ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Syrian Alawites distance themselves from Assad
By Caroline Wyatt
  • 3 April 2016

In a deeply unusual move, leaders of President Bashar al-Assad's Alawite sect in Syria have released a document, obtained by the BBC, that distances themselves from his regime and outlines what kind of future they wish for the country after five years of civil war.

The community and religious leaders say they hope to "shine a light" on the Alawites after a long period of secrecy, at what they call "an important moment" in their history.

In the eight-page document, termed a "declaration of identity reform", the Alawites say they represent a third model "of and within Islam".

Those behind the text say Alawites are not members of a branch of Shia Islam - as they have been described in the past by Shia clerics - and that they are committed to "the fight against sectarian strife".

They also make clear that they adhere to "the values of equality, liberty and citizenship", and call for secularism to be the future of Syria, and a system of governance in which Islam, Christianity and all other religions are equal.
And despite Alawites having dominated Syria's government and security services under Mr Assad and his late father Hafez for more than four decades, they stress that the legitimacy of his regime "can only be considered according to the criteria of democracy and fundamental rights".

'Muslim quality'
The Alawites emerged in the 10th Century in neighbouring Iraq.

Little has been confirmed about their beliefs and practices since then because, according to the leaders, they had to be hidden to avoid persecution.

However, most sources say the name "Alawite" refers to their veneration of the first Shia imam, Ali, the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet Muhammad.
Alawites are said to share the belief of members of the main branches of Shia Islam, of which Ithna Asharis or Twelvers are the largest group, that Ali was the rightful successor to Muhammad as leader of the Muslim community following his death in 632.

The Alawites purportedly differ from Twelvers in holding that Ali was a manifestation of God - a notion that some members of Syria's Sunni majority consider heretical.

In the document published on Sunday, the Alawite leaders insist that their faith is "solely based on the idea of worshipping God". They add that "the Koran alone is our holy book and a clear reference to our Muslim quality".

While acknowledging that they share some formal religious sources, the leaders stress that Alawism is distinct from Shia Islam, and decline previous legal rulings, or fatwas, by leading Shia clerics that seek to "appropriate the Alawites and consider Alawism an integral part of Shiism or a branch of the latter".

The leaders also acknowledge that Alawites have incorporated elements of other monotheistic religions into their traditions, most notably Judaism and Christianity, but say they should "not be seen as marks of deviation from Islam but as elements that bear witness to our riches and universality".

'Liberation'
Speaking on condition of anonymity, two of the leading Syrian Alawites behind the document told the BBC that they were keen to make this statement of identity as many Alawites were being killed because of their faith.

They wanted to make clear, they said, that members of all Islamic sects in Syria were "brothers and sisters" - and that the Alawites "should not be associated with the crimes the regime has committed".

The Alawite leaders added that the future of Syria now lay in the hands of the international community.

Those behind the document said that they hoped it would "liberate" the Alawite community, who made up around 12% of Syria's pre-war population of 24 million, and that their declaration of identity would cut the link or "umbilical cord" between the Alawites and the Assad regime.

The Alawites, they pointed out, existed before the Assad regime, "and will exist after it".

'Very significant'
According to Michael Kerr, professor of conflict studies and director of the Institute for Middle Eastern Studies at King's College London, sectarian identity became a primary driver in the civil war in Syria, even though it was not the case at the beginning of the uprising there in 2011.

In the recent book he edited, The Alawis Of Syria, Prof Kerr wrote that Bashar al-Assad "took the strategic decision to facilitate sectarian narratives and counter-narratives and... perhaps intentionally, exposed his community to the reductionist logic of the most extreme Islamist forces".

Prof Kerr concludes that the future of Syria's Alawites "remains inimically linked to the Assad regime; it is hostage to Bashar's realpolitik approach to a zero-sum conflict that transcends Syria's borders, the outcome of which will have great significance for the future power balance in the region".

Of the document itself, he says: "It is very significant that Alawi community leaders have stressed that they are not a branch of Shia Islam but a separate Muslim religious community that is of and within Islam.

