It only makes (some kind of) sense if we consider Iran to be the world's leading sponsor of 'terrorism', which America continues to do.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
It only makes (some kind of) sense if we consider Iran to be the world's leading sponsor of 'terrorism', which America continues to do.
How do you guys see situation there in the events of Clinton's win, and then Trump's?
Based on her past, you'd have to think Clinto will amp up support for the 'moderate' rebels and perhaps go all out for regime change, escalating tensions with Russia and putting the Iran nuclear deal in doubt at the same time. There is of course a possibility that she's learned something new in the last four years, but who knows what it might be or what conclusions she'll have drawn?
Base on what he's said Trump will be leaving Syria to the Russians to do as they please. But he's given us no reason to believe he means what he says.
But he also wants to "carpet bomb" ISIS...So who knows. Oh, and take oil.
But overall I think what you've suggested is plausible.
well. I guess you have to ask Jay Carney what he means when he talks about that and how he decides which country gets bombed and which doesn´t. They probably have to reach some sort of quota and just role the dice when the number of bombed countries falls under a certain limit.
I think he has Iraq and Libya more in mind with that kind of talk, Syria's oil reserves are extremely modest in comparison.
My opinion about Trump: He is clueless and has no political base, that will support him. It will be very easy for the administration and the institutions (military, intelligence services, diplomats, foreign policy think tanks) and parts of the parliament to push him in their direction. He won´t be able to make any radical changes (e.g. isolationism). I think he´d surprise a lot of people by continuing where Obama left....You´d need to know the insides of the different foreign policy elites and their balance of power to predict the details.
He has specifically called out the DC think tanks for their refusal to think outside the box in the last 15 years. Can't fault him for that, and if he can somehow break their influence he'll have done a service.
He said a lot of things, but I doubt that he has the pull to make it happen. Foreign policy is the one field, where he can easily make friends once in office and he desperately needs people who support him. The next president will probably face a recession/down-turn of the economy, so most of his attention will be on this issue. I can see him backing out of Syria, but in general I doubt anything will change.
I didn't defend Powers' bullshit with one word. Comparing public statements of governments to advertising (which I think is appropriate) was meant as a devaluation of their displayed morality.
My general problem starts when the annoyance and outrage over American actions and their propaganda is having the consequence of putting their rivals and enemies in a more rosy light than they deserve. And that makes me wonder if this outrage is morally genuine or not. Either the same standards apply to all parties or they a worthless. In the other post I quoted, the history of the Syrian army's ruthless bombing practices is played down for a jibe at the US, for example.
And I made a remark about the tendency by some posters to assume that every instance of US troops hitting civilians or non-hostile forces is automatically an intentional act. That doesn't mean it's not possible this one was, I just have a problem with the attitude of 'I neither know nor care about specific circumstances, but it can't be anything else than intentional, because it's the Americans'. It's the mirror image of the attitude of those who are inclined to believe every propaganda claim about Assad or Putin.
To sum it up, quite often the criticism of pro-Western double standards is used to create an anti-American double standard. Sometimes unintentionally.
In a way, there is a double standard to be found here, too:
Why is this 'honesty' any less cynical, better? They are justifying their (and the Syrian governments') actions in a seemingly more rational way. That's it. The notion that the US are behaving somehow worse because of the obvious ridiculousness of their human rights propaganda is a way of valuing government PR above the actual deeds. And in terms of their deeds the pro-Assad side of this civil war is certainly no less brutal.
This program is a perfect example of what I understand as a more implicit, structural anti-Americanism: Overstating the importance of the Americans' actions for the development of events, in this case the emergence of globalised Islamist terrorism. There are more and deeper reasons for the growth and spread of Islamism than US foreign policy. It has worked as a major catalyst for sure, shame on them, but the general development would have taken place anyway, although probably less rapidly. And in the situation we have now, a U-turn in US foreign policy will change nothing substantially. Radical Islam is a phenomenon in its own right and it will spread regardless of what the US do. It will probably even grow faster when a US pullout creates a power vacuum in the Middle East.
