all depends on Fox and Friends, Hannity and who or what gets his attention last.
This is a ceremonial POTUS. Not invested fully in anything unless it benefits his bank account or enormously pampered ego.
3
Why indeed. The answer is Oil. We care nothing about ISIS/Boko Haram in Africa because it threatens no OPEC oil.
We must usurp ISIS in Iraq because it threatens to take half the oil in Iraq. Putin is in Syria to protect its share of OPEC, which is threatened by the Cheney/Trump oil grab in Iraq. Putin will never leave Assad as long as we are in Iraq. The source of radical Islam like ISIS is not Islam, it is displacement. Farmers starved by drought became an armed rebellion when Assad refused to deal with their economic displacement. Baathists displaced from shiia Iraqi government became ISIS. Displacement comes first , extremism is added later as glue to weld the wandering masses together. Give the displaced land , representative government and an economy and you will exterminate ISIS.
but that may contradict our lust for Oil.
We must usurp ISIS in Iraq because it threatens to take half the oil in Iraq. Putin is in Syria to protect its share of OPEC, which is threatened by the Cheney/Trump oil grab in Iraq. Putin will never leave Assad as long as we are in Iraq. The source of radical Islam like ISIS is not Islam, it is displacement. Farmers starved by drought became an armed rebellion when Assad refused to deal with their economic displacement. Baathists displaced from shiia Iraqi government became ISIS. Displacement comes first , extremism is added later as glue to weld the wandering masses together. Give the displaced land , representative government and an economy and you will exterminate ISIS.
but that may contradict our lust for Oil.
4
You write, Mr Friedman, that "Trump should want to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But in Syria? Not for free, not now. In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad’s, Iran’s, Hezbollah’s and Russia’s headache — the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan." How did that work out for us Mr. Friedman? For that matter, how did it work out for the Afghans?
3
Jeez! The more I read, the more I don't know. It's all more Orwellian than Orwell.
2
One of the more scary answers to Friedman's question may lie in the 2016 election scandal with Trump and Putin.
Deflection has been Trump's MO for his entire career.
When things are going badly for Trump he pivots to an issue that distracts us from which he was being assailed. It would not beyond Trump to have retaliated against Syria in order to prove he didn't have any Russian ties, and owes nothing to Putin.
Deflection has been Trump's MO for his entire career.
When things are going badly for Trump he pivots to an issue that distracts us from which he was being assailed. It would not beyond Trump to have retaliated against Syria in order to prove he didn't have any Russian ties, and owes nothing to Putin.
2
Hmm, I thought Trump knew more than the generals. He said that during the campaign. What happened? He also said he'd get rid of ISIS so fast it would make our heads spin. My head's not spinning. What's up with that?
9
Those statements were for the stupid people that fell for this lying buffoon and voted for him.
1
This is all true, we should let Hezbollah and ISIS go at it. We still owe Hezbollah for the deaths of 250+ Marines in Lebanon. Obama and his people (Ms. Rice & Sec. Kerry especially) never understood this, and Trump has no idea and is surrounded by clueless enablers.
1
After the shelling of non combatants by the USS New Jersey, calling it even would be best for all involved. After all, the Marines were a military target, not helpless women and children.
1
Are the Chinese still mining precious metals in Afghanistan and if so why haven't the Taliban attacked them there? Are The Soviets still encamped on the Afghan border?
1
"Where is Trump when we need him?" Trump has never been there for the USA. Trump is there for himself and his own financial interests. Trump is pure ignorant willful evil and yesterday his son said, "The fact that we bombed Syria against the Russians means there is no Russian colluding," or something to that effect. Which means the ONLY reason Trump bombed Syria was because he is trying to protect his own interests and obfuscate the Russia ties. I always admire your writing Thomas Friedman. You and I both know Trump will NEVER be there for us or anyone else except the wealthy 1%.
2
the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan.
We sent their kids to schools in Afghanistan and they were raised to become the current crop that was spawned by Bin Laden. Of course Brzezinski said that caused the fall of The Soviet Union and their failed Afghan conquest. That it was worth the trade-off. But in hindsight? Also just read that Russia is supposedly going to align with The Taliban now in Afghanistan. Another blow to American Globalism.
We sent their kids to schools in Afghanistan and they were raised to become the current crop that was spawned by Bin Laden. Of course Brzezinski said that caused the fall of The Soviet Union and their failed Afghan conquest. That it was worth the trade-off. But in hindsight? Also just read that Russia is supposedly going to align with The Taliban now in Afghanistan. Another blow to American Globalism.
1
In a two-front war, Russia and Syria are more concerned about the moderates because the moderates have more credibility among the Syrian people. They know that no one likes ISIS and that they will never have to fight ISIS alone.
1
Let's see: we have to support the Saudis, who despise us. We have to keep the Arab countries fragmented so they can't gang up on Israel again, which would upset AIPAC. We have to keep the Europeans from having to clean up their post-colonial messes.
Plenty of good reasons.
Plenty of good reasons.
1
Kind of a Machiavellian notion here. I agree that the virtual isis is more of a threat, to us, than the territorial isis. However, the territorial isis causes far more casualties and hardship, just not for us. It's murder on the random Syrian and Iraqi civilians, and I guess we can write them off because they're not American, but it seems ethically questionable.
Next an example is given of exactly why we should be fighting them, how we let the muhajedeen bleed the Soviets in Afghanistan. Sure, arming up those fundamentalist lunatics wound up driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan, but look what the result was: the 9/11 attacks. If we had stayed out of it and let the Soviets get tired of Afghanistan on their own, which they would have as the nation is worthless, the muhajedeen wouldn't have been organized and financially secure enough to launch an attack against us.
For me, the bottom line is, all fundamentalist terrorists should die. There is no reason to negotiate with them or tolerate them, and no way to convince them how wrong they are. We have too many humans anyway and nobody will miss the terrorists. We don't need to be paid to do this, we just need to do it, ideally in cooperation with rational nations.
So I think this article is right to say we need to focus on and eliminate the virtual isis organization, but we very much need to eliminate the territory of isis too, letting it grow in order to hurt Russia is a self-defeating thing to do.
Next an example is given of exactly why we should be fighting them, how we let the muhajedeen bleed the Soviets in Afghanistan. Sure, arming up those fundamentalist lunatics wound up driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan, but look what the result was: the 9/11 attacks. If we had stayed out of it and let the Soviets get tired of Afghanistan on their own, which they would have as the nation is worthless, the muhajedeen wouldn't have been organized and financially secure enough to launch an attack against us.
For me, the bottom line is, all fundamentalist terrorists should die. There is no reason to negotiate with them or tolerate them, and no way to convince them how wrong they are. We have too many humans anyway and nobody will miss the terrorists. We don't need to be paid to do this, we just need to do it, ideally in cooperation with rational nations.
So I think this article is right to say we need to focus on and eliminate the virtual isis organization, but we very much need to eliminate the territory of isis too, letting it grow in order to hurt Russia is a self-defeating thing to do.
6
Why is Trump willing to fight Putin's fight for him? Hmmmmmm. . .
Why isn't Trump on twitter pointing out that Putin is protecting Assad, who gasses children? Hmmmmmm. . .
As for why Trump is going after Assad and focusing on Territorial ISIS rather than virtual ISIS--It's kind of like Willie Sutton's reason for robbing banks. Trump wants to go after Territorial ISIS because there are obvious targets to lob hardware at. It is very easy to have actions that you can at least pretend are showing progress--you know, blow things up.
Virtual ISIS is so, well, virtual. It's so much more complicated than anyone like Trump can understand. You can't lob missiles and show craters and pretend you have done something. In fact, most the of the things you can do are always going to be hidden, with no obvious, tangible results.
Why isn't Trump on twitter pointing out that Putin is protecting Assad, who gasses children? Hmmmmmm. . .
As for why Trump is going after Assad and focusing on Territorial ISIS rather than virtual ISIS--It's kind of like Willie Sutton's reason for robbing banks. Trump wants to go after Territorial ISIS because there are obvious targets to lob hardware at. It is very easy to have actions that you can at least pretend are showing progress--you know, blow things up.
Virtual ISIS is so, well, virtual. It's so much more complicated than anyone like Trump can understand. You can't lob missiles and show craters and pretend you have done something. In fact, most the of the things you can do are always going to be hidden, with no obvious, tangible results.
2
Trump has no idea what you are talking about. He decides these things over dessert. If it's good, he attacks. If it's not, he doesn't. That's the level of his thinking.
3
ISIS -- and terrorism in general--aks more for a police solution than a military solution. The procedure is simple enough: cut the funding, destroy the messengers, fight the message with your own better one.
Not sexy enough? Isn't winning always sexy?
Not sexy enough? Isn't winning always sexy?
2
Thank you, Mr. Krugman. A voice of reason among the roar of tomahawk missiles. They may be more violence, but there would be anyway. congress, stop trump, please.
1
Tom, that is simply too logical a solution for this administration to understand or carry out.
3
Some have commented that Trump is a Checkers player instead of a Chess player. While I agree with the concept, this assessment is not apt because you can plan your moves ahead with Checkers. A more apt description would be that he is a Whack-a-Mole player (requires reaction without thought).
2
Good point, Mr. Friedman!
The US does not have a horse in the Syria death race. Arming the rebels? That's been tried; it didn't work. Military strikes to weaken Assad? To what end? Bombing something in Syria? That just adds to the slaughter.
Obama had it right all along. Don't do anything, stupid!
The US does not have a horse in the Syria death race. Arming the rebels? That's been tried; it didn't work. Military strikes to weaken Assad? To what end? Bombing something in Syria? That just adds to the slaughter.
Obama had it right all along. Don't do anything, stupid!
5
While generally not a big fan of Thomas Friedman, this column is very enlightening. Yes, decimating ISIS on the ground will do little to stop any terrorist acts in the U.S.
And on the humanitarian side, killing 1/2 million human beings is not something to ignore, even if Hitler was worse.
And on the humanitarian side, killing 1/2 million human beings is not something to ignore, even if Hitler was worse.
3
Trump is fighting ISIS in Syria because he and his advisers don't know any better. And where are Trump's Tweets about Russia, Iran and Hezbollah protecting the Syrian dictatorship that uses poison gas on innocent Syrian men, women and children? Innocent "collateral". Iraq is where ISIS has redoubts of their Islamic State; Iraq should be Trump's go-to target for missiles. Let Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, dethrone Bashar al-Assad and share the power and Mediterranean port of Syria.
Meanwhile, President Trump has a dead elephant on his plate - his Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, who doesn't have the intelligence or education to know that The Third Reich - Hitler et al - used poison gas (Zyklon B and carbon monoxide) to kill their 6,000,000 "undesirable citizens - "Untermenschen" in World War II. A Holocaust-Denier and uneducated jpurnalist representing the Trump White House? Lord spare us this Trump representative! Fire the mouthpiece on grounds of gross ignorance of American (and European and Asian) history. Don't let President Trump, the big Marlin, off the hook - where are his Tweets these days?
Meanwhile, President Trump has a dead elephant on his plate - his Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, who doesn't have the intelligence or education to know that The Third Reich - Hitler et al - used poison gas (Zyklon B and carbon monoxide) to kill their 6,000,000 "undesirable citizens - "Untermenschen" in World War II. A Holocaust-Denier and uneducated jpurnalist representing the Trump White House? Lord spare us this Trump representative! Fire the mouthpiece on grounds of gross ignorance of American (and European and Asian) history. Don't let President Trump, the big Marlin, off the hook - where are his Tweets these days?
2
Mr. Friedman is right about fighting virtual ISIS and let the Russians worry about ISIS on the ground in Syria. On the other hand I would hate to see Baghdadi remain alive in Syria or anywhere . We need retribution for all the people he has been responsible for murdering, raping, robbing, and imprisoning. Especially for Kayla Mueller.
"Where's that Trump when we need him" you ask. That Trump doesn't exist. He's sold himself as the great deal maker and savvy businessman but that's all smoke and mirrors;he is incompetent at everything.
The Assad Government is a secular government. Seeking to replace it with a government of "moderate Sunnis" is a huge step backward. And BTW, where are the so-called "moderate Sunnis?" You can't find them. Enough of religion in politics. The only solution to this endless violence is to support secular governments and to oppose theocratic governments, no matter what brand of religion they seek to impose on their people.
4
Friedman asks over and over again why Trump is saying certain things and acting in certain ways about Syria. Mr. Friedman, it's because Mr. Trump chooses to remain uninformed. Real working knowledge is anathema to our golfer-in-chief.
Trump is so far in over his head that he is spending all his energy to keep his base from seeing that he is drowning. There are still voters out there in Trumpistan who "think he's doing wonderful" and who would vote for him again.
That said, I agree with your analysis. Virtual ISIS is much more dangerous to us that territorial ISIS. Leave Syria to Russia. It can be their next Afghanistan.
Trump is so far in over his head that he is spending all his energy to keep his base from seeing that he is drowning. There are still voters out there in Trumpistan who "think he's doing wonderful" and who would vote for him again.
That said, I agree with your analysis. Virtual ISIS is much more dangerous to us that territorial ISIS. Leave Syria to Russia. It can be their next Afghanistan.
3
Isis won't be defeated with force. America fighting them only reinforces their ideological appeal to disaffected Sunnis around the world. Better to pressure Russia and Iran to support a negotiated removal of Assad and replacement with an inclusive government, or support the establishment of separate Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish zones in current Syria and Iraq. The Western countries and Russia that have contributed to the current anarchic mess should support the development of stable economies in these zones, where young men seek jobs instead of Jihad, and families have homes rather than refugee camps.
12
You have assumed that Mr. Trump has a brain or a moral sense.
Wrong on both counts. Stop trying to give him advice. He is too stupid to figure things out and too egotistical to listen.
Wrong on both counts. Stop trying to give him advice. He is too stupid to figure things out and too egotistical to listen.
5
Donald Trump is not an egotist, he's a narcissist which is someone with a deficit of ego. His goal in these situations is to come out looking like a hero. He has an abnormal need for admiration, and being perceived as a hero is one way of getting admiration.
Narcissists can be compelling leaders, as long as their needs are being met, but don't mistake Trump's motives for altruism. He's simply shoring up his fragile ego.
Narcissists can be compelling leaders, as long as their needs are being met, but don't mistake Trump's motives for altruism. He's simply shoring up his fragile ego.
2
Tom demonstrates once again that he is totally clueless regarding the fundamentals driving the inferno in the Middle East. Yet, he persists, demonstrating that one can be wrong all of the time.
3
Another "bluster"moment from Friedman, what is it about columnists and politicians who've never been in a war that makes them so willing to send other people's kids to die for their cause which in Friedmans case as well as that of American neocons is Israel. Who says we can't be bought off, A.I.P.A.C. has been attempting to dictate foreign policy since the Kissenger era, they've succeeded. We can no longer blame big oil for our endless war in the M.E. we are drowning in the stuff here as well as next door in Canada. Soxared is right "Israel should have some skin in the game they are neighbors" but why should they when they've got us to do the fighting and dying for them plus we pick up the bill while they are busy building companies and expanding settlements. Why no mention of PUTINS SUGGESTION of allowing U.N. inspectors in to determine who was involved in dropping the chemical bombs, the only sensible, diplomatic thing to come out of anyone's mouth in this affair, what are we hiding? Sounds like another W.M.D. Moment to me, how else to explain the rush to judgement and war. What happened to truth in journalism, you get more facts from Harretz than The Times, this is worse than the McCarthy Era. Friedman and his ilk are marching us into war with Iran and Russia, what is wrong with Times Readers, speaking out doesn't make you an anti Semite, most Israelis loath Bibi and the Likud Party that Friedman and the neocons support, they don't want war either.
5
I am certain that your analysis, in this column, is 'news' to the Trump security team. I doubt that McMaster, Mattis, Tillerson, Pence, or Trump himself, ever thought about any of your points individually or as a group.
1
Trump's new "plan" has all the sophistication of a second rate hood plotting how to knock over a liquor store. Read the details of his Fox interview yesterday. It will become clear once again that he's every bit as badly unqualified to be president as you ever may have thought. No, it's probably worse than that. Not only is he unqualified, he's also unfocused and undisciplined. The President of the United States is basically "phoning it in" from his estate in Mara Lago, running like planet like it's a hobby business on the side.
3
Why does Thomas Friedman want war with Russia? Why does he hate the country that was the first to stop Hitler?
3
Has Syria or Iran ever attacked the United States? No
Have Sunni extremists aka Al Qaeda, ISIS, 'moderate rebels' ever attacked the United States? YES
Mr Friedman showing what the callous person he truly is. He doesn't give a hoot about the suffering of the Syrian people.
Have Sunni extremists aka Al Qaeda, ISIS, 'moderate rebels' ever attacked the United States? YES
Mr Friedman showing what the callous person he truly is. He doesn't give a hoot about the suffering of the Syrian people.
3
president trump will not make the suggested tweets because nobody on fax news is making these type of comments
Why is trump fighting isis in Syria?!!
I'm pretty sure he has no idea.
I'm pretty sure he has no idea.
1
Underlining his growing irrelevancy as an analyst of world affairs, Friedman once again trots out the canard of the "moderate rebels," this time under the guise of a hare-brained construct he chooses to label as "territorial " ISIS. Does Friedman believe that the Syrian Sunnis, funded by the likes of Saudi Arabis, Qatar, and the U.A.E. have the best interests of the Christians and Shia who have lived in Syria for centuries, at heart? His ideas for creating a free-for-all in Syria are ludicrous and should be rejected out of hand. This arm-chair warrior needs to retire before he becomes a total laughing-stock.
2
Thank God for Thomas Friedman.
1
China seems to be willing to take action on North Korea?! Russia is meeting with Tillerson after Trump's accusation?! Is it possible Trump will actually get results on these two most important fronts? If so, we will have to admit it, be grateful, and eat a truckload of humble pie.
2
There would be no humble pie to eat
Sure it's easy to hate trump, he makes it so easy
But I don't think anyone except maybe Putin really wants trump to fail at everything he tries. I mean that's not good for any of us right?
There is something to be said for being so inexperienced that everything you see is as if for the very first time. You are bound to have some good ideas and wins by virtue of starting from scratch. Doesnt mean that's a great way to run a country... but sooner or later he is bound to stumble on a successful and good idea.
Sure it's easy to hate trump, he makes it so easy
But I don't think anyone except maybe Putin really wants trump to fail at everything he tries. I mean that's not good for any of us right?
There is something to be said for being so inexperienced that everything you see is as if for the very first time. You are bound to have some good ideas and wins by virtue of starting from scratch. Doesnt mean that's a great way to run a country... but sooner or later he is bound to stumble on a successful and good idea.
2
Why? Because he's clueless.
Please, Trump cabinet, Article 25 removal before it's too late.
Please, Trump cabinet, Article 25 removal before it's too late.
3
Mr Friedman, Trump would buy this argument only if he has the heart and will to go against Russia. To this day we do not know why is he so favorably inclined toward Russia. I hope it's not something as sinister as one reads in the press or hears on the TV - for his sake, and our's.
1
I also find it rather disturbing in the Hudson Valley area the local Republican State Senator in the 40th SD has given his opinion about the refugees in Syria. The so-called Christian who attends a local St. Patrick's Catholic Church seems to have drank the silent majorities hate mantra when it comes to love thy neighbor. Don't you think instead of fighting ISIS maybe we send the local NY State Senator, Marla Maples and Ivana Trump the ex-wives and the rest of the Trump clan to Syria to live. Or, maybe some kind of work study program.
1
Finally some one is talking about the obvious issue of two "ISIS". At the same time, with all Trump's limitations, he is not alone in preferring a simple and "photogenic" bombing, which is also advocated by the military for obvious reasons, to a serious discussion about measures that would really help to increase security in the world and in the Middle East. European governments are doing the same, unfortunately, and Obama administration did essentially the same. I would also add that I don't agree that only pressuring Iran/Hezbollah/Russia is the ultimate goal and will bring peace. I believe that in the long term, the peace process in Middle East will be in the US interest, therefore US military and diplomatic power should be directed towards pressuring both Sunni allies and adversaries towards a comprehensive peace negotiation including sunny interests (some of which are represented by "local ISIS") as well as Israel, Turkey, Shiite interests and even Russia, since it inserted itself in the conflict. Only a comprehensive peace process with some kind of Marshall plan will bring longer term peace and security for Europe, Israel and other US allies. That, of course, is a complicated issue, but should be a long term goal, rather than just pressuring adversaries for short term gain. At the same time the Western countries should tightly collaborate and devote resources to fighting "global ISIS" through intelligence and outreach to Muslim communities in their countries.
I don't know how many times do we have to do the same thing in the Middle East but expect different results? The moment you replace Assad with the so called Moderate Sunni Syrians, you have created a Religious Dictatorship supported, if not fully under the control, of the House of Al Saud. And the Sectarian violence will continue. Moreover, the two million or so Syrian Christians that are now protected by Assad, need to look for a new home. We have gone through this exercize in Iraq, in Iran, and Egypt. Our goal in the Middle East must always be to promote SECULARISM. That is the only path to Democracy. And yes, it will start with Dictatorship but if Secularism persists it will moderate into Democracy over time. And for Pete's sake, stop confusing the strategic view of a whole region with the devestating images of kids perrishing as a result of a Gas attack. You can find the same kinds of images in the four corners of the Earth without a Chemical Attack. I am sure the Palestinians, the Iraqis and the Afghans can peoduce similar images of their children. For those of us who have lived through upheavals and Revolutions that have resulted in Religious Tyrrany, the lens through which we look at events such as Assad's relentless massacre of the Opposition does not show a clear cut struggle between Good and Evil.
1
"Fine with me," says Thomas Friedman as he tucks into the rest of his lobster salad. What an absurdly callous and superficial understanding of geopolitics is on display here.
For that matter, ISIS seems to be a rival in Afghanistan to the Taliban, so the US can probably let those two sides fight it out. The reality is that Trump is worried about ISIS in Syria, because he sees ISIS as a threat. ISIS is not a threat to the US except in cyberspace, but the US is the world police so we get involved everywhere, even when it is contrary to our own goals.
1
It is astounding how much credit is given by the media to the notion that this president is carefully analyzing and understanding the complicated history of Syria and the Middle East. The power he holds to saber rattle and exacerbate tense foreign affairs especially when proclaimed in 140 cowardly and bombastic characters shocks our allies and emboldens our adversaries. This is the same person who didn't need daily intelligence briefings, knew more than the generals to defeat ISIS and could "go it alone." Pre-prepared sound bites delivered via teleprompter with obvious insincerity and ignorance do not demonstrate his ability to lead the free world and "keep us safe." Cease giving him any credit for such. There is no learning curve right now. Perhaps the press should write more about the strategies of the three generals who provide him with the Cliff Note version of what to say to the nation and our allies.
6
Mr. Friedman, I agree we should leave the Syria ISIS problem to the locals. Putin is probably right to support Assad; he believes, I think correctly, that whatever comes after him will be worse. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could turn back the clock and restore Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and the rest? Of course it would.
The gassing of innocents in Syria was almost certainly the work of Putin, not Assad. Assad is winning; he doesn't need to yet more condemnation, especially when nobody knows the new POTUS. Using poison gas gets him much less than nothing. Who benefits? Trump immediately; it gives him desperately needed cover and a chance for a reset. Putin; it gives him points with an important colleague. He can cash them in later. It damps the Trump/Russia enthusiasm, which could develop into a real inconvenience. He gets a laugh out of watching the West's puzzlement, knowing he pulled the strings. He had the assets in place anyway; might as well get some use out of them. Putin has the highest approval rating of all heads of state; there's no worry there.
Russia has produced more chess champions than any country, probably than any three. Trump is a patzer.
The gassing of innocents in Syria was almost certainly the work of Putin, not Assad. Assad is winning; he doesn't need to yet more condemnation, especially when nobody knows the new POTUS. Using poison gas gets him much less than nothing. Who benefits? Trump immediately; it gives him desperately needed cover and a chance for a reset. Putin; it gives him points with an important colleague. He can cash them in later. It damps the Trump/Russia enthusiasm, which could develop into a real inconvenience. He gets a laugh out of watching the West's puzzlement, knowing he pulled the strings. He had the assets in place anyway; might as well get some use out of them. Putin has the highest approval rating of all heads of state; there's no worry there.
Russia has produced more chess champions than any country, probably than any three. Trump is a patzer.
1
Our primary focus in Syria should probably not be a military battle against the territorial ISIS. Point taken. That said, while our policy with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan had the short term effects we sought, the long term effects were far less desirable, possibly outweighing the value of those short-term gains.
3
Mr. Friedman's has a thoroughly abysmal track record in analyzing this part of the world. His picking and choosing where, when and which "manifestation" of ISIS to "crush" sounds like typical American imperialism to most of the world.
1
As usual, a most compelling, and comprehensive explanation of a truly must-faceted problem. The DoD's "Third Offset Strategy" acknowledges that, during our lengthy wars in the middle East, we were depleting our Treasury. Additionally, China and Russia we're able wo monitor our Military--what it did right did wrong, and use Cyber-Intel to steal our Technological Advances.
The strategy that Mr. Friedman suggests here is excellent--let us concentrate on Iraq, and ket Russia, Iran and Hezbollah fight Assad to the "finish". Meanwhile we can monitor the Russian Military, and allow Russia to take sizable bites out of its quickly-dwindling treasury.
Great column!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
The strategy that Mr. Friedman suggests here is excellent--let us concentrate on Iraq, and ket Russia, Iran and Hezbollah fight Assad to the "finish". Meanwhile we can monitor the Russian Military, and allow Russia to take sizable bites out of its quickly-dwindling treasury.
Great column!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Oh dear. 'Trump should want to defeat ISIS [..] the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan'.
A little while time ago Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, after some foolish remark by Trump about his country, asked himself 'What has he been smoking?'. This same question must now be asked of Mr. Friedman. Ever heard of a mujahid called Osama Bin Laden, Mr. Friedman? While Bin Laden may not have had direct support from the US, the Afghan mujahideen, who had, were fundamental in creating Al Qaeda, ultimately leading to 911.
A little while time ago Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, after some foolish remark by Trump about his country, asked himself 'What has he been smoking?'. This same question must now be asked of Mr. Friedman. Ever heard of a mujahid called Osama Bin Laden, Mr. Friedman? While Bin Laden may not have had direct support from the US, the Afghan mujahideen, who had, were fundamental in creating Al Qaeda, ultimately leading to 911.
1
Lets talk facts. ISIS just bombed 2 Christian churches in Egypt. Assad protects the Christians in Syria. This is fact. Assad is a secular leader, who allows the Women in Syria to drive cars, ISIS believe women are a secondary from of life. Fact: Assad was winning his war and did not need to use chemical weapons.
Donald trump said he was going to wipe out ISIS. This is fact. Assad is battling ISIS. Fact: Attacking Syria, removing Assad never came up once while Trump was campaigning for President.Fact: Trump changed his strategy in Syria. Fact: Bannon is out. Fact: Son-in-law Kushner is in.
The fact is that we were lied to.We continued to be lied to, and we can expect to be lied to in the future.
Trumps poll number went up when the Tomahawks went up. This is also a fact. Expect more missiles in the future.
Donald trump said he was going to wipe out ISIS. This is fact. Assad is battling ISIS. Fact: Attacking Syria, removing Assad never came up once while Trump was campaigning for President.Fact: Trump changed his strategy in Syria. Fact: Bannon is out. Fact: Son-in-law Kushner is in.
The fact is that we were lied to.We continued to be lied to, and we can expect to be lied to in the future.
Trumps poll number went up when the Tomahawks went up. This is also a fact. Expect more missiles in the future.
Maybe we should do nothing to fight Isis. Then wait to see what happens.
This thinking turned out to be a disaster when former President Clinton had the opportunity to kill Bin Laden and decided against it.
Israel does not sit around and wait for terrorists to kill civilians before launching attacks. Israel's proactive fight against terrorists and a wall keeps terrorist attacks out of Israel.
I believe many writers at the NYT will just find fault with almost anything Trump does.
This thinking turned out to be a disaster when former President Clinton had the opportunity to kill Bin Laden and decided against it.
Israel does not sit around and wait for terrorists to kill civilians before launching attacks. Israel's proactive fight against terrorists and a wall keeps terrorist attacks out of Israel.
I believe many writers at the NYT will just find fault with almost anything Trump does.
2
I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, but doesn't this look a bit fishy?
1. Trump praises Putin numerous times.
2. Trump team is under investigation for colluding with the Russians to get elected.
3. Trump has to "prove" that he is not working with Putin.
4. Putin and Assad orchestrate a chemical weapons attack.
5. Trump bombs an Syrian airbase, causing very little damage, loss of life or incapacity to go on fighting.
6. Tillerson and Trump bash the Russians in the press and on Twitter.
7. Tillerson meets with the Russians, without his press corp, to make a deal.
Doesn't this seem all a bit too orchestrated? Time will tell.
1. Trump praises Putin numerous times.
2. Trump team is under investigation for colluding with the Russians to get elected.
3. Trump has to "prove" that he is not working with Putin.
4. Putin and Assad orchestrate a chemical weapons attack.
5. Trump bombs an Syrian airbase, causing very little damage, loss of life or incapacity to go on fighting.
6. Tillerson and Trump bash the Russians in the press and on Twitter.
7. Tillerson meets with the Russians, without his press corp, to make a deal.
Doesn't this seem all a bit too orchestrated? Time will tell.
Friedman questions, "Where is that Trump when we need him?" He's busy causing more distractions to look as if Russia is his foe, but faux president Trump will never twitter that Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are the baby killers using chemical weapons. You are right, Mr. Friedman for asking why Trump is doing this for free, but it's to give him cheap publicity that he is anti- Russian and pro- baby. Now, isn't that a crying Crime that the opposite is true, and that Americans buy into his sham? James Comey, how is your investigation faring? Don't lose sight of the bigger picture: the Trump card that Putin will pull out when needed.
3
"Why is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria", maybe just maybe their are American's who care that genocide is being committed against the Yazidi's or that 1500 years of Christendom is being eradicated from the Middle East, or an entire generation of youth are experiencing atrocities that no adult should have to live thru let alone a child. Or maybe he is letting the entire Muslim world know that the Western world is tired of Radical Islam and will no longer accept excuses for the atrocities committed in the name of Islam while Muslim states sit by support and let the radical Imams radicalize the masses.Sorry doesn't do it anymore, concrete steps must be done, in the Mosques of the world today.
1
This started out fine, but then he suggests a dramatic increase to rebels, etc. and appears to have hit his head and forgotten two decades, roughly the 1983-2003 period starting with the Beirut barracks attack, filled out with the Russian-American proxy war in Afghanistan, Bin Laden & al-Qaeda, and ending with Bush-Cheney's invasion of Iraq. Gosh what could go wrong, Tom (all over again)?
3
Realpolitiking or close darn enough.
Hope our semi consistent POTUS sees column, betcha Jared & Steve probably concur.
BTW: Partitioning Syria would be too humanistic, rational, decent, and
"divisive," so never mind, and because it couldn't work anyhow.
For instance, the Kurds need safe place too, and the Turks probably won't let 'em have some peace, or isn't it vice-versa?
Should the USA give-up on Syria as per column today?
If I were the decider, I'd have to be a divider.