"This development marks an important shift from the regime's previous attempts to steer the community closer to Twelver Shia Islam, under Hafez al-Assad after the Cold War, and Bashar's attempts at 'Sunnification' after he inherited the presidency in 2000.

"They seem to be saying that they are an Abrahamic faith, that they want to be treated as such rather than as a minority Shia Islamic sect, and that they want this identity to be accepted and respected in a new secular Syria comprised of other Peoples of the Book."

'Assertion of belonging'
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a Western diplomat who has seen the declaration of identity believes it is significant, and that it matters.

He says nothing of this kind, "authentically Alawite", had been seen since 1971 from within Syria.

"The language implies a dissociation from Iran and the regime there, but also something that seeks to disconnect the Alawite community from the Assad family," he says.

"If this had come out during darker times, it would have been seen as a plea for mercy, but this is a time of strength for the regime, supported by the Russians, so this is a statement by Alawite leaders that says 'we are who we are'.

"It's an assertion of belonging to Syria, and an assertion of having an equal right to rights and duties within Syria independent of the regime system."
 

A few more details that would help some here condemn this..
The spokesman for Al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, Al-Nusra Front, his son and 20 other jihadists were killed in air strikes Sunday in the northeast of the country, according to a monitoring group.

"Abu Firas al-Suri, his son and at least 20 jihadists of Al-Nusra and Jund al-Aqsa and jihadists from Uzbekistan were killed in strikes on positions in Idlib province," said Rami Abdel Rahman, of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

It was not immediately clear if the raids were carried out by Syrian regime warplanes or their Russian allies.
 
Hezbollah commander killed
On Sunday, a senior Hezbollah commander was killed in the countryside of Aleppo, where the group has been involved in fierce battles with Nusra.

Ali Fawzi Taha's death was announced by pro-Hezbollah news site Janub Lubnan, which said he was killed "while carrying out his sacred jihadi duties" but did not specify how he was killed.

Taha hailed from Burj al-Barajneh, a suburb of Beirut known for being a stronghold of support for the Lebanese militant group which was the target of a deadly double suicide bombing last November.

Pro-opposition sites said Taha was the highest-ranking commander active in Syria, and had been responsible for the months-long siege of Madaya, which attracted international outrage after residents were reported to be eating animal feed and dying of starvation early this year.
 
Looks like the Iraqi army run away from the bullets soon ISIS shot at them in Mosul

They haven't even started to take back Mosul. Won't happen for a few more months at least apparently. They are just taking back small towns on the outskirts.
 
Syrian rebels capture key ISIL town north of Aleppo
Fighters say the seizure of al-Rai is a crucial step towards taking other ISIL strongholds in Syria.

09 Apr 2016 17:28 GMT |

Syrian rebels seized a strategic town from ISIL near the Turkish border north of Aleppo in another important step on the march towards the armed group's de facto capital, Raqqa.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights war monitor confirmed that groups fighting under the banner of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) captured the town of al-Rai on Thursday after fierce battles with Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS).

"This is the beginning of the end of Daesh [ISIL]. Those who have bet the FSA had been decimated are now proven wrong. It's a victory for the Free Syrian Army," said Abu Abdullah from the Nour al-Din al-Zinki Brigades that participated in the assault on the heavily defended border town.



"We will continue our path to Raqqa and all the towns occupied by Daesh," he said, using ISIL's acronym in Arabic.

After taking over al-Rai, fighters said they dismantled land mines surrounding civilian houses and farm lands.

The rebels said their next move will be an advance on the ISIL-held city of al-Bab - south of al-Rai and northeast of Aleppo, Syria's second-largest city.

"Al-Rai is a strategic region and it's a gateway to proceed towards the regions of Jarabulus and al-Bab," a fighter from the Faylaq al-Sham group told Al Jazeera.

The recent gains by the rebels is a boost to Turkey, which has sought to prevent Syrian Kurdish-led forces from expanding their stretch of territory along the border.

It was the first retreat by ISIL fighters since oppostion forces made major advances in the area last May and captured areas close to the Azaz border crossing with Turkey.