---------------------------------
To avoid misunderstandings: I actually agree with many parts of your longer post and its general stance. Samantha Powers' speech is indeed cringeworthy, your assessment of US strategy seems very plausible, and I share your sympathy for the Syrians who often have to take sides in order to survive.
So when I criticise what I perceive as an anti-American element in the whole thing, I'm not accusing you of hating Americans or something like that. It lies more in the structure of certain arguments.
So many words for something so simple. Each and every major geo-political player has interests, there is no good and bad, black and white. We can only judge the situation at hand. We have a player which is more aggressive and a player which is more defensive. I doubt anyone would argue if they thought about the need of balance to super powers. None must be allowed to run away with all of it. It's good that the there are opposition parties, the problem is how the tug of war is being practiced. As for the PR, the US is losing badly.
@Synco
I am holding the USA to the standard, that itself publicly promotes (at least most of the time). Western countries fail horribly to live up to their own norms (democracy, human rights, prosperity, and peace). Partly due to incompetence but for the most parts, because when push comes to shove, these things simply don´t have priority. This failure in itself creates many problems.
1) Internally governments need to hold up these norms to justify their actions abroad. The huge majority of citizens (and the public) have bought into the idea, that our governments are genuinely concerned about the well-being about the people abroad and this false idea is the justification for horrendous foreign policy.
When Germany went to participate in the war in Afghanistan (they weren´t allowed to call it war for the first ~10 years), all politicians did was talking about how they´ll build schools and roads. How they liberate the women, the LGBT community and minorities. If you would have just listened to them, you might have thought that we don´t send the army, but social workers. If German politicians would be more honest, the support would have deteriorated a lot more rapidly. In the USA the same happens, just a lot more extreme. I do see this as a huge problem in a democracy.
What would happen if the US-president says openly: “Hey, we support jihadists, because we can´t allow Assad to win this war.” How would the public react? How is it possible to have a productive conversation about foreign policy, when the administration is so dishonest about the most basic facts of the conflict? In Syria: There is no good solution and the USA is prolonging the carnage. That is extremely cynical.
2) Major Powers set global norms: We pretend to care about all these norms, but we also violate them all the time everywhere. And while most of us don´t acknowledge this, the people around the world very much do. This undermines any effort to actually establish these ideas. When the USA is lecturing Russia, that their actions are bad (and often they are), Russia is just laughing that off, because they can point to a plethora of examples, where the West itself did the very same thing.
Just think about what happens if not just the USA, but also Russia, China, Brazil, SouthAfrica, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and India start their own drone programs and follow the example that the USA is setting? How would any of you react if Russia would be killing people all over the world without any formal justification, because apparently “it is what needs to be done”? Do you really think anyone would be okay with that?
3) It would take too long to discuss all the consequences of US policy abroad. There are some positives and most of the stuff doesn´t have anything to do with us. Still I am not willing to look past all the horrors that were committed for one or another reasons (not just in the Middle East but all over the world). The list of questionable behavior of western countries around the world is sadly extremely long.
-------------------------------
We are having this discussion (here on the caf and more in general in the public sphere) in the context of western society. I have no problem to talk about the bad actions of Russia. It would be a short discussion - not because Russia is a paragon of virtue -, but because we´ll agree on almost everything. Engaging in this behavior just creates echo-chambers and tribalism (just look at the “presidential-election thread”). I try to challenge the wrong ideas of my discussion partner and in the context of this forum, these are primarily those about the consequences of western foreign policy. When @antihenry is too emphatic about Russia, you´ll see a lot of people pushing back. For every post that @Americano makes in support of Trump, 30 Clinton supporter tell him he is an idiot. I don´t disagree with that, but do I need to be to be number 31?
I am holding the USA to the standard, that itself publicly promotes (at least most of the time). Western countries fail horribly to live up to their own norms (democracy, human rights, prosperity, and peace). Partly due to incompetence but for the most parts, because when push comes to shove, these things simply don´t have priority. This failure in itself creates many problems.