Hope our semi consistent POTUS sees column, betcha Jared & Steve probably concur.
BTW: Partitioning Syria would be too humanistic, rational, decent, and
"divisive," so never mind, and because it couldn't work anyhow.
For instance, the Kurds need safe place too, and the Turks probably won't let 'em have some peace, or isn't it vice-versa?
Should the USA give-up on Syria as per column today?
If I were the decider, I'd have to be a divider.
"...let me add to their confusion..."
Excellent!
Trump as politician is the reincarnation of Earl Langrebe, the Nixon supporter who said, during Watergate "don't confuse me facts."
Such confusion is needed, desperately.
Excellent!
Trump as politician is the reincarnation of Earl Langrebe, the Nixon supporter who said, during Watergate "don't confuse me facts."
Such confusion is needed, desperately.
1
Good thought to leave Assad, Russia, Iran to deal with territorial ISIS, but we need to help destroy ISIS in Syria to stop the violent, disgusting, de-humanizing treatment of innocent Syrian civilians by ISIS in Syria -- the same as we need to stop the same treatment of Syrian civilians by Assad/Russia/Iran.
The defeating ISIS rhetoric was one of many promises that helped Trump get elected but now that he is president he has no idea how to implement them.
1
The Saudi monarchy gets its legitimacy from Wahhabism, a strict version of Islam practiced by desert herders. In exchange for Wahhabi support, the monarchy promotes Wahhabism’s intolerant teachings. Both al Qaeda and ISIS are inspired by Wahhabism.
A leaked e-mail written by Hillary Clinton, when she was Secretary of State, showed she was aware that private citizens in Saudi Arabia were giving money to terrorist groups. She had raised the issue with the Saudi government, but it had declined to intervene. Some suspect the Saudi government is, itself, channeling resources to these groups, even while it fights them. Individuals in the Gulf States and perhaps their governments are also providing support.
One way to get the Saudis and the Gulf States to feel the consequences of their actions would be to demand that they absorb all of the refugees running from Wahhabi-inspired terror. (Right now they do not take any of them.) Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States currently import temporary labor from many countries to do everything from manual to professional work. Syrian, Afghan, and Nigerian refugees will need personal support, but they could fill many of the jobs.
When they actually have the refugees living among them, the people who are funding the terrorist groups will have a deeper appreciation of the consequences of their support.
A leaked e-mail written by Hillary Clinton, when she was Secretary of State, showed she was aware that private citizens in Saudi Arabia were giving money to terrorist groups. She had raised the issue with the Saudi government, but it had declined to intervene. Some suspect the Saudi government is, itself, channeling resources to these groups, even while it fights them. Individuals in the Gulf States and perhaps their governments are also providing support.
One way to get the Saudis and the Gulf States to feel the consequences of their actions would be to demand that they absorb all of the refugees running from Wahhabi-inspired terror. (Right now they do not take any of them.) Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States currently import temporary labor from many countries to do everything from manual to professional work. Syrian, Afghan, and Nigerian refugees will need personal support, but they could fill many of the jobs.
When they actually have the refugees living among them, the people who are funding the terrorist groups will have a deeper appreciation of the consequences of their support.
Are you suggesting that the US "defeat" ISIS with drone strikes? The Shia offshoot that runs Syria is quite rightly afraid of their lives if the Sunni - ISIS - Whatever forces win. After suppressing the Sunnis - forget about Baathist ideology - for half-century, they have good reason to be fearful. That is why Iran has gone to great lengths to support Assad.
The initial attempt to import the "Arab Spring" into Syria met with the usual resistance that one would expect from the dominant factions. The US was more interested in creating a failed state in Libya, now another ISIS oasis, than in offering clear support for an open, more democratic political process in Syria. Had this been done, there might be no ISIS today in Syria.
The initial attempt to import the "Arab Spring" into Syria met with the usual resistance that one would expect from the dominant factions. The US was more interested in creating a failed state in Libya, now another ISIS oasis, than in offering clear support for an open, more democratic political process in Syria. Had this been done, there might be no ISIS today in Syria.
1
It's all about the oil.
There's no oil in Syria.
Yes, there is oil in a part of Syria.
You cannot defeat an ideology with bombs. That is War 101. v. Vietnam, China et al.
1
This is the column of a man who wants continued violence in the Middle East because Netanyahu wants it to justify retention of the West Bank.
For centuries the Ottoman Empire controlled the north of Iraq and surrounding areas while Persia controlled the south. That is where the Sunni-Shiite division came from and what maintained it.
Trump needs to appoint Biden as his special representative in the area and put him in charge of establishing a moderate, even Saddam-like regime in the Sunni area and placing it under the general control of Turkey. The northern oil fields around Kirkuk should be administered both by the Sunnis and the Kurds. If the Kurds won't agree, let the Turks eat them for breakfast.
As it is, we are participating in the great killing and suffering and hunger in Mosul with no viable plan about what do when the war is won except to send refugees from the chaos to Europe to further destabilize EU. ISIS is simply a gimmick to distract from the real problems and solutions in the area.
For centuries the Ottoman Empire controlled the north of Iraq and surrounding areas while Persia controlled the south. That is where the Sunni-Shiite division came from and what maintained it.
Trump needs to appoint Biden as his special representative in the area and put him in charge of establishing a moderate, even Saddam-like regime in the Sunni area and placing it under the general control of Turkey. The northern oil fields around Kirkuk should be administered both by the Sunnis and the Kurds. If the Kurds won't agree, let the Turks eat them for breakfast.
As it is, we are participating in the great killing and suffering and hunger in Mosul with no viable plan about what do when the war is won except to send refugees from the chaos to Europe to further destabilize EU. ISIS is simply a gimmick to distract from the real problems and solutions in the area.
1
Give weapons to extreme Sunnis with the hope of electing moderate Sunnis to give further regional control to Saudi's (extreme Sunnis) while provoking the Russians. Perhaps you should reconsider you opinion.
1
Interesting. About 1500 comments posted on the article about United Airlines treatment of a passenger, but only about 250 on this piece about the intractable mess of ISIS, Syria, and the Middle East generally. Everybody weighs in on an incident where the answer is fairly simple, but a lot fewer want to venture any bright ideas on this much larger and more serious problem. BTW, from the column itself and all the comments, I didn't see any suggestions that could actually stand a chance of being implemented.
1
Typical Friedman solution: back the moderates. What moderates? And BTW, let's pump more SAM's into Syria. What could go wrong with that?
2
What's good for Israel is good for America. Down to the least common denominator.
2
Why?
Ivanka, his daughter, told him to do it.
Now we're being led by a Presidential child.
What next, oh, Trump?
Ivanka, his daughter, told him to do it.
Now we're being led by a Presidential child.
What next, oh, Trump?
2
Yes! Let ISIS and Assad fight it out in Syria without U.S. interference. But at the same time, let's do everything we can to provide refuge to the civilians who are getting caught in the crossfire.
" Where’s that Trump when we need him?"
Good article, Tom.
However, that Trump does not now, or ever have existed. He overrates himself and much of the press go along with it. Not only has he proven unable to make deals, he can't even negotiate on the simplest most basic of terms. He is not a negotiator in any sense of the word. He was good at exploiting weakness in the real-estate markets by lying and cheating. Period.
He is the lowest, least knowledgeable, uncaring, malevolent self-interested cretin we could possible see in the White House. There are dog catchers I know who would make a better POTUS, a job (dog catcher) for which he himself is not fit.
Look for NO rational policy or plan out of this cabal of alt-right malevolent mimes known as the Team Trump.
Good article, Tom.
However, that Trump does not now, or ever have existed. He overrates himself and much of the press go along with it. Not only has he proven unable to make deals, he can't even negotiate on the simplest most basic of terms. He is not a negotiator in any sense of the word. He was good at exploiting weakness in the real-estate markets by lying and cheating. Period.
He is the lowest, least knowledgeable, uncaring, malevolent self-interested cretin we could possible see in the White House. There are dog catchers I know who would make a better POTUS, a job (dog catcher) for which he himself is not fit.
Look for NO rational policy or plan out of this cabal of alt-right malevolent mimes known as the Team Trump.
2
Congratulation Mr Friedman. A Machiavellian at last. I hope the Trump team takes your advice to heart. I fully agree with you. The Sunni element has to be supported in this struggle in Syria against Assad. The enemy of my enemy "can" be used for our end. Use the example of Afghanistan with the help of the Sunni Arab states in the Middle East, as some already covertly support ISIS.
The Trump that you are looking for is a cartoon character played by t rump on TV.
ISIS needs to be redefined. It is not a real army, it is not a state, it is a cult that has devolved from a terrorist cell. Sure it is larger than the Manson family and better armed, but it is still a cult.
I agree that the U.S. should let ISIS plague Assad, Putin, and the ayatollahs and maybe they will see some wisdom in getting along with everyone else in the region, but let's not get too carried away with our analogies.
Our support for the mujaheddin didn't really end that well. If I remember.
ISIS needs to be redefined. It is not a real army, it is not a state, it is a cult that has devolved from a terrorist cell. Sure it is larger than the Manson family and better armed, but it is still a cult.
I agree that the U.S. should let ISIS plague Assad, Putin, and the ayatollahs and maybe they will see some wisdom in getting along with everyone else in the region, but let's not get too carried away with our analogies.
Our support for the mujaheddin didn't really end that well. If I remember.
2
Trump has always played dirty. He's just ignorant of ISIS.
1
There is an old Washington saw: personnel is policy. Obama-Clinton's policy of premeditated moral failure is no exception.
Trump's Syria response was 1st & foremost about WMD & a prez's only charge—protect/defend.
The phony legacy-driven chemical weapons deal in Syria is the canary in the coal mine. Consider: It was up to Syria to declare its chemical weapons & Putin to oversee removal! It wasn't about Obama saving Syrians. It was Obama saving face.
Similarly, Obama's phony legacy-driven nuke deal/secret side deals: They de facto nuclearized Iran, setting up nuke arms race in entire insane, apocalyptic region—deals that IF OBEYED, give Iran nukes in a blink of an eye as they defeat the grim logic of MAD.
Against will of people, O gave a mortal enemy devoted to our annihilation the means to achieve that very end.
He gave Iran: its operating budget - govt/terror/nuclear; regional hegemony/nuclear threshold status/ever-shrinking breakout time/nukes/R&D/ICBMs/ABMs/legitimacy
What did we get? Increased risk of dirty bombs in harbors, nukes reaching mainland, Iran's ABM-protected impregnable nuke sites & the nightmare scenario—nuke arms race in unstable, apocalyptic region PROPELLED by MAD–which reveals 1st-strike intention
O's pick for advisor for Iran strategic communications & planning was Ben Rhodes, aspiring fiction writer. Perfect. Perversely, it was Rhodes who ultimately disclosed Obama’s Big Nuke Lie (The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama's Foreign-Policy Guru—NYT)
Trump's Syria response was 1st & foremost about WMD & a prez's only charge—protect/defend.
The phony legacy-driven chemical weapons deal in Syria is the canary in the coal mine. Consider: It was up to Syria to declare its chemical weapons & Putin to oversee removal! It wasn't about Obama saving Syrians. It was Obama saving face.
Similarly, Obama's phony legacy-driven nuke deal/secret side deals: They de facto nuclearized Iran, setting up nuke arms race in entire insane, apocalyptic region—deals that IF OBEYED, give Iran nukes in a blink of an eye as they defeat the grim logic of MAD.
Against will of people, O gave a mortal enemy devoted to our annihilation the means to achieve that very end.
He gave Iran: its operating budget - govt/terror/nuclear; regional hegemony/nuclear threshold status/ever-shrinking breakout time/nukes/R&D/ICBMs/ABMs/legitimacy
What did we get? Increased risk of dirty bombs in harbors, nukes reaching mainland, Iran's ABM-protected impregnable nuke sites & the nightmare scenario—nuke arms race in unstable, apocalyptic region PROPELLED by MAD–which reveals 1st-strike intention
O's pick for advisor for Iran strategic communications & planning was Ben Rhodes, aspiring fiction writer. Perfect. Perversely, it was Rhodes who ultimately disclosed Obama’s Big Nuke Lie (The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama's Foreign-Policy Guru—NYT)
2
Trump and his so called team of experts should heed Friedman's advice. Right now Trump is all over the playing field. He's fumbled the ball so many times that we are not sure which direction he's headed. He needs a new coach and game plan for Syria. Hire Friedman, fire Bannon and Miller, and make Kushner an assistant coach.
"We could...increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels,..to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian...jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations. Fine with me."
Yeah, fine with you. After six years of lots of bleeding, it's not fine with me.
How long will it take to get the rebels, whoever they are, to worthwhile negotiations? We know how well cease fire agreements have held.
You imply that there is some thinking process in Trump world. Do you honestly believe that Trump gives one hoot about "beautiful babies"? Maybe Ivanka does; I don't see Trump softening up on babies, when he is either excluding them from this country or deporting mothers and fathers of beautiful American babies every day.
And do you honestly think anybody who plays a role in this war would pay the least attention to Trump's "global Twitter feed", whatever that is? That's like squeezing information about anything out of a last-year's Enquirer.
Twitter and alt-right sites may be where Trump and his mob get their 'intelligence', but I don't believe Putin or the Grand Ayatollah pay much attention to Trump's Twitterisms.
You say Obama never "slammed it down" every day to create "leverage". You mean like one of Trump's infantile temper tantrums? A chest-thumping declaration of self-proclaimed might? Before someone sticks his pacifier back in his little round mouth?
No, Obama didn't do that. And that's just fine with me.
Yeah, fine with you. After six years of lots of bleeding, it's not fine with me.
How long will it take to get the rebels, whoever they are, to worthwhile negotiations? We know how well cease fire agreements have held.
You imply that there is some thinking process in Trump world. Do you honestly believe that Trump gives one hoot about "beautiful babies"? Maybe Ivanka does; I don't see Trump softening up on babies, when he is either excluding them from this country or deporting mothers and fathers of beautiful American babies every day.
And do you honestly think anybody who plays a role in this war would pay the least attention to Trump's "global Twitter feed", whatever that is? That's like squeezing information about anything out of a last-year's Enquirer.
Twitter and alt-right sites may be where Trump and his mob get their 'intelligence', but I don't believe Putin or the Grand Ayatollah pay much attention to Trump's Twitterisms.
You say Obama never "slammed it down" every day to create "leverage". You mean like one of Trump's infantile temper tantrums? A chest-thumping declaration of self-proclaimed might? Before someone sticks his pacifier back in his little round mouth?
No, Obama didn't do that. And that's just fine with me.
1
What we should be doing is coordinating with Russia in our attacks on ISIS in Syria. Every report which I have read that talks about ISIS' biggest online recruiting tool, is that it is the hope of a Caliphate. The recruitment of Europeans to fight for ISIS in Syria is a gigantic source of potential terrorists when they return to Europe. The horrific crimes of ISIS against Yazidis and Shia Muslims in Syria matches Assad's treatment of his own people. These are all reasons to combat ISIS in Syria. But there are two other issues: First, given who is fighting against Assad, the likelihood of Syria remaining a failed state and a gobal haven and recruiter for jihadists is very real if Assad is toppled. Second, our Middle East policy, which seems oriented to make opposition to Iran its central feature, is extremely short-sighted and continues to lead us to support and encourage non-democratic Sunni states, such as Saudi Arabia to fight in Yemen and to further the Shia-Sunni divide and mutual antipathy in the region. Feeling glee that ISIS is fighting against Iran, shows no foresight toward supporting a peaceful Middle East, which is going to have Iran as perhaps its most successful state in the long run, which is something we need to learn to live with.
10
ISIS to be sure is detestable, but just like Saddam Hussein, we need them as a counterbalance, especially to Iran. Hussein was Iran's greatest foe, and as detestable as he was we needed him. Right now the only thing worse for the U.S. and our allies in the Middle East other than not destroying ISIS would be to destroy ISIS. Getting rid of ISIS is a massive benefit for Assad, Russia, Iran and Syria. So, explain to me why we should spill American blood and treasure doing this?
1
Good question.
Actually, Trump's genius is to jump into the middle of a civil war and fight both sides. That'll show'em not to mess with the U.S. BTW-- Are you saying that you agree with his brilliance?
1
Absolutely on target. In driving ISIL from Mosul and Iraq the U.S. has both regional interests and local partners (Iraqi government, Kurdish forces, moderate Sunni groups) who we can lend support. Any efforts against ISIL in Syria will be frustrated by uncooperative players (Syrian government, Russia, Iran, Turkey) and no partners in any sustained effort. Make Syria-Russia own it. Cyber-ISIS is the more clear and present danger to U.S. and Europe. Let's focus our resources on that problem.
1
Mr. Friedman writes of ISIS, “Its goal is to defeat Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria — plus its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies — and to defeat the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Iraq, replacing both with a caliphate.”
Isn’t that the goal of the United States, NATO and their Middle East allies Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt? So pray why is the Trump administration getting in the way? Mr. Friedman is right, we need to focus on ISIS in Iraq, retake Mosul and push the rest of ISIS into Syria, where it can achieve a common goal.
After Assad has been forced to flee to Moscow, ISIS can be encircled in Syria by our aforementioned Middle East allies and we can then setup no fly zones for Syrian refugees. This strategy is also consistent with President Trump’s “America First” policy.
Isn’t that the goal of the United States, NATO and their Middle East allies Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt? So pray why is the Trump administration getting in the way? Mr. Friedman is right, we need to focus on ISIS in Iraq, retake Mosul and push the rest of ISIS into Syria, where it can achieve a common goal.
After Assad has been forced to flee to Moscow, ISIS can be encircled in Syria by our aforementioned Middle East allies and we can then setup no fly zones for Syrian refugees. This strategy is also consistent with President Trump’s “America First” policy.
The big takeaway I'm getting from Friedman here is that, for the U.S., doing something is the same as doing nothing. All choices are equally bad and all choices leave the same unanswered questions: What is Syria supposed to be without Assad? Isn't this just the same old, same old Sunni-Shiite fight? And how long before American soldiers and allies are getting killed by American-supplied weaponry?
Thank you, Mr. Friedman, for your clear, sensible analysis of the issues in play in the Syrian region and the strategy we should thus employ. I share with other commentators in this space, as I strongly suspect you do as well, sharp dubiousness about DJT's ability to grasp and focus on the issues, let alone act coherently on their execution.
The the answer to your question is that we do not need that Trump or the current one which are in essence the same person. The focus on Iraq and Syria rather than ISIS makes good sense. ISIS certainly doesn't equate with the concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Sometimes my enemy is just that, my enemy. Iraq is a problem to some extent of our creation and requires our efforts to attempt to reach a beneficial conclusion. Syria is a human tragedy and does effect our national interests. Stability here might reduce the death, destruction and refugee crisis. It would be in the interest of NATO, reduce Middle East tension and security for Israel. There is cause for concern of who we may be assisting in Syria with weapons and who these people might become if successful no matter how remote that outcome might be. Let ISIS drain Iran and Russia of their economic and military resources. Ho Chi Minh reminded us that he could afford to lose longer than we could afford to win in Vietnam. Perhaps a similar concept could apply here. ISiIS is our enemy but Middle East stability must be our objective.
I don't see any equivalence whatsoever between ISIS and the Sunni extremism behind it, and Iran. The Shiites in Iran do not have the sort of global ambitions that Sunni extremists (including those generously funded by the Saudis and Gulf states) do. In addition, Iranian civil society is very well-developed despite the rule of the ayatollahs. The possibility of some understanding and better relations with the West seems far greater in the long term than it will ever be with a Saudi regime that nourishes and funds the ideologies and organizations that lead to groups like Isis. Isis is a violent, brutal, nihilist organization that has, as Mr. Friedman rightly notes, the capacity to exploit all kinds of disenfranchisement in western societies. I see no threat from Iran on that score. Tactical considerations should not obscure the goal of denying Isis a territorial base -- doing that is not incompatible with fighting the "global" Isis.
Policy on Syria? First support one side (Obama, Assad) and then the other (Tillerson, regime change) . When one side is wining , support the other side as we did in the Iraq -Iran wars. What's the Strategy here: stalemate allows the US, Saudi, Israel hegemony in the Middle East to continue . Moreover, it allows the US to control middle Eastern oil.
I think this is a policy that Friedman would be happy with.
I think this is a policy that Friedman would be happy with.
1
Obviously this is one of the signs of the Apocalypse. I actually agree with Tom on something.
The only thing missing is that we need to do everything we can to assist the innocent victims caught in the middle of the two mightiest militaries on the planet and some of the most immoral groups on same. ... Not that they are different in many cases. Assad is Russia's dictator with a strategic alliance they are not in any way willing to surrender.
The U.S. has its long list of "our dictators" whom we supported in spite of atrocities that they committed because of strategic implications. We even overthrew Iran's elected government in 1953.
Most of our meddling over the decades has been counterproductive. The Saudi's brand of Islam is the one that inspires ISIS -- intolerance of non-Muslims -- and is one that Saudi Arabia spreads all over the globe using the profits from the oil they pump out of the ground and whose transit is guaranteed by the U.S. military.
Some years ago I ran across a figure that the U.S. government -- IOW taxpayers -- spends $9 per barrel of oil that flows to it from the Middle East. Whatever the figure, it's another invisible cost in addition to pollution and climate change, that we pay to prop up the global petro state.
Once all of these true costs, from strategic to humanitarian to ecological are added up, renewables would suddenly be much more competitive. Because over the years we has spent trillions to prop up and protect these people in power.
The only thing missing is that we need to do everything we can to assist the innocent victims caught in the middle of the two mightiest militaries on the planet and some of the most immoral groups on same. ... Not that they are different in many cases. Assad is Russia's dictator with a strategic alliance they are not in any way willing to surrender.
The U.S. has its long list of "our dictators" whom we supported in spite of atrocities that they committed because of strategic implications. We even overthrew Iran's elected government in 1953.
Most of our meddling over the decades has been counterproductive. The Saudi's brand of Islam is the one that inspires ISIS -- intolerance of non-Muslims -- and is one that Saudi Arabia spreads all over the globe using the profits from the oil they pump out of the ground and whose transit is guaranteed by the U.S. military.
Some years ago I ran across a figure that the U.S. government -- IOW taxpayers -- spends $9 per barrel of oil that flows to it from the Middle East. Whatever the figure, it's another invisible cost in addition to pollution and climate change, that we pay to prop up the global petro state.
Once all of these true costs, from strategic to humanitarian to ecological are added up, renewables would suddenly be much more competitive. Because over the years we has spent trillions to prop up and protect these people in power.
Trump is playimg it by ear day to day. And his goal is is his own empowerment and profit. For Friedman to talk of Trump's geopolitical strategy is nonsense, and nonsense that normalizes our absurd situation.
This all is just another "look at me, I'm in charge" statement from the egomaniac Donald Trump. The sad part is the fact that this delusional bigmouth could get thousands and thousands of people killed because of his gross ignorance.
Donald Trump is a walking time bomb. The only things he's fighting are the demons and the voices in his head.
Donald Trump is morphing into the biggest problem of all.
Donald Trump is a walking time bomb. The only things he's fighting are the demons and the voices in his head.
Donald Trump is morphing into the biggest problem of all.
Thank you, sir. If you - or someone - can continue to put sophisticated, rational arguments in terms so clear, using simple business calculation, then we may have a shot at getting into Trump's childishly unsophisticated mind and potentially develop a real strategy for Syria.
Where is the thoughtful, reasoned Obama, who would look at the sarin victims and declare that it's all due to man made global warming?
Or Clinton, whose Global Initiative (now disbanded) would declare a $1 billion Syria initiative, with the $1 billion vanishing with no trace later, like the $500 million in Haiti?
These were the kind of politicians which would make NYT columnists and readers happy. Instead you get Trump who bombs Assad, to the unanimous conclusion that, since he is not Obama or Clinton, he is not aware of what he is doing.
You can see the proof right there. As Trump walks on uneven grass ground, he is looking at where he steps, whereas Obama and Clinton would just gently float, smiling to the camera.
Or Clinton, whose Global Initiative (now disbanded) would declare a $1 billion Syria initiative, with the $1 billion vanishing with no trace later, like the $500 million in Haiti?
These were the kind of politicians which would make NYT columnists and readers happy. Instead you get Trump who bombs Assad, to the unanimous conclusion that, since he is not Obama or Clinton, he is not aware of what he is doing.
You can see the proof right there. As Trump walks on uneven grass ground, he is looking at where he steps, whereas Obama and Clinton would just gently float, smiling to the camera.
Even if we could eliminate ISIS in Syria that is not going to end Islamic terrorism. Most of the terrorists live in the West and have no connection with Syria. ISIS used to call itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. Militant Sunni fundamentalism is a global problem. Dropping bombs in one country does not seem to be the answer. We need a different strategy.
We don't really have many friends in the region. Lindsey Graham believes that Iran is the main problem. Which means that both sides in the war are potentially our enemy. We also keep trying to find some moderate Sunni Muslims that we can do business with. Do they still exist? It is a complete mess.
We don't really have many friends in the region. Lindsey Graham believes that Iran is the main problem. Which means that both sides in the war are potentially our enemy. We also keep trying to find some moderate Sunni Muslims that we can do business with. Do they still exist? It is a complete mess.
There is no resolution to religious conflict until all sides decide they're getting nowhere.
Assad is at least as interested in quashing rebellion as he is in ISIS, the rebels as much interested in quashing Assad as in ISIS, and Russia also has multiple objectives.
So the USA is aimed at ISIS while immersed in several ongoing wars of no interest. It acts as a buffer between opposing sides while urging a focus on ISIS. Sounds like, and is, a crazy position.
Add to this Trump, who has his public image as a top priority, and constantly monitors his public to see which action provides him the most support. It is a completely unprincipled approach in which every move is decided on the basis of image building.
So we have a weathervane in charge of our forces which are involved in brokering a many-sided religious war that has been going on for millennia. Not much future there.
Russia possibly has succeeded already in attaching Syria to its domain: we can't help that now. Our best choice is to leave the region entirely, and focus upon thoughtful assimilation of refugees in a way that doesn't breed terrorist malcontents.
Assad is at least as interested in quashing rebellion as he is in ISIS, the rebels as much interested in quashing Assad as in ISIS, and Russia also has multiple objectives.
So the USA is aimed at ISIS while immersed in several ongoing wars of no interest. It acts as a buffer between opposing sides while urging a focus on ISIS. Sounds like, and is, a crazy position.
Add to this Trump, who has his public image as a top priority, and constantly monitors his public to see which action provides him the most support. It is a completely unprincipled approach in which every move is decided on the basis of image building.
So we have a weathervane in charge of our forces which are involved in brokering a many-sided religious war that has been going on for millennia. Not much future there.
Russia possibly has succeeded already in attaching Syria to its domain: we can't help that now. Our best choice is to leave the region entirely, and focus upon thoughtful assimilation of refugees in a way that doesn't breed terrorist malcontents.
15
Mr. Friedman, what you are advocating is called realpolitik. We do Alice in Wonderland, we don't do realpolitik.
Fighting ISIS is putting the cart in front of the horse, where the battle is won with our help but the war is lost to the malignancy born of political dysfunction. We need sane political unions such as the Kurdish to govern peacefully after the battle is won. But the region is tribal and best governed by their own. The Kurds are motivated to form a nation of their own. Syria's Alawite sect is happy to have Bashar al-Assad, one of their own, in charge and protecting them and the dysfunction comes from his trying to dominate tribes that are not his own. A good strategy for peace in Syria is to allow the separating of the tribes to form separate protected nations of their own.
Syria's problem stems from religious and cultural sectarianism?
It cannot be united as a country in the same manner as South and North Vietnam.
It cannot be united as a country in the same manner as South and North Vietnam.
Clever article and mostly true,but whether Trump understands this is another matter.
Trump craves attention and gets it through theatrics. ISIS is hated by our public so defeating it is good theatrics and gets votes. nothing else matters.
Trump craves attention and gets it through theatrics. ISIS is hated by our public so defeating it is good theatrics and gets votes. nothing else matters.
2
Who knew that fighting ISIS, fighting terrorism, waging wars in the moment or long term, could be so complicated? I refuse to sell Trump and the Trumpettes short: he is not stupid, but he is far from nuanced.
2
"if there are real power-sharing deals in Syria and Iraq..."
...ay, there's the rub!
...ay, there's the rub!
Maybe Jared will fix it all.
Assad reminds me of those ineffectual potentates we backed in Vietnam. If I were Putin I would be reconsidering my relationship with Assad, lest I be left holding the bag. Perhaps it is in Putin's interest to help install a Syrian government which can actually govern the country.
1
"In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad’s, Iran’s, Hezbollah’s and Russia’s headache — the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan."
That sure worked out well. Those mujaheeden fighters we "encouraged" included Bin Laden and began the debacle that resulted in 911, Iraq War, etc.
Thanks for your advice, but no thank you!
That sure worked out well. Those mujaheeden fighters we "encouraged" included Bin Laden and began the debacle that resulted in 911, Iraq War, etc.
Thanks for your advice, but no thank you!
I agree with Friedman, which for me is a rare occurrence. There are enough anti-ISIS elements already in Syria to do the job. Of course, bombing ISIS positions is just a cover for bombing the rebels as well.
1
Any arms or support for the "rebels" in Syria will fall into terrorists hands. It's happened time and time again. Haven't we learned our lesson already?
1
Your distinction between the "virtual" and "territorial" ISIS is critical in fighting asymmetric proxy wars. This is a battle for "hearts and minds" not national boundaries. "If all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail." We have funded this huge military and the industrial complex to support it, but asymmetrical wars are fought with ideas and strategy, not cruise missiles and aircraft carriers. As you mention, the internet and jihadist nihilism can cause more damage than any "smart bomb" and this is the reason the West has not been successful in any conflict in the Middle East and Asia in decades.
No, we do not need a Trump at this time, but you are correct in recognizing this is Putin's type of conflict and he has the ruthless smarts to do whatever horrors required to prevail. There are no "winners" in this type of conflict, only survivors. Putin's KGB training and inherent Russian pragmatism make him the perfect man for the job of coping with "territorial" ISIS. The West needs to concentrate on bolstering its ideological firewalls and strengthening the defenses of its European territories. The ideological war in the East has already been lost by the West. It is time to assess what is really worth fighting about and concentrating on protecting the "virtual" values of Western European philosophy in "territorial" Europe and the Americas.
No, we do not need a Trump at this time, but you are correct in recognizing this is Putin's type of conflict and he has the ruthless smarts to do whatever horrors required to prevail. There are no "winners" in this type of conflict, only survivors. Putin's KGB training and inherent Russian pragmatism make him the perfect man for the job of coping with "territorial" ISIS. The West needs to concentrate on bolstering its ideological firewalls and strengthening the defenses of its European territories. The ideological war in the East has already been lost by the West. It is time to assess what is really worth fighting about and concentrating on protecting the "virtual" values of Western European philosophy in "territorial" Europe and the Americas.
18
“…The question then becomes what did Putin hope to gain by aiding Trump? For argument's sake, assume that Trump had agreed to do Putin's bidding. What Russia and Putin desperately need is money. Even if Putin asked Trump to have the American Treasury transfer, say $200 billion to Russia, that is not going to happen. Even Kellyanne Conway could not spin that one into anything that would be acceptable to the American people or congress. Absent writing Russia a big check, how could Trump cause Russia to gain $200 billion? The answer would be a $50 increase in the price of oil.