The Amaq website, which is linked to ISIL, conceded that forces it described as "US and Turkish-backed opposition brigades" had taken al-Rai town after days of intense artillery fire.

It said al-Rai fell after heavy clashes and two ISIL suicide bombings that led to many casualties among opposition forces.

ISIL has employed suicide attacks to hold back offensives by the Syrian army and their allies, and by deploying small groups of fighters to disrupt supply lines.

That is a change of tactics from ambushes and lightning-fast strikes after the loss of significant territory, defence analysts say.

A sustained rebel advance near the Turkish border this week allowed moderate forces to capture a string of villages and eroded ISIL's footholds in an area identified as a priority in the fight against the group.

Rebels who previously struggled to make gains against ISIL in the area and had been fending off advances by Kurdish-led fighters mobilised several thousand fighters for the al-Rai attack, opposition sources said.

An alliance of FSA groups formed for the offensive includes the Turkish-backed Sultan Murad and Failaq al-Sham groups.

ISIL's foothold along the Turkish border was also significantly loosened last year by US-allied Kurdish fighters of the YPG, which gained territory from the group farther east.
 
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/04/18/bashar-al-assads-war-crimes-exposed

In early 2013, after nearly a year of detention, Hamada lay on the floor of the hangar. He had been interrogated and tortured seven or eight times. An infection in his eye was dripping pus. The skin on his legs was gangrenous. Prisoners were supposed to stand when a guard entered the cell, but on this day Hamada didn’t. “I’m urinating blood,” he said. The next day, the head of interrogation came to the cell and informed Hamada that he was being sent to Hospital 601, a military hospital that sits at the base of Mt. Mezzeh; the Presidential palace is perched at the top. The head of interrogation also told Hamada to forget his own name: “Your name is 1858.”

Hamada had heard of Hospital 601. Several other detainees had been sent there, and the few who had returned, Hamada said, had cautioned, “This is not a hospital—this is a slaughterhouse.” Despite Hamada’s condition, guards hit him during the drive to the hospital. One used a green pipe; in Arabic, al-akhdar refers to a green object, so security agents all over Syria taunted detainees by calling this weapon Lakhdar Brahimi, who was then the U.N. special envoy for Syria.

In the hospital corridor, male and female nurses started hitting Hamada with their shoes and calling him a terrorist. When he got to the ward, he was tied to a bed with two other prisoners. A nurse asked him about his symptoms, then beat him with a stick. A U.N. report from later that year notes, “Some medical professionals have been co-opted into the maltreatment” of detainees at Hospital 601. Hamada was in disbelief as much as he was in pain.

That night, Hamada woke up needing to use the bathroom. A guard hit him all the way to the toilets, but he went in alone. When he opened the first stall, he saw a pile of corpses, battered and blue. He found two more in the second stall, emaciated and missing their eyes. There was another body by the sink. Hamada came out in panic, but the guard sent him back in and told him, “Pee on top of the bodies.” He couldn’t. He started to feel that he was losing his grip on reality. According to the U.N. inquiry, dead detainees were “kept in the toilets” at multiple security branches in Damascus.

Later that night, two drunk soldiers walked into the ward. One of them bellowed, “Who wants medicine?” Several detainees lifted their hands. The doctors hadn’t given Hamada any drugs—only a mostly empty bag of intravenous fluid—but one of his bedmates, who had been in the ward for several days, warned him not to volunteer. The soldier selected an eager prisoner. With the inmate kneeling at his feet, head facing the floor, the soldier grabbed a sharp weapon and started hacking at the base of his skull, severing the spinal cord from the head. Then he ordered another patient to drag the body to the bathroom. The U.N. report says of Hospital 601, “Many patients have been tortured to death in this facility.” The soldier called himself Azrael, after the archangel of death; other survivors recall him murdering patients in similarly horrifying ways.

“When I saw this, I swear—that’s when I thought this was my fate,” Hamada told me. “I would die here.” On the second day, he begged a doctor to send him back to the Air Force-intelligence branch. The doctor noted that Hamada was still sick. “No, no, no, I am totally cured,” he said. On the fifth day, he was escorted out of Hospital 601 by the same guards who had deposited him there. “You animal, you son of a bitch,” they said. “You still didn’t die.” They hit him all the way back to the branch, then strung him up by his wrists for four hours.