1) Internally governments need to hold up these norms to justify their actions abroad. The huge majority of citizens (and the public) have bought into the idea, that our governments are genuinely concerned about the well-being about the people abroad and this false idea is the justification for horrendous foreign policy.
When Germany went to participate in the war in Afghanistan (they weren´t allowed to call it war for the first ~10 years), all politicians did was talking about how they´ll build schools and roads. How they liberate the women, the LGBT community and minorities. If you would have just listened to them, you might have thought that we don´t send the army, but social workers. If German politicians would be more honest, the support would have deteriorated a lot more rapidly. In the USA the same happens, just a lot more extreme. I do see this as a huge problem in a democracy.
What would happen if the US-president says openly: “Hey, we support jihadists, because we can´t allow Assad to win this war.” How would the public react? How is it possible to have a productive conversation about foreign policy, when the administration is so dishonest about the most basic facts of the conflict? In Syria: There is no good solution and the USA is prolonging the carnage. That is extremely cynical.
2) Major Powers set global norms: We pretend to care about all these norms, but we also violate them all the time everywhere. And while most of us don´t acknowledge this, the people around the world very much do. This undermines any effort to actually establish these ideas. When the USA is lecturing Russia, that their actions are bad (and often they are), Russia is just laughing that off, because they can point to a plethora of examples, where the West itself did the very same thing.
Just think about what happens if not just the USA, but also Russia, China, Brazil, SouthAfrica, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and India start their own drone programs and follow the example that the USA is setting? How would any of you react if Russia would be killing people all over the world without any formal justification, because apparently “it is what needs to be done”? Do you really think anyone would be okay with that?
3) It would take too long to discuss all the consequences of US policy abroad. There are some positives and most of the stuff doesn´t have anything to do with us. Still I am not willing to look past all the horrors that were committed for one or another reasons (not just in the Middle East but all over the world). The list of questionable behavior of western countries around the world is sadly extremely long.
-------------------------------
We are having this discussion (here on the caf and more in general in the public sphere) in the context of western society. I have no problem to talk about the bad actions of Russia. It would be a short discussion - not because Russia is a paragon of virtue -, but because we´ll agree on almost everything. Engaging in this behavior just creates echo-chambers and tribalism (just look at the “presidential-election thread”). I try to challenge the wrong ideas of my discussion partner and in the context of this forum, these are primarily those about the consequences of western foreign policy. When @antihenry is too emphatic about Russia, you´ll see a lot of people pushing back. For every post that @Americano makes in support of Trump, 30 Clinton supporter tell him he is an idiot. I don´t disagree with that, but do I need to be to be number 31?
@Synco , good post and I'm not one for reflexive anti-Americanism but there are a couple of reasons why American policy in Syria deserves special criticism.
In terms of the moral argument, intentional or not, the effect of US policy in Syria has been to balance the conflicting actors rather than to help any one achieve some kind of 'victory'*. With the Russians at least one side - the regime and its many supporters - benefits in some sense. With the Americans nobody does, and everybody suffers a bit more for it. Maybe back in 2014/15 you could point at the intervention in Kobane as an example of the Kurds benefiting from American intervention, and nobody would deny that was the case. But right now, two years later, it's becoming clear to the Kurds that their usefulness to the Americans has run past its sell-by date.
The results of all this can be seen in terms of the strategic argument, where not a single actor trusts the Americans anymore. In terms of those actually fighting the conflict - the regime is convinced America is supporting the 'terrorists'. Al-Julani was on al-Jazeera yesterday claiming the Americans are supporting the regime. The FSA released a statement last week condemning the Americans for supporting the YPG 'terrorists'. And it's slowly dawning on the Kurds that America's ties to Turkey will always ultimately trump their own interests. In terms of the regional powers - the Israelis and Saudis have lost faith in the Americans ever dealing properly (as they see it) with Iran. Which would be OK if Iran actually saw America any differently than they did before, but in fact there are no signs of that and instead it appears that Iran's contempt for the Americans has only grown since the nuclear deal.
So America loses whatever clout it had left in the region post-Bush, and everyone looks at Russia and sees a power that, whatever its position, says what it means and means what it says.