We know what has caused most of the oil price spikes in the last 50 years. That has been wars in the Middle East. The first oil shock came with the 1973 war. Twenty percent of oil traded worldwide moves by tanker through the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important petroleum transit choke point. Iran also provides various pathways that could lead to another oil price spike. I will leave it to others to elaborate on all of the possible actions that President Trump could take that could stoke instability and lead to conflict in that volatile region. There are also some who fear that even if Trump was in absolutely no way compromised or beholden to Russia, he could still stoke a war in that region anyway with some blunder or rash action..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4034048
We know what has caused most of the oil price spikes in the last 50 years. That has been wars in the Middle East. The first oil shock came with the 1973 war. Twenty percent of oil traded worldwide moves by tanker through the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important petroleum transit choke point. Iran also provides various pathways that could lead to another oil price spike. I will leave it to others to elaborate on all of the possible actions that President Trump could take that could stoke instability and lead to conflict in that volatile region. There are also some who fear that even if Trump was in absolutely no way compromised or beholden to Russia, he could still stoke a war in that region anyway with some blunder or rash action..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4034048
1
Well said. Follow the oil money. Syria is a proxy war between two oil economies: Saudi Arabia and Iran - with the usual religious and ethnic undertones. The Saudis have been using low oil prices as an economic weapon for the past several years. Russia and Iran are poised to invade Arabia and just need a sucker stupid enough to blame it on. I think, with Trump, they have found their man.
2
The second Iraq war was not a war for oil but rather a war "against oil". Bush and Cheney were obsessed with the "12 and 12" scenario which was based on the premise of which countries Saddam Husain hated most. Probably the places Saddam Husain hated most were: Kuwait since Saddam Husain still felt that Kuwait should really be a possession of Iraq, Saudi Arabia which had supported Kuwait and had allowed the United States to use Saudi Arabia as a base to invade Iraq from. Saddam Husain hated Iran which had fought a war with Iraq that involved more than 1 million casualties. Lastly Saddam Husain hated Texas the home of George Bush, who had vanquished Iraq in the first war.
The treaty that ended the first Iraq war limited Iraq's oil exports to low levels until Iraq could demonstrate that it had no weapons of mass destruction. By its' terms the treaty would eliminate all restrictions on Iraqi oil exports if the UN certified Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
The "12 and 12" scenario considered the question of how Saddam Husain could destroy the economies of the 4 places he hated most. The answer for Saddam Husain to demonstrate to the UN that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and flood the world with oil by producing 12 million barrels per day which would drive the price down to $12. This would devastate the economies of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Texas.
Hans Blix the head UN inspector had 137 inspectors on the ground in Iraq and promised that if given 6 more
The treaty that ended the first Iraq war limited Iraq's oil exports to low levels until Iraq could demonstrate that it had no weapons of mass destruction. By its' terms the treaty would eliminate all restrictions on Iraqi oil exports if the UN certified Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
The "12 and 12" scenario considered the question of how Saddam Husain could destroy the economies of the 4 places he hated most. The answer for Saddam Husain to demonstrate to the UN that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and flood the world with oil by producing 12 million barrels per day which would drive the price down to $12. This would devastate the economies of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Texas.
Hans Blix the head UN inspector had 137 inspectors on the ground in Iraq and promised that if given 6 more
1
We have a crass, misogynist, and narcissist as POTUS. He skips Seder, spends millions flying back and forth from his mansion to play golf! He has no regard for the people of Syria nor for whom he called "the beautiful babies"! IF he did he would allow desperate Syrian refugees into our nation. He won't. Hypocrite!
2
This is just so much tortured logic and bad propaganda. Why are we fighting ISIS in Syria? Because they're there! Syria is the open wound and ISIS is the disease. This is where the refugee crisis that's overwhelming Europe started. This is Israel biggest threat. You can't be that naive to think that Assad will be able to defeat ISIS and that if left alone Syria would not become the lynchpin of ISIS' territorial ambitions. Instead of putting together an insightful analysis of the situation you have chosen instead to use this to prove that Trump has no cohesive foreign policy. Even there you are wrong, his foreign policy is not focused on meta- machinations of some 19th century balance of interests strategy but instead on tactical preemptive actions that set enforceable limits on our enemies. Simple, direct and compelling and it's plain that China and Russia got the message and know that if they don't reign in North Korea they and Syria the US will. If that scares you it should, Russia is likely to test our resolve, but this is a dangerous world and is likely to get more dangerous if we are too weak to draw the line in the sand and enforce it.
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Friedman's encouragement to liar-in-chief to use Twitter. Twitter is a social media forum, not an administrative channel for the USA. No communications by POTUS or his staff or admin should be done with Twitter.
1
Couple of things: 1. ISIS is a title. As battlefield conditions--geopolitically and locally--change, so will the name and tactics. 2. It has already been proven the Syrian war will be settled on the ground, not at a meeting in a foreign city.
Assad is all in regarding the Syrian war. Hizbullah is certainly committed. Next comes Iran. Russia will not put "boots on the ground" but will supply air power and technical logistical support. (Sound familiar?)
Seemingly, the "rebels" can not match the Syrian-Hizbullah-Russian in battle. ISIS? Remains to be seen. But, one thing is for sure. All four of these groups, and Iran, will play the long game. The US? The US is absolutely not structured to commit long term big money and big commitment to this war.
What I keep coming back to is Turkey has not made a concerted commitment to deciding who will win this war. (Although they have stepped up to aid refugees) If Turkey and Iran have not made concerted big time plays in Syria, why would the US?
The US is a slow learner. Fourteen years after our invasion of Iraq the voting public and elected officials have figured out that America does not want soldiers on the ground in the Middle East. That is pretty much bedrock policy now. But, messing around with peripheral issue like airpower and support tactics will have little to do with the end of this war. Does Trump understand that? Do his advisors?
Assad is all in regarding the Syrian war. Hizbullah is certainly committed. Next comes Iran. Russia will not put "boots on the ground" but will supply air power and technical logistical support. (Sound familiar?)
Seemingly, the "rebels" can not match the Syrian-Hizbullah-Russian in battle. ISIS? Remains to be seen. But, one thing is for sure. All four of these groups, and Iran, will play the long game. The US? The US is absolutely not structured to commit long term big money and big commitment to this war.
What I keep coming back to is Turkey has not made a concerted commitment to deciding who will win this war. (Although they have stepped up to aid refugees) If Turkey and Iran have not made concerted big time plays in Syria, why would the US?
The US is a slow learner. Fourteen years after our invasion of Iraq the voting public and elected officials have figured out that America does not want soldiers on the ground in the Middle East. That is pretty much bedrock policy now. But, messing around with peripheral issue like airpower and support tactics will have little to do with the end of this war. Does Trump understand that? Do his advisors?
I must disagree with you strongly on this one Tom. As horrendous as gassing those innocent people were by Assad, ISIS does worse than that everyday to hundreds of innocents. They burn, torture and execute men, women and children in slaughter houses. There are videos out everyday of these atrocities. If you go to any of those video sharing sites where YouTube won't allow the videos to be seen and for good reason you will change your opinion. Liveleak is one of them along with many others .
Wait a minute: You left out the fact of how positive you were about the attack this week on "Charlie Rose." You said Trump did what should be done, and "I'm glad my country did this." So where does this tie in with your article? We should attack, which is an instant provocation for Assad to retaliate, but now you seem to be taking back any US attack strategy. Which is it, Mr. Friedman?
Tom Friedman is putting forward the same nonsense as what the Israeli establishment have decided: ISIS is better than Iran. Maybe for an apartheid Israel, but not for us. ISIS in Syria is linked to ISIS in Iraq, so is al Qaeda in both Iraq and Syria with them, you can't get rid of of one without the other. Neither can you get rid of ISIS and al Qaeda in Libya, Egypt or Yemen, while having them roam free in Syria. Besides, I still remember Jim Foley was beheaded by ISIS in Syria, to stand by ISIS in Syria for the benefit of the right wing Israeli regime, should be considered treason. ISIS and al Qaeda should be eliminated. Partnering with Saudi terror regime and Israel is what is wrong about it.
Trump is a 'no nonsense' person and doesn't have a history as a community organiser. Trump will have a plan but has more important things to worry about at the moment, like North Korea. Iran, Russia and Syria will be 2nd on the list, as Irans nuclear expansion plan is just as bad as North Koreas. I'd say Syria is second on the list. Do this web search:
US deploys THAAD missile defence, special operatives that took out Osama bin Laden to North Korea
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=118...
US deploys THAAD missile defence, special operatives that took out Osama bin Laden to North Korea
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=118...
This is Trumps "Wag The Dog" war. Its has nothing to do with ISIS and everything to do about distracting the public and press covering his election investigation.
Really think he should be investigated first. Did he stage this attack?
Really think he should be investigated first. Did he stage this attack?
1
The answer lies in the warped POV of the Religious Right:
ISIS are evil, and we are modern day crusaders in a holy war.
ISIS massacres Christians, after all.
In their view, and thus Trump's, Putin and company are just doing what's right for their respective countries and are enemies of the real enemy: ISIS.
It has nothing to do with strategy.
ISIS are evil, and we are modern day crusaders in a holy war.
ISIS massacres Christians, after all.
In their view, and thus Trump's, Putin and company are just doing what's right for their respective countries and are enemies of the real enemy: ISIS.
It has nothing to do with strategy.
1
The short answer is that he's a control freak who feels he can tell the whole world what to do. Here's a quote from Donald's Twitter feed in January:
"If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!"
He's still blathering about 'sending in' someone or other, and now he has the US military at his disposal. Makes you wonder if dropping bombs on Syria is Donald's way of making up for his inability to do anything for Americans. If you can't help them, or don't even want to try, put on a big, explosive show and give them something to cheer about. So take that, ISIS.
"If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!"
He's still blathering about 'sending in' someone or other, and now he has the US military at his disposal. Makes you wonder if dropping bombs on Syria is Donald's way of making up for his inability to do anything for Americans. If you can't help them, or don't even want to try, put on a big, explosive show and give them something to cheer about. So take that, ISIS.
2
So, back when George ("The Decider") W. Bush and his team of accopmlished liars (CIA Director George Tenet, National Security Advisor Condi Rice, military leader Colin Powell) led us into Iraq, our columnist Mr. Friedman supported the Iraq invasion with the rationale that it would establish democracy in the Middle East. That didn't happen, but what did happen was, we Americans removed Iran's biggest archenemy -- Saddam Hussein -- for free! Now, when Trump wants to eradicate ISIS -- who, unlike Saddam's Iraq, actually has attacked Americans and US interests directly. At this point, destroying ISIS will not materially help Iran -- ISIS is a weak flea compared to Saddam's Iraq, which inflicted hundreds of thousands of casualties on Iran durng their war -- but in destroying ISIS, America could also actually have a victory.
3
And not one mention of Syrian refugees. Forget Trump. Friedman is too cynical for me.
More and more intelligence agencies are confirming what the Russians have been saying.
Syria bombed a rebel warehouse that held chemicals. They did not use chemical weapons on a civilian population.
It also appears that both the Russians and the Syrians notified the Americans of the bombing to take place in advance
Furthermore,it probably was not even sarin, but other noxious chemicals.
The media so conveniently had pictures of dead babies splashed on their front pages as cover but haven't done any real reporting.
The American people are being duped into war once again.
Pitiful.
Syria bombed a rebel warehouse that held chemicals. They did not use chemical weapons on a civilian population.
It also appears that both the Russians and the Syrians notified the Americans of the bombing to take place in advance
Furthermore,it probably was not even sarin, but other noxious chemicals.
The media so conveniently had pictures of dead babies splashed on their front pages as cover but haven't done any real reporting.
The American people are being duped into war once again.
Pitiful.
2
Why is America fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights?
really primarily generates terror in the Middle East are the Sunni Arab Muslim theocratic fossil fuel royal military dictators and autocrats in nation states allied with America along with America's ally Israel. America is not threatened by Shia Muslim Arabs in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Nor is America endangered by Shia Muslim Persians in Iran nor Sunni Muslim Turks and Kurds. America is threatened by Islamist Sunni Muslim Arabs and Zionist Jewish Israelis.
Putin and Russia only have one Shia Muslim Arab ally in Assad and Syria. Assad is no worse an ethnic sectarian autocrat thug than King Salman of Saudi Arabia, Abdel Fattah al -Sisi of Egypt and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. ISIS and al Qaeda and their affiliates are primarily Sunni Muslim Arab organizations. The lead 9/11 hijacker was and the current head of al Qaeda is an Egyptian. And Osama Bin Laden and fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers had Saudi roots.
Terror is an asymmetric political socioeconomic military tactic. Terror has no geography nor demography nor faith nor ethnicity nor color nor "race" nor national origin.
really primarily generates terror in the Middle East are the Sunni Arab Muslim theocratic fossil fuel royal military dictators and autocrats in nation states allied with America along with America's ally Israel. America is not threatened by Shia Muslim Arabs in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Nor is America endangered by Shia Muslim Persians in Iran nor Sunni Muslim Turks and Kurds. America is threatened by Islamist Sunni Muslim Arabs and Zionist Jewish Israelis.
Putin and Russia only have one Shia Muslim Arab ally in Assad and Syria. Assad is no worse an ethnic sectarian autocrat thug than King Salman of Saudi Arabia, Abdel Fattah al -Sisi of Egypt and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. ISIS and al Qaeda and their affiliates are primarily Sunni Muslim Arab organizations. The lead 9/11 hijacker was and the current head of al Qaeda is an Egyptian. And Osama Bin Laden and fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers had Saudi roots.
Terror is an asymmetric political socioeconomic military tactic. Terror has no geography nor demography nor faith nor ethnicity nor color nor "race" nor national origin.
1
This article trips all over itself, contradictions everywhere. Asinine suggestions and observations. What moderate rebels? Just fight ISIS in Iraq but don't go after them in Syria. Let them take over Syria just to get at Iran & Russia. Put radical Sunnis in charge and replace the Shia there now. Friedman wants us to keep going with the same nonsense that is the Iraq debacle he supported. He is trying to get us to side with and actively push the Saudi - Israeli line. His motivation is really kind of evil. He just should not be taken seriously.
Orange, NJ
Orange, NJ
1
According to Trump, Syria is about WMD.
The deal by Obama, Clinton, Kerry & Rice, in which only the Syrian chemical weapons declared by Syria would be removed/destroyed, was a joke.
The cabal's claim, that the deal eliminated all of Syria's chemical weapons — or even most of Syria's chemical weapons — is patently false. The size of Syria's chemical-weapons stockpile is necessarily an unknown and, therefore, so is any given fraction thereof. That said, when it comes to WMD, quantity is a red herring. Even one can be too many.
Observe the corrupt pattern & premeditated moral failures in Obama's phony WMD deals:
—Syria would identify Syria's chemical weapons
— Putin—Assad's sponsor!—would oversee removal of Assad's chemical weapons.
—Iran would take its own soil samples for the IAEA.…
These deals were clearly not about saving lives. They were about Obama saving face. They were about Obama's legacy. At best, they were about a lack of moral courage. More likely, they were about a lack of humanity.
The deal by Obama, Clinton, Kerry & Rice, in which only the Syrian chemical weapons declared by Syria would be removed/destroyed, was a joke.
The cabal's claim, that the deal eliminated all of Syria's chemical weapons — or even most of Syria's chemical weapons — is patently false. The size of Syria's chemical-weapons stockpile is necessarily an unknown and, therefore, so is any given fraction thereof. That said, when it comes to WMD, quantity is a red herring. Even one can be too many.
Observe the corrupt pattern & premeditated moral failures in Obama's phony WMD deals:
—Syria would identify Syria's chemical weapons
— Putin—Assad's sponsor!—would oversee removal of Assad's chemical weapons.
—Iran would take its own soil samples for the IAEA.…
These deals were clearly not about saving lives. They were about Obama saving face. They were about Obama's legacy. At best, they were about a lack of moral courage. More likely, they were about a lack of humanity.
This is all a big military game to selfish men who only want to win; they could care less about all the civilians, I mean "collateral" damage they are inflicting. So when Assad drops chemical weapons on its' own people, he is a vile horrible man. When the U.S. drops bombs on villages and also kills women and children, it is excused. We blame our enemies tactics and say they were hiding behind a woman's skirt so we had to kill her. Where are the peace makers: vilified and labeled as enemies of the country. This is just all plain disgusting!
1
ISIS's territory-their caliphate-is their big claim to fame. Eliminate that and their online appeal is seriously undermined. You don't leave a safe haven in Syria if, as Freidman believes is worthwhile, you remove them from Iraq.
The situation in Syria is a convoluted mess and it might be cute for Friedman to examine the premise that ISIS should be defeated in Syria, but his arguments in this piece are too cute by half.
The situation in Syria is a convoluted mess and it might be cute for Friedman to examine the premise that ISIS should be defeated in Syria, but his arguments in this piece are too cute by half.
Why fight in Syria? Because no president has the courage to take on Saudi Arabia. If ever there was a case of the tail waging the dog, this is it.
The Saudi's have sponsored the most conservative brand of Sunni Islam in the world. Their Wahabist Imams have spread the doctrine that has become radical Islam and morphed into terrorism across the globe. They have funded Madrassas, often the only schools in a town where the most radical brand of Islam is taught.
The Saudi's have been caught laundering terrorist money, harboring terrorists and supply most of those who carried out the 9/11 attacks. The so called crack down by the monarchy are mere words. The Wikileaks emails show that Sec. Clinton and the Obama administration had direct evidence that Saudi's were funding ISIS.
But Saudi money in American banks and billions of sales in American military hardware have bought the House of Saud the right to spread mayhem across the globe with impunity. There are two Islamic states in the region, Iran and Saudi Arabia. We have vilified one and coddled the other to our detriment. It's past time for a new strategy in the region.
The Saudi's have sponsored the most conservative brand of Sunni Islam in the world. Their Wahabist Imams have spread the doctrine that has become radical Islam and morphed into terrorism across the globe. They have funded Madrassas, often the only schools in a town where the most radical brand of Islam is taught.
The Saudi's have been caught laundering terrorist money, harboring terrorists and supply most of those who carried out the 9/11 attacks. The so called crack down by the monarchy are mere words. The Wikileaks emails show that Sec. Clinton and the Obama administration had direct evidence that Saudi's were funding ISIS.
But Saudi money in American banks and billions of sales in American military hardware have bought the House of Saud the right to spread mayhem across the globe with impunity. There are two Islamic states in the region, Iran and Saudi Arabia. We have vilified one and coddled the other to our detriment. It's past time for a new strategy in the region.
I generally agree with Mr. Friedman. But, how, with all due respect, can you contort yourself on the vital issue of defeating ISIS (genocide against Yazidis, beheadings, enslavement of women) because of your views of President Trump. Shame.
Funny joke on readers. Trump doesn't operate in the rational world. Understanding a problem is a Hierarchical process that requires understanding, to some degree, each step in reaching a conclusion. Trump cannot go beyond maybe step two. As you stated: 1] Buy the and next door and clean it up so 2] So we can increase the value of our land. Like a Neanderthal, 1] meat fell in fire 2] meat taste better. Yum.
The only good thing about the mess in Syria is that Tom Friedman hasn't been attacking Israel.
It will take at least another week before he blames Syria on Netanyahu.
It will take at least another week before he blames Syria on Netanyahu.
1
For once I agree with you, Mr. Friedman. Do a Jason and the Argonauts maneuver. Sow discord in Syria and eliminate ISIS in Iraq. Let the Syrians be the Syrians and fight it out with ISIS fighters. Only one problem. The USA, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar (rich Arab states and the USA) want an oil pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. Iran, Russia want their gas line through the same countries. However, Assad sides with Iran and Russia. Oil is oil and might is right.
Where was the line in the sand with the previous administration ? All muslin countries got a pass from Obama. Now, going after a war criminal (Assad) Mr. Friedman wants our President to be more unpredictable? That will only lead to more calls for him from the Dems to be impeached for not getting a declaration of war from congress.
The neocons are finally showing their true face.
They lost anything that even resembles the sense of shame.
Now they want to help "territorial ISIS".
NYT's Pulitzer is well deserved.
They lost anything that even resembles the sense of shame.
Now they want to help "territorial ISIS".
NYT's Pulitzer is well deserved.
1
Everyone, except for the producers of ISIS propaganda and the radical Sunni clerics who whip up the anger of dead-end young men in western countries, North Africa and elsewhere would probably support Thomas Friedman’s Challenge No. 1 as a wise focus of American foreign policy. Stopping recruitment is paramount.
Challenge No. 2 – letting territorial ISIS have its way until Russia, Iran, Assad and Hezbollah come up with a way to defeat the Sunni caliphate which never materialized and exhaust themselves in the process – would have far fewer takers in America.
The main problem is that Bashar al-Assad is not a Sunni. He is an Alawite, much more aligned with Shiite Iran than with predominately Sunni Syria, the country he rules. ISIS leaders detest Shiites far more than they hate any other religious groups like Jews and Christians.
Mr. Friedman’s suggestion of exhausting Russia is good, but it is not a solution. It simply makes the real solution cheaper.
What is the real solution? Whatever its components, the solution requires getting Saudi Arabia involved in defeating ISIS. Mr. Friedman's column does not mention Saudi Arabia.
Challenge No. 2 – letting territorial ISIS have its way until Russia, Iran, Assad and Hezbollah come up with a way to defeat the Sunni caliphate which never materialized and exhaust themselves in the process – would have far fewer takers in America.
The main problem is that Bashar al-Assad is not a Sunni. He is an Alawite, much more aligned with Shiite Iran than with predominately Sunni Syria, the country he rules. ISIS leaders detest Shiites far more than they hate any other religious groups like Jews and Christians.
Mr. Friedman’s suggestion of exhausting Russia is good, but it is not a solution. It simply makes the real solution cheaper.
What is the real solution? Whatever its components, the solution requires getting Saudi Arabia involved in defeating ISIS. Mr. Friedman's column does not mention Saudi Arabia.
23
Yes, Mr. Friedman did mention Saudi Arabia. He just called it ISIS which is its arm in Syria for the time being.
1
Tbis may be tbe least reasoned editorial Mr. Friedman has ever written. Letting terrorists be someone else's problem, or a quasi "enemy of my enemy" approach is the Pakistani strategy of picking good terrorists. Comparing ISIS to tbe mujahadeen in Afghanistan is beyond crazy. Afghanistan had been invaded by a foreign power and the mujahadeen had no stated goals of destroying America. Our history of arming and equipping rebels in Syria is a sad one, with our trained rebels giving their weapons to ISIS and running at their first encounter.
ISIS controlling any territory is the worst option. Take that off the table and then deal with the next worst option and so on until an option is left that we can live with.
ISIS controlling any territory is the worst option. Take that off the table and then deal with the next worst option and so on until an option is left that we can live with.
18
He didn't say let ISIS control a territory he said for now let it be Russia et al problem.
Why? Why does Trump do anything? To call attention to Trump!
3
Where is the proof that Assad was responsible for the gas attack. Remember 2013 when Assad was blamed for a gas attack and it was later determined that ISIS was guilty. It was a chance to work with the Russians and sane Muslims to defeat ISIS. I am sure ISIS is delighted they are getting away with it again.
2
The proof is absolutely everywhere, from radar feeds, to impact analysis, to the technical impossibility of the munitions being dropped by anything other than a Syrian government plane.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/postmortems-confirm-syria-...
And the 2013 attack? That was proven to be Assad too. You're repeating Russian propaganda, not real news.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/postmortems-confirm-syria-...
And the 2013 attack? That was proven to be Assad too. You're repeating Russian propaganda, not real news.
I agree that ISIS exists in four dimensions, three on the ground in Syria and Iraq, and one that exists in virtual space. I do not agree that the ISIS that exists in virtual space is different from the ISIS that exists on the ground. Further they cannot be fought separately.
ISIS in virtual space and ISIS in three dimensional space are the same ISIS. The ISIS on the ground funds the virtual ISIS while the virtual ISIS spreads the demonic gospel of ISIS and recruits fighters. Some fighters choose to fight in their home countries and others travel to the caliphate. It's really a matter of the fighter's personal choice.
ISIS is fought by destroying the caliphate and demonstrating that its cruel ideology has no place in the Muslim world.
ISIS in virtual space and ISIS in three dimensional space are the same ISIS. The ISIS on the ground funds the virtual ISIS while the virtual ISIS spreads the demonic gospel of ISIS and recruits fighters. Some fighters choose to fight in their home countries and others travel to the caliphate. It's really a matter of the fighter's personal choice.
ISIS is fought by destroying the caliphate and demonstrating that its cruel ideology has no place in the Muslim world.
1
" President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free" —
This does not compute, because what you suggest will not be free:
(" We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed."
Such arms often end up in enemy hands and do not solve the problem. If we are in for a penny, we have to be in for a pound.
This does not compute, because what you suggest will not be free:
(" We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed."
Such arms often end up in enemy hands and do not solve the problem. If we are in for a penny, we have to be in for a pound.
1
Why bother even asking " why " ???. The Trump Doctrine: Extreme Incompetence and Total Chaos. PEROID.
"ISIS is a Sunni terrorists group that plays as dirty as Iran and Russia"
and according to the author we should encourage ISIS "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan".
These were the same mujahedeen who then morphed into Sunni terrorists group called Taliban and Al Queda and attacked the US on Sept 11.
So Shia terrorists like Hezbollah who attack Israel are bad but Sunni terrorists like Al Queada and ISIS who attack Europe and America are good. Why?
and according to the author we should encourage ISIS "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan".
These were the same mujahedeen who then morphed into Sunni terrorists group called Taliban and Al Queda and attacked the US on Sept 11.
So Shia terrorists like Hezbollah who attack Israel are bad but Sunni terrorists like Al Queada and ISIS who attack Europe and America are good. Why?
2
Tom,
As always your insight is outstanding.What you are advocating makes great sense. What could be better, ISIS fighting Assad, Russia Iran & Hezbollah, while we look on. It’s a Win, Win Win for us good guys.
Trump , if you sneak a peek into the Times & read Friedman’s article & claim it’s your idea, no one would care, least of all, us good guys.
As always your insight is outstanding.What you are advocating makes great sense. What could be better, ISIS fighting Assad, Russia Iran & Hezbollah, while we look on. It’s a Win, Win Win for us good guys.
Trump , if you sneak a peek into the Times & read Friedman’s article & claim it’s your idea, no one would care, least of all, us good guys.
1
Touching on another point, why do most believe that ISIS is an enemy of Assad?! Their atrocities are in line with Assad's militias and military, and matter of fact, ISIS in Syria showed up out of nowhere after Assad begin to release radical prisoners in droves but in the streets of particular parts of Syria where the resistance was gaining ground. Since then, a new wave of massacres in the form of tortured started to surface in the press. A coincidence?! Assad And his allies made sure to confuse the world about what's happening, and one reason the Russians didn't want Hillary as president because unlike the cold hearted or to be charitable the pragmatic former president is truly moved and disgusted by the atrocities and would have acted decisively against these heinous murderers. Trump has no compassion, leadership or strategy, and we the public worldwide have no high moral ground either as most of us looked the other way despite our angry keyboards. Total shame
I appreciate Friedman's trying out a contrarian approach, but it doesn't work.
For one thing, we don't see ISIS & Assad engaging each other much. ISIS could very well be content to win & consolidate territory that would divide Syria between Alawite/Shiite/Christian west (a sort of Greater Lebanon) and a Sunni rump in which to plant its caliphate. Assad too seems at times to be content with this idea.
We don't want a terrorist organization to have territory from which to attack us, our allies, or anyone else. We learned that from Al Qaeda in with the Taliban.
Of course, it's doubtful that Trump or anyone working for him in his own rump state knows anything, has ever learned anything, or would be competent to formulate and execute a sound policy, especially in a region that has not seen coherent American policy in decades.
For one thing, we don't see ISIS & Assad engaging each other much. ISIS could very well be content to win & consolidate territory that would divide Syria between Alawite/Shiite/Christian west (a sort of Greater Lebanon) and a Sunni rump in which to plant its caliphate. Assad too seems at times to be content with this idea.
We don't want a terrorist organization to have territory from which to attack us, our allies, or anyone else. We learned that from Al Qaeda in with the Taliban.
Of course, it's doubtful that Trump or anyone working for him in his own rump state knows anything, has ever learned anything, or would be competent to formulate and execute a sound policy, especially in a region that has not seen coherent American policy in decades.
"America’s goal in Syria is to create enough pressure on Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah so they will negotiate a power-sharing accord with moderate Sunni Muslims that would also ease Assad out of power."
Well, there's your problem, or rather, there's your hefty bag full of problems: this is not the U.S. goal in Syria, nor should it be. Power-sharing? Syria is a fight for survival, on all sides. Moderate Sunni Muslims? How many? Where? Are they able to govern? Are they able to negotiate and uphold power-sharing agreements (assuming they could even be struck in the first place)? Did our country not learn anything from the Iraq experience? Why is next time always different?
The fact is, Syria is a civil war. We have now intervened on both sides of that war. To what end? Our actual goal should be to help--and this is key, because "help" implies that we act multilaterally--end the bloodshed of non-combatants, which will most directly and effectively be accomplished through diplomatic efforts to end the conflict.
Mr. Friedman's strategy implies we pressure Assad to the breaking point, so that he caves and makes a deal. Facts on the ground tell any reasonable observer that a long, hard slog of fighting would therefore be required. Years, money, diplomatic capital, and most importantly, lives will be spent to test this breaking point, which may not exist--Assad may simply prefer to die. And what would our reward? Simply more chaos. Talk about a failed strategy.
Well, there's your problem, or rather, there's your hefty bag full of problems: this is not the U.S. goal in Syria, nor should it be. Power-sharing? Syria is a fight for survival, on all sides. Moderate Sunni Muslims? How many? Where? Are they able to govern? Are they able to negotiate and uphold power-sharing agreements (assuming they could even be struck in the first place)? Did our country not learn anything from the Iraq experience? Why is next time always different?
The fact is, Syria is a civil war. We have now intervened on both sides of that war. To what end? Our actual goal should be to help--and this is key, because "help" implies that we act multilaterally--end the bloodshed of non-combatants, which will most directly and effectively be accomplished through diplomatic efforts to end the conflict.
Mr. Friedman's strategy implies we pressure Assad to the breaking point, so that he caves and makes a deal. Facts on the ground tell any reasonable observer that a long, hard slog of fighting would therefore be required. Years, money, diplomatic capital, and most importantly, lives will be spent to test this breaking point, which may not exist--Assad may simply prefer to die. And what would our reward? Simply more chaos. Talk about a failed strategy.
1
Come on Tom - The 1st gas attack didn't bother Trump enough to do anything. Only because the 2nd caused public outrage did Trump do anything. It was positive, inexpensive publicity for Donald. That's it.
Interesting though that in your view ISIS's ".. goal is to defeat Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria — plus its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies — and to defeat the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Iraq, replacing both with a caliphate". Why did you "forget" to to mention that one of their most important goals is to destroy Israel? Not important enough for you?
Aside from disagreeing with you - your journalistic ethics are disturbing. If you are stating their goals - then state them ALL. Otherwise you are simply lying in order to achieve your own goals.