In June, 2013, Hamada’s case was referred to the judiciary. He was transferred to Adra Prison, in Damascus, where he filed an application for proof of the charges against him. (Syrian prisons are nominally subject to judicial oversight; the security agencies are not.) The written reply said that he had been arrested “for the crime of terrorism and has been deprived of his liberty since June 5, 2013”—the same date that the charges were filed. Officially, his fifteen months in the Air Force-intelligence branch at al-Mezzeh Military Airport didn’t exist.

...

Hamada’s account of atrocities at Hospital 601 was later corroborated by approximately fifty-five thousand photographs, smuggled out of Syria by a military-police officer known by the name Caesar, an alias. Before the war, Caesar and his colleagues had documented crime scenes and traffic accidents involving military personnel in Damascus. He uploaded pictures to government computers, then printed them and stapled them to official death reports. Beginning in 2011, however, the bodies were those of detainees, collected each day from security branches and delivered to military hospitals.

What a nice guy Bashar is.
 
Last edited:
This just reinforces the reality that there will never be peace in Syria until both Assad and ISIS inc. are expelled, an international peacekeeping force led by regional troops comes in to keep the peace while a road map to a new government and elections are implemented.
 
This just reinforces the reality that there will never be peace in Syria until both Assad and ISIS inc. are expelled, an international peacekeeping force led by regional troops comes in to keep the peace while a road map to a new government and elections are implemented.
Should it be regional Sunni troops or shia troops as peacekeepers Raoul?
 
Should it be regional Sunni troops or shia troops as peacekeepers Raoul?

There needs to be a UN Resolution that is supported by the security council and all regional states, who contribute the bulk of ground troops for peacekeeping. If Iran, Saudi, and Turkey can get on board, I think we will have a deal. That obviously will not be easy since each of them view Syria as a proxy for their own regional power and influence. But clearly, having Muslim troops on the ground would be preferable to those evil westerners sticking their beaks into Arab affairs yet again.
 
There needs to be a UN Resolution that is supported by the security council and all regional states, who contribute the bulk of ground troops for peacekeeping. If Iran, Saudi, and Turkey can get on board, I think we will have a deal. That obviously will not be easy since each of them view Syria as a proxy for their own regional power and influence. But clearly, having Muslim troops on the ground would be preferable to those evil westerners sticking their beaks into Arab affairs yet again.
The lack of trust from both sides means there will never be agreement as to the make up of the peace keepers. I agree that it should be Muslim troops but would either side consider the Muslim troops to be the "correct" Muslim troops?

It's a shame and as nihilistic as it sounds the area known as Syria will have to become homogeneous in makeup if we want this to truely end.
 
The lack of trust from both sides means there will never be agreement as to the make up of the peace keepers. I agree that it should be Muslim troops but would either side consider the Muslim troops to be the "correct" Muslim troops?

It's a shame and as nihilistic as it sounds the area known as Syria will have to become homogeneous in makeup if we want this to truely end.

The troops' religion shouldn't matter at all, but that's just a secular Westerner's pipedream of everyone acting like adults.
 
What a nice guy Bashar is.
But it isn't Bashar who is carrying out these atrocities. It's his soldiers. If you get rid of Bashar you will still be left with many men who are happy and willing to commit brutal attacks on people. It's quite a nauseating read and we have to assume that these soldiers must enjoy behaving in that way. They couldn't and wouldn't do it otherwise. Removing those soldiers is just as important, if not more so, as removing Bashar.
 
But it isn't Bashar who is carrying out these atrocities. It's his soldiers. If you get rid of Bashar you will still be left with many men who are happy and willing to commit brutal attacks on people. It's quite a nauseating read and we have to assume that these soldiers must enjoy behaving in that way. They couldn't and wouldn't do it otherwise. Removing those soldiers is just as important, if not more so, as removing Bashar.