So America has not only not made any new friends through this adventure, it has lost the few it had left in the region. For that reason, America and the West would have been better off not getting involved at all, as even if the conflict had proceeded as it has anyway, the West in general would have been less of a target for ISIS and maybe many French, Belgian, American, etc. lives would have been saved as a result, AND they might have retained some measure of potentially positive influence in whatever's left of the region whenever the conflict winds down.
*[I'm of the opinion that Syria is finished as a country and never coming back, so 'victory' in this sense means something altogether different than the (re)conquest of what was Syria].
In terms of the moral argument, intentional or not, the effect of US policy in Syria has been to balance the conflicting actors rather than to help any one achieve some kind of 'victory'*. With the Russians at least one side - the regime and its many supporters - benefits in some sense. With the Americans nobody does, and everybody suffers a bit more for it. Maybe back in 2014/15 you could point at the intervention in Kobane as an example of the Kurds benefiting from American intervention, and nobody would deny that was the case. But right now, two years later, it's becoming clear to the Kurds that their usefulness to the Americans has run past its sell-by date.
The results of all this can be seen in terms of the strategic argument, where not a single actor trusts the Americans anymore. In terms of those actually fighting the conflict - the regime is convinced America is supporting the 'terrorists'. Al-Julani was on al-Jazeera yesterday claiming the Americans are supporting the regime. The FSA released a statement last week condemning the Americans for supporting the YPG 'terrorists'. And it's slowly dawning on the Kurds that America's ties to Turkey will always ultimately trump their own interests. In terms of the regional powers - the Israelis and Saudis have lost faith in the Americans ever dealing properly (as they see it) with Iran. Which would be OK if Iran actually saw America any differently than they did before, but in fact there are no signs of that and instead it appears that Iran's contempt for the Americans has only grown since the nuclear deal.
So America loses whatever clout it had left in the region post-Bush, and everyone looks at Russia and sees a power that, whatever its position, says what it means and means what it says.
So America has not only not made any new friends through this adventure, it has lost the few it had left in the region. For that reason, America and the West would have been better off not getting involved at all, as even if the conflict had proceeded as it has anyway, the West in general would have been less of a target for ISIS and maybe many French, Belgian, American, etc. lives would have been saved as a result, AND they might have retained some measure of potentially positive influence in whatever's left of the region whenever the conflict winds down.
*[I'm of the opinion that Syria is finished as a country and never coming back, so 'victory' in this sense means something altogether different than the (re)conquest of what was Syria].
Well, the CoH didn´t last particularly long.
@PedroMendez
I agree with a lot in that post again, and am still fine with much of the rest.
The only exception is that I still think it's a mistake to understand these proclamations of human rights serious in any other way than being ideology. Holding the West to its own proclaimed standards in earnest is misleading, because that's not the basis they operate from (or any modern state, for that matter).
It's like criticising PepsiCo that their stuff doesn't make me dance like MC Hammer. Obviously true, but also fruitless, because it was never supposed to. So demanding the West should own up to it's own standards, as you do at least implicitly, still leads into the trap of becoming idealistic about the mechanisms of politics.
It's obvious that our societies constantly violate their self-proclaimed principles. But not simply because the wrong policies are implemented or the wrong priorities are set, but because they are incapable to act like this by design. They constantly reproduce ideologies of creating a truly humane world, but are intrinsically unable to fulfill that promise. (Perhaps that's one point where we two fundamentally differ from each other.)
Every state official can distinguish very well between political reality and public relations work, and they know what the task of their UN ambassador is. That's what I meant with 'they're professionals' in the first post. All participants (that includes mutual enemies) are fully aware that they conduct an exercise in propaganda, like a game, nothing more. So we should be aware of that too.
I agree with a lot in that post again, and am still fine with much of the rest.
The only exception is that I still think it's a mistake to understand these proclamations of human rights serious in any other way than being ideology. Holding the West to its own proclaimed standards in earnest is misleading, because that's not the basis they operate from (or any modern state, for that matter).