Interesting though that in your view ISIS's ".. goal is to defeat Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria — plus its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies — and to defeat the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Iraq, replacing both with a caliphate". Why did you "forget" to to mention that one of their most important goals is to destroy Israel? Not important enough for you?
Aside from disagreeing with you - your journalistic ethics are disturbing. If you are stating their goals - then state them ALL. Otherwise you are simply lying in order to achieve your own goals.
Wow. I never expected you to turn out to be a neocon. Let ISIS live and thrive in Syria just to effect a regime change? Would you advocate the same in Iraq? Haven't we done enough regime changes? Iraq, Libya not enough? You want to take the side of sunnis against shia in the centuries-old incessant, brutal war between the two? Expend more and more trillions of our national treasure at the expense of domestic tranquility? Why?
Your article makes as much sense as the statement the world is flat!
Your article makes as much sense as the statement the world is flat!
2
There is only one group in the ISIS conflict that will not use weapons given to them on the West - the Kurds. Iraq, Syrian "rebels", and all the rest do not think the way Tom assumes. The Kurds have actually established a democratic (pre-)state. They honor their word, they provide shelter to refugees, they fight ISIS, they are not pro-Iran or Russia. Yet Tom completely ignores them.
What's up Tom?
What's up Tom?
Mr. Friedman is twisting himself into a pretzel to tell us defeating ISIS helps Assad and the shiites, something Mr. Netanyahu is very concerned about. He thinks we should provide more weapons to the Al Qaeda terrorists like Nusra Front to cause trouble for Assad, so that eventually ISIS can gain control of all of Syria and slaughter the millions of secular Syrians in Damascus, because that's better for Israel.
I would be fine not going after ISIS in Syria, and let Russia, Hezbollah and Assad deal with them. But saying we should provide weapons to so-called 'moderate rebels' to make sure the fighting goes on and more Syrians are killed is a repulsive idea.
I would be fine not going after ISIS in Syria, and let Russia, Hezbollah and Assad deal with them. But saying we should provide weapons to so-called 'moderate rebels' to make sure the fighting goes on and more Syrians are killed is a repulsive idea.
Following the 911 attacks, the United States misidentified the enemy and never stepped back. The media was as complicit as Congress in not demanding answers or questioning rationales prior to sending this nation to endless war. The enemy was identified as terrorism (a license to attack any group anywhere deemed too hostile to US goals). Conservatives and republicans, with major media approval, began identifying terrorists as ‘Islamic’.
Media and political leaders never stepped forward to identify the specific enemy as extremist Muslims influenced and often supported by the Sunni Wahhabi and Salafi sects, not all of Islam and most certainly not the Shia Islam practiced by much of Iran and Iraq. Why?
Perhaps the answer is that Saudi Arabia is the global promulgator of Wahhabism, the sect most often fueling terrorist attacks in the region and abroad. It is Saudi Arabia and Israel who worked together in defiance of the US to block constitutional government in Egypt and install a Salafi influenced military dictatorship. As I type this the Trump gang is working with the Saudis to restore order in Syria – a recipe for disaster and long term terrorism.
Trump has no knowledge; the least this paper can do is attempt to educate him.
Media and political leaders never stepped forward to identify the specific enemy as extremist Muslims influenced and often supported by the Sunni Wahhabi and Salafi sects, not all of Islam and most certainly not the Shia Islam practiced by much of Iran and Iraq. Why?
Perhaps the answer is that Saudi Arabia is the global promulgator of Wahhabism, the sect most often fueling terrorist attacks in the region and abroad. It is Saudi Arabia and Israel who worked together in defiance of the US to block constitutional government in Egypt and install a Salafi influenced military dictatorship. As I type this the Trump gang is working with the Saudis to restore order in Syria – a recipe for disaster and long term terrorism.
Trump has no knowledge; the least this paper can do is attempt to educate him.
80
Or educate us!
Meanwhile in other news, Sean Spicer downplays the Holocaust and Donald Trump skips the Seder.
4
I rarely think along the lines you identify--let them kill one another until everyone is exhausted and mutilated, while we focus on another threat. But In this case, I think you may be right.
Good column. Thanks. We need more discussion along these lines.
Good column. Thanks. We need more discussion along these lines.
2
Where is Trump on ISIS? That was candidate Trump. He needed a boogie man to cover his lack of knowledge and interest in international relations and US interests. He also used this boogie man to besmirch Obama and Clinton. Sure, everybody wants to ISIS defeated, but the group is no existential threat to the US. Sadly, the problem was too complicated for the Obama administration to fix, and that’s not to underestimate their resolve and intelligence. Such a militant religious movement that employs guerilla tactics to take advantage of sectarian and religious divides and a civil war will not be easy to defeat. But Trump does not care or understand how complicated the situation is.
While I agree with that we should help Iraq defeat ISIS there, some mention of humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees has to play a part. I would like to see a “Berlin airlift” type effort with USA painted all over the food and medical supplies instead of bombs and missiles that say “Made in the USA.” Remember, “Hearts and Minds.”
While I agree with that we should help Iraq defeat ISIS there, some mention of humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees has to play a part. I would like to see a “Berlin airlift” type effort with USA painted all over the food and medical supplies instead of bombs and missiles that say “Made in the USA.” Remember, “Hearts and Minds.”
5
"Who knew foreign policy or health care or ________ -- fill in the blank -- would be so difficult?"
The Three Stooges could formulate and enact better policies.
The Three Stooges could formulate and enact better policies.
Oil revenues feed internet ISIS. Leaving territorial ISIS in Syria enables this.
Has it occurred to you the Iranians are the good guy here? Between the Sunni and the Shia the Shia look a whole lot better to me.
1
This attack was a master cover up for the colusion in the election. Is not that obvious? The attack was not effective since Syria was using the facility the very next day! The goverment is like a dog in a moving day. There is no follow up strategy on the Syria or ISIS issue. Suddenly, US starts critizing Russia for every problem in the world but with no real consequence or reactions. And, it did not take too long for Spencer and Trump sun to say loud and clear. You see. We are not friends. There was no colusion. Come on. A child can see it. Keep looking and follow the Money.
Tom: you immediately begin this piece on the wrong foot: "let's go through the logic." When will the media learn that there is no logic to this administration---every day is a new day in the Oval Office---and a busy office it is: planning the weekend trip to Florida and lining up golfing partners; addressing the latest palace intrigue of the day; reviewing S. Spicer's talking points (more time needs to spent here); and signing the latest illegal executive order. Who has time to sit down with your generals, your intelligence community, maybe even someone with some expertise on ISIS and Syria and map out a plan of action?
Mr.Friedman's analysis and solutions are as muddled as the Syriian civil war and its hostile factions. His conclusion that all sides play dirty and show no mercy says it all. Aligning with and propping up the variously styled "Free Syrians" or "Syrian Opposition" appears to be popular with a section of American politicians and with the media. This highly fractious group will be incapable of orderly governance and like the weak Shia dominated government in Iraq will be dependent on perpetual American ground support. All this will make way for an ISIS takeover. Recall what happened in Afghanistan after the fall of the Communist regime, a series of murderous factions ruled causing untold misery to the people and ultimately the AlQaeda sponsored Taliban prevailed with all the horrific consequences including 9/11. I disagree with Mr.Friedman's over simplification of a web ISIS and territorial ISIS. They are all the same. The territorial ISIS gives a taste of life in a "caliphate". Again keep in mind the much touted fall of Mosul and cleaning Iraq of the ISIS vermin is yet to take place after months of predicting imminent collapse. If there were a field called political archaeology digging in the sands of Syria and neighbouring Turkey and Iraq will reveal layer after layer of horrific killings and genocides some from near human memory. Sunni rule will unleas a bloodbath of the Alewi Shias and other minorities. An internationally brokered settlement without Assad is the only way.
The New York Times and its commentators were all over Trump for making up facts to suit his whims. When it comes to Syria, however, Friedman and the Times make up facts to suit their imperial goals. US surrogates in Syria tell the world through their expert PR industry what the NYT and Congress want to believe, and lo! they believe it. Trump fires off missiles and bombs a sovereign nation violating the Constitution and international law and the cheerleaders swoon, “he’s so presidential.” The US attempt to kill the last secular state in the MIddle East is itself dying but a “chemical attack” gives the corpse new life. WMD, the Gulf of Tonkin, Remember the Maine and other lies only feed the makers of missiles and machine guns. Another serving, please.
2
as usual give Americans some wars and suddenly all doesn't matter. Not the insane tuition to universities, not the ridiculous health care cost that is the reason for 75% of all bankrupt families. Suddenly the pathological lier that ruin the environment is not so bad, he is taking tough decisions and America is going to look be great again with big bombs. Assad is not the only insane dictator in the world just like was the last case with Sadam Hussein but from some reason everybody cheer like a kid when you go after the bad guy which you selected randomly (oil?) out of all. It is the responsibility of the media to keep on pounding on the real issues. I wish the people would go to the streets to fight for tuition and health care but American lost that urge. Much easier buying in Walmart and take 100K for useless degree.
2
Why is Trump (supposedly) fighting ISIS in Syria?
First guess. It has nothing to do with territory, or ISIS, or even Syria, and everything to do with the "fight", for the simple reason that Donald Trump not ony has a combative nature, but a serious need to WIN -- and what better place for a showdown?
The photos of the children was just a pretext.
This is someone who knows how to go for ratings...and get them.
There's little else to figure out after that.
First guess. It has nothing to do with territory, or ISIS, or even Syria, and everything to do with the "fight", for the simple reason that Donald Trump not ony has a combative nature, but a serious need to WIN -- and what better place for a showdown?
The photos of the children was just a pretext.
This is someone who knows how to go for ratings...and get them.
There's little else to figure out after that.
2
Understand that the Times does not publish thoughts to which they don't agree. However, while I usually agree with Mr. Friedman, in this instance to overlook genocide against Yazidis, beheadings, enslaving women and generally laying of waste, combined with a post-Assad future likely akin to Libya, Yemen or Iraq, an oped posture due to dislike of President Trump is insufficient.
1
Trump should hire Thomas Friedman as a consultant on Middle East Politics. He is the only one qualified.
1
When I think of Trump's mental capacity I recall Churchill's insult to someone - paraphrased - "he is attempting to rise to the level of a half-wit". The consensus I am seeing though is that it is beyond Trump's ego since he thinks that he is perfect as he is. Sad!
Both domestic and international arenas are now in severe disarray. This morning there is a report the Tillerson doesn't understand why Americans should be concerned about Ukraine. Another big Sad! Where is our government?
Tom's thoughts on ISIS territory make sense as sinking into yet another quagmire in Syria risks a broader conflict with Russia. Assad is evil and has just as evil partners in crime with Russia, Hezbollah, Iran. ISIS is the enemy of all. There is no 'winning' for us in that fight. Let it play out with a containment strategy to protect the rest of the region.
Twitter is not Trump's friend by the way.
Both domestic and international arenas are now in severe disarray. This morning there is a report the Tillerson doesn't understand why Americans should be concerned about Ukraine. Another big Sad! Where is our government?
Tom's thoughts on ISIS territory make sense as sinking into yet another quagmire in Syria risks a broader conflict with Russia. Assad is evil and has just as evil partners in crime with Russia, Hezbollah, Iran. ISIS is the enemy of all. There is no 'winning' for us in that fight. Let it play out with a containment strategy to protect the rest of the region.
Twitter is not Trump's friend by the way.
As stupid as it sounds, Trump is still fighting his internal war with Pres Obama.
Everything he does is counter Obama.
He's president now, but his whole mission seems to be, to outmaneuver Obama.
Everything Obama did, Trump is attempting to squash it even as he doesn't have a completed method nor plan of doing so.
It is often said that Trump holds a grudge and attempts to get even with and about a perceived slight.
The only thing I can think of is when Obama slammed Trump at a correspondence ball a few years back.
He seemingly never got over that.
Did Obama hit a nerve?
Everything he does is counter Obama.
He's president now, but his whole mission seems to be, to outmaneuver Obama.
Everything Obama did, Trump is attempting to squash it even as he doesn't have a completed method nor plan of doing so.
It is often said that Trump holds a grudge and attempts to get even with and about a perceived slight.
The only thing I can think of is when Obama slammed Trump at a correspondence ball a few years back.
He seemingly never got over that.
Did Obama hit a nerve?
The logical extension of Tom's argument is that trump, in fact, is a putin puppet. trump is doing putin a favor in Syria. Surprise.
I recognize that Syria is not a "knitting circle" and everyone plays dirty. But the Trump administration is a fly by the seat of your pants affair riven with rivalries and contradictions and spectacular ineptitude. Perhaps the best thing for us to do at the moment on Syria is nothing because if Trump commences midnight tweets of threats and insults, it would probably lead to long term military commitment that Trump would get dead wrong. I don't think there is an "answer" with him in office. "Sad".
38
Wahhabism is an essential part of the ISIS problem, but is often overlooked, or hidden. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchs are responsible for the global reach of ISIS through their support of Wahhabi schools and preachers. Fighting ISIS in Syria is foolish, for all of the reasons given here and because America and Europe have failed to tell the truth about the Wahhabi basis of ISIS.
The war in Iraq and Syria is a war between Sunni Wahhabi extremists and Shiites. For propaganda purposes our government and our pundits have implied that world terrorism is related to Shiites, knowing all the while that it is and has always been a Sunni Wahhabi terror. Russia's Muslim population ranges between 6% and 15% of it's population, with 1 million Muslims living in Moscow. 90% of Russia's Muslim population is Sunni. Chechnya is a Sunni state under Russian sway. Russia is under threat by ISIS. Why should we fight ISIS in Syria. Friedman is correct. America and the EU have no interest in defeating ISIS in Syria. We do have an interest in preventing the use of poison gas.
The war in Iraq and Syria is a war between Sunni Wahhabi extremists and Shiites. For propaganda purposes our government and our pundits have implied that world terrorism is related to Shiites, knowing all the while that it is and has always been a Sunni Wahhabi terror. Russia's Muslim population ranges between 6% and 15% of it's population, with 1 million Muslims living in Moscow. 90% of Russia's Muslim population is Sunni. Chechnya is a Sunni state under Russian sway. Russia is under threat by ISIS. Why should we fight ISIS in Syria. Friedman is correct. America and the EU have no interest in defeating ISIS in Syria. We do have an interest in preventing the use of poison gas.
52
“Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria?”
“President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free”
There are some very strange questions/statements in this op-ed piece.
None of the attacks on Western civilians in the last 20 years have been perpetrated by Assad. They have all been the work of (or, at least inspired by) the two major Sunni Arab terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda and ISIS. In addition, as NBC reported this morning, “the use of children as suicide bombers by the insurgents of Boko Haram has surged in 2017”. The Islamist group, Boko Haram – ISIS’ staunch ally in Africa – has claimed over 20,000 lives since their insurgency began eight years ago.
We should not take the foot off the gas in our efforts to defeat ISIS.
Tom then resorts to a totally shop-worn solution to the situations in Syria and Iraq by stating that “the only way to crush ISIS and keep it crushed on the ground is if we have moderate Sunnis in Syria and Iraq.”
There are no moderates in the Arab world. Other than Israel, which country in the Middle East is a democracy? No moderates will emerge to crush the very effective fighting machine that is ISIS. I hate them but from a strategic military point of view, I acknowledge that they defeated Assad and the Russians to retake Palmyra (in Syria) last December and that their stand in Mosul (in Iraq) is providing fierce opposition to the Western backed Iraqi army engaged in trying to retake that city.
“President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free”
There are some very strange questions/statements in this op-ed piece.
None of the attacks on Western civilians in the last 20 years have been perpetrated by Assad. They have all been the work of (or, at least inspired by) the two major Sunni Arab terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda and ISIS. In addition, as NBC reported this morning, “the use of children as suicide bombers by the insurgents of Boko Haram has surged in 2017”. The Islamist group, Boko Haram – ISIS’ staunch ally in Africa – has claimed over 20,000 lives since their insurgency began eight years ago.
We should not take the foot off the gas in our efforts to defeat ISIS.
Tom then resorts to a totally shop-worn solution to the situations in Syria and Iraq by stating that “the only way to crush ISIS and keep it crushed on the ground is if we have moderate Sunnis in Syria and Iraq.”
There are no moderates in the Arab world. Other than Israel, which country in the Middle East is a democracy? No moderates will emerge to crush the very effective fighting machine that is ISIS. I hate them but from a strategic military point of view, I acknowledge that they defeated Assad and the Russians to retake Palmyra (in Syria) last December and that their stand in Mosul (in Iraq) is providing fierce opposition to the Western backed Iraqi army engaged in trying to retake that city.
30
Middle East Strategy? You mis-overestimate. Did you ever, for even for a moment, think Trump had a secret strategy to defeat ISIS? Well, he doesn't have a not-secret one, either. The recent $70 million foray into Syria was all about how it made Trump look, and yes, his polls bumped up a little. That's where his "strategy" begins and ends, if you want to call that strategy.
7
Trump doesn't care what happens in Syria or about the suffering of Syrians. Look at his fearmongering about Syrian refugees. What he does care about is boosting his golf business by appearing at his clubs as often as possible and boosting the membership at his glitzy "Road to Morocco" pile of pink stucco in Palm Beach, to which he is returning yet again this Easter weekend without a care for the obscene cost of these jaunts to taxpayers and Palm Beach County or the immense inconvenience his visits cause to residents of this fragile island. He doesn't care about his neighbors; why should he care about Syrians? And that missile attack is so last week!
6
Mr Friedman gives Donald Trump, and his advisers, waaaay too much credit for being able to think strategically, or even tactically. There's a reason Mr Trump uses Twitter: it suits his style: twitch when he feels an itch without bothering to devote sufficient thought to fill out more than 140 characters (about 30 words). Maybe there is someone (or more than one) in the administration capable of the sort of analysis Tom Friedman advises, but if so, he/they are keeping their heads down and leaving the stage to ... well, to Sean Spicer for one. Spicer is both the actual and virtual voice of the administration. As such he is perfect for the role: a symbolic echo and mimic of the thought process of the man for whom he presumes to speak! Spicer's monumental faux pas re Hitler, Assad, and poisonous gas stands as a perfect summation of the intellectual bankruptcy of the Trump administration, and there's no reason to imagine this will change, no matter how many tweets follow. There is a certain symmetry to the entire mess.
7
" Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria?"
The answer is not too complicated, really. It is the continuation of W./Obama's Middle East policy of regime change in the Middle East.
The so-called Arab Spring that would have brought prosperity and democracy to the region. Syria is the unfinished business after Iraq.
The answer is not too complicated, really. It is the continuation of W./Obama's Middle East policy of regime change in the Middle East.
The so-called Arab Spring that would have brought prosperity and democracy to the region. Syria is the unfinished business after Iraq.
3
As many people have pointed out, to credit Trump with ever having anything resembling a plan or strategy that would extend beyond the next instalment of Fox & Friends is oh so charmingly pre-2016! Basically he is doing what he is doing because Ivanka made daddy feel like he has a big heart, and shooting off Tomahawk missiles made him feel like has has big hands.
The only thing that might resemble strategic thinking here has nothing whatsoever to do with Syria or ISIS: He has realized that an apparent head-butt with Russia gives him a talking point against the Russian-collusion investigations back home.
The only thing that might resemble strategic thinking here has nothing whatsoever to do with Syria or ISIS: He has realized that an apparent head-butt with Russia gives him a talking point against the Russian-collusion investigations back home.
At some point, we must acknowledge that America is NOT God's gift to the world and we cannot solve all the world's problems.
We do not need any US troops in the Middle East. It is clear, after years of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that this strategy has gotten us nowhere.
Look at China. How many troops do they have in other countries? How many overseas civil wars are they sending their military to?
None?
And yet, they are steadily becoming increasingly powerful both militarily and economically.
The same can be said of Russia also.
Only in America do we just keep spending our blood and treasure trying to solve other country's problems while those countries neighbors stand on the sidelines cheering good ole Uncle Sam.
We do not need any US troops in the Middle East. It is clear, after years of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that this strategy has gotten us nowhere.
Look at China. How many troops do they have in other countries? How many overseas civil wars are they sending their military to?
None?
And yet, they are steadily becoming increasingly powerful both militarily and economically.
The same can be said of Russia also.
Only in America do we just keep spending our blood and treasure trying to solve other country's problems while those countries neighbors stand on the sidelines cheering good ole Uncle Sam.
2
This excellent, thought-provoking opinion piece by Thomas L. Friedman makes a great deal of sense. I suspect, however, that for Trump to heed Friedman's words and to take the necessary action, this opinion piece needs to be printed in The National Enquirer and in Breitbart News for Trump to see it and for Bannon to interpret it for him (i.e., Trump).
2
But Trump is not logical, and seeking logic or consistency is a worthless activity. This piece carefully lays out considered strategies but I read that Ivanka Trump cried real tears when she saw the murdered Syrian children and that was why we bombed Syria. Who knows? It is President Trump after all.
3
"Challenge No. 1: Not only will virtual ISIS, which has nodes all over the world, not go away even if territorial ISIS is defeated, I believe virtual ISIS will become yet more virulent..."
An assertion about the endurance of ISIS is supported--how? By sliding into autobiography--"I believe..."
Well why do you believe that? That you do is no reason for us to believe it.
And this was touted as a logic lesson.
An assertion about the endurance of ISIS is supported--how? By sliding into autobiography--"I believe..."
Well why do you believe that? That you do is no reason for us to believe it.
And this was touted as a logic lesson.
1
Understanding Trump. Explaining Trump. Giving advice to Trump. Pundit exercises in futility that never seems to end.
4
There are no "good guys" in Syria. Assad and ISIS are monsters but but defeating one or both is no guarantee that a benevolent government will suddenly appear. Russia, Iran and Hezbollah should be held accountable to international scrutiny.
2
Friedman's realpolitik in this case doesn't go far enough. In particular, his dream of a power-sharing arrangement in Syria is an hallucination. There is no longer such a viable thing as "Syria" on anything like its present borders. Power sharing there isn't worthy of being a high-school debating topic.
How's this instead: (1) arm the Kurds to the teeth. (2) destroy "territorial ISIS" in both Syria and Iraq. (3) By whatever means works, get rid of Assad. Drop some missiles on to every building where he's known to sleep; destroy his few good troops (where they sleep, if need be), whatever. Just get rid of him. (4) get out of the Middle East and let the inhabitants settle there own things. Most likely they will end up with a carved up Syria and a carved up Iraq; the Kurds will have their own nation; and all the factions will have to worry about actually governing their people. We probably won't like many of the resulting regimes but "it's the Middle East."
While we're at it, do the same in Afghanistan. Talk about hopeless causes, that one takes the prize.
How's this instead: (1) arm the Kurds to the teeth. (2) destroy "territorial ISIS" in both Syria and Iraq. (3) By whatever means works, get rid of Assad. Drop some missiles on to every building where he's known to sleep; destroy his few good troops (where they sleep, if need be), whatever. Just get rid of him. (4) get out of the Middle East and let the inhabitants settle there own things. Most likely they will end up with a carved up Syria and a carved up Iraq; the Kurds will have their own nation; and all the factions will have to worry about actually governing their people. We probably won't like many of the resulting regimes but "it's the Middle East."
While we're at it, do the same in Afghanistan. Talk about hopeless causes, that one takes the prize.
1
Some great thoughts Tom if this were a game of Chess. Maybe it is. Maybe we should treat it as such if we could eliminate just one thing: Morality. We've all heard and been through the chant "We're not the worlds' policemen". Politicians have throughout time played that card when it was convenient. When you see the reality of war close up and personal, even people like Donald Trump somehow become touched by humanity. Forget about red lines in the sand. They're forever changing according to tide. Years ago, basketball star Magic Johnson while talking to a group of Black teens used the excuse for their bad behavior by saying they didn't know what was right or wrong because they didn't have Fathers or both parents. His reply? You know! We also know down deep the difference between right and wrong, regardless of our political affiliations. This time, let's do the right thing!
Trump is fighting ISIS in Syria?
1
Do not try to bind Trump with a coherent stategy. It crimps his style.
When you decide to bomb a country because your daughter said it was a good idea to do so, I'm not sure why Thomas Friedman wastes a full column giving Trump foreign policy advice.
6
Friedman assumes a "moderate sunni" political centre in syria that is coherent and popular enough to step into the vacuum created by assad's hypothetical deprture. I don't think evidence, facts on the ground, support this thesis.
a saudi-and-west-friendly regime would have to installed and supported militarily by outsiders, the USA, NATO, -- a recipe for prolonged civil strife/ war.
A "contained" strongman might be the least harmful option. For now.
a saudi-and-west-friendly regime would have to installed and supported militarily by outsiders, the USA, NATO, -- a recipe for prolonged civil strife/ war.
A "contained" strongman might be the least harmful option. For now.
3
"ISIS is a Sunni terrorist group that plays as dirty as Iran and Russia."
Neither Iran or Russia have legalized slavery or ethnic cleansing. ISIS and Iran/Russia are not equivalent evils.
Neither Iran or Russia have legalized slavery or ethnic cleansing. ISIS and Iran/Russia are not equivalent evils.
4
One of the elements we tend to ignore is that relying only on military might to quell an insurgency leads more often to losing the war. (See "Best Practices in Counterinsurgency," by Kalev Sepp at the Navy Postgraduate School.) Anytime a living agent–from a colony of bacteria to a nation state–perceives a threat one of their responses will be to resist, in whatever way is possible. As Sepp points out, the empire usually wins if they address the issues underlying the insurgency. Let's go there!
Mr. Friedman's essay appears to endorse the 2400 year old idea that "The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend", usually attributed to Arabs, but actually originated by Kautilya, the "Indian Machiavelli", in the Sanskrit Arthashastra. He proposes letting ISIL/Daesh do some heavy lifting for us in Syria to distract & drain resources from Assad, Russia & Hezbollah.
It's an attractive proposal, but we would do well to recall how that policy turned out in Afghanistan when the CIA financed & supported Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahideen against the Russians. When they left Afghanistan it freed the Mujahideen to turn their attention elsewhere & we all know how that turned out.
As Mr. Friedman notes, we are witnessing a Sunni-Shia Civil War, but it's not just in Syria; it's across the Middle East, spanning 15 Centuries. Perhaps instead of fanning the flames of Sectarian Wars, as if thinking "Kill'em all & let Allah sort out their souls!", we might try encouraging moderates of each sect to find a solution. That would be the best way to put a lid on this can of worms.
It's an attractive proposal, but we would do well to recall how that policy turned out in Afghanistan when the CIA financed & supported Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahideen against the Russians. When they left Afghanistan it freed the Mujahideen to turn their attention elsewhere & we all know how that turned out.
As Mr. Friedman notes, we are witnessing a Sunni-Shia Civil War, but it's not just in Syria; it's across the Middle East, spanning 15 Centuries. Perhaps instead of fanning the flames of Sectarian Wars, as if thinking "Kill'em all & let Allah sort out their souls!", we might try encouraging moderates of each sect to find a solution. That would be the best way to put a lid on this can of worms.
1
Mr. Friedman: I agree with your strategy: let the Russians and Iranians deal with ISIS on the ground. I also agree with your assessment of Trump; that he should be unpredictable so our adversaries don't know what he will do next. But there is one fundamental place where your logic seems to fall short:
"And those will only emerge if there are real power-sharing deals in Syria and Iraq"
Show me a single Arab country where Sunni and Shi'a factions have a working power sharing arrangement without one side dominating the other, and I'll agree that this is a reasonable goal. The only formulas that seem to work in that part of the world are to put a strongman in place to force compliance, or to divide the place up, Sunni here, Shi'a there.
IMHO if you could help the locals develop a federal method of power sharing that works for all parties, you could clean up the whole Middle East. There must be enough of them that want the fighting to stop, but each group is terrified of being subjugated by the other, and for good reason, because their history shows them that this is inevitable. That is the true knot that must be untangled before there will be peace in the Middle East.
"And those will only emerge if there are real power-sharing deals in Syria and Iraq"
Show me a single Arab country where Sunni and Shi'a factions have a working power sharing arrangement without one side dominating the other, and I'll agree that this is a reasonable goal. The only formulas that seem to work in that part of the world are to put a strongman in place to force compliance, or to divide the place up, Sunni here, Shi'a there.
IMHO if you could help the locals develop a federal method of power sharing that works for all parties, you could clean up the whole Middle East. There must be enough of them that want the fighting to stop, but each group is terrified of being subjugated by the other, and for good reason, because their history shows them that this is inevitable. That is the true knot that must be untangled before there will be peace in the Middle East.
65
Michael has summarized the problem/issues in the middle-east very well. Unfortunately, from the beginning of time and the beginning of recorded history the bottom line seems to be "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." As we approach another Easter Sunday the world appears to be no closer to peace now than it was over 2000 years ago.
The problem, it seems to me, is that if "moderate" Sunni movements exist in Iraq and Syria in the first place, they lack the military power and brutal drive of an ISIS that observes no humanitarian boundry moral limitation to its behavior.
Obscene brutalization has become so endemic in Syria and the territory around it that it has become normalized colective behavior. Russia is fully complicit, but the US carries its own oversized share of the blame. Absent Bush's misguided Iraq debacle, we would be facing a completely different Middle East today.
These are the consequences of brain-dead, knee-jerk decision-making where the world's greatest military power resides.
Obscene brutalization has become so endemic in Syria and the territory around it that it has become normalized colective behavior. Russia is fully complicit, but the US carries its own oversized share of the blame. Absent Bush's misguided Iraq debacle, we would be facing a completely different Middle East today.
These are the consequences of brain-dead, knee-jerk decision-making where the world's greatest military power resides.
64
Is Trump on our team or Russia's? Until we have an answer to this question how can the US possibly have involvement in Syria--which necessarily involves Russia?
We need our own house straightened out--the WH is a mess, Trump is inept, incompetent, incoherent--and Congress is hiding behind his skirts to pass bills gutting the social safety net to provide tax cuts for their donors.
Frankly, until Congress demands financial records from Trump their investigations are shams--Follow the Money is the first line of investigation. We have a Congress intent on rapidly and secretly crafting bills and ramming them thru without oversight. Our house is a mess. Trying to clean Syria's house would be a disaster for both.
We need our own house straightened out--the WH is a mess, Trump is inept, incompetent, incoherent--and Congress is hiding behind his skirts to pass bills gutting the social safety net to provide tax cuts for their donors.
Frankly, until Congress demands financial records from Trump their investigations are shams--Follow the Money is the first line of investigation. We have a Congress intent on rapidly and secretly crafting bills and ramming them thru without oversight. Our house is a mess. Trying to clean Syria's house would be a disaster for both.
7
This is a difficult piece to respond to. I cannot contest much of what the author poses but it is impossible to weigh the pro/con of a WH policy, when there is no policy,
DJT wants everyone to believe he has a strategic path to victory in the Middle East (I mean, aside from allowing Jared to take a leadership role) but that he cannot reveal it in fears of tipping off the enemy.
It's like showing his tax returns and bringing coal jobs back- just another lie by the US president.
He is so inexperienced in foreign policy and planning that he does not grasp the nuances of actual tactics to be used to defeat ISIS (which should remain secret) vs an actual plan and justification for why we are in the fight and what the end game is.