The article explains that the investigators are going after who's issuing the orders and they have mountains of evidence that Assad and his emergency council are the ones developing the plans and issuing the orders to commit atrocities. It even talks about officers who end up begging people to make false confessions so they won't have to torture them further. In certain circumstances, men can do some seriously disturbing things. They've done it throughout the past, but removing the person or group who's pushing the vile acts generally ends them. The soldiers wouldn't have a mechanism or authority to commit such acts without some larger sadistic group like ISIS or al-Nusra. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Dessalines, etc. were all the driving force behind genocides. Once they were gone, the mass atrocities stopped.

You have to deal with them, but eliminating their means to commit such violent acts, i.e., the Assad regime, would be the most effective way to deal with it.
 
Yes I agree to an extent, but it's their ability to be able to carry out these atrocities that bothers me. Most of us wouldn't be able to do such things even if we were told we could/should do them. That brutality these men have within themselves won't go away just because Assad does.
 
Yes I agree to an extent, but it's their ability to be able to carry out these atrocities that bothers me. Most of us wouldn't be able to do such things even if we were told we could/should do them. That brutality these men have within themselves won't go away just because Assad does.
I don't know bro, the phrase "I'm only following orders" is a very powerful coping mechanism. The underlying reasoning for the barbaric acts might not dissipate but the scale of the acts should diminish somewhat with the removal of Assad and the emergency council.
 
I don't know bro, the phrase "I'm only following orders" is a very powerful coping mechanism. The underlying reasoning for the barbaric acts might not dissipate but the scale of the acts should diminish somewhat with the removal of Assad and the emergency council.

That's primarily only true of police states with a terror apparatus. Where "I'll do this evil shite because I'm following orders, or else I or my loved ones will be imprisoned, tortured and murdered."

The bar for "I'm following orders" is typically much more rare in states where the repercussions don't go much beyond not getting promoted or discharged.
 
QUESTION: Thank you. The Wall Street Journal cited unnamed U.S. officials, who said if the cessation of hostilities fails the U.S. would approve the delivery of anti-aircraft weapons to the rebels. Is that the plan?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speak to the veracity of unnamed sources in that article. I’ve seen the article. I can tell you here at the State Department our focus remains – and you heard Secretary Kerry talking about this just yesterday – our focus remains on the coalition efforts against Daesh and on the political process in – through Geneva in Syria and getting to a transitional governing structure that can lead to a new constitution and new elections for Syria that can hopefully get us to a whole, unified Syria. But I’m not going to speak to the individual claims by anonymous sources in that story. Our focus still remains on the quote/unquote “Plan A,” if you will, which is to get a political process in place.



It could explain Russia´s decision to partly halt their support for Assad. Saudi Arabia is talking about that for month (e.g. in a Spiegel interview in feb.). Let´s hope, that the USA is not crazy enough to allow this. It could be another game-changer with lasting consequences.
 
Deadly air strikes hit Idlib markets
At least 50 killed, including children, in air strikes on two markets in rebel-held northwestern province, sources say.

It was not clear if Tuesday's air strikes were carried out by Syrian or Russian war planes that have been deployed to Syria to support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The rescue workers said more than 40 people were killed in the town of Maarat al-Numan in the rebel stronghold of Idlib province.

  • Another 10 people were killed in an air strike on a market in the nearby town of Kafr Nubl. The deaths from the latest strike included five children, sources told Al Jazeera.

    "We have more than 20 cars that have been moving dead and injured to hospitals in the area," said Ahmad Sheikho, a member of the civil defence corps, a rescue service operating in opposition-held territory.

    "The air strike at the central vegetable market in [Maarat al-Numan] was around noon. Another strike at the same time hit Kafr Nubl's own market," Sheikho said.

    The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict through a network of sources on the ground, gave a slightly lower toll, saying at least 37 people were killed in Maarat al-Numan and seven were killed in Kafr Nubl.

    Many of the injured are in a serious condition and the death toll is expected to rise, the observatory said.

    The Syrian military could not immediately be reached for comment, and state news agency SANA made no mention of air strikes in Idlib.
 