It's like criticising PepsiCo that their stuff doesn't make me dance like MC Hammer. Obviously true, but also fruitless, because it was never supposed to. So demanding the West should own up to it's own standards, as you do at least implicitly, still leads into the trap of becoming idealistic about the mechanisms of politics.
It's obvious that our societies constantly violate their self-proclaimed principles. But not simply because the wrong policies are implemented or the wrong priorities are set, but because they are incapable to act like this by design. They constantly reproduce ideologies of creating a truly humane world, but are intrinsically unable to fulfill that promise. (Perhaps that's one point where we two fundamentally differ from each other.)
Every state official can distinguish very well between political reality and public relations work, and they know what the task of their UN ambassador is. That's what I meant with 'they're professionals' in the first post. All participants (that includes mutual enemies) are fully aware that they conduct an exercise in propaganda, like a game, nothing more. So we should be aware of that too.
@2cents
Yes, the last few US administrations have made a real mess out of their Middle East engagements and their country's standing in the region. While it was difficult to imagine that the current government could do an equally bad job as their predecessors, they really seem to have managed to do so.
I wonder if the utter failure of now two long-serving US administrations points to reasons beyond an impressive series of idiotic decisions, specific think tanks and things like that. I can't put my finger on it yet, but it would have something to do with the composition of the post Cold War world and the role of a sole global superpower (now without a counterweight) that maybe was specifically designed to succeed in the preceding era. Maybe the USA (in their current form) are a dinosaur that is bound to fail. Just a thought.
----------------------------
As for your footnote, I too think that Syria is finished as a state, but it's very hard to see a solution.
Some kind of partition is the obvious way to go in a stalemate situation like this, but I really can't see how an agreement can be reached. Russia and Iran won't let Assad lose, while the US won't let him win. Since the Syrian government can be sure not to lose, they will probably not agree to give up sovereignity over any state territory. Turkey will not accept a Kurdish state. And as several posters have written, not even ISIS can be defeated due to the impasse the US have manoeuvred themselves into.
Any way you look at it, the interests of at least one global or regional power stand in the way of every conceivable variant. So the bloodshed continues.
Yes, the last few US administrations have made a real mess out of their Middle East engagements and their country's standing in the region. While it was difficult to imagine that the current government could do an equally bad job as their predecessors, they really seem to have managed to do so.
I wonder if the utter failure of now two long-serving US administrations points to reasons beyond an impressive series of idiotic decisions, specific think tanks and things like that. I can't put my finger on it yet, but it would have something to do with the composition of the post Cold War world and the role of a sole global superpower (now without a counterweight) that maybe was specifically designed to succeed in the preceding era. Maybe the USA (in their current form) are a dinosaur that is bound to fail. Just a thought.
----------------------------
As for your footnote, I too think that Syria is finished as a state, but it's very hard to see a solution.
Some kind of partition is the obvious way to go in a stalemate situation like this, but I really can't see how an agreement can be reached. Russia and Iran won't let Assad lose, while the US won't let him win. Since the Syrian government can be sure not to lose, they will probably not agree to give up sovereignity over any state territory. Turkey will not accept a Kurdish state. And as several posters have written, not even ISIS can be defeated due to the impasse the US have manoeuvred themselves into.
Any way you look at it, the interests of at least one global or regional power stand in the way of every conceivable variant. So the bloodshed continues.
@Synco
@berbatrick posted this article in the “General CE chat” about humanitarian interventions and it is worth reading: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/when-humanitarianism-became-imperialism/
My gist about it is:
If you justify interventionism via humanitarian concerns, you have to take a consequentialists point of view and see if the people are better of afterwards. Sadly the resent military interventions have been a train wreck, so this idea goes out of the window.