The focus must remain on the FBI investigation into Russia, its collusion with the trump campaign and the inevitable impeachment proceedings.
DJT wants everyone to believe he has a strategic path to victory in the Middle East (I mean, aside from allowing Jared to take a leadership role) but that he cannot reveal it in fears of tipping off the enemy.
It's like showing his tax returns and bringing coal jobs back- just another lie by the US president.
He is so inexperienced in foreign policy and planning that he does not grasp the nuances of actual tactics to be used to defeat ISIS (which should remain secret) vs an actual plan and justification for why we are in the fight and what the end game is.
The focus must remain on the FBI investigation into Russia, its collusion with the trump campaign and the inevitable impeachment proceedings.
3
Because he knows more than the generals. He is very smart. He watches the shows.
3
I agree that it makes little sense to be helping Assad and his evil allies by fighting ISIS in Syria. The 'coalition' has been taking territory away from ISIS in Syria for about two years. What happens to that territory after we have 'liberated' it? Our Kurdish and 'moderate' rebels are not going to turn it over to Assad without a fight. Will these areas now be subject to another assault and bombing campaign by Assad and Russia to put them under control of Assad? Will the people of Raqqa, after suffering under ISIS and then suffering under their liberation from ISIS, have to suffer again as Assad slaughters them to put them back under his control?
2
I'm not normally a fan of conspiracy theories, but this whole 'pivot' seems pretty fishy. our missile strike was more PR than damaging. Putin has an aide whose specialty is theater - and this 'play' could solve a lot of both Putin's and Trump's problems:
1. it takes away a lot of the momentum from the investigations into Russian connections with Trump staffers
2. it paves the way for a future 'reconciliation' that could include a deal easing sanctions on Russia (Putin's #1 wish)
3. it distracts the public from the ongoing incompetence of the Trump administration
there's simply no evidence that the Trump administration actually plans to assume any serious role in attempting to end this horrific conflict - the motivations almost have to be elsewhere.
1. it takes away a lot of the momentum from the investigations into Russian connections with Trump staffers
2. it paves the way for a future 'reconciliation' that could include a deal easing sanctions on Russia (Putin's #1 wish)
3. it distracts the public from the ongoing incompetence of the Trump administration
there's simply no evidence that the Trump administration actually plans to assume any serious role in attempting to end this horrific conflict - the motivations almost have to be elsewhere.
7
The answer to the headline question lies in the photo of Trump debarking the helicopter. He looks down at the ground rather than up at the photographer and anyone else there for his arrival. He simply has no clue what he's doing. If he were capable of embarrassment that's what his look would convey.
2
Going back to Alexander, the West has tried to play God in the Middle East with disastrous effects and blowback. Now we have a macho simpleton reacting emotionally to Assad's depravity by lobbing some missiles onto concrete while denying sanctuary to the very victims he claims to be protecting. How does that possibly end well? If we prioritize logically, we can address the humanitarian catastrophe with aid and immigration. Then, global pressure can further isolate the Syrian tyrant, making him Russia's problem. The US will only make the Sunni/Shia conflict worse, if it reacts with emotion and violence.
2
Mr. Friedman's ideas seem to form the basis of a coherent strategy that promotes American interests and those of the region as well. So it will be interesting to see what Trump does because the promotion of our interests come at the expense of Russian interests at the end of the day. It also reduces Iranian influence but that is less important to what Syria does than what Russia does. I believe Russia launched the gas in the first place. That it came up with the missile strike that did nothing in terms of changing the operations of the Syrian air force as noted by the resumption of bombing missions the day after the attack. So this will be telling how the "deal" is told versus what the "deal" actually is. We know that because the art of the deal may also be the "Big Lie" used to distract the media and the public. Trump will have to act soon because the drip, drip, drip about Russia and his campaign staff just started again. And one other thing, Carter Page better "lawyer up" and get his helmut on because he is about to be run over by a very big bus.
What Thomas is saying is shocking, he assumes that ISIS is attracting those who are in the fringes among Sunni population, while in reality ISIS is a genuine reflection of the Wahabi thinking, and this is not the first time that they came to exist http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabi.... They are expansionist by nature, and are attempting to create a global Caliphate.
Regarding the Syrian Sunnis that he wants to help, they belong to the Islamic Brotherhood, who is even a more dangerous movement than ISIS. We should not forget what the Islamic Brotherhood did when they grabbed power in Egypt, also we should not forget that Al Qaeda is their offspring, and that their main objective is also to create a Global Islamic Caliphate. While in contrast, I would love to learn from Thomas about how Russia poses an existential threat to humanity.
I hope Thomas is being naive, and not acting in bad faith.
Regarding the Syrian Sunnis that he wants to help, they belong to the Islamic Brotherhood, who is even a more dangerous movement than ISIS. We should not forget what the Islamic Brotherhood did when they grabbed power in Egypt, also we should not forget that Al Qaeda is their offspring, and that their main objective is also to create a Global Islamic Caliphate. While in contrast, I would love to learn from Thomas about how Russia poses an existential threat to humanity.
I hope Thomas is being naive, and not acting in bad faith.
You are so correct - I too have wondered why we would not contain ISIS in Syria and let Assad fight them - destroying ISIS in Syria only helps Assad.
As to the anti-aircraft/tank weapons, I would agree with you as long as there are fail-safes built-in (sealed-in) such that they can only be fired from a GPS location within Syria and can be remotely disabled by the US (smoked a la "Mission Impossible" tape) if not used within a reasonable time. I assume there is feature built in that prevents them from shooting down a US war plane.
As you point out, Trump does nothing for free. In this case he has already stated he would take the oil.
Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah share power - that's a funny one. That's like the Democrats and Republicans sharing power for the good of our country - it ain't gonna happen.
As to the anti-aircraft/tank weapons, I would agree with you as long as there are fail-safes built-in (sealed-in) such that they can only be fired from a GPS location within Syria and can be remotely disabled by the US (smoked a la "Mission Impossible" tape) if not used within a reasonable time. I assume there is feature built in that prevents them from shooting down a US war plane.
As you point out, Trump does nothing for free. In this case he has already stated he would take the oil.
Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah share power - that's a funny one. That's like the Democrats and Republicans sharing power for the good of our country - it ain't gonna happen.
Why would Russia's ally in the White House not help Russia in Syria?
1
I tried to read one of Thomas' books. It simply made no sense.
Now Thomas thinks we are in a war in Araby simply because an airfield needed to be destroyed. Exactly how many Americans entered Syria to do that?
Now Thomas thinks we are in a war in Araby simply because an airfield needed to be destroyed. Exactly how many Americans entered Syria to do that?
Actually, President Trump isn't doing anything for free. He's using our taxpayer money. That's very Trumpian. The sky's the limit when it's someone else's money.
Best statement out of all these comments so far is very simple. "...he's winging it." Look, with this guy next week it will be something else. Best thing we can hope for is to push on with the investigations and get him impeached as soon as possible. Stop pretending that this is somehow business as normal.
Why is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria? To sell weapons and increase his Raytheon holdings. Everything is only done for profit where government is concerned and human life is of no concern in the pursuit of profit.
Mr. Friedman: Perhaps you've forgotten the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and what became of them? I'm not saying that Syria is exactly like Afghanistan, but I'm reminding you of the principle that war is non-linear and it's consequences unpredictable. Encouraging Mr. Trump to feed that non-linearity and unpredictability is not only counterproductive, but also irresponsible. War is chaotic. Strategy and tactics should be used to master that chaos, not make it worse.
3
This may be a situation where we may want to call upon a chessplayer with a major in anthropology.
Everyone else is solving crossword puzzles.
Everyone else is solving crossword puzzles.
Good point. US support of mujahideen helped to plunge Afghanistan into chaos and medieval darkness, all in the name of defeating USSR. Soviets were building schools, promoting secular and civilised society, while USA was just fueling the civil war.
Exactly. Didn't our buddies the Mujahideen mutate into the Taliban? How'd that work out for Afghanistan and others?
The last time we gave surface to air missile technologies, as I remember it, was to afghans and others fighting the soviet invasion of the 1980s. When the Russians gave up and left, warlords began fighting among themselves, and the Taliban became a factor. Those anti air ground based weapons ultimately were used against the US and allies in Afghanistan. Surely Tom does not want a repeat of the phenomenon in the wreckage of Syria
Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria?
Low presidential approval ratings.
Low presidential approval ratings.
"We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels...Fine with me."
This proposal sounds a bit like pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out! This would result in more violence, more destruction, more death of innocent civilians. Frankly, the flippant talk is akin to Trump's uncompassionate rhetoric. We need a de-escalation of fighting. It's easy to order missile attacks.
The author asks, where is the "dirty, devious and [Trump] without mercy"?It also sounds eerily close to "if they don't play by the rules, neither should we!" I hope that is not what the author is suggesting. We need compassion, devotion to a political solution, and someone who really is an expert at "deal making". Where is that Trump?
This proposal sounds a bit like pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out! This would result in more violence, more destruction, more death of innocent civilians. Frankly, the flippant talk is akin to Trump's uncompassionate rhetoric. We need a de-escalation of fighting. It's easy to order missile attacks.
The author asks, where is the "dirty, devious and [Trump] without mercy"?It also sounds eerily close to "if they don't play by the rules, neither should we!" I hope that is not what the author is suggesting. We need compassion, devotion to a political solution, and someone who really is an expert at "deal making". Where is that Trump?
33
He never existed. How many times did he declare he was bankrupt? His so-called university was a sham. His casinos never quite made it in Atlantic City. Scam after scam, he only succeeded in getting his name out there at the expense of people who thought they were getting something for their money. Now, he is expected to work out a political solution? God help us and the world.
1
Exactly. The problem of supplying arms to "our" moderate rebels is pretty well known - there's no clear line between "our" rebels and the al-Qaeda linked rebels - or probably the ISIS linked rebels either. Hard to admit it, but nobody over there is really on our side. Just like the mujahideen we armed against the Russians in Afghanistan turned out not to be on our side (see "al-Qaeda linked rebels"). Pouring gasoline on a fire indeed. I'm afraid Friedman's whole column here is just an exercise in attempted cynicism. It never works.
Tom, you are the least qualified person to criticize.
You're strategy calls for the mideast and the world in general have been terrible, and hold an unsustainable, clueless, world view. From bad advice on trade and China, to miscalling the effects of Libya and the Arab Spring, you have consistently been unable to understand and process the many players and their motives and possible outcomes.
And you're comments on ISIS are just ridiculous. Maybe you need to take a trip to visit these areas and get some real understanding of the people and the areas you write about. Sorry if it's dangerous. But then who caused the mideast to destabilize? The prior Presidents of Bush and Obama, whose policies you supported.
You're strategy calls for the mideast and the world in general have been terrible, and hold an unsustainable, clueless, world view. From bad advice on trade and China, to miscalling the effects of Libya and the Arab Spring, you have consistently been unable to understand and process the many players and their motives and possible outcomes.
And you're comments on ISIS are just ridiculous. Maybe you need to take a trip to visit these areas and get some real understanding of the people and the areas you write about. Sorry if it's dangerous. But then who caused the mideast to destabilize? The prior Presidents of Bush and Obama, whose policies you supported.
3
You forgot about the benefits of outsourcing to India, the world is flat and that's wonderful etc.
The U.S. is currently a huge ship without a rudder, bobbing about in a big sea with the an incapacitated clueless captain. When I think DT, I think lizard brain. His profound lack of knowledge, impulsivity, and compulsion to lie and manipulate should have us all worried, very worried. He has no credibility. I can't help but look at his response to the chemical attack in Syria with suspicion. I have no doubt that both Putin and Assad view him as a useful idiot. Putin interfering with our elections goes beyond the presidential election. Doesn't anyone wonder about the timing of this latest attack by the Assad (and Putin by proxy) - sinking poll numbers, Russiagate, and impending elections to fill seats vacated by appointments? For the first time in my life, at age 59, I have grave concerns about the future of this country. The U.S. presidency is no place for petulant spoiled little boys.
9
Trump’s (or more likely the generals') decision to punish the Syrian government for using poison gas after they had agreed to remove their gas stockpiles, is exactly what Obama or Clinton would have done in the same situation.
After Assad crossed the red-line by using poison gas in 2013, Kerry and Putin wisely convinced Obama to avoid force if Assad would agree to get rid of all chemical weapons. Now that Assad reneged on the agreement by either hiding some of the weapons that were there in 2013 or acquiring and using new ones he is being punished. Exactly what Obama or Clinton would have done in the same situation.
We should not blithely now assume that Trump has now become a normal president. A headline during the election concerning one of Trump’s earlier insanities was - Trump’s plan to seize Iraq’s oil: “It’s not stealing, we’re reimbursing ourselves” The word “reimbursing” is now being used in context with Trump’s assertion that he will force Mexico to pay for the wall. Trump reiterated that he would have seized Iraq’s oil recently at a speech to the CIA.
This raises the prospect of Trump using military force to seize Mexican gulf oil assets to reimburse the cost of the wall. In terms of the worst things that could ever happen to the USA, military conflict with Mexico when at least 10% of the American population is of Mexican heritage has to be high on the list..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4042715
After Assad crossed the red-line by using poison gas in 2013, Kerry and Putin wisely convinced Obama to avoid force if Assad would agree to get rid of all chemical weapons. Now that Assad reneged on the agreement by either hiding some of the weapons that were there in 2013 or acquiring and using new ones he is being punished. Exactly what Obama or Clinton would have done in the same situation.
We should not blithely now assume that Trump has now become a normal president. A headline during the election concerning one of Trump’s earlier insanities was - Trump’s plan to seize Iraq’s oil: “It’s not stealing, we’re reimbursing ourselves” The word “reimbursing” is now being used in context with Trump’s assertion that he will force Mexico to pay for the wall. Trump reiterated that he would have seized Iraq’s oil recently at a speech to the CIA.
This raises the prospect of Trump using military force to seize Mexican gulf oil assets to reimburse the cost of the wall. In terms of the worst things that could ever happen to the USA, military conflict with Mexico when at least 10% of the American population is of Mexican heritage has to be high on the list..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4042715
6
Get real Tom. Trump and his team of incompetents can't do anything right,and certainly not the complex international relations gambit you recommend.
1
I usually agree with Thomas Friedman, but not this time. Although I really have little idea of what to do in regard to Syria, I would say that the first step is to convince Putin that it is in Russia's self-interest to depose Assad. I am not certain what the stick could be, but the carrot would be allowing Russia to keep its Syrian naval base. In exchange, the US would stop supporting the Syrian opposition groups in their efforts to overthrow Assad, but to support them in efforts to protect their enclaves. In exchange, Putin would have to agree to stop the war against the Syrian opposition regardless of who replaces Assad. Only when the situation on the ground becomes somewhat stabilized consideration can be given to what will possibly and hopefully be a political settlement among the various factions of Syrian society. What should not be done is to blindly support he Syrian opposition like we supported the mujajedeen in Afghanistan. Remember what the that led to? Al Queda and 9/11. First, we apparently do not know all that much about the Syrian opposition. Second, we need to keep in mind that the oppressed become the oppressors.
Call me cynical, "that Trump" is working hard, except not for our side.
Is it possible that the air strike and the latest tough language on Russia and Assad is only a smoke screen, a PR stunt, to hide Trump administration's true agenda in Syria, which is pro-Putin as ever, so that his family can expand Trump business into Russia?
Is it possible that the air strike and the latest tough language on Russia and Assad is only a smoke screen, a PR stunt, to hide Trump administration's true agenda in Syria, which is pro-Putin as ever, so that his family can expand Trump business into Russia?
8
As it was 100 years ago that the United States entered the "Great War" it seems fitting to reflect on how within the solutions the Allies---specifically the Brits and the French-- created, to deal with the Middle East, were seeds of the tensions and impossible challenges we are now facing. The concept of empire was not one which would be given up lightly. So today, we are faced with no good options and meanwhile, the Syrian people suffer and the United States rejects them at our doors.
2
An interesting analysis. However, I believe Trump's sudden 180s in foreign policy have less to do with Assad or ISIS and more to do with trying to distract attention from the FBI's and congressional investigations into his Russia ties, which continue to dribble out damaging revelations of collusion.
14
It's never the time for "Trump to be Trump". His unpredictability, narcissism, his obsessive lies, his inability to arrive at reasoned decisions resulting from collaborative assessments with knowledgeable people, present a clear and present danger for our country and for the world.
11
"We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations."
Support for the rebels is what has allowed the Syrian civil war to drag on unabated. Assad is a war criminal, but the reality is that without support for the rebels, two things would happen: 1) the war would be over because Assad would be able to defeat the rebels, thereby saving more lives than will will be lost in the continued fighting; and 2) Christians, Alawites, Druze, Mandeans, Shiites, and Salafis will not be wiped out by the Sunnis, as would otherwise be the case if the Sunni rebels were to win the war.
The United States never seems able to understand that sometimes a horrible dictator can be a better alternative than massive death and destruction, and that in the 21st century, democracy has virtually zero chance of being exported to other countries (with Tunisia being the shining exception).
Support for the rebels is what has allowed the Syrian civil war to drag on unabated. Assad is a war criminal, but the reality is that without support for the rebels, two things would happen: 1) the war would be over because Assad would be able to defeat the rebels, thereby saving more lives than will will be lost in the continued fighting; and 2) Christians, Alawites, Druze, Mandeans, Shiites, and Salafis will not be wiped out by the Sunnis, as would otherwise be the case if the Sunni rebels were to win the war.
The United States never seems able to understand that sometimes a horrible dictator can be a better alternative than massive death and destruction, and that in the 21st century, democracy has virtually zero chance of being exported to other countries (with Tunisia being the shining exception).
3
ISIS is the only real power for the Sunni Muslims and that is why they are at least secretly supported by many Sunni Arabs. They Sunni Muslims were offered a stake in the Iraq government after the so called "surge" but it never materialized. Part of a political solution for the conflict still going on in both Iraq and Syria would be to push the government in Iraq to bring in the Sunni Muslims to share the power. There is no military solution to the very complicated situation in the Middle East.
2
As is so often the case, Mr. Friedman has hit the nail on the head - vicious cynicism is what keeps America great.
By repeatedly saying his main goal is to defeat ISIS, isn't President Trump giving far more importance to a mere terrorist group than it deserves? Terrorist groups like these thrive on the publicity they receive, and the President of a superpower publicly making their destruction a priority gives them legitimacy which encourages fringe elements in developed countries to attempt acts of terrorism such as the recent one in Stockholm, and the ones in Germany and France.
Syria is an intractable mess and while one can question Trump for an empathetic reaction to the gassing of civilians, the limited missile attack makes as much sense as anything else in such a game of pinball politics.
1
It is striking how it remains so easy to talk about this as if it were a chess match. It is past time to focus on the pieces in this game as the suffering and dying human beings that they are rather than on those who use them for their entertainment.
In listening to Trump on NPR it occurred to me that he has just now figured out that Putin is a pretty despicable person. Each passing day reveals just how ignorant of world events the man who now leads the country was prior to his election. I keep reminding myself that he is not my fault. Unfortunately that doesn't provide a lot of comfort in terms of feeling secure and safe.
1
There is only one reason Trump will stop fighting territorial Sunnis in Syria, because Obama was.
1
Trump is only that way when he has unquestioned leverage over the party against whom he is called upon to be dirty, devious and to act cynically without mercy.
Trump has no leverage in Syria. He is becoming, not only in Syria, but everywhere, a stranger in a strange land, the US Presidency.
Trump has no leverage in Syria. He is becoming, not only in Syria, but everywhere, a stranger in a strange land, the US Presidency.
Iran/Russia has been trying to create a oil/gas pipeline through to Syria. So is Saudi Arabia and its allies, the other Sunni countries with energy resources. When Assad decided to give this priority to the Iranian axis, the Sunni world erupted and fought back. Everything was neatly contained to Syria/Iraq until Israel and Cyprus decided to connect their newly found gas reserves to the Europeans as well. Suddenly, Russia has begun to support Syria/Iranian interests against Israel via their buildup on the Golan. It all about energy transfer. Killing innocents over this is a disgrace. We need Tesla's solar and storage systems (and others like it) now more than ever to make oil/gas move to the ancient history category. Our leader needs to get on the right bandwagon and not uselessly bomb Syria to create the leverage needed to ultimately solve this issue.
3
I fear much of this "uninformed" strategy is to divert attention from this admin's pre-election relationship with Moscow.
2
Trump is a man who simply reacts to events around him. With no grasp of history and how it shapes the future, he simply takes the advice of the last person in the room who can give him the most credit and glory. His business model of chaos among the team may work to build a golf course or hotel, however that method does not play well on the world stage. Hence the public confusion among his administration. Working with others to build a coalition to achieve a goal is not his skill set. Whatever action he takes, or doesn't take, in Syria will be the one he can take the most glory from, or blame someone else for the failure.
2
"...the way reagan did in Afghanistan"? I thought the lesson of Afghanistan was: Be careful who you "encourage" because 15 years later they might turn around and fly planes into your buildings.
2
There is a case to be made that this is a distraction strategy from the whole heap pf trouble Trump faces domestically starting with the Russian collusion problem he has. So why not launch 59 of our rather expensive arsenal, do minimal damage and generally act and talk tough. Approval ratings will (and have) gone up. Russian collusion is on shakier ground at least with Eric Trump. The aura of unpredictability is enhanced for future misuse. For all we know, even Putin may be in on this ruse. Call me cynical but I just do not see Trump as a leader, more a self-serving oligarch.
3
Why is Assad not being called a terrorist? We need him to be labeled as such and condemn Russia for supporting a terrorist regime. If gas and barrel bombs are not tools of a terror I do not know what is.
In dealing with Assad we need to decide either to fight him or get out. We can't be standing in the middle of the road. Make a choice and go with it.
In dealing with Assad we need to decide either to fight him or get out. We can't be standing in the middle of the road. Make a choice and go with it.
1
I read nothing in this article about how these various strategies would impact the people living on the ground where the different war scenarios would play out. Until that assessment is included in decision making...........
1
Trump loves fake fighting just like the fake wrestling world he's been part of. He likes theater only when he's the protagonist. But, when it turn's real, like when the ACA turned out to be not so easy to repeal and replace, he folds his tent and looks for another stage on which to fake fight.
The scary thing he's learned is that when he loses political fights he looks weak and really only hurts himself, but when he threatens to use or uses the military, his popularity increases while real people get hurt or die.
The scary thing he's learned is that when he loses political fights he looks weak and really only hurts himself, but when he threatens to use or uses the military, his popularity increases while real people get hurt or die.
4
While it is tempting to place the ISIS problem in Syria in the laps of the Assad regime, Russia, Iran, and Hezbolah, the fact the civil war in Syria is still on-going and the fact the Assad regime and supporters demonstrated little interest in battling ISIS should be considered. Ignoring the fact the US would be issuing a death sentence to moderate rebel groups fighting Assad if the US pulled away from involvement in Syria, a failure on the part of Assad's Syria and supporters to reduce ISIS territory in Syria would threaten the gains of the Iraqi and alliance troops against ISIS in Iraq, and failure would threaten Turkey, Jordan, and Israel, to name a few countries benefitting from keeping ISIS at bay.
ISIS and the US have taken advantage of the Syrian civil war to pursue their goals. ISIS wants a territorial caliphate and the US is determined, along with alliance countries, to prevent that from occurring. ISIS's "plan B", to extend terrorist attacks across the globe to establish a world-wide caliphate, speaks to the necessity of strong world-wide alliances against terrorist groups.
ISIS and the US have taken advantage of the Syrian civil war to pursue their goals. ISIS wants a territorial caliphate and the US is determined, along with alliance countries, to prevent that from occurring. ISIS's "plan B", to extend terrorist attacks across the globe to establish a world-wide caliphate, speaks to the necessity of strong world-wide alliances against terrorist groups.
The term virtual IS is dead on. Angry disgruntled people all over the world can channel their fury and ramp up their hate watching IS videos and then justify their horrific behavior as an IS attack, regardless. This is what Sadiq Khan was referring to when he said terror attacks will happen. Anyone with just hate and effort can pull these things off.
The swirling mass of horrific destruction that Syria has become is Assad's fault, and his alone. There was never even the potential to develop a "democratic" opposition and/or government to his rule even though there was hope of that when he first took power. This opposition vacuum resulted in no clear path forward and is why Obama was never able to fix it. After thnow reside. e rebellion began, the opposition to Assad was so fractured and the citizens of Syria have paid an enormous price for this. Removing a strongman without a viable leader to take over was what happened in Libya where variants of IS etc.Lesson learned, Obama didn't want to repeat that mess. Perhaps Obama should have bombed Assad after the first sarin gas attacks and the crossing of his "red line" but, as Trump is learning now, what would happen next?
Clearly Assad doesn't give two hoots if he kills everyone except those in his Alawite sect, related supporters and Russians. He's his father's son, after all. Any chance of developing a viable opposition, including the "rebels" that McCain et al. keep referring to, left the station years ago.
The swirling mass of horrific destruction that Syria has become is Assad's fault, and his alone. There was never even the potential to develop a "democratic" opposition and/or government to his rule even though there was hope of that when he first took power. This opposition vacuum resulted in no clear path forward and is why Obama was never able to fix it. After thnow reside. e rebellion began, the opposition to Assad was so fractured and the citizens of Syria have paid an enormous price for this. Removing a strongman without a viable leader to take over was what happened in Libya where variants of IS etc.Lesson learned, Obama didn't want to repeat that mess. Perhaps Obama should have bombed Assad after the first sarin gas attacks and the crossing of his "red line" but, as Trump is learning now, what would happen next?
Clearly Assad doesn't give two hoots if he kills everyone except those in his Alawite sect, related supporters and Russians. He's his father's son, after all. Any chance of developing a viable opposition, including the "rebels" that McCain et al. keep referring to, left the station years ago.
King David, Albert Einstein and Winston Churchill, if brought back and put in a room and told to come up with the best way to handle the Syrian problem would come up with one answer: Stay as far away from it as possible.
I absolutely agree with Mr. Friedman here but there are two other parties who need to be taken to task: namely Ankara and Riyadh. The Turks and the Saudis were cheering on our feckless leader last week for his pinprick action in Syria. They've been opposed to both Assad and ISIS from the start and live right in the same neighborhood. So what have their militaries been doing lately, apart from attacking Kurds in Syria and Shiites in Yemen? Instead of accepting their applause for our actions we ought to be remonstrating against their inaction and stepping up the pressure on them to get more involved in the fight against Assad and those outsiders who've been enabling him.
3
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Mr. Friedman suggests that we let ISIS be Russia's problem "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan". What could go wrong? Afghan mujahideen were followed by a string of consequential events: Afghan civil war, the Taliban, 9/11, invading Iraq in the search for WMD, and then . . . ISIS !
Mr. Friedman suggests that we let ISIS be Russia's problem "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan". What could go wrong? Afghan mujahideen were followed by a string of consequential events: Afghan civil war, the Taliban, 9/11, invading Iraq in the search for WMD, and then . . . ISIS !
17
Bush chose to fight al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (where Bush ally warlords let them escape) and in Iraq (where there was no al-Qaeda until after his invasion). al-Qaeda was born in the madrassas of Islamabad, Pakistan, based on Salafism, the severe form of Sunni Islam from Saudi Arabia.
When al-Qaeda lost it's sanctuary in Afghanistan, it simply became a distributed movement, with chapters & individuals scattered around the world. ISIS, like the numerous branches of al-Qaeda functioning around the world today, derives from a religious world view that will not die when we capture Mosul and Rakka. al-Qaeda operatives spread like wasps after we took a baseball bat to their hive in the caves of Bora Bora & became a world-wide movement. ISIS, or what emerges to take its place, is already doing this. Originally, ISIS was solely concerned with overturning 'heretical' rulers in neighbors like Iraq & Syria & imposing their own religious government, their Caliphate. When the West joined this war to eradicated ISIS (in favor of what??), ISIS began to fight back against their Western enemies using the only tactic a small power can use against a great one - terrorism. The US & Europe rallied coalitions to fight ISIS & now are surprised that the war against ISIS is a 2-way war. al-Qaeda survived loss of leaders (including bin-Laden) & sanctuary, yet 16 years after 9/11 they are still a viable force. Military power does not destroy religious fanaticism - the Crusades should have taught us that.
When al-Qaeda lost it's sanctuary in Afghanistan, it simply became a distributed movement, with chapters & individuals scattered around the world. ISIS, like the numerous branches of al-Qaeda functioning around the world today, derives from a religious world view that will not die when we capture Mosul and Rakka. al-Qaeda operatives spread like wasps after we took a baseball bat to their hive in the caves of Bora Bora & became a world-wide movement. ISIS, or what emerges to take its place, is already doing this. Originally, ISIS was solely concerned with overturning 'heretical' rulers in neighbors like Iraq & Syria & imposing their own religious government, their Caliphate. When the West joined this war to eradicated ISIS (in favor of what??), ISIS began to fight back against their Western enemies using the only tactic a small power can use against a great one - terrorism. The US & Europe rallied coalitions to fight ISIS & now are surprised that the war against ISIS is a 2-way war. al-Qaeda survived loss of leaders (including bin-Laden) & sanctuary, yet 16 years after 9/11 they are still a viable force. Military power does not destroy religious fanaticism - the Crusades should have taught us that.
And after ISIS, al-Nusra, Boko Haram, the Houthis, and dozens of other organizations dedicated to the same religious vision.
True. But if we are restrained by 5 or 6 degrees of separation from some historical event, we will be condemned to stasis. Nothing guarantees the same results. Act, and then with knowledge of past circumstances, manage the results away from them.
Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't make them smart.
Trump could have been a good President -- we sure could use a fresh look at many policies and programs but his lack of basic knowledge (enough to select good people and work with them to develop strategies/plans, which he would then follow) has created chaos. Our adversaries, other governments, our own government -- nobody knows what our foreign policy is.
Trump could have been a good President -- we sure could use a fresh look at many policies and programs but his lack of basic knowledge (enough to select good people and work with them to develop strategies/plans, which he would then follow) has created chaos. Our adversaries, other governments, our own government -- nobody knows what our foreign policy is.
41
Nobody knows because there are NO policies of any kind anywhere.
The impression is that chaos IS the plan.
Dump thrives on chaos.....lots of dysfunctional people do......they do not feel alive unless there is drama and chaos......he has stated he loves to be in a fight.
Bordom or what many of us see and feel as normal is sheer death for people like this.
Dump thrives on chaos.....lots of dysfunctional people do......they do not feel alive unless there is drama and chaos......he has stated he loves to be in a fight.
Bordom or what many of us see and feel as normal is sheer death for people like this.
Jupiter and Neptune have gigantic dark spots. These dark spots are eternal, anticyclonic storms. Syria is on it's way to becoming one.
But, Trump is in the moment. After Assad initiated the gas attacks, Trump and crew decided to exploit the situation. Putin was probably caught off guard and even if he was informed head of time, his association with Assad would keep him from retaliating. So, Trump shed some crocodile tears and showed his "humanity" and concern for others. Cough! Cough!
Not a bad move. IMHO, there will be no "Act II" unless some behind the scenes deal is made. Ukraine??? A turbulent economy???
