Russia brings the fight to ISIS in Syria!!!

[Rasputin_Vol]

Russia should have learned that lesson after their fiasco in Afghanistan.

And the US should have learned the same lesson from Vietnam. Bombing isn't a solution.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Can one of you clowns explain this?

Intelligence officials: IS determined to strike US this year | The Herald

On Syria, (Lt. Gen. Vincent) Stewart said he does not think the Syrian government of Bashar Assad is likely to collapse or be defeated in the near term because of increased support from Iran and Russia. He said Assad's forces will likely regain key territory in some key areas. "He certainly is in a much stronger negotiating position than he was just six months ago," Stewart said.

Wait... what has changed in Syria in the last 6 months? LOL...

 

[LouderVol]

support from Russia and Iran. remove those and where is Assad?

 

[volprof]

O what a tangled web we weave in Syria!

Why Are Russian Engineers Working at an Islamic State-Controlled Gas Plant in Syria? | Foreign Policy

 

[LouderVol]

Aron Lund, editor of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s website Syria in Crisis, said that similar gas and oil arrangements exist all over Syria. “You have them between the IS and the regime, but also between IS and rival Sunni Arab rebels, between the Kurds and the regime, Kurds and rebels, the rebels and the regime, and so on,” he said. “You have lots of informal trade connections that emerge among armed groups, smugglers, or private business to fill the gaps between the various sides as the country falls apart, while national institutions, infrastructure, and much of the economy will necessarily remain shared.”

bidness as usual it seems.

 

[volprof]

How did this get by me?

Mounting Evidence Putin Will Ignite WWIII | Observer

Who Really Murdered 224 Innocent People on Flight 9268? | Observer

I tell ya, you slack off for one moment!

I always love to read Schindler's analyses, because I think he always brings a unique perspective, with refreshing honesty. Although he is certainly right about Obama authoring some of his own downfall in Syria, I think Schindler, like many others, falls prey to the 90s mindset of unfettered unilateralism - the thinking that the US can still control just about everything that is allowed to go on and that no other great powers would dare challenge that. Fact is, we've entered a new era, and it was only a matter of time. Unilateralism is the historical exception; not the norm. If Putin wants Russia to go into Syria, then who will stop him? Even better yet, why should you stop him?

As for a potential war between Russia and Turkey, I still think it's highly unlikely, but with two leaders like that, one fancying himself a modern-day tsar and the other a modern-day sultan, all it takes is one knee-jerk reaction fueled more by emotion than rational calculation. I will say, however, that if even one American has to die in another war started by Europeans, then we should leave them once and for all to wallow in their own filth for good.

 

[carlos86]

Putin truly is playing chess with Obama.

 

[volprof]

Putin truly is playing chess with Obama.

What else would you suggest he do now? Obviously the "red line" comment a few years back was a grave error of judgment, which cannot be walked back. If we could get in our HG Wells' time machine and go back, we would all change that. But what should he do now, specifically relating to parrying Russia in Syria?

I'm not calling you out specifically, but this is something I hear a lot, but never with any specificity. After a while, it kind of sounds like Trump's "Make America Great Again" - all air and no substance. Schindler, the author, whom I respect a lot as an analyst, also commonly says "Obama should do more" but never provides any real specificity other than that he should work more proactively in re-launching the old Cold War Western alliance propaganda outlets to combat Russian propaganda (which I do agree with; that's a very valid specific measure that should be taken). I mean, aside from threats, what can be done to stop Putin in Syria? Did the US stop the Soviets from doing just about everything it wanted in its sphere during the Cold War? No, not really. I think it should be made clear that no attack, cyber or militarily, against a NATO country will be tolerated, but hasn't he already done that? Maybe he doesn't sound "macho" enough when he makes such statements? I don't know.

 

[carlos86]

What else would you suggest he do now? Obviously the "red line" comment a few years back was a grave error of judgment, which cannot be walked back. If we could get in our HG Wells' time machine and go back, we would all change that. But what should he do now, specifically relating to parrying Russia in Syria?

I'm not calling you out specifically, but this is something I hear a lot, but never with any specificity. After a while, it kind of sounds like Trump's "Make America Great Again" - all air and no substance. Schindler, the author, whom I respect a lot as an analyst, also commonly says "Obama should do more" but never provides any real specificity other than that he should work more proactively in re-launching the old Cold War Western alliance propaganda outlets to combat Russian propaganda (which I do agree with; that's a very valid specific measure that should be taken). I mean, aside from threats, what can be done to stop Putin in Syria? Did the US stop the Soviets from doing just about everything it wanted in its sphere during the Cold War? No, not really. I think it should be made clear that no attack, cyber or militarily, against a NATO country will be tolerated, but hasn't he already done that? Maybe he doesn't sound "macho" enough when he makes such statements? I don't know.

Well the U.S. Russia and Syria have agreed to a ceasefire. If this ceasefire is anything like the ones in Ukraine then this want boded well.

 

[volinbham]

I'd say this criticism is more widespread than just this one feller and somewhat answers the "what should he (Obama) do"?

Outgoing French FM raps U.S. role on Syria - ARA News

There is simply no faith that whatever he does he'll commit to. He shifts with the political winds and our allies are left wondering if any plan is really a plan at all.