If you argue from a classical-realist point of view, you need to identify national interest that are affected. There is no communist threat anymore. Who cares if Russia has influence in Syria? Who cares who governs in Afghanistan? There is no rational argument that the interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria are advancing any of our interests. Even the whole argument about “we just want to control the oil” (often cited by people with anti-American sentiment), makes no fecking sense (the USA has oil itself; the Saudis are a close ally; and Iran+Saddam were willing to sell their oil to anyone)
That is really my point. Politicians makes these huge decisions that affect the lives of millions of people, yet they can´t explain these decisions in any rational manner. Either they are completely deluded (= ”we democratize the middle east”) or they are just idiots, who think in outdated categories (= we need to oppose Russia for the sake of it/we need to maintain geopolitical influence in the region). Whats even more shocking is, that nobody is questioning this madness (the article from Berbatrick shines some light on the reasons for this); we just accept these stupid ideas and harm our own interests in the process.
----------------------------
Regarding Syria: even if you take the foreign powers out of the equation, the local actors won´t be able to agree on any compromise. Partition would be impossible, because nobody could agree who´d get key-locations (coast + the big cities in Syria). The regime can´t give these things up, because there would be nothing left and a landlocked “Sunnistan” couldn´t survive without them economically. The fighting will only stop if both sides are completely exhausted. Not giving them weapons would help….
@berbatrick posted this article in the “General CE chat” about humanitarian interventions and it is worth reading: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/when-humanitarianism-became-imperialism/
My gist about it is:
If you justify interventionism via humanitarian concerns, you have to take a consequentialists point of view and see if the people are better of afterwards. Sadly the resent military interventions have been a train wreck, so this idea goes out of the window.
If you argue from a classical-realist point of view, you need to identify national interest that are affected. There is no communist threat anymore. Who cares if Russia has influence in Syria? Who cares who governs in Afghanistan? There is no rational argument that the interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria are advancing any of our interests. Even the whole argument about “we just want to control the oil” (often cited by people with anti-American sentiment), makes no fecking sense (the USA has oil itself; the Saudis are a close ally; and Iran+Saddam were willing to sell their oil to anyone)
That is really my point. Politicians makes these huge decisions that affect the lives of millions of people, yet they can´t explain these decisions in any rational manner. Either they are completely deluded (= ”we democratize the middle east”) or they are just idiots, who think in outdated categories (= we need to oppose Russia for the sake of it/we need to maintain geopolitical influence in the region). Whats even more shocking is, that nobody is questioning this madness (the article from Berbatrick shines some light on the reasons for this); we just accept these stupid ideas and harm our own interests in the process.
----------------------------
Regarding Syria: even if you take the foreign powers out of the equation, the local actors won´t be able to agree on any compromise. Partition would be impossible, because nobody could agree who´d get key-locations (coast + the big cities in Syria). The regime can´t give these things up, because there would be nothing left and a landlocked “Sunnistan” couldn´t survive without them economically. The fighting will only stop if both sides are completely exhausted. Not giving them weapons would help….
You know Pedro, that has been my exact thoughts for the past 15 years, I'm glad to finally see a post that pretty much sums up my thoughts on many many subjects.
I think some kind of de facto partition is inevitable. It won't be formally arranged or come as the result of any kind of agreement, it'll just be the natural consequence of all the ethnic/sectarian cleansing and power balance at the stage when the conflict eventually does run out of gas, which unfortunately probably won't happen until the next decade. There is perhaps a slight possibility that Assad may be able to reconquer what was Syria, but it's hard to see the Russians backing him to that extent, they have what they need from him as long as he holds the coast, its hinterland, and the Aleppo - Damascus urban corridor. Same with Iran and Hezbollah re: the Lebanese border areas. And even if Assad does somehow take back the east, what then?
Well, yes. That is partition without peace. Even if Assad “wins”, the whole things will blow up again fairly soon. It will only end when both sides run out of gas. Sadly that will never happen when outside powers act like gas jockeys.
Even more bad news for Aleppo...relief has been cut off after 18 aid trucks were destroyed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37417898
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37417898
Very late reply on my behalf, but thanks for sharing, I'll read it through. If I feel I have something to say about it, I'll post in the CE chat.
Last edited:
Tough talk now against the Russians. Will the next big war be against the Russians?
And risk world war 3 and possible nuclear annihilation? Nah if all parties are smart this will stay a proxy conflict.