But, Trump is in the moment. After Assad initiated the gas attacks, Trump and crew decided to exploit the situation. Putin was probably caught off guard and even if he was informed head of time, his association with Assad would keep him from retaliating. So, Trump shed some crocodile tears and showed his "humanity" and concern for others. Cough! Cough!
Not a bad move. IMHO, there will be no "Act II" unless some behind the scenes deal is made. Ukraine??? A turbulent economy???
12
The situation in Syria is exactly why our unfit and unstable president is such a danger to our country and the world.
He doesn't know the history of Syria, he doesn't know the current situation in Syria and he has no desire to learn either. His missile attack came days after his administration seemed to be willing to accept Assad as president. It accomplished nothing except to confuse both our allies and our adversaries.
Now you want him to distinguish between the territorial ICIS and the virtual ICIS, between the ICIS in Syria and the ICIS in Iraq, and to implement a strategy that involves long term thinking while Tweeting about something other than himself. It's not going to happen, he doesn't have the intelligence or the vision to follow through on such a plan.
Nice idea, though.
He doesn't know the history of Syria, he doesn't know the current situation in Syria and he has no desire to learn either. His missile attack came days after his administration seemed to be willing to accept Assad as president. It accomplished nothing except to confuse both our allies and our adversaries.
Now you want him to distinguish between the territorial ICIS and the virtual ICIS, between the ICIS in Syria and the ICIS in Iraq, and to implement a strategy that involves long term thinking while Tweeting about something other than himself. It's not going to happen, he doesn't have the intelligence or the vision to follow through on such a plan.
Nice idea, though.
45
Trump is unable to think strategically -- that's where he is. And it's why he has Bannon in the White House -- because Bannon is the only guy Trump has ever known who actually reads.
The way Trump thinks is consistent with the difference between Happiness and Joy. The former is dependent upon what happens right now and it either makes you happy or not. Joy is a strategy, a philosophy, a faith if you will, that assists you in traveling through life no matter what happens. Trump watches TV, sees what happens and then reacts to it based upon what he feels at the moment. He's incompetent.
The way Trump thinks is consistent with the difference between Happiness and Joy. The former is dependent upon what happens right now and it either makes you happy or not. Joy is a strategy, a philosophy, a faith if you will, that assists you in traveling through life no matter what happens. Trump watches TV, sees what happens and then reacts to it based upon what he feels at the moment. He's incompetent.
Mr Friedman, I am steadily losing all hope that POTUS and DC politicians have the capability and the caliber to lead and inspire America through the many and varied challenges we face.
To me, politicians ask citizens for their votes based on a fantasy world where complexity is never recognized and Americans have the God given right to expect a world where they receive more of everything without the sacrifice or payment needed to secure these benefits.
Although I am inherently optimistic about life, I think we are facing challenges that will only be solved by the next generation because our generation is failing to defend our fragile democracy.
To me, politicians ask citizens for their votes based on a fantasy world where complexity is never recognized and Americans have the God given right to expect a world where they receive more of everything without the sacrifice or payment needed to secure these benefits.
Although I am inherently optimistic about life, I think we are facing challenges that will only be solved by the next generation because our generation is failing to defend our fragile democracy.
51
There are no moderates in Syria, it is a fantasy created in the minds of John McCain and other neoconservatives who seem to be blind to the disasters they have created in Libya, Iraq and Yemen. Syria is in the midst of a Sunni-Shia civil war.
45
Bush chose to fight al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (where Bush ally warlords let them escape) and in Iraq (where there was no al-Qaeda until after his invasion). al-Qaeda was born in the madrassas of Islamabad, Pakistan & was based on the severe form of Sunni Islam from Saudi Arabia, called Salafism.
As soon as al-Qaeda lost it's sanctuary in Afghanistan, it simply became a distributed movement, with chapters & individuals scattered around the world. ISIS, like the numerous branches of al-Qaeda functioning around the world today, derives from a religious world view that will not die when we capture Mosul and Rakka. al-Qaeda operatives spread like wasps after we took a baseball bat to their hive in the caves of Bora Bora & became a world-wide movement. ISIS, or what emerges to take its place, is already doing this. Originally, ISIS was solely concerned with overturning 'heretical' rulers in neighbors like Iraq & Syria & imposing their own religious government, their Caliphate. When Western countries joined this war to eradicated ISIS (in favor of what??), ISIS began to fight back against their Western enemies using the only tactic a small power can use against a great one - terrorism. The US & Europe rallied coalitions to fight ISIS & now are surprised that the war against ISIS is a 2-way war. al-Qaeda survived loss of leaders (including bin-Laden) & sanctuary, yet 16 years after 9/11 they are still a viable force. You don't bomb religious fanaticism out of existence.
As soon as al-Qaeda lost it's sanctuary in Afghanistan, it simply became a distributed movement, with chapters & individuals scattered around the world. ISIS, like the numerous branches of al-Qaeda functioning around the world today, derives from a religious world view that will not die when we capture Mosul and Rakka. al-Qaeda operatives spread like wasps after we took a baseball bat to their hive in the caves of Bora Bora & became a world-wide movement. ISIS, or what emerges to take its place, is already doing this. Originally, ISIS was solely concerned with overturning 'heretical' rulers in neighbors like Iraq & Syria & imposing their own religious government, their Caliphate. When Western countries joined this war to eradicated ISIS (in favor of what??), ISIS began to fight back against their Western enemies using the only tactic a small power can use against a great one - terrorism. The US & Europe rallied coalitions to fight ISIS & now are surprised that the war against ISIS is a 2-way war. al-Qaeda survived loss of leaders (including bin-Laden) & sanctuary, yet 16 years after 9/11 they are still a viable force. You don't bomb religious fanaticism out of existence.
Tom, you were an early advocate in 2003 for getting the U.S. involved in the Iraq war. You even wrote a column entitled, "France is not My Friend" excoriating them for not joining the disaster.
Don't even hint at making Trump more bellicose than he is domestically by taking on Russia with angry tweets and rhetoric on issues that he doesn't understand or even care about in the Middle East.
For Trump, wratcheting up the confrontation with Russia merely creates a smokescreen for him to hide the real issue for the United States: What was the role of the Trump Administration in its dealings with Russia to allegedly interfere in our election?
Don't even hint at making Trump more bellicose than he is domestically by taking on Russia with angry tweets and rhetoric on issues that he doesn't understand or even care about in the Middle East.
For Trump, wratcheting up the confrontation with Russia merely creates a smokescreen for him to hide the real issue for the United States: What was the role of the Trump Administration in its dealings with Russia to allegedly interfere in our election?
Here's what I don't understand. Why does Mr. Friedman assume the rebels who've been fighting now for years in Syria, who have seen their friends and children bombed and gassed, are still "moderates" (pro-Western democracy)?
ISIS is a Sunni insurgent group formed in 2004, right after the US invaded Iraq, toppled the Sunni dictator, Saddam Hussein, and effectively installed a Shiite government to represent the majority of the population.
In Syria, the monstrous dictator, Assad, is a Shiite dominating (and destroying) a nation where the majority is Sunni. The rebels are Sunni.
Let's imagine that many of these rebels, by now, have become radicalized by war. Why wouldn't they just join the Sunni forces of ISIS and help establish the Sunni caliphate, which promises to bridge the border between Syria and Iraq?
Americans are generally fond of "rebels." We like to help overthrow dictators. But if we unseat one Sunni dictator (Saddam) and one Shiite (Assad), what will result?
Donald Trump has identified ISIS as a key Muslim enemy of the United States, and used that organization to excite anti-Muslim folk at his rallies. Has anybody told him that, by now, it's possible the suffering "rebels" in Syria might ally with ISIS to establish a Sunni religious domain?
Why is that not a real possibility?
ISIS is a Sunni insurgent group formed in 2004, right after the US invaded Iraq, toppled the Sunni dictator, Saddam Hussein, and effectively installed a Shiite government to represent the majority of the population.
In Syria, the monstrous dictator, Assad, is a Shiite dominating (and destroying) a nation where the majority is Sunni. The rebels are Sunni.
Let's imagine that many of these rebels, by now, have become radicalized by war. Why wouldn't they just join the Sunni forces of ISIS and help establish the Sunni caliphate, which promises to bridge the border between Syria and Iraq?
Americans are generally fond of "rebels." We like to help overthrow dictators. But if we unseat one Sunni dictator (Saddam) and one Shiite (Assad), what will result?
Donald Trump has identified ISIS as a key Muslim enemy of the United States, and used that organization to excite anti-Muslim folk at his rallies. Has anybody told him that, by now, it's possible the suffering "rebels" in Syria might ally with ISIS to establish a Sunni religious domain?
Why is that not a real possibility?
8
Who knows why? I don't believe Trump has much of a solid grounding with respect to any of his geopolitical positions. The obvious truth is that he is winging it. The result of course is to be expected. It is what happens when a carnival barker who relies on biased political media sources for his information is elected to the big seat.
5
Trump's new-found concern with Syria has been attributed to his family's influence, but few have looked for evidence that it is simply a dodge to deflect attention from the growing evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with foreign interests. Of particular interest is: Why was the chemical attack so small in scale? Perhaps only a small amount of chemical agents could be scraped up or brought into Syria. Why were the runways not targeted? Just as surely as the planes, the runways were vehicles for the transport and delivery of the chemical agents. Critics were quick to pin Wag the Dog on Clinton for his military actions. This is a much bigger dog and the shift in administration attitudes so much more sudden and profound. Nor has Trump been as forthcoming in discussing the controversy maybe giving rise to a wag-the-dog political strategy. Why am I not hearing the same amount of outrage?
12
This is a GWB moment. Trump is going to engage in a war he thinks he can win, not because he needs to strategically, but because it's what his ego needs. The "why" question assumes deeper thought. There is none.
17
To answer your question; Because he does not know where they live.
Sunnis, Shias, Kurds. Iran , Turkey, Saudi Arabia. There is no percentage in the U.S. involvement beyond offering humanitarian aid and acting where absolutely necessary to ensure as much as possible that more innocents are not slaughtered.
It's puzzling that the U.S. can't use cruise missiles to crater every runway on every Syrian airfield. (In this latest attack the airiel photos show no cratering.)
It is puzzling that we can't or won't establish air superiority over Syria and then target with drones and air strikes anyone on either side whom we suspect of slaughtering civilians.
Our doctrine ought to be intolerance for the slaughter and terrorism against non-combatants, humanitarian aid for refugees from the war, and a negotiated peace including the partition of Syria if necessary into autonomous regions Kurd, Sunni, and Alawite operating under a permanent ceasefire indefinitely.
The Turks and Iranians and Iraqis must negotiate a territorial settlement of a Kurdish nation that itself agrees to halt any aggression toward any other sovereign nation or ethnic or regional territories or regions therein.
The most the world--with the U.S. as one participant--can ever accomplish is keeping the blood below ankle level, and imperfect and uneasy compromises like Cyprus, Kashmir and Sri Lanka.
It's puzzling that the U.S. can't use cruise missiles to crater every runway on every Syrian airfield. (In this latest attack the airiel photos show no cratering.)
It is puzzling that we can't or won't establish air superiority over Syria and then target with drones and air strikes anyone on either side whom we suspect of slaughtering civilians.
Our doctrine ought to be intolerance for the slaughter and terrorism against non-combatants, humanitarian aid for refugees from the war, and a negotiated peace including the partition of Syria if necessary into autonomous regions Kurd, Sunni, and Alawite operating under a permanent ceasefire indefinitely.
The Turks and Iranians and Iraqis must negotiate a territorial settlement of a Kurdish nation that itself agrees to halt any aggression toward any other sovereign nation or ethnic or regional territories or regions therein.
The most the world--with the U.S. as one participant--can ever accomplish is keeping the blood below ankle level, and imperfect and uneasy compromises like Cyprus, Kashmir and Sri Lanka.
6
This essay is a non-sequitur - Trump cannot be “utterly cynical and unpredictable” and at the same time pursue the thoughtful foreign policy that Friedman correctly recommends. Trump’s strongman credo demands that that he blow up territorial ISIS, while virtual ISIS is too subtle a concept for him to comprehend. The missile strike was a symbolic gesture which also had the added benefit to Trump of getting the Russia collusion investigation off the front page, and display a new animosity to Russia that diverts attention from past acts of collusion. Trump only reacts to short-term news events, and has no interest in the long game of statecraft.
11
This sounds like a simplistic situation to a Gordian knot. Will NATO be capable, or even willing, to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria when it could end up confronting Russian aircraft based in Syria? Talking about ISIS in Syria vice ISIS in Iraq is irrelevant. Think of them as one entity: The Caliphate. Successfully attacking their forces in Iraq would just cause them to shift fighters from Syria to Iraq, making the job of Russia et al easier. Iraq also conducted air strikes against ISIS in Iraq. How does that fit into your scenario? Finally you talk about arming the anti-Assad groups, but that's easier said than done when some of them are identifies as terrorist groups and can't receive weapons from the US.
1
The Russians have already supplied Syria & Iran with their highly effective S-300 anti-aircraft & anti-missile systems, pretty much countering American air superiority. Days after Trump's Tomahawk attack, Putin announced he was upgrading Syrian & Iranian systems with Russia's state of the art S-400 system, which can be used against anything from helicopters to intercontinental ballistic missiles. This seems to be the only substantial result of Trump's whim to attack Syria. Do we REALLY want to let this war (which only spread terrorism beyond its borders when Western countries like the U.S., France, Germany, & Belgium, joined in), expand to a U.S. vs Russia air war? How many American lives is Trump willing to sacrifice to get his ratings higher? My guess is, outside of his immediate family, any lives don't count for much in what he likes to call his 'mind' (though, from what I've seen of him so far, all he really needs is a brain stem).
The real question is would Russia challenge the no fly zone?
Friedman’s push to support ISIS and al Qaeda to defeat Asad is but the latest version of unmentioned war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Shia-Sunni war writ large. The gist is that the Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut arc threatens our oil interests. Riyadh’s fear of losing control of the Persian Gulf and steps it has taken combat Iran’s resurgence has taken precedence.
Friedman’s desire to see the majority Sunnis achieve political victory in Syria does not extend to majority Shia in Bahrain or the east coast of the Arabian peninsula or today’s Lebanon. The destruction of Saddam came only after Iraq broke with its oil neighbors over oil wealth and sacrifice in battling Iran. The triumph of the Iraqi Shias replaced the fear of Saddam with the fear of Iranian expansion. As Christopher Davidson’s Shadow Wars points out, a domestic Syrian protest was exploited so as defeat Iran more than concern for Syrian lives. The horror of Syrian civilians does not extend to Yemen’s.
Aiding and abetting radical Islamism is a short-sighted policy. Empowering them by more arms or safe zones may lead to Asad’s fall or it may prolong the carnage. Friedman’s off-hand belief that a rebel triumph represents what all Syrians want or that those who now direct the war against Asad will refrain from exploiting their military into political power is wishful thinking.
If surrendering Afghanistan to radicals allowed it to become the precursor to 9/11, why should we support the fall of Syria?
Friedman’s desire to see the majority Sunnis achieve political victory in Syria does not extend to majority Shia in Bahrain or the east coast of the Arabian peninsula or today’s Lebanon. The destruction of Saddam came only after Iraq broke with its oil neighbors over oil wealth and sacrifice in battling Iran. The triumph of the Iraqi Shias replaced the fear of Saddam with the fear of Iranian expansion. As Christopher Davidson’s Shadow Wars points out, a domestic Syrian protest was exploited so as defeat Iran more than concern for Syrian lives. The horror of Syrian civilians does not extend to Yemen’s.
Aiding and abetting radical Islamism is a short-sighted policy. Empowering them by more arms or safe zones may lead to Asad’s fall or it may prolong the carnage. Friedman’s off-hand belief that a rebel triumph represents what all Syrians want or that those who now direct the war against Asad will refrain from exploiting their military into political power is wishful thinking.
If surrendering Afghanistan to radicals allowed it to become the precursor to 9/11, why should we support the fall of Syria?
3
please read up on Assad's father ad how log the rebels have truly bee fighting I Syria. Frieda covered it I the 80's there. he knows the players better than most.
Remember that, for 10 years, Friedman was always predicting that the U.S. was only six months away from turning the tide in Iraq (a unit of time now known as a "Friedman."
We cannot defeat Islamic extremism any more than we can defeat Christian or Hindu, or Jewish extremism with military might. All we can do is, like Br'er Rabbit after he made the first error in punching the Tar-Baby in the first place, keep poking more and more limbs into the Tar-Baby.
We cannot defeat Islamic extremism any more than we can defeat Christian or Hindu, or Jewish extremism with military might. All we can do is, like Br'er Rabbit after he made the first error in punching the Tar-Baby in the first place, keep poking more and more limbs into the Tar-Baby.
Sounds like a good critic and idea.
But not sure it would work in the long run if civilian casualties keep adding up in Mosul.
But not sure it would work in the long run if civilian casualties keep adding up in Mosul.
1
Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad are not a threat to America. Three of them control a lot of oil. That could be a clue. Remember Iraq and Libya? Well, this time I hope the American people come out in the streets and declare enough is enough. We don't need their oil. Between us and our neighbors Canada and Mexico, we're fine. Let Tillerson and Putin dicker about drilling in the arctic, but keep our planes on the ground. We don't want another war.
Thomas, let me try to explain. The objective of ISIS is to establish a caliphate. This is motivated by both prophesy and the desired to establish a society of righteous living. Virtual ISIS derives its attraction and strength from the existence of and hope for the physical ISIS.
Watch some of the recruitment videos and consider the marketing strategy; I think you will agree that it is predicated on the coming caliphate: an actual country, the land being won through war. Virtual is a consequence of, and is dependent upon, the physical.
That is why the physical must be diminished.
Watch some of the recruitment videos and consider the marketing strategy; I think you will agree that it is predicated on the coming caliphate: an actual country, the land being won through war. Virtual is a consequence of, and is dependent upon, the physical.
That is why the physical must be diminished.
2
The physical can be regained somewhere else in the region, or anywhere in the world - as long as there is the virtual to drive it.
"Why is Trump fighting ISIS in Syria?"
Did you ever pose that question when President Obama was in charge?
Did you ever pose that question when President Obama was in charge?
1
All the time - as I did when Bush was in charge. I know few people who voted for Obama who were in agreement with his Middle East strategy, which didn't differ all that much from Bush's. Even Obama's withdrawal of troops from Iraq was originally Bush's plan & timetable. ISIS is but one of a number of manifestations of a severe & absolutist religious ideology that has been popular in some quarters of Sunni Islam since Hassan al-Banna in Egypt in the 1920s & popularized by the writings of Sayyid Qutb, before he was executed in the 1960s. It's basic tenet is that modern Islam has drifted far from the original faith and needs to be restored to its fundamentalist form. We have many fundamentalist Christians in the US who hold similar views about their religion, except they are succeeding gradually through politics and recruitment. Should we ever have a completely secular government again, expect violence. It has happened before in the U.S.
The Congress answered that question.
Here's an even more off the wall idea....let's defeat both territorial and virtual ISIS by cutting off their funding from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. These countries have always been the chief exporters of radical Islam (as a way to keep themselves in power) and the source of ISIS funding. Cut them off. Let them deal with their problems on their own. Watch both incarnations of ISIS wither on the vine.
10
Saudi Arabia is the world's largest financier & proponent of Sunni terrorism, spending many times the amount of money that Iran can afford to spend on Shi'ite terrorism. Egypt, which once dominated the Middle East and the United Arab Republic, lusts to regain control. It was Saudi money which paid for 9/11 (executed primarily by Saudis like Usama bin-Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers).
How do we turn off their money flow when they control OPEC? Do we declare war against one of the world's wealthiest countries, and a long-time business partner with Repulican businessmen, like the Carlyle Group, the Bush family, George Schultz, and Casper Weinberger.
How do we turn off their money flow when they control OPEC? Do we declare war against one of the world's wealthiest countries, and a long-time business partner with Repulican businessmen, like the Carlyle Group, the Bush family, George Schultz, and Casper Weinberger.
ISIS may be an expression of extreme Islamism, but it is fueled by the West. Our history, from the Crusades on, has been one of exploiting the region and of racist attitudes to brown-skinned people. (Jesus was blue-eyed and blond, no?) Add to that the complaint of the fervently religious that the American life-style is despicable, with its emphases on consumerism and materialism and its popular culture of loose sex. (Even our own Amish fled that American society.) Not only is that life-style inimical to the religious purist, it is a highly infectious life-style, creeping like drought across the fertile face of the earth. So we have a job to do—at home and abroad. An impossible mission. To revive American idealism and to project its positive qualities abroad. Isn’t that what American exceptionalism is supposed to be about, not about promoting iPhones and Coca Cola? And Trump trashes the meager budget for soft-power. The barbarian-in-chief becomes the ISIS recruiter-in-chief.
3
If Jesus, bearded and robed, with olive colored Levantine skin, were actually to return to Earth in, say, Jerusalem, he wouldn't stand a chance of being let into this country by the TSA.
How is this administration supposed to 'fix" the chaos that is engulfing and devouring Syria when it's woefully unprepared to host the annual Easter Egg Roll?
547
Excellent point, Sharon. This puts it all in perspective.
2
Amen!
2
Maybe because the Easter egg roll isn't as important
1
"so they will negotiate a power-sharing accord with moderate Sunni Muslims that would also ease Assad out"
Again with the "moderates." We've been unable to find them when we look. A huge effort turned up a score or so who could be vetted, and some of those disappointed us.
"Moderate" Sunni's is a DC Bubble theory that has no facts on the ground.
There are Sunnis who are not radical jihadis. They are the secular Sunnis, and they are now siding with Assad. They are an important part of Assad's army, that distinguishes it from the Shiite militias.
If we force a diplomatic deal in Friedman's terms, it will be to keep in power the state machinery and people of Assad. He is only the face they use, and is personally very far from the worst among them.
In other terms, think of al Sisi replaced Mubarak, with all the same people and groups behind him. What did that gain us? Just a younger and healthier Mubarak.
What would we get to replace Assad? likely a hard line general more like Saddam than Assad. That is not a step up.
Friedman gives away an unstated motive from his description of "territorial ISIS." He labels it by its enemies, "its archenemies: Shiite Iran, Hezbollah, pro-Shiite militias in Iraq, the pro-Shiite Assad regime in Damascus and Russia."
Those are Friedman's own enemies, and of higher priority to him than he says here ISIS ought to be, "Why should our goal right now be to defeat the Islamic State in Syria?"
Don't choose new enemies before we defeat this one.
Again with the "moderates." We've been unable to find them when we look. A huge effort turned up a score or so who could be vetted, and some of those disappointed us.
"Moderate" Sunni's is a DC Bubble theory that has no facts on the ground.
There are Sunnis who are not radical jihadis. They are the secular Sunnis, and they are now siding with Assad. They are an important part of Assad's army, that distinguishes it from the Shiite militias.
If we force a diplomatic deal in Friedman's terms, it will be to keep in power the state machinery and people of Assad. He is only the face they use, and is personally very far from the worst among them.
In other terms, think of al Sisi replaced Mubarak, with all the same people and groups behind him. What did that gain us? Just a younger and healthier Mubarak.
What would we get to replace Assad? likely a hard line general more like Saddam than Assad. That is not a step up.
Friedman gives away an unstated motive from his description of "territorial ISIS." He labels it by its enemies, "its archenemies: Shiite Iran, Hezbollah, pro-Shiite militias in Iraq, the pro-Shiite Assad regime in Damascus and Russia."
Those are Friedman's own enemies, and of higher priority to him than he says here ISIS ought to be, "Why should our goal right now be to defeat the Islamic State in Syria?"
Don't choose new enemies before we defeat this one.
6
@Mark Thomason: Thank you for the informative and balanced narrative, especially for pointing out Friedmans own prejudices against Iran and Russia as a card carrying neocon and Israel Firster of the highest order. Unfortunately the readership of The Times has changed dramatically since the elections its seems to be composed primarily of trolls given the lack of discussion or even admission of evidence, the cries for bombing Syria and the reluctance to allow the U.N. to do their job of finding out who was behind the chemical attacks as suggested by Putin. It appears that Thomas and his neocon friends want to hide the truth again as they did at the beginning of the Iraq War when they wouldn't allow the U.N. to do their job nor would they listen to anything other than what they wanted too hear. There is only one way to end wars and that is to insist that those beating the drums and their families serve on the front lines and rather than profiting from the wars they pay for them as well. That would be quite a sight, all the Nulands, Kagans, Friedman's, Kushner's, Haley's, Schiffs, Grahams and Clintons in battle fatigues carrying Eighty pounds of gear.
3
Since it is always all about Him, my guess is that He's going
to start a war, maybe two, because war time presidents do well
in the polls. He doesn't have a plan for Syria, remember the
"secret plan to defeat ISIS?" Where's that plan??
This Country is not going to survive 4 years of this.
Everybody is on edge and loosing sleep, but Trump plays
golf on the taxpayer dime at the cost of 3 mill a week end.
Mexico, will you take us when Canada turns us down?
Maybe California and Massachusetts could secede?
(I'm grasping for answers and a new place to live)
to start a war, maybe two, because war time presidents do well
in the polls. He doesn't have a plan for Syria, remember the
"secret plan to defeat ISIS?" Where's that plan??
This Country is not going to survive 4 years of this.
Everybody is on edge and loosing sleep, but Trump plays
golf on the taxpayer dime at the cost of 3 mill a week end.
Mexico, will you take us when Canada turns us down?
Maybe California and Massachusetts could secede?
(I'm grasping for answers and a new place to live)
245
It's nice here in Mass. right now, but be careful which part you choose to live in. Here in the western end of the State, there are more Trump supporters than you would suppose, although I notice that many of them have stopped wearing their hats in public.
Maybe Mexico will support Trump's wall to help them keep out all the Americans fleeing Trump.
Name a few of the war time presidents who have done well in the polls. Heck, name one.
This editorial is based upon a false premise. It assumes that Trump has a Syrian strategy. There is no Syrian strategy. There is no why. There is no goal. There is no policy team. There is only Trump and he only does what makes him look good at any given moment. The attack on the Syrian airport was such an event. It is still in operation but Trump got a big boost in the polls from it.
Mr. Friedman is trying to make sense of the senseless. Trump is a never ending contradiction. His positions flip flop from day to day. This is exactly how he spoke during the campaign. He would contradict himself from one minute to the next. This is how his mind works. This is how he is governing. Why is anyone surprised?
Mr. Friedman is trying to make sense of the senseless. Trump is a never ending contradiction. His positions flip flop from day to day. This is exactly how he spoke during the campaign. He would contradict himself from one minute to the next. This is how his mind works. This is how he is governing. Why is anyone surprised?
257
Written by the pro-war pundit who urged us into war in Iraq and stated to Charlie Rose it was worth it, even though we were lied to.
You do know ISIS is even more evil than al Qaeda, don't you? And haven't you been advocating the war on terrorism for years? But hey--Libya & Iraq just turned out dandy so why not use the same game plan.
Foreign policy is so complicated when the only mission is regime change.
You do know ISIS is even more evil than al Qaeda, don't you? And haven't you been advocating the war on terrorism for years? But hey--Libya & Iraq just turned out dandy so why not use the same game plan.
Foreign policy is so complicated when the only mission is regime change.
8
You must remember that many in the Intelligence Community say Assad did not do the gas attack and like 2013 it was done by ISIS for obvious reasons.
"the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan"
"Encouraged" is an interesting word. As I recall, we armed and trained the mujahedeen including Osama bin Laden... ISIS is also very active in Libya and getting a foothold in Egypt. The whole thing is becoming a deadly game of whack-a-mole.
"Encouraged" is an interesting word. As I recall, we armed and trained the mujahedeen including Osama bin Laden... ISIS is also very active in Libya and getting a foothold in Egypt. The whole thing is becoming a deadly game of whack-a-mole.
31
Anne-Marie...your point about our training the Afghan fighters and the rise of Osama bin Laden is well taken. I'm not sure why Friedman failed to mention that. We goofed big time in Afghanistan by waging our proxy war with Russia and by failing to deeply understand the mujahedeen and their hatred of the West, which was equal to their hatred of the then USSR. Whack-a-mole is right, the most deadly version.
"The Trump foreign policy team"
Stop right there. That is not what we are seeing. It is not a "team."
There are various isolated factions, vying for the favor of a man who does not really know what he's doing. They slash at each other.
So far, they've drawn a lot of blood internally, but there is not semblance of any accepted outcome yet. They are in mid-brawl.
My money is on people with experience, discipline, and hard fists. But we'll see. Meanwhile, there is no "foreign policy team."
Stop right there. That is not what we are seeing. It is not a "team."
There are various isolated factions, vying for the favor of a man who does not really know what he's doing. They slash at each other.
So far, they've drawn a lot of blood internally, but there is not semblance of any accepted outcome yet. They are in mid-brawl.
My money is on people with experience, discipline, and hard fists. But we'll see. Meanwhile, there is no "foreign policy team."
83
Your question has an obvious answer. Why did Reagan invade Grenada? Why did Bush attack Panama? Why did Bush II assault Iraq after being struck by Saudis?
Republican Presidents have learned that flexing military might wins elections for them and their party. It costs a lot, but has a huge pay off. Trump is just doing what he thinks he needs to do to improve his odds of staying in office. It is a calculated risk, but given his poll numbers, and the likely collusion of his people with the Russians during the election, this was a perfect plan.
That is the answer to your question.
Republican Presidents have learned that flexing military might wins elections for them and their party. It costs a lot, but has a huge pay off. Trump is just doing what he thinks he needs to do to improve his odds of staying in office. It is a calculated risk, but given his poll numbers, and the likely collusion of his people with the Russians during the election, this was a perfect plan.
That is the answer to your question.
330
Maybe there is no good option in Syria and we may as well stay out?
28
Good article, TF, but at the end, you seem to think that Trump is equipped to do something strategic on a global scale. He doesn't understand it. He can't confront what he doesn't understand. "Where's that Trump when we need him?" He never existed.
26
I understand the urge to write about Trump as if he has a plan, a strategy or even thinks in depth with intelligence about anything. Americans are yearning for a president, not someone who sets foreign policy based on what he sees on Fox and Friends or what his handbag selling daughter whispers in his ear. We want to think that there is something in Trump that is redeemable. But Mr. Friedman, there isn't.
Five months after the election and he still refers to Hillary Clinton as "crooked Hillary" in a NYT interview. The man is irredeemable. Give up trying to make something of him and let's just figure out how to run him from office.
Five months after the election and he still refers to Hillary Clinton as "crooked Hillary" in a NYT interview. The man is irredeemable. Give up trying to make something of him and let's just figure out how to run him from office.
74
"In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad’s, Iran’s, Hezbollah’s and Russia’s headache — ", just as Reagan should have let Russia alone to deal with their problem with the mujahideen in Afghanistan; but not, definitely not, "the same way [Reagan] encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan." "Encouraged", that is, by funding and arming. Is this what you now want Trump to do with ISIS? Are you mad? What did the USA get out of the "encouragement" of the mujehadeen?- they got Osama bin Laden and 9/11. Sure, they also hastened by some indefinable amount the demise of the USSR, but what actual measurable benefit, apart from bragging rights, has the USA ever derived from that?
5
Why rob banks? That's where the money.
Why attack ISIS in Syria? That's where the terrorists are.
Why attack ISIS in Syria? That's where the terrorists are.