You'll be getting a lot more Democracy building when Hillary takes over, including a no fly zone in Syria.
 
what the hell has caused this recent spike in violence (I know, I know...there's a f-ing war going on).

But hospitals and clinics being targeted in Aleppo? What gives?
 
You'll be getting a lot more Democracy building when Hillary takes over, including a no fly zone in Syria.

of course. We´ll already got a preview Lybia, which is a disaster, so the sequel is coming. Iraq are already falling apart. Maybe the third time's a charm. As you already said - Syria is high up on the agenda. You can´t allow Russia winning the war for one side, so better lock them in a permanent civil war. That will work wonders for the population. After all, the US of dickheads don´t have to deal with the millions of refugees. You outsourced Yemen, which is quite neat, but considering that Saudi Arabia is failing even at the easy part (winning a conventional war), you might have to step in and do it yourself. Afghanistan is also refusing to go away, so there might be another opening.
Those are just the on-going crisis, which makes it kind of boring. Fortunately Hillary is brilliant in creating new failed states. She could list that as special qualification in her CV. She´ll come up with something.

As a nationalist you obviously do what all nationalists do: Cheer for your government, while they wreak havoc in the world.

Good thing is, that I don´t pay taxes for all this nonsense and only live few month a year in Europe.


http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/25/why-is-america-so-bad-at-promoting-democracy-in-other-countries/
Using military force to spread democracy fails for several obvious reasons. First, successful liberal orders depend on a lot more than a written constitution or elections: They usually require an effective legal system, a broad commitment to pluralism, a decent level of income and education, and widespread confidence that political groups which lose out in a particular election have a decent chance of doing better in the future and thus an incentive to keep working within the system. Because a lot of social elements need to line up properly for this arrangement to work and endure, creating reasonably effective democracies took centuries in the West, and it was often a highly contentious — even violent — process. To believe the U.S. military could export democracy quickly and cheaply required a degree of hubris that is still breathtaking to recall.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/25/why-is-america-so-bad-at-promoting-democracy-in-other-countries/
 
Indeed. They are in for a rude awakening when either her or Trump start unwinding Obama's hands off approach.

not really, because everyone knows that she is a uber-hawk.

I am just surprised, that the democrats would be happy with that, while mocking bush for his stupidity. Tribalism at its best.
 
not really, because everyone knows that she is a uber-hawk.

I am just surprised, that the democrats would be happy with that, while mocking bush for his stupidity. Tribalism at its best.

Nah...she's only hawkish on Dem terms. She's definitely no McCain or Lindsey Graham.
 
yep. that is why she voted against Iraq, opposed Lybia and is against further intervention in Syria. Oh wait. She didn´t do any of those things. She is just as hawkish as Bush, but you are obviously unable to admit the obvious. The GOP are the bad guys after all.
 
yep. that is why she voted against Iraq, opposed Lybia and is against further intervention in Syria. Oh wait. She didn´t do any of those things. She is just as hawkish as Bush, but you are obviously unable to admit the obvious. The GOP are the bad guys after all.

That's a pretty myopic mischaracterization of things. If you know Hillary, she is in the camp of promoting democracy through Smart Power (look it up), which is in stark contrast to the Neo-Con approach of Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz. She has said her vote was a mistake, whereas the latter have doubled down on the self-righteousness of doing what they did.
 
She doubled down on Lybia and blamed Obama for not intervening strong enough. For Hillary, smart power is just another euphemism for military intervention, powered by american exceptionalism. Ignoring all the weaknesses of the concept itself, most serious supporter of the concept are actually not at all in line with her foreign policy (look it up).
 
She doubled down on Lybia and blamed Obama for not intervening strong enough. For Hillary, smart power is just another euphemism for military intervention, powered by american exceptionalism. Ignoring all the weaknesses of the concept itself, most serious supporter of the concept are actually not at all in line with her foreign policy (look it up).

She was correct on Libya. Qaddafi's army were bearing down on Benghazi and an enormous slaughter would've taken place without an intervention. What was not correct was the West not having a plan to properly transition from dictatorship to democratic governance, much as in Iraq.