 

[carlos86]

I'd say this criticism is more widespread than just this one feller and somewhat answers the "what should he (Obama) do"?

Outgoing French FM raps U.S. role on Syria - ARA News

There is simply no faith that whatever he does he'll commit to. He shifts with the political winds and our allies are left wondering if any plan is really a plan at all.

Assad and the Russia have the Syrian rebels in the same position that they had Germany at Stalingrad. Why would they accept a ceasefire now??? I smell Maskirovka

 

[Pacer92]

Assad and the Russia have the Syrian rebels in the same position that they had Germany at Stalingrad. Why would they accept a ceasefire now??? I smell Maskirovka

Stalingrad? That's a hefty comparison...

ISIS is hardly the German Wehrmacht attacking Stalingrad. Ww2 was no proxy war, yet total war by countries that were ALL in!

The Syrian war is not EVEN CLOSE to Being symbolic of the east front during ww2. The only semblance being world powers negligence in recognizing Russia's resolve...still the same..

 

[volprof]

I'd say this criticism is more widespread than just this one feller and somewhat answers the "what should he (Obama) do"?

Outgoing French FM raps U.S. role on Syria - ARA News

There is simply no faith that whatever he does he'll commit to. He shifts with the political winds and our allies are left wondering if any plan is really a plan at all.

So the feckless need someone who isn't feckless to lead them. I can understand that. I suppose he could be a bit more "hardline," in the sense of setting hard lines and standing by them. I still don't know where exactly that gets us, other than reassuring our feckless allies. I guess that in-and-of-itself warrants merit, but it still doesn't actually solve anything. I guess my biggest criticism of those who criticize Obama's approach to Russia in general is that there is rarely anything that resembles an actual plan, or even strategy, in their critiques. Obama's foreign policy may not be "good," but neither are many of the criticisms of his foreign policy.

 

[volprof]

Assad and the Russia have the Syrian rebels in the same position that they had Germany at Stalingrad. Why would they accept a ceasefire now??? I smell Maskirovka

Unless the Russians, Iranians, and Syrian regime are willing to "march all the way to Berlin" and then hold everything in between for decades later, Aleppo is no "Stalingrad." It's Aleppo, and nothing more. Just a symbolic victory that will have as much bearing on reality as American forces retaking Fallujah.

 

[carlos86]

Stalingrad? That's a hefty comparison...

ISIS is hardly the German Wehrmacht attacking Stalingrad. Ww2 was no proxy war, yet total war by countries that were ALL in!

The Syrian war is not EVEN CLOSE to Being symbolic of the east front during ww2. The only semblance being world powers negligence in recognizing Russia's resolve...still the same..

The Syrian Rebels not ISIS. Syria and Russia have them surrounded in the city of Aleppo. I use the analogy of Stalingrad because it could be the last breath of the Free Syrian Opposition.

 

[volprof]

The Syrian Rebels not ISIS. Syria and Russia have them surrounded in the city of Aleppo. I use the analogy of Stalingrad because it could be the last breath of the Free Syrian Opposition.

Well, that is a possibility. But the jihadists aren't going anywhere. The only thing that can get rid of radical idealists who all think they're going straight to Paradise in a matter of seconds is by changing the most fundamental human infrastructure: economics, governmental organization/accountability, and ideology (which can only be changed when the first two are relatively secure and stable). While wars can sometimes bring these things about, they will do no such thing in that part of the world.

It is an uphill battle, and I am afraid that the Middle East's geography is so bad that what I said above is irrelevant. It's no accident that the strongest absolutism the world has ever seen (which came out of the Abrahamic tree) sprouted in the Middle East. Bad geography breed cruel and hard people.

 

[carlos86]

Well, that is a possibility. But the jihadists aren't going anywhere. The only thing that can get rid of radical idealists who all think they're going straight to Paradise in a matter of seconds is by changing the most fundamental human infrastructure: economics, governmental organization/accountability, and ideology (which can only be changed when the first two are relatively secure and stable). While wars can sometimes bring these things about, they will do no such thing in that part of the world.

It is an uphill battle, and I am afraid that the Middle East's geography is so bad that what I said above is irrelevant. It's no accident that the strongest absolutism the world has ever seen (which came out of the Abrahamic tree) sprouted in the Middle East. Bad geography breed cruel and hard people.

Reversing the effects of the Sykes–Picot Agreement would help alot.

 

[volprof]

Reversing the effects of the Sykes–Picot Agreement would help alot.

Historically, that part of the world has fared best when it had a regional hegemon in place - Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and the Arab caliphs (which were strong because they were heavily Persian-influenced).

The US could have been that hegemon, but it had (past tense is appropriate now) too much working against it: too far away (and therefore, too costly) and not Islamic.

Basically, this points to following dilemma. The Middle East needs fundamental reform to ever experience long-term change, but, due to its geography, that reform is most unlikely, making the only other viable alternative a stable regional hegemon. The problem with that is that there is no viable source in place to be such an authority. Iran is the most well-equipped historically, but has several factors working against it today: namely, the US/Israel will not allow it and Sunnis are likely to never accept it today as they might have had in the past. Saudi Arabia would never work, as it is too insecure at home and not powerful enough technologically or economically. Turkey could be the best candidate today, as it has always managed to tread a fine line between Sunni and