Well, it does seem that all Trump reads is Twitter. Not books, not intelligence briefs, nothing.
If he hasn't tweeted about it yet, is because he hasn't read it or watched it on Fox news. So inform him through a tweet, and maybe he'll get it.
It's working out for President Bannon, isn't it?
If he hasn't tweeted about it yet, is because he hasn't read it or watched it on Fox news. So inform him through a tweet, and maybe he'll get it.
It's working out for President Bannon, isn't it?
3
Amazingly dated commentary.. sorry mr Friedman but for this reader, what we should or should not do in syria should be left to the purview of other minds ...
1
Trump? Strategic? No chance. Mr. Trump's core philosophy is self-enrichment, either with power or with cash itself. Syria gives him neither except for the small bump from his chest-thumping Tomahawk fusillade.
Virtual ISIS is the threat we face, bigly. Unfortunately, we did not learn the lesson after 9/11--the Global War on Terror has not and cannot defeat an idea which, having been spoken, cannot ever be unspoken or unable to be heard again by properly prepped angry people anywhere and everywhere.
Territorial ISIS might be "defeated" but, just like the weeds in my garden, can spring up again in the right conditions. To change those conditions in Syria, Iraq or anywhere, we must occupy the territory ourselves as I must "occupy" my garden for it to bear me those succulent tomatoes I long for in the summer. Only entropy comes easily.
Virtual ISIS is the threat we face, bigly. Unfortunately, we did not learn the lesson after 9/11--the Global War on Terror has not and cannot defeat an idea which, having been spoken, cannot ever be unspoken or unable to be heard again by properly prepped angry people anywhere and everywhere.
Territorial ISIS might be "defeated" but, just like the weeds in my garden, can spring up again in the right conditions. To change those conditions in Syria, Iraq or anywhere, we must occupy the territory ourselves as I must "occupy" my garden for it to bear me those succulent tomatoes I long for in the summer. Only entropy comes easily.
1
Tom, I'm a fan, but geez friend, this is assymetric warfare not some North African two dimensional tank battle. Reserving for later, the argument for or against, the valudity of the either/or argument is premised on the assumption that the most powerful, well funded and diversified military force on the planet can't simultaneously fight on physical and virtual fronts.
1
Is this a strategy based on deep knowledge and sophisticated planning, or a pipe dream by someone living a comfortable life in an American suburb who just wants bad things to go away? Nice, but not helpful.
Such phrases as "power-sharing accord with moderate Sunni Muslims"
(who make up some unknown fraction of the anti-Assad rebels) and "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan" only show a naivety and fantasy-thinking of someone groping for easy solutions.
Do we have any idea how many and where are these moderate Sunni rebels? What political views do they have, not only about Assad, but about their relations with their neighbors, their plans for a government, their economic plans, etc.? A new corrupt government that is isolated from its neighbors, trying to accommodate returning impoverished refugees will not likely lead to a nice government (to use a vocabulary word at the level of Mr. Friedman's piece). So, what is the plan here? Who are these good guys? Didn't the Afghan mujahedeen become the Taliban? Didn't our hand-picked Iraqi government installed after the defeat of Saddam need to be replaced after it did much damage, helping inadvertently to create ISIS?
Pipe dreams over a cup of morning coffee does not make a foreign policy. And please let's not encourage Trump's tweeting a strategy. Where are the informed adults when we need them -- oh yes, they were pushed away in our election (with some Russian help).
Such phrases as "power-sharing accord with moderate Sunni Muslims"
(who make up some unknown fraction of the anti-Assad rebels) and "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan" only show a naivety and fantasy-thinking of someone groping for easy solutions.
Do we have any idea how many and where are these moderate Sunni rebels? What political views do they have, not only about Assad, but about their relations with their neighbors, their plans for a government, their economic plans, etc.? A new corrupt government that is isolated from its neighbors, trying to accommodate returning impoverished refugees will not likely lead to a nice government (to use a vocabulary word at the level of Mr. Friedman's piece). So, what is the plan here? Who are these good guys? Didn't the Afghan mujahedeen become the Taliban? Didn't our hand-picked Iraqi government installed after the defeat of Saddam need to be replaced after it did much damage, helping inadvertently to create ISIS?
Pipe dreams over a cup of morning coffee does not make a foreign policy. And please let's not encourage Trump's tweeting a strategy. Where are the informed adults when we need them -- oh yes, they were pushed away in our election (with some Russian help).
18
Syria is a disaster and we could easily get engaged in a full out Sunni /Shia war
which will engulf the whole of the Middle East .
It is a confusing situation on the one hand we oppose Assad basically a Shia faction and ISIS a fanatical Sunni organisation.
The way forward I believe is to follow the Obama policy in Syria of bombing ISIS
during the last two years of his administration he launched close to 20000 air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, carefully minimizing civilian casualties.
This is degrading the influence of ISIS .
Simultaneously work with Russia , Europe and other regional powers to rid Syria of Assad and find a long term solution for Syria which could be partition to accommodate the aspirations of the various groups including the Kurds. To get
Russia to see sense , intensification of sanctions including restricting American Advertisers from supporting the 2018 World Cup in Russia.
Trump has no strategy , his total lack of compassion is shown by the fact he has not helped the Victims of the gas attack and has closed the doors to Syrian refugees.
First priority of Trump, Tillerson is to secure a cease fire to help those in need and give time for nations to work towards lasting peace
which will engulf the whole of the Middle East .
It is a confusing situation on the one hand we oppose Assad basically a Shia faction and ISIS a fanatical Sunni organisation.
The way forward I believe is to follow the Obama policy in Syria of bombing ISIS
during the last two years of his administration he launched close to 20000 air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, carefully minimizing civilian casualties.
This is degrading the influence of ISIS .
Simultaneously work with Russia , Europe and other regional powers to rid Syria of Assad and find a long term solution for Syria which could be partition to accommodate the aspirations of the various groups including the Kurds. To get
Russia to see sense , intensification of sanctions including restricting American Advertisers from supporting the 2018 World Cup in Russia.
Trump has no strategy , his total lack of compassion is shown by the fact he has not helped the Victims of the gas attack and has closed the doors to Syrian refugees.
First priority of Trump, Tillerson is to secure a cease fire to help those in need and give time for nations to work towards lasting peace
2
Sometimes when people appear to be doing illogical things, we strain to try to understand the logic behind them, i.e., what we are missing. But oftentimes people doing apparently illogical things are just being illogical.
In terms of substantive policy and strategy in Syria, Trump is being illogical. The most logical thing is to leave the fighting to others and just to help all Syrians who want to emigrate to do so and then help then to resettle including in the US.
But Trump does not act in the interests of substance. For him, there is no substance. There is only appearance, his image, that concerns him. He wants that image to be that of a strong leader protecting the US from terrorism in the form of ISIS.
Attacking the virulent form of ISIS has no optics. It cannot be shown on TV. Attacking territorial ISIS has optics, and Trump can manipulate the media to show these attacks and thus further his desired image.
One of Trump's many problems is his obsession with his image. A subsidiary part of that problem is he wants to project the wrong image. If he could only get past his overwhelming narcissism to understand that he'd actually be much better liked if people felt that he actually cared about other people.
In terms of substantive policy and strategy in Syria, Trump is being illogical. The most logical thing is to leave the fighting to others and just to help all Syrians who want to emigrate to do so and then help then to resettle including in the US.
But Trump does not act in the interests of substance. For him, there is no substance. There is only appearance, his image, that concerns him. He wants that image to be that of a strong leader protecting the US from terrorism in the form of ISIS.
Attacking the virulent form of ISIS has no optics. It cannot be shown on TV. Attacking territorial ISIS has optics, and Trump can manipulate the media to show these attacks and thus further his desired image.
One of Trump's many problems is his obsession with his image. A subsidiary part of that problem is he wants to project the wrong image. If he could only get past his overwhelming narcissism to understand that he'd actually be much better liked if people felt that he actually cared about other people.
252
Not to mention our complete, abject unwillingness to understand that our fight against "territorial ISIS" creates the agenda for "virulent ISIS." We willfully ignore this even though every time we kick ISIS out of another Iraqi or Syrian town, some pundits note that this may actually INCREASE the danger at home, because ISIS will want to stage more terrorist attacks to compensate for and distract from their loss of territory. If the point of using our military forces is to make Americans safe, why do we do things that do not make us safer and may make things worse?
I expect that some will respond that in the "long run" we are better off if "territorial ISIS" is eradicated. Cold comfort for the families of those killed in terror attacks that our strategy encourages.
I expect that some will respond that in the "long run" we are better off if "territorial ISIS" is eradicated. Cold comfort for the families of those killed in terror attacks that our strategy encourages.
Logically launching missiles at Syria was intended to distract from talking about and investigating Russian interference in Trump's "election" as President.
1
Exactly! Thomas Friedman's article makes consummate sense. Essentially, if we don't do too much and wait to play the end game, we have a chance to "win."
Unfortunately, Trump is unwilling to wait patiently while a situation plays itself out to our advantage because he won't be able lay claim to being responsible for winning. This is the true toxicity of Trump--it's not the result, it's what he looks like and can take credit for.
Unfortunately, Trump is unwilling to wait patiently while a situation plays itself out to our advantage because he won't be able lay claim to being responsible for winning. This is the true toxicity of Trump--it's not the result, it's what he looks like and can take credit for.
We don't know what we want in the Middle East, and if we did we wouldn't know how to get it. Faith in human agency is as dangerous as the lack of faith. The curious fate of empire: action becomes as fatal as inaction.
3
Tom, what you are proposing requires logical, strategic thinking, and a solid understanding of history and regional geopolitics, woefully scarce commodities for Trump and his circle of advisors. This ignorant clown reacts by gut feeling only, after watching Fox news every morning. Long-term planning and coherent policy development are beyond his very limited capabilities.
1
The ISL were created from 2003 until 2009 in Camp Bucca. The ISL and al-Qaeda in Syria consist entirely of peaceful, pro-democracy activists.
In 2011, they were strong enough (with additional support from Saudi, Turkey, and Salafis from all over the world) to start peaceful protests in Syria.
In 2014, the ISL split and formed the evil ISI, which took over most of western Iraq. Obama bombed the ISI, and some in the ISL responded by killing 3 Americans on YouTube. After which, Obama also began very tentatively bombing and droning to kill the very few jihadis in Syria, such as Jihadi John.
The goal of Trump and Mr Friedman is to put the Higher National Council (HNC) in as the government of Syria. The HNC are pro-democracy Wahhabis, and are already recognised as the sole legitimate government of Syria by the US/UK/EU/Saudi. The HNC will use the ISL and al-Qaeda in Syria as part of the government.
The HNC will fix all the problems with which the evil regime has afflicted Syria, and get rid of all the infidels, heretics (all Muslims who are not Wahhabis), apostates, blasphemers, adulteresses, women drivers, and those evil, pagan atrocities the Romans built in Syria to tempt the faithful into idolatry.
And then all will be peaceful and perfect in Syria. (This will require regime change in Russia, but that shouldn't be a problem.)
In 2011, they were strong enough (with additional support from Saudi, Turkey, and Salafis from all over the world) to start peaceful protests in Syria.
In 2014, the ISL split and formed the evil ISI, which took over most of western Iraq. Obama bombed the ISI, and some in the ISL responded by killing 3 Americans on YouTube. After which, Obama also began very tentatively bombing and droning to kill the very few jihadis in Syria, such as Jihadi John.
The goal of Trump and Mr Friedman is to put the Higher National Council (HNC) in as the government of Syria. The HNC are pro-democracy Wahhabis, and are already recognised as the sole legitimate government of Syria by the US/UK/EU/Saudi. The HNC will use the ISL and al-Qaeda in Syria as part of the government.
The HNC will fix all the problems with which the evil regime has afflicted Syria, and get rid of all the infidels, heretics (all Muslims who are not Wahhabis), apostates, blasphemers, adulteresses, women drivers, and those evil, pagan atrocities the Romans built in Syria to tempt the faithful into idolatry.
And then all will be peaceful and perfect in Syria. (This will require regime change in Russia, but that shouldn't be a problem.)
3
Your questions are valid absolutely provided that "Defeating Isis" is really some kind of serious issue rather than a campaign soundbite. This administration hasn't yet figured out the difference. So "Defeating Isis" is simply the backbeat to an incoherent set of practices.
134
Most excellent question which, I fear, this administration has no coherent thought, much less policy.
The question should not be why are we fighting ISIS in Syria but why are we fighting in the literal sense at all? The U.S. is the strongest economic, political and military country in the world by far and yet we seem to rely on military solutions rather than using our economic and political assets.
In the Middle East, at least, the answer is not that complicated. Using our political and economic assets would put us squarely at odds with some of our so-called allies, particularly the Sunni Saudis who are primarily responsible for the rise of militant Islam in recent decades. We'd have to call them out on moral grounds, which would be embarrassing for them, as well as on economic grounds, which might cause us and our other allies some economic pain.
Instead, we use only our military assets to go after what Saudi Arabia's support of radical Islam has produced, extremists who see terror as their best weapon. Furthermore, our economic and political assets would be much more effective against both Iran and Russia than essentially the empty threat of knocking out a Syrian air base for a few hours.
That is, remember, how we brought down the USSR and got Iran to agree to stop their nuclear arms development. Nary a shot was fired in what were two of our most important victories in the past few decades. Compare that to our "military solution" in Iraq which still plagues us.
In the Middle East, at least, the answer is not that complicated. Using our political and economic assets would put us squarely at odds with some of our so-called allies, particularly the Sunni Saudis who are primarily responsible for the rise of militant Islam in recent decades. We'd have to call them out on moral grounds, which would be embarrassing for them, as well as on economic grounds, which might cause us and our other allies some economic pain.
Instead, we use only our military assets to go after what Saudi Arabia's support of radical Islam has produced, extremists who see terror as their best weapon. Furthermore, our economic and political assets would be much more effective against both Iran and Russia than essentially the empty threat of knocking out a Syrian air base for a few hours.
That is, remember, how we brought down the USSR and got Iran to agree to stop their nuclear arms development. Nary a shot was fired in what were two of our most important victories in the past few decades. Compare that to our "military solution" in Iraq which still plagues us.
303
I do not think calling them out on "moral" grounds is a winning strategy. Morality within their own paradigm is already a strong motivator of their actions and President Trump himself undercuts all appeals to an American claim for the high ground.
1
Right on!
In addition to the extremist sectarian and royal Medieval Dark Age agenda threat of Saudi Arabian King Salman there is the totalitarian plan of the military dictator Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al- Sisi and the ethnic sectarian colonial apartheid Jim Crow supremacist solution of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu generating more terrorists than we can ever fight or kill. All paid for by American arms and dollars
There is no military solution to the ethnic sectarian civil wars in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen.
In addition to the extremist sectarian and royal Medieval Dark Age agenda threat of Saudi Arabian King Salman there is the totalitarian plan of the military dictator Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al- Sisi and the ethnic sectarian colonial apartheid Jim Crow supremacist solution of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu generating more terrorists than we can ever fight or kill. All paid for by American arms and dollars
There is no military solution to the ethnic sectarian civil wars in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen.
1
And instead of extolling our techological and ideological prowess for a largely successful defense against domestic terrorism, politicians ALSO use terrorism for re-election and for feeding their profit-driven, military industrial complex benefactors.
ISIS was defeated by the secret plan on January 21st. Only the dishonest media pretends our dear leader didn't destroy them already.
3
Cynical self interest drives Trump's actions. What impact does it have on his 'image' and his chances for re-election? Does it bury his campaign's Russia ties? Does it financially help his family businesses? Does it help another Trump (Ivanka) lay down some bread crumbs that will be discovered later when she runs for being our first female President in 2024? (The irony!)
2
I search for the reasons we are even in the MIddle East any longer. According to internet sources the U.S. now imports the vast majority of what we need from Canada and Mexico. Trump is selling is selling a lot of weapons, including fighter jets to dictators. What are these "U.S. Security Interests" we are about over there? I am aware Exxon and Koch's have many holdings, but if they are not supplying energy here why are we there with our military so they can sell it to Europe and others???? We obviously are engaged in some hyped up competition with Russia and Iran who very recently signed an MOU to work together to develop more exports from Iran. China is expecting a pipeline of natural gas from Russia. Nothing but rhetoric comes from the WH and has for years. What the heck are we doing there anymore??
1
If Trump took away anything from observing the failed Arab Spring it was that the brutal dictators in Iraq, Libya and Egypt did more for world peace than democracy. He liked their style too. Cynical Trump (is there any other kind?) wants to keep Assad in power - but not to use poison gas (it looks bad on TV).
And then there's the likelihood that Putin has leverage over our "president" too.
And then there's the likelihood that Putin has leverage over our "president" too.
Mr. Friedman has just given away our "secret" plan for destroying another country in the Southwest Asian region while we outwardly make a lot of noise about fighting ISIS. Where does he think the oxygen for "ISIS in Syria" is coming from if not through Turkey and the Gulf States with our wink and a nod?
1
Please. You cannot seriously be suggesting that the US gives anti-aircraft weapons to ANY rebel group in this conflict. These groups are unstable, at odds with each other, and cannot be vetted to be certain that such weapons do not end up in the hands of people who will use them against the US and/or Israel. This is why President Obama did not give such weapons to these groups. He remembered that in Afghanistan, we ended up fighting against people who were using the weapons we gave them. Also, Daesh was able to take territory in Iraq and Syria after taking the weapons we gave to the Iraqi army.
No more weapons. No more money to the weapons makers. Strong economic sanctions against Syria, Russia and Iran is the answer. The question is whether the world will do it.
No more weapons. No more money to the weapons makers. Strong economic sanctions against Syria, Russia and Iran is the answer. The question is whether the world will do it.
The real problem here is that President Trump is incapable of reading anything as long and complicated as this piece by Tom Friedman.
1
Look, erm... i'd love to say 'this sounds good on paper' but not even that. The first glaring problem is that the 'replacing' part evidently never worked. I doubt there is such a thing as moderate rebels. If we are honest some your 'moderates' are fractions of the group giving us 9/11. And you want to place them in power. Well... you always did. Look to Lybia, Afghanistan, Irak. Because that worked so well, right? It does not.
Here is the next problem: Assad poison gas enabler... yes. I still think you would need toprovide some kind of evidence for military strkes because 'allegedly' is so incredibly shallow when launching a volley of tomahawk missiles, but yeah, sure. But ISIS: poison gas enabler, too, okay? There is your problem. By holding one faction's feet to the fire without evidence you encourage the other to blame their attacks on... ugh, you know. Just ugh. By that logic, just as Russia who supports Assad is an enabler, you become an enabler for ISIS. And thats precisely what the Russians are afraid of.
No the only thing that will work is working with the Russians, Iran and they need to work with the USA, Israel and the Saudis. There is no other way. And firing that volley of missiles made this course of action more unlikely than ever.
ISIS would love being able to distact you into a US-Russia conflict instead of fighting them. They would love that, i gurantee this to you.
Here is the next problem: Assad poison gas enabler... yes. I still think you would need toprovide some kind of evidence for military strkes because 'allegedly' is so incredibly shallow when launching a volley of tomahawk missiles, but yeah, sure. But ISIS: poison gas enabler, too, okay? There is your problem. By holding one faction's feet to the fire without evidence you encourage the other to blame their attacks on... ugh, you know. Just ugh. By that logic, just as Russia who supports Assad is an enabler, you become an enabler for ISIS. And thats precisely what the Russians are afraid of.
No the only thing that will work is working with the Russians, Iran and they need to work with the USA, Israel and the Saudis. There is no other way. And firing that volley of missiles made this course of action more unlikely than ever.
ISIS would love being able to distact you into a US-Russia conflict instead of fighting them. They would love that, i gurantee this to you.
11
Within the concept of unintended consequences supporting the mujahedin was a primary cause in the creation of Al Qaeda. How did that work out. Additionally you overstate the threat of ISIS use of the internet. Disenfranchised and anti social types will always look for a rationale to justify their criminal behaviors. If ISIS didnt supply the rationale something else would. Just look at our own experience of domestic terrorists who utilize immigration or a self perceived notion of an overreaching government to justify anti social acts.
4
Mr. Friedman is thinking that Trump is a chess player, all strategy and end-game.
Trump is a checkers player. King Me!
He has a very simple set of ideas. ISIS bad. Iran bad. Russia good except when bad. Assad bad when gasses babies. He isn't thinking of hegemony and spheres of influence. He isn't thinking of a Hydra that grows a few more heads when you cut one off. He isn't thinking six moves ahead.
Syria is an intractable, long term problem. Sunni ideologues are an intractable long term problem and a Hydra. Iran is a long term problem, but maybe not totally intractable. And Russia is self interested and big on hegemony.
Trump has no plan to deal with all that. Just ISIS bad. So that's why he is fighting in Syria.
Trump is a checkers player. King Me!
He has a very simple set of ideas. ISIS bad. Iran bad. Russia good except when bad. Assad bad when gasses babies. He isn't thinking of hegemony and spheres of influence. He isn't thinking of a Hydra that grows a few more heads when you cut one off. He isn't thinking six moves ahead.
Syria is an intractable, long term problem. Sunni ideologues are an intractable long term problem and a Hydra. Iran is a long term problem, but maybe not totally intractable. And Russia is self interested and big on hegemony.
Trump has no plan to deal with all that. Just ISIS bad. So that's why he is fighting in Syria.
347
I'd say Trump's game is less like checkers (which requires some strategy) and more like the kindergarten game of "red light - green light" only he even gets his signals mixed up.
Methinks the situation is more simple than that. The Middle East has oil, and the international oil barons basically are or hire heads-of-state, with armed forces at their disposal, to further their personal interests in extracting further wealth for themselves from those oil fields. Tillerson is an oil baron. The various Sunni sheiks are oil barons. Putin is both an oil baron and a head of state.
1
"We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations. Fine with me."
You gotta be kidding! Do you not realize that these would be used to bring down civilian airliners? The anti-Assad rebels are not friendly to the West. Also, knowing the cynicism of Putin and Assad, they would bring down a western airliner and blame it on the rebels. Mr Friedman, I enjoy your columns and value your judgments but giving anti-aircraft weapons out like this is madness.
You gotta be kidding! Do you not realize that these would be used to bring down civilian airliners? The anti-Assad rebels are not friendly to the West. Also, knowing the cynicism of Putin and Assad, they would bring down a western airliner and blame it on the rebels. Mr Friedman, I enjoy your columns and value your judgments but giving anti-aircraft weapons out like this is madness.
30
Once again there is the usual mistake of thinking that Trump can stick to a plan, any plan. He is impulsive through and through, in a compulsive way. He has neither a complete functioning brain nor a complete functioning personality. That is why he needs his daughter-wife-and-second-first-lady and Kushner as advisers. He does not look for information that experts can provide but to the family members who serve as a collective nanny to more or less try to keep him in line and to clean up the messes he makes. Understanding Trump is easier when one thinks of his White House as an extension of his dysfunctional family relations.
42
"Trump should want to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But in Syria?"
Unfortunately Trump hasn't quite figured out the difference between Iraq and Syria. For that matter he doesn't understand that ISIS has its tentacles in many other countries around the globe.
I'm reminded of the SNL skit where Trump and someone else are discussing the need to defeat ISIS. All this yes, yes, rah, rah stuff. When everyone leaves Trump goes over to his computer and types in What's ISIS?
As it turns out SNL was actually quite prescient.
Unfortunately Trump hasn't quite figured out the difference between Iraq and Syria. For that matter he doesn't understand that ISIS has its tentacles in many other countries around the globe.
I'm reminded of the SNL skit where Trump and someone else are discussing the need to defeat ISIS. All this yes, yes, rah, rah stuff. When everyone leaves Trump goes over to his computer and types in What's ISIS?
As it turns out SNL was actually quite prescient.
16
Sorry Mr. Friedman, your tweet contained 143 characters, please revise
2
Cynicism aside, there are a number of reasons to advocate defeat if ISIS in Syria, among them that they have contributed to causing a huge outflux of refugees that is currently destabilizing Europe. Plus, they are despicable, violating virtually every universal human rights standard that we, as Americans, stand for. No, Mr. Friedman, in this case the enemy of our enemy is NOT our friend.
2
The problem here is the repeatedly demonstrated inability of the United States to achieve desired outcomes in the greater Middle East which puts to question why we are wasting lives and taxpayer dollars in these enterprises.
How about defending the "United States" rather than trying to exercise dominion over the planet? Could be cheaper and easier and the end results might be no different. We certainly can't claim to save lives through our military interventions.
How about defending the "United States" rather than trying to exercise dominion over the planet? Could be cheaper and easier and the end results might be no different. We certainly can't claim to save lives through our military interventions.
3
Tom.
To use your words "Trump IS being Trump" in that he is acting in a way that provides an immediate moment of positive publicity regardless of the lack of wisdom or long term viability.
It worked for 24 hours as the Brian Williams of the world masturbated to the "beauty" of the missiles but when planes started flying out of the same airbase that we dropped 80 million dollars worth of bombs on, the sugar high crashed, leaving our reality TV society craving another shot of adrenaline.
In the current state of calamity, who knows what that may entail.
To use your words "Trump IS being Trump" in that he is acting in a way that provides an immediate moment of positive publicity regardless of the lack of wisdom or long term viability.
It worked for 24 hours as the Brian Williams of the world masturbated to the "beauty" of the missiles but when planes started flying out of the same airbase that we dropped 80 million dollars worth of bombs on, the sugar high crashed, leaving our reality TV society craving another shot of adrenaline.
In the current state of calamity, who knows what that may entail.
6
Thomas, why are you bothering to give Trump and his "administration" advice?
Famous 1950's-type science fiction movie line, pronounced by the invading aliens' captain: "Take us to your leader. Any resistance is futile!"
Advice to same alien leader in 2017, if he, she or it lands in the United States: "Don't bother asking them to take you to their leader. Any assistance will be futile!"
Trump's policies are and will stay amoeba-like.
Whatever gratifies it (food), the entire amoeba moves toward, to place the attraction in a vacuole and digest it. No part of the amoeba holds back, seeks balance or reflects on possible consequences of action.
Once digestion is assured, it wanders aimlessly, awaiting the next attractive stimulus.
Whatever irritates it (running into some "shrimp" of a critical journalist), the entire amoeba will recoil from, and try to avoid.
Satire is fun, but of course Trump is no Amoeba. He just acts like one, in a broad metaphorical sense. According to recent news reports, his pseudopodian "people" were out one day, seeking "gratification" by saying that hope for a healthy transformation of the Assad regime toward peaceful purpose, under the aegis of another leader might be illusory, so long as DAESH "obliged" American industry, by consuming lots of bombs and ammo regularly (receiving end-wise).
The the gas-attack shrimp bit him though, so he recoiled and sought solace elsewhere (airbase bombing, yum!).
But advice, really? "Useless assistance!"
Famous 1950's-type science fiction movie line, pronounced by the invading aliens' captain: "Take us to your leader. Any resistance is futile!"
Advice to same alien leader in 2017, if he, she or it lands in the United States: "Don't bother asking them to take you to their leader. Any assistance will be futile!"
Trump's policies are and will stay amoeba-like.
Whatever gratifies it (food), the entire amoeba moves toward, to place the attraction in a vacuole and digest it. No part of the amoeba holds back, seeks balance or reflects on possible consequences of action.
Once digestion is assured, it wanders aimlessly, awaiting the next attractive stimulus.
Whatever irritates it (running into some "shrimp" of a critical journalist), the entire amoeba will recoil from, and try to avoid.
Satire is fun, but of course Trump is no Amoeba. He just acts like one, in a broad metaphorical sense. According to recent news reports, his pseudopodian "people" were out one day, seeking "gratification" by saying that hope for a healthy transformation of the Assad regime toward peaceful purpose, under the aegis of another leader might be illusory, so long as DAESH "obliged" American industry, by consuming lots of bombs and ammo regularly (receiving end-wise).
The the gas-attack shrimp bit him though, so he recoiled and sought solace elsewhere (airbase bombing, yum!).
But advice, really? "Useless assistance!"
5
Tom, positing that there are moderate Sunnis who will come out of the woodwork to share power in Iraq, and especially Syria, sounds great. And I also believe in the tooth fairy. US foreign policy is being run by rank amateurs led by a 35 year old real estate developer and his fashion designer wife. I do not pretend to have a solution, but Syria has been intractable for years, and any end game will probably result in another brutal dictator running the place, while Trump rants about it all being Obama's fault.
6
I want to know Why? about most of Trumps plays. Why does he do anything?
Why is he trying to gut programs no one in his Admin have reviewed? Why the randomness and lack of direction, period...?
Why is he trying to gut programs no one in his Admin have reviewed? Why the randomness and lack of direction, period...?
3
Mr Friedman has a point. Washington, Isis and al-Qaeda are natural allies with the same goals and the same policies: the overthrow of an internationally recognised government. To an extent, they all employ the same methods: the killing of innocents. A US bombing in Mosul recently killed between 200 and 300 civilians including children and the London-based independent monitor Airwars recently said that US bombing in Iraq and Syria has resulted in the death of 2,700 civilians, more than those caused by Russian bombing. Then there is the destruction of Kobani, Ramadi, and Faluhjia by US air strikes and, of course, the recent cruise missile strike on the Syrian airbase which killed about a dozen civilians including children and strenghtened Washington's natural allies Isis and al-Qaeda.
When Assad is gone, Isis and a-Qaeda will set up a liberal, Swiss-style democracy in Syria just like the ones in Iraq, Afgahnistan and Libya which US bombing also liberated from murderous dictators.
When Assad is gone, Isis and a-Qaeda will set up a liberal, Swiss-style democracy in Syria just like the ones in Iraq, Afgahnistan and Libya which US bombing also liberated from murderous dictators.
2
Friedman, today, has this in common with Donald Trump, he, Friedman is all over the map.
No map here, just a list.
1) Virtual ISIS is everywhere and will not disappear but the same is true of virtual Alt-Right-see Homeland the final episode of which was just shown here in Sweden. Virtual ISIS/Alt Right become non-virtual on the ground. There they must be monitored and countered.
2) Anyone who wants to learn in detail how the virtual and the tangible operate must study Åsne Seirstad's two books only the first of them, "One of Us", presently available in English. The second, "Två systrar" (Two Sisters), surely will available soon. When it is read how two smart, quite well off Norwegian citizens (father and mother Somalis), went from virtual ISIS to on-the-ground ISIS in Syria. Norway, I believe, understands better than the US, that Alt-Right and Daesh may be equally dangerous in the long run.
3) Freeing the civilian population of Mosul from Daesh/ISIS is essential. But just a reminder, there is another catastrophe waiting to happen there, the failure of the Mosul Dam. Read "A Bigger Problem Than Isis?" by Dexter Filkins @ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/02/a-bigger-problem-than-isis - which would have been required reading were I still teaching Geology and Public Policy at the University of Rochester.
As for Friedman, don't bother writing columns if you have not read such sources.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
No map here, just a list.
1) Virtual ISIS is everywhere and will not disappear but the same is true of virtual Alt-Right-see Homeland the final episode of which was just shown here in Sweden. Virtual ISIS/Alt Right become non-virtual on the ground. There they must be monitored and countered.