It will always stay in the middle east. The question is if the USA is willing to match Russia's engagement in Syria. Obama clearly doesn´t want to, while various executive/military institutions in the country seem to be hell-bend to make it happen. Hillary would be certainly approve a more violent approach.
I am still wondering what this ceasefire stuff was all about. It just never made sense to me, because it could have never helped the rebels. Either they isolate FaS and allow Assad to win or they don´t split and Russia would use that as justification to continue bombing everone. Why would the USA agree to something like that except in a last desperate attempt to delay a Russian victory for another ~6 weeks......well now Russia doesn´t play along and called the bluff. Obama has to decide if he is willing to go along with the military/intelligence services/FP elite and escalate or looks a bit silly.
Hillary would be awful news, she'd have the Kissinger types and neocons whispering into her ears for more intervention and probably drive the US into a very dangerous face-off with the Russians and Iranians.
Funny enough Trump would be a lot less dangerous, probably because of his indiscrete admiration for Putin. I'd wager he wouldn't be half as keen to provoke him as Hillary and her MIC buddies.
The rebels are at breaking point and are losing the war, the ceasefire was engineered I'd imagine to buy them some breathing space, especially while the US 'accidentally' wipes out entire platoons of Syrian soldiers to try and turn the tide.
I fully expect Hillary to channel her inner cold-warrior and create an extended no-fly zone in northern syria, if she can. That said the party might be over before she comes into office. Following some reports on reuters/twitter there was already quite a bid of movement on the ground and not just air-strikes. I doubt that the rebels in Aleppo will survive another 6 weeks without outside intervention.
Predicting anything about Trump is really just reading tea leaves. I understand your reasoning, which seems plausible but I am not sure if he has enough leverage/pull to come out on top against all the internal interest groups that might want something different.
edit: off topic but quite funny:
Predicting anything about Trump is really just reading tea leaves. I understand your reasoning, which seems plausible but I am not sure if he has enough leverage/pull to come out on top against all the internal interest groups that might want something different.
edit: off topic but quite funny:
Last edited:
I think someone mentioned it already, Samantha Power's speech, my goodness that was just awful.
I was just listening to Lavrov and was wondering about the US/Russian intelligence exchange (which apparently was part of the Geneva deal). Is this really something that would work- comparing data and isolating Al Nusra, agreeing that this common enemy (Isis and Al Nusra) is a legitimate target which can be hit, or are they already so intertwined with dozens of other groups that makes it impossible to distinguish who is who? I mean how many groups are fighting on the ground against Assad and each other? 100+?
I was just listening to Lavrov and was wondering about the US/Russian intelligence exchange (which apparently was part of the Geneva deal). Is this really something that would work- comparing data and isolating Al Nusra, agreeing that this common enemy (Isis and Al Nusra) is a legitimate target which can be hit, or are they already so intertwined with dozens of other groups that makes it impossible to distinguish who is who? I mean how many groups are fighting on the ground against Assad and each other? 100+?
Predicting what Trump would do is pointless, because Hillary will win. And as stated above, she's quite a bit more hawkish than Obama. But I suspect the US already has more 'boots on the ground' than reported. I just hope none of them are my cousin's.
I lol'd and did my best John McEnroe impression.
Obama/Kerry are simply trying to leave the office on a high, making it look like they have some semblance of control over the situation in Syria. Putin was wiling to cooperate but wanted much more than Americans were willing to offer. I'm positive that the US were taken aback by Russia's involvement in the war and still can't come to terms with the fact that they can't dictate the terms which is something they're used to. Both sides have a deep distrust of each other and recent accusations from both only back that argument.
In any case Russians probably feel they don't have to bother with what the current administration is aiming for since their days in charge are numbered and Hillary may easily decide to wipe her old saggy bottom with whatever agreement Obama/Kerry will have reached with Putin.
I like the exchange about whether US led coalition airfcraft should be grounded at around 01:30 mark. Tells you all you need to know. 
Here's another fine bit on how much the US senators understand the reality
Here's another fine bit on how much the US senators understand the reality
I like it how Sen Blumenthal asks Dunford as a "layman and military person" if the Aleppo attack was a war crime. Even though Dunford tells him at the beginning that "we don't have the facts."