American exceptionalism has nothing to do with smart power - its a Republican term these days. Smart power is merely a methodology for using all available tools for foreign policy - not just soft power, but also military, economics etc. The US reaction to Putin's recent land theft in Ukraine is another example of using economics to balance the rogue actions of another state.
 
Nye´s understanding of smart power is fundamentally different to what Hillary actually stands for. Maybe you should actually read what he writes. It might fit her strategy in SEA, but certainly not in the middle east.

American exceptionalism has a lot to do with it. It is one of the main reasons for the collective delusion of american politicians and the (US) public.

to quote S.M Walt - a realist - again: To believe the U.S. military could export democracy quickly and cheaply required a degree of hubris that is still breathtaking to recall.


Sadly the stupidity behind this approach is not only breathtaking, but literately killing people all over the world. But what would you care about people in other countries. They are just terrorists after all. ´Murica! feck yeah.
 
Nye´s understanding of smart power is fundamentally different to what Hillary actually stands for. Maybe you should actually read what he writes. It might fit her strategy in SEA, but certainly not in the middle east.

American exceptionalism has a lot to do with it. It is one of the main reasons for the collective delusion of american politicians and the (US) public.

to quote S.M Walt - a realist - again: To believe the U.S. military could export democracy quickly and cheaply required a degree of hubris that is still breathtaking to recall.


Sadly the stupidity behind this approach is not only breathtaking, but literately killing people all over the world. But what would you care about people in other countries. They are just terrorists after all. ´Murica! feck yeah.

I have actually met Nye and have talked him about it. It is not a strategy or a concept like American Exceptionalism, which you rather bizarrely claim. It is simply a methodology for using all available tools to advance foreign policy objectives. It can be just soft power, such as promoting gender equality, civil society, basic human rights as the State Department does on a daily basis in dozens of countries through the likes of USAID and NGO grants, it can be economic, such as sanctions, or it can in one off instances also be military, or any combination thereof.
 
I have never said, that american exceptionalism and "smart power" are similar concepts.

Nye´s foreign policy strategy has nothing to do with Hillary´s ideas about foreign policy in the middle east. It must be hard to admit that after you introduced the concept, but it is pretty plane obvious to anyone who actually read his stuff. So if you use the term in a rather narrow way, your claim is simply not true and if you use in in a wider (historic) way, it becomes meaningless.
There is nothing smart about Hillary talking about smart power, because she will encounter the same problems over and over again. The problem isn´t that america just messed up in all those conflicts (well they also did make many mistakes, but that is not the point); the issue is that america doesn´t have the capabilities to do achieve those overambitious goals. Hillary has no solution to this problem. You can combine all power you want and still fail terribly. Her remarks about Lybia prove that she is absolutely clueless.
 
I have never said, that american exceptionalism and "smart power" are similar concepts.

Nye´s foreign policy strategy has nothing to do with Hillary´s ideas about foreign policy in the middle east. It must be hard to admit that after you introduced the concept, but it is pretty plane obvious to anyone who actually read his stuff. So if you use the term in a rather narrow way, your claim is simply not true and if you use in in a wider (historic) way, it becomes meaningless.
There is nothing smart about Hillary talking about smart power, because she will encounter the same problems over and over again. The problem isn´t that america just messed up in all those conflicts (well they also did make many mistakes, but that is not the point); the issue is that america doesn´t have the capabilities to do achieve those overambitious goals. Hillary has no solution to this problem. You can combine all power you want and still fail terribly. Her remarks about Lybia prove that she is absolutely clueless.

You did create some sort of bizarre linkage between Smart Power and American Exceptionalism when they are like comparing a 4-4-2 formation with United being a special club. The problem as I stated isn't the interventionism, it's how the interventionism is executed. Some people think the US has no business intervening but that isn't consistent with the anarchic system we live in. In the absence of a sovereign world government, the most powerful states will continue to help themselves. This is a well established and accepted tenet of structural realism and will continue to be how states from the US to China to Russia et al conduct their foreign policy.