2) Anyone who wants to learn in detail how the virtual and the tangible operate must study Åsne Seirstad's two books only the first of them, "One of Us", presently available in English. The second, "Två systrar" (Two Sisters), surely will available soon. When it is read how two smart, quite well off Norwegian citizens (father and mother Somalis), went from virtual ISIS to on-the-ground ISIS in Syria. Norway, I believe, understands better than the US, that Alt-Right and Daesh may be equally dangerous in the long run.
3) Freeing the civilian population of Mosul from Daesh/ISIS is essential. But just a reminder, there is another catastrophe waiting to happen there, the failure of the Mosul Dam. Read "A Bigger Problem Than Isis?" by Dexter Filkins @ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/02/a-bigger-problem-than-isis - which would have been required reading were I still teaching Geology and Public Policy at the University of Rochester.
As for Friedman, don't bother writing columns if you have not read such sources.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
7
Dear Larry--Tom Friedman, who was so sure that Arab Spring would be a resounding success a few years ago, has absolutely no idea what's to be done with Syria. My, my how the mighty have fallen.
I can't help but wonder if all the money we spent on military "solutions", along with the president's and his family, advisors, etc. weekend trans-locations to Mar-a-lago were instead spent on global medical, educational and food, that the influence of negative ideologic bodies like ISIS might not have less of a foothold.
2
There is one flow in your logic Mr. Friedman. Virtual ISIS will be more inspiring and expand even further if territorial ISIS is making gains on ground. You need to crush the caliphate dream on ground and then follow its tails in the web later on.
1
This article threatens to interrupt Trumps tic tac toe game with Putin.
Trump is already deploying his brilliant checkers beats chess jujitsu strategery to great effect.
Don't interrupt the master at work!
Trump is already deploying his brilliant checkers beats chess jujitsu strategery to great effect.
Don't interrupt the master at work!
1
They created this boogeyman so they have to be seen as doing something about it. Just like the Wall and Obamacare this administration, indeed the entire Republican agenda, is about battling imaginary ghosts and problems, that were contained or solved during the Obama administration. Unemployment, immigration, terrorism, illegal voting, gun paranoia, religious freedom are all problems that don't exist except in the minds of those in their Foxholes and who listen to AM radio all day. The Republicans are not fools either because made up problems are easier to solve then real ones. Take unemployment, no one on the right believed that the "real" unemployment number was less then 40% when Trump took office but now that he's there, they all agree that the unemployment rate is 4.7%. Problem solved. They will have ISIS, which has been steadily losing ground for three years now, contained whenever they can get the next memo out to Rush, Breitbart, Murdoch, McConnell, Ryan, Tillerson, the Koch Bros. and, most important now, Kushner.
1
It is "virtual ISIS" that is a problem. Why? Because it is an idea, an idea that the Islamic world has been subjugated by the western, Christian, secular world. And ideas are powerful, very powerful. Once they catch on, they catch fire and spread. Need proof? Just think of America. Yes, America, the country we live in. There is a physical territory associated with it. But it is the idea of America and what it stands for that attracts people all over the world. It is "virtual America" that attracts people.
2
Virtual ISIS is the extension of Wahabi/Salafist extremism. Aside from its anti-western aggression, it is also a primary force in the battle of Sunni vs Shia: a battle against Iran, Hezbollah, and lesser Shia entities.
The physical ISIS is a robber state -- using control of territory and population to extort resources, that are used to recruit and pay foreign fighters, to conquer more territory. This cycle has analogies to the wars in Italy in the 1600s; it can also be seen as a long, slow chevauchée -- Syria and Iraq are devastated and prostrate in its aftermath.
There is no "good" policy for the US here, that Americans are willing to pay. Most particularly the US cannot become a new Ottoman Empire, holding these factions at a tense illusion of peace, by martial suzerainty. The easy diffusion of modern guerrilla weaponry and jihadis makes externally-imposed authoritarian peace impossible.
But like all its predecessors -- physical ISIS is its own destruction, because it cannot rule well enough to endure. It amounts to a pyramid scheme; if it cannot expand it will collapse ... and indeed is doing so now.
I agree with Tom that we should swallow our qualms and give those who fight Russia and Iran anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons -- being sure that these smart weapons are rigged so that they are not operable outside the theater we intend, and have a fixed, and not too long, lifetime. That is technically feasible today, and do little beyond.
The physical ISIS is a robber state -- using control of territory and population to extort resources, that are used to recruit and pay foreign fighters, to conquer more territory. This cycle has analogies to the wars in Italy in the 1600s; it can also be seen as a long, slow chevauchée -- Syria and Iraq are devastated and prostrate in its aftermath.
There is no "good" policy for the US here, that Americans are willing to pay. Most particularly the US cannot become a new Ottoman Empire, holding these factions at a tense illusion of peace, by martial suzerainty. The easy diffusion of modern guerrilla weaponry and jihadis makes externally-imposed authoritarian peace impossible.
But like all its predecessors -- physical ISIS is its own destruction, because it cannot rule well enough to endure. It amounts to a pyramid scheme; if it cannot expand it will collapse ... and indeed is doing so now.
I agree with Tom that we should swallow our qualms and give those who fight Russia and Iran anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons -- being sure that these smart weapons are rigged so that they are not operable outside the theater we intend, and have a fixed, and not too long, lifetime. That is technically feasible today, and do little beyond.
I guess nobody knew Syria and ISIS could be so complicated.
The fact is ISIS and Syria are complicated mostly because they don't exist in a vacuum where you could eradicate one and then deal with the other. They are part of the Middle East where nothing is black and white but every shade of grey. So what is needed is not a show of force here and there or now and then, but a strategy.
Trump only has impulses and a short attention span, and his advisors seem OK with that, so don't expect a quick fix or happy ending any time soon.
The fact is ISIS and Syria are complicated mostly because they don't exist in a vacuum where you could eradicate one and then deal with the other. They are part of the Middle East where nothing is black and white but every shade of grey. So what is needed is not a show of force here and there or now and then, but a strategy.
Trump only has impulses and a short attention span, and his advisors seem OK with that, so don't expect a quick fix or happy ending any time soon.
6
I wish Trump would watch the excellent video Vox put together about Syria
http://www.vox.com/2017/4/8/15218782/syria-trump-bomb-assad-explainer
And maybe read (you too, Friedman) a little of Juan Cole's website.
http://www.vox.com/2017/4/8/15218782/syria-trump-bomb-assad-explainer
And maybe read (you too, Friedman) a little of Juan Cole's website.
1
Never quite looked at it that way Tom.
Good thinking. Morning Joe will forward your idea along to Trump first thing this morning.
Good thinking. Morning Joe will forward your idea along to Trump first thing this morning.
1
Where's that Trump? He's confused and bewildered. He's finding out that you can't fire every problem away. He's having more fun playing the role of Commander in Chief that actually being it.
3
Why don't we hack virtual ISIS -- and keep after it until the websites are too messed up to function as intended?
1
Using logic with the Trump team will get you nowhere fast. This is all to complicated for Trump voters to even begin to understand. In their world complex problems all have simple solutions that can fit on a hat made in China.
I hope Trumps generals can convince him that launching 50 cruise missiles in the dark is an entirely different thing than boots on the ground going village by village killing ISIS fighters. Don't even get me started on North Korea.
I hope Trumps generals can convince him that launching 50 cruise missiles in the dark is an entirely different thing than boots on the ground going village by village killing ISIS fighters. Don't even get me started on North Korea.
3
Right on, Tom. Syria isn't our ground to fight for. It's the ideology of ISIS that's our business to defeat, and that reaches our ground through the Internet. Cyberspace is the territory we most urgently need to protect and defend -- from ISIS as well as from Russian hackers who put a flimflam man in the White House.
Not all of young coders want to become gazillionares at Google straight out of college or grad school. Our military ought to recruit the best and brightest computer science minds and enlist them into a prestigious new cyber branch of elites like the Rangers or the Seals. Maybe call it the Pythons? Then don't put this branch in boots on the ground -- put them in a computer lab.
Not all of young coders want to become gazillionares at Google straight out of college or grad school. Our military ought to recruit the best and brightest computer science minds and enlist them into a prestigious new cyber branch of elites like the Rangers or the Seals. Maybe call it the Pythons? Then don't put this branch in boots on the ground -- put them in a computer lab.
1
Tom missed the whole point of why Russia is interested in Syria, Mediterranean access for the Russian navy. Putin isn't friends with Assad, he tolerates him so that he can retain access to the Mediterranean. It's the same reason that he's slowly taking over the Ukraine, starting in Crimea.
Trump doesn't have a clue about what Tom's trying to explain - who knew global politics mixed with years of oppression and hundreds of years of 2 groups that are actually the same religion wanting to kill each other over some feud over a mosque could be so complicated? All Trump will get is that $100 million bombing raids on 'bad hombres' increases his popularity - period.
Trump doesn't have a clue about what Tom's trying to explain - who knew global politics mixed with years of oppression and hundreds of years of 2 groups that are actually the same religion wanting to kill each other over some feud over a mosque could be so complicated? All Trump will get is that $100 million bombing raids on 'bad hombres' increases his popularity - period.
3
It's a set up, to be sure. All planned by Russia\Assad.
Taunt the US by dropping chemical weapons, which allows this administration to change course and look\act tough by blowing up some pavement and a few buildings.
The press have fallen all over themselves to high five and chant USA !
Aye, I am cynical, but someone has to be, since you guys are derelict in duty.
Taunt the US by dropping chemical weapons, which allows this administration to change course and look\act tough by blowing up some pavement and a few buildings.
The press have fallen all over themselves to high five and chant USA !
Aye, I am cynical, but someone has to be, since you guys are derelict in duty.
11
One of the problems is that the US, and the west, are pretty sure who they are against but seem to have no idea of who they are for. Without an end-game, intervention is dangerous. The US, along with its allies, need to have a good idea of what post-Assad Syria should look like before they go charging in to either eliminate ISIS or the Assad regime. Anything else is a recipe for getting bogged down in a quagmire.
Tom Friedman had a semi-rational article going until he
wrote Trump should continue his Twittering to broadcast his
inner strategies. Trump has to shut down, take a deep breath His weakness as
President is the weakness of the entire country. Suggested readings:
"The Art of War"; "The Prince"; "Meditations".
wrote Trump should continue his Twittering to broadcast his
inner strategies. Trump has to shut down, take a deep breath His weakness as
President is the weakness of the entire country. Suggested readings:
"The Art of War"; "The Prince"; "Meditations".
1
Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria?
The main reason: Because he's a bully; who knew he could do so, without any fear that Syria would retaliate.
If Putin, for example, were to use chemical-gas bombs, against one of its separatist-demanding minorities, Trump would (hopefully) never intervene.
Ditto: North Korea, China
However, the most important questions, in this regard, remain outside of this discussion.
Why are little babies, who die, due to the use of having been gassed, the objects of far greater sympathy, than those who've been napaumed, cluster bombed, starved to death, or exposed to radiation?
The main reason: Because he's a bully; who knew he could do so, without any fear that Syria would retaliate.
If Putin, for example, were to use chemical-gas bombs, against one of its separatist-demanding minorities, Trump would (hopefully) never intervene.
Ditto: North Korea, China
However, the most important questions, in this regard, remain outside of this discussion.
Why are little babies, who die, due to the use of having been gassed, the objects of far greater sympathy, than those who've been napaumed, cluster bombed, starved to death, or exposed to radiation?
2
Sunni militancy has always been at the cutting edge of US foreign policy, from sponsoring Pakistan's genocide of 3 million Bengali Hindus in East Pakistan, to killing half a million Indonesian communists on CIA kill lists, to CIA sponsored Osama Bin Laden fighting the Russians to Saudi Arabia, NATO, US and Turkey sponsoring Jihadists in Syria. The US is unlikely to change tack.
ISIS is a global problem, Trump is a national problem. I say lets take care of America's problem first. Get Trump out of the way and then we can start to reengage with the world.
2
This is truly a historical day that will live in infamy--even foreign policy genius Tom Friedman can't tell the good guys from the bad guys in the Syrian civil war. For once Friedman can't decide which gang of thugs America absolutely, positively must support without a shadow of doubt. The day I never thought would come has finally arrived -- Tom Friedman doesn't have a clue about how we're supposed to resolve the crisis in Syria!!
Letting Russia, Iran and friends own the mess in Syria could be a step forward. But I would also like us (the US and the EU) to become the good guys in all of this. Humanitarian intervention rather than military intervention.
The poorest Syrians - the ones who can't afford to pay people smugglers - are currently stuck in dismal circumstances in neighboring countries. I would like Western countries to rent a stretch of desert in Jordan or indeed in Northern Saudi Arabia and build a few decent refugee camps with basic health care facilities and schools teaching Western liberal values to the children.
While Russia is bombing, we could be building refugee camps and hospitals.
Let us be seen as the good guys. The ones who help. This can only be beneficial in the propaganda war against virtual ISIS as well.
The poorest Syrians - the ones who can't afford to pay people smugglers - are currently stuck in dismal circumstances in neighboring countries. I would like Western countries to rent a stretch of desert in Jordan or indeed in Northern Saudi Arabia and build a few decent refugee camps with basic health care facilities and schools teaching Western liberal values to the children.
While Russia is bombing, we could be building refugee camps and hospitals.
Let us be seen as the good guys. The ones who help. This can only be beneficial in the propaganda war against virtual ISIS as well.
5
"So what else could we do? We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations. Fine with me."
Fine with me too.
"where is Trump’s Twitter feed when we need it? He should be tweeting every day this message: “Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have become the protectors of a Syrian regime that uses poison gas on babies! Babies! Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Assad — poison gas enablers. Sad.”
That too sounds good to me.
"Do not let them off the hook! We need to make them own what they’ve become — enablers of a Syria that uses poison gas on children. Believe it or not, they won’t like being labeled that way. Trump needs to use his global Twitter feed strategically. Barack Obama never played this card. Trump needs to slam it down every day. It creates leverage.
Syria is not a knitting circle. Everyone there plays dirty, deviously and without mercy. Where’s that Trump when we need him?"
That too makes sense to me. In that case, Mr. Friedman, we are in agreement. A Passover miracle. Good op-ed.
Fine with me too.
"where is Trump’s Twitter feed when we need it? He should be tweeting every day this message: “Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have become the protectors of a Syrian regime that uses poison gas on babies! Babies! Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Assad — poison gas enablers. Sad.”
That too sounds good to me.
"Do not let them off the hook! We need to make them own what they’ve become — enablers of a Syria that uses poison gas on children. Believe it or not, they won’t like being labeled that way. Trump needs to use his global Twitter feed strategically. Barack Obama never played this card. Trump needs to slam it down every day. It creates leverage.
Syria is not a knitting circle. Everyone there plays dirty, deviously and without mercy. Where’s that Trump when we need him?"
That too makes sense to me. In that case, Mr. Friedman, we are in agreement. A Passover miracle. Good op-ed.
1
In answer to your question, this administration has no coherent military strategy to fight ISIS at all. The president was all campaign talk and no action. He has yet to lay a glove on ISIS. He knew more about ISIS than his generals, so his unilateral strike last week was carried out without the need to consult his military brass or Congress. Just trust him, his actions said.
The missile strike was, in your words, a "headline-grabbing" ploy to distract attention away from the investigations into his ties to Russia last year. His act of war produced a spike in his popularity, especially among Republicans and his base who joyfully celebrated the awakening of the sleeping American giant who finally had enough of Middle East terrorism. The bully was thumping his chest and braying "bring it on, radical Islam".
Syria, like Viet Nam, is a no-win proposition. Any protracted military involvement there will cost many American lives and Treasury spending will go through the roof. Mr. President and erstwhile draft dodger, don't raid the war chest and let your mouth write out a check that your behind can't cash.
The missile strike was, in your words, a "headline-grabbing" ploy to distract attention away from the investigations into his ties to Russia last year. His act of war produced a spike in his popularity, especially among Republicans and his base who joyfully celebrated the awakening of the sleeping American giant who finally had enough of Middle East terrorism. The bully was thumping his chest and braying "bring it on, radical Islam".
Syria, like Viet Nam, is a no-win proposition. Any protracted military involvement there will cost many American lives and Treasury spending will go through the roof. Mr. President and erstwhile draft dodger, don't raid the war chest and let your mouth write out a check that your behind can't cash.
41
"Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah."
Nine times in your essay, Mr. Friedman, you employ this construction. Here's the problem: Donald Trump doesn't understand any of them. Why do you think he hasn't resorted to his go-to move, the tweet? He doesn't know what to do.
Had he bothered to attend daily security briefings and acquaint himself with the regional problems after Nov. 8 it wouldn't be "gee, who knew fighting ISIS would be so complex?" But no; he embarked upon victory laps, post-Nov. 8 campaign rallies, retreats with good ole boys to Philly when he should have been assembling a team and a policy and demanding briefing papers. The foreign policy professionals could have told him that ISIS is like a bad smell after an even worse dinner and "deal with it."
It says here that if Trump were at all smart (which he is not) he would allow Bashar al-Assad to remain Vladimir Putin's headache. Let his Russian pal prop up a regime that destroys "babies...beautiful babies...children." Israel should have some skin in this game; they're all neighbors.
I disagree with you, Mr. Friedman, when you write that ISIS has two manifestations; they have as many as they have willing warriors. They're like flies at a picnic; you can wave them away and maybe kill some, but they'll always return. They will always be there. ISIS isn't so much a fighting force as it is an idea. Trump can't destroy the Internet.
He'll soon learn what his predecessor did: ISIS may be defeated but not destroyed.
Nine times in your essay, Mr. Friedman, you employ this construction. Here's the problem: Donald Trump doesn't understand any of them. Why do you think he hasn't resorted to his go-to move, the tweet? He doesn't know what to do.
Had he bothered to attend daily security briefings and acquaint himself with the regional problems after Nov. 8 it wouldn't be "gee, who knew fighting ISIS would be so complex?" But no; he embarked upon victory laps, post-Nov. 8 campaign rallies, retreats with good ole boys to Philly when he should have been assembling a team and a policy and demanding briefing papers. The foreign policy professionals could have told him that ISIS is like a bad smell after an even worse dinner and "deal with it."
It says here that if Trump were at all smart (which he is not) he would allow Bashar al-Assad to remain Vladimir Putin's headache. Let his Russian pal prop up a regime that destroys "babies...beautiful babies...children." Israel should have some skin in this game; they're all neighbors.
I disagree with you, Mr. Friedman, when you write that ISIS has two manifestations; they have as many as they have willing warriors. They're like flies at a picnic; you can wave them away and maybe kill some, but they'll always return. They will always be there. ISIS isn't so much a fighting force as it is an idea. Trump can't destroy the Internet.
He'll soon learn what his predecessor did: ISIS may be defeated but not destroyed.
90
This column does a great service in describing just how incapable of strategic thinking the trump regime truly is. I seriously doubt that trump and company are capable of thinking of ISIS as both a virtual and physical entity, or determining which poses the greater risk to US interests, thereby developing a rational approach to dealing with it. ISIS is, together with The Wall, immigration, etc., a touchstone of the trump base. He knows that, and he knew his regime needed a distraction from the investigation into its Russian connections. We are naïve in the extreme if we believe our nation is in hands capable of operating on a strategic level such as described by Mr. Friedman. It's domestic policy by tweet and foreign policy entirely by boom now. This cannot end well unless it ends soon.
13
"Where’s that Trump when we need him?" Geez Tom, you're asking Trump to think five steps ahead of today--- you''re talking strategy, Tom? The man is incapable of putting a complex sentence together with a qualifying clause, and you're asking the Trump we know to "think"--to plot strategy... never happen.
41
ISIL in Syria v. ISIL in Iraq? Does terrorism have a border?
Syria is a can of worms. By now, people should appreciate what President Obama. Just as President Clinton before President Bush the 43rd, Mr Obama navigated the rapid by minimizing damages. But both Messrs. Clinton and Obama are followed by two simpletons whose one-dimensional thinking will inevitably lead the U.S. into quagmire. Well, we really don't know what is in Trump's head. His Syrian excursion might very well be a sleight of hand light show - how else can you explain the facts that he pre-warned Russia before the raid and little damage was done to an airbase after 59 tomahawks dropped there? If that is a light show for N Korea, then it is doubtful Trump would do anything more. For all we know, Trump-Russia rift may very well be a charade
While one could argue Syria now is Iraq before Bush's invasion, Syria is too far gone. Everyone is at risk. Trump is riding the tiger now. There is only one certainty: his bombing of Syria is as inexplicable as his saying the U.S. no longer cares if Assad wanted to stay. Either there are ulterior motives in both situations or Trump's ADHD acting up, neither of the scenarios bodes well to the world's future
Syria is a can of worms. By now, people should appreciate what President Obama. Just as President Clinton before President Bush the 43rd, Mr Obama navigated the rapid by minimizing damages. But both Messrs. Clinton and Obama are followed by two simpletons whose one-dimensional thinking will inevitably lead the U.S. into quagmire. Well, we really don't know what is in Trump's head. His Syrian excursion might very well be a sleight of hand light show - how else can you explain the facts that he pre-warned Russia before the raid and little damage was done to an airbase after 59 tomahawks dropped there? If that is a light show for N Korea, then it is doubtful Trump would do anything more. For all we know, Trump-Russia rift may very well be a charade
While one could argue Syria now is Iraq before Bush's invasion, Syria is too far gone. Everyone is at risk. Trump is riding the tiger now. There is only one certainty: his bombing of Syria is as inexplicable as his saying the U.S. no longer cares if Assad wanted to stay. Either there are ulterior motives in both situations or Trump's ADHD acting up, neither of the scenarios bodes well to the world's future
51
He would have done more damage to the airfield if he had just bought it and run it like one of his businesses.
4
"I don’t get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free — and then pivot to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything for free?"
Good points. I don't think Trump gives one hoot about Syria. Nor do I believe would have done anything like he did last week if his daughter hadn't spoken up. That blew my mind: it takes a daughter to convince her father that banned chemical gassing is criminal?
As to your main point, that ISIS is a state of mind that can't be simply eliminated, I say yes, yes, and yes. Virtually all recent ISIS attacks on American soil were committed by naturalized Americans converted to jihadism online.
The Trump administration seems unconcerned about the more powerful online ISIS while territorial ISIS has so many players it's a wonder they all know who they're shooting at.
Syria is going the way of Lebanon, stripped down to rubble. Trump should do some hard thinking (not easy for him) as to what his objective is in Syria, if any. It's a complex dilemma that risks focusing on the easier aspects of war ( troops and treasure) over the near impossible task of eliminating online jihadism made worse by administration policies like the "Muslim ban," all Trump's (and Bannon's) anti-Islam rhetoric.
Good points. I don't think Trump gives one hoot about Syria. Nor do I believe would have done anything like he did last week if his daughter hadn't spoken up. That blew my mind: it takes a daughter to convince her father that banned chemical gassing is criminal?
As to your main point, that ISIS is a state of mind that can't be simply eliminated, I say yes, yes, and yes. Virtually all recent ISIS attacks on American soil were committed by naturalized Americans converted to jihadism online.
The Trump administration seems unconcerned about the more powerful online ISIS while territorial ISIS has so many players it's a wonder they all know who they're shooting at.
Syria is going the way of Lebanon, stripped down to rubble. Trump should do some hard thinking (not easy for him) as to what his objective is in Syria, if any. It's a complex dilemma that risks focusing on the easier aspects of war ( troops and treasure) over the near impossible task of eliminating online jihadism made worse by administration policies like the "Muslim ban," all Trump's (and Bannon's) anti-Islam rhetoric.
103
There is potential pipeline access to Western European gas markets through Syria and Turkey to compete with Russia's access in Ukraine. Is that why the U.S. is there? To bring the stores of Exxon to the markets of Koch? The rest of it is just political baloney and exploitation of people. I agree with you, Trump could care less about the people of Syria. Neither do the others.
2
Rita- My husband has spoken about this connection for years. The only reason we are in that region id to protect the fossil fuel industry which owns the US government. How many more of us will die to protect the fossil fuel industry. It's appalling that so many won't make the connection and are willing to die for another trumped up war that is only in the best interests of the energy industry. This was never about the humanity. It has and is always only about one more dollar to be made by the filthy oligarchs to whom the deaths of our soldiers is just the cost of doing business.
1
Tom Friedman questions Trump's wisdom of fighting ISIS, which poses a problem more to the Assad regime and its backers - Iran, Russia, the Hezbollah and other Shia militias - than to the US. He suggests a US retreat from Syria, letting the Islamists deal a blow to Assad and his allies, bleeding and forcing them to share power.
The problem is that Assad and his enemies - ISIS and other rebel groups - will fight to the bitter end, prolonging the war. Sunni leaders and individuals in the region have been backing fighters of all stripes, who are willing to fight Assad, making the battlefield very crowded.
Iran and Russia have vital interests in propping up the Assad regime. In the absence of an alternative they will stand by him, creating a vicious circle, because the Sunnis see no future for him in Syria. There are lessons to be learnt from Libya: Assad's removal is necessary, but an abrupt regime change like Gaddafi's fall in 2011 has to be avoided. Libya descended into anarchy, because the hundreds of rebel groups refused to lay down their weapons, allowing ISIS to consolidate power. In Syria the defeat of ISIS might not necessary see less fighting among the various rebel groups, which pledge allegiance to their ethnicity. In Libya rebel groups are more homogeneous, but they fight for controlling the country's oil.
The problem is that Assad and his enemies - ISIS and other rebel groups - will fight to the bitter end, prolonging the war. Sunni leaders and individuals in the region have been backing fighters of all stripes, who are willing to fight Assad, making the battlefield very crowded.
Iran and Russia have vital interests in propping up the Assad regime. In the absence of an alternative they will stand by him, creating a vicious circle, because the Sunnis see no future for him in Syria. There are lessons to be learnt from Libya: Assad's removal is necessary, but an abrupt regime change like Gaddafi's fall in 2011 has to be avoided. Libya descended into anarchy, because the hundreds of rebel groups refused to lay down their weapons, allowing ISIS to consolidate power. In Syria the defeat of ISIS might not necessary see less fighting among the various rebel groups, which pledge allegiance to their ethnicity. In Libya rebel groups are more homogeneous, but they fight for controlling the country's oil.
7
The problem is that the metastasis that is “virtual ISIS” is funded by “territorial ISIS”. There is nothing existential in the threat of “territorial ISIS” that should cause us or those living anywhere a normal person might want to visit any concern. However, the likelihood that one might be bombed in a neighborhood restaurant or shot by someone “radicalized” by “virtual ISIS” seems to grow by the day.
“Territorial ISIS” takes over a conquered community’s banks and exerts a Mafia-like extortion on its commerce for protection-money. This provides them with the means to operate and to grow beyond Iraq and Syria. It may be that what is truly dangerous is “virtual ISIS”, but you get at that threat by cutting off its money – and you do THAT by destroying its means of funding instability.
Beyond that, the hard part eventually will be destroying every pocket of the super-regional metastasis, and that will require years and concerted effort – as it has with Qaeda. By far the low-hanging fruit is the “territorial” center that depends on hegemony over land, people and economic activity – regardless of the fact that it also opposes Assad and Russia. In case some have missed it, they also oppose US.
So, Tillerson is right: the priority is destroying “territorial ISIS”.
And I’m just flabbergasted to hear Tom Friedman suggesting that Trump should tweet MORE. Demonized if you do … and demonized if you don’t.
“Territorial ISIS” takes over a conquered community’s banks and exerts a Mafia-like extortion on its commerce for protection-money. This provides them with the means to operate and to grow beyond Iraq and Syria. It may be that what is truly dangerous is “virtual ISIS”, but you get at that threat by cutting off its money – and you do THAT by destroying its means of funding instability.
Beyond that, the hard part eventually will be destroying every pocket of the super-regional metastasis, and that will require years and concerted effort – as it has with Qaeda. By far the low-hanging fruit is the “territorial” center that depends on hegemony over land, people and economic activity – regardless of the fact that it also opposes Assad and Russia. In case some have missed it, they also oppose US.
So, Tillerson is right: the priority is destroying “territorial ISIS”.
And I’m just flabbergasted to hear Tom Friedman suggesting that Trump should tweet MORE. Demonized if you do … and demonized if you don’t.
11
Richard: great comment! Insightful, going further than the major media pundits to dig into the roots and functions of ISIS as an extreme terrorist organization that combines non-state characteristics and state functions in ways that elude attacks and multiply its support from a network of enablers, virtual and territorial.
5
Richard -- while I often disagree vehemently with your positions, here my reply is more nuanced. Where I think you are missing it is that you fail to see how self-destructive "physical ISIS" is, once it is contained (and yes, oil revenue cut off).
ISIS simply cannot rule well enough to endure. It cannot run a "caliphate;" it is indeed only a "Mafia like extortion" ... and its demands are too high to be sustainable.
ISIS is like a plague upon the land -- the resources and the people are destroyed or leave, what is left is soon barren, and those foreign fighters ISIS brought in are left starving. If there is not new territory to conquer and ravish easily ... it dies.
The virtual ISIS, being a fantasy, can endure without any constraints from reality. One might liken it to Ayn-Randism. On this note there were transient Caliphates in the Levant, the Rashidan caliphate of 632 - 661 is their dream, so they have a somewhat better claim -- but they refuse to understand why that was not anything like ISIS, and why it failed.
ISIS simply cannot rule well enough to endure. It cannot run a "caliphate;" it is indeed only a "Mafia like extortion" ... and its demands are too high to be sustainable.
ISIS is like a plague upon the land -- the resources and the people are destroyed or leave, what is left is soon barren, and those foreign fighters ISIS brought in are left starving. If there is not new territory to conquer and ravish easily ... it dies.
The virtual ISIS, being a fantasy, can endure without any constraints from reality. One might liken it to Ayn-Randism. On this note there were transient Caliphates in the Levant, the Rashidan caliphate of 632 - 661 is their dream, so they have a somewhat better claim -- but they refuse to understand why that was not anything like ISIS, and why it failed.
1
The whole point made by Tom is that virtual isis is not dependent upon territorial isis: "Not only will virtual ISIS, which has nodes all over the world, not go away even if territorial ISIS is defeated, I believe virtual ISIS will become yet more virulent..." You apparently don't believe this.
Have you ever heard of Al-Qaeda? If memory serves they don't work from a caliphate...
Have you ever heard of Al-Qaeda? If memory serves they don't work from a caliphate...
2
Commenting on Trump is degrading
All logic and sense he's evading,
Bankruptcy's his gambit
Illogic his ambit
His ego growth isn't abating.
A TV reality show
Is about the one thing he does know
A statesman he's not
The POTUS we've got
As a learner? Egregiously slow.
All logic and sense he's evading,
Bankruptcy's his gambit
Illogic his ambit
His ego growth isn't abating.
A TV reality show
Is about the one thing he does know
A statesman he's not
The POTUS we've got
As a learner? Egregiously slow.
172
Such a pathetic excuse for a man,
groping and cheating he can.
No heart one can see,
just "It's me, me, me, me!"
and evils we wish we could ban
groping and cheating he can.
No heart one can see,
just "It's me, me, me, me!"
and evils we wish we could ban
8
I guess you missed the part where President Obama sent troops to Syria to, in part, fight ISIS.
Beyond that, Friedman's whole column feels like a lot of wishful over-thinking. Too much imaginary chess going on.