I mean who's interested in facts nowadays.
I mean who's interested in facts nowadays.
Pretty much impossible for it to work. Al Qaeda, through Nusra, Jund al Aqsa, and more indirectly through Ahrar al Sham, have basically assumed the leadership of the opposition, you won't find any rebel group of any significance outside the Kurdish areas willing to distance themselves from these groups. Nusra's whole rebranding farce was designed to counter US plans to somehow separate them from the other rebels.
Can you point out who exactly is the US supporting on this list? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War
Who is the face of the 'moderate rebels'? Is there a Syrian Karzai that could replace Assad? And what is the fate of Alawis and Christians in a post-Assad Syria?
Have a read of this - https://hasanmustafas.wordpress.com...-list-of-vetted-groups-fielding-tow-missiles/
The 'moderates' on the ground have no 'face'. They've had some well-publicized figures over the years. Basically warlords like Jamal Ma'aruf. But they're dominated by the hardliners anyway. The guys who regularly attend conferences in places like Istanbul and Riyadh have little pull amongst the actual fighters from what I've heard.
I think US support has overall being negligible. Would have been very different had McCain been president in 2011, and might change if Hillary wins. But Obama clearly has minimized US aid to a couple dozen or so second-rate groups in the north. I think US support has been more impactful in the south where, because of their relations with Jordan, they've been able to exert more control than in the north where Turkey/Qatar have decided who gets what. Those two are the biggest problem in Syria as they've basically ensured the hardline jihadists dominate the rest in the north. Qatar especially is now essentially the state backer of Al Qaeda in Syria.
I don't see any Karzai-type figure emerging (and don't see it as particularly desirable anyway), the opportunity for that kind politics taking shape in Syria is long past. As for the Alawites, in the extremely unlikely event that the regime collapses, they'll have to fight for their lives in the coastal hinterland. If it goes bad for them, the fate of the Yazidis in Iraq is probably a decent marker of what's in store for them.
Last edited:
http://mobil.ksta.de/politik/interv...amerikaner-stehen-auf-unserer-seite--24802176
Interview with Abu Al Ezz from the Al-Nusra. "The Americans are on our side and are supporting the governments which then provide support to us."
Die sind alle mit uns. Wir alle sind die „Al Nusra-Front“. Eine Gruppe wird gebildet und nennt sich „Islamische Armee“, oder „Fateh Al Scham“. Jede Gruppe hat einen eignen Namen, doch der Glaube ist einheitlich. Der generelle Name ist „Al Nusra-Front“. Eine Person hat z.B. 2000 Kämpfer. Dann bildet sie aus dieser eine neue Gruppe heraus und nennt diese „Ahrar Al Scham“. Brüder, deren Glaube, Gedanken und Ziele identisch mit der „Al Nusra-Front“ sind.
Basically what you mentioned earlier, 2cents, in regards to their structure, various groups with their own leaders but operating under the Al Nusra umbrella.
Interview with Abu Al Ezz from the Al-Nusra. "The Americans are on our side and are supporting the governments which then provide support to us."
Die sind alle mit uns. Wir alle sind die „Al Nusra-Front“. Eine Gruppe wird gebildet und nennt sich „Islamische Armee“, oder „Fateh Al Scham“. Jede Gruppe hat einen eignen Namen, doch der Glaube ist einheitlich. Der generelle Name ist „Al Nusra-Front“. Eine Person hat z.B. 2000 Kämpfer. Dann bildet sie aus dieser eine neue Gruppe heraus und nennt diese „Ahrar Al Scham“. Brüder, deren Glaube, Gedanken und Ziele identisch mit der „Al Nusra-Front“ sind.
Basically what you mentioned earlier, 2cents, in regards to their structure, various groups with their own leaders but operating under the Al Nusra umbrella.
Last edited:
So apparently the SAA is starting extended ground operations in aleppo.
Exerting more control over the region's fossil fuel reserves than the countries that own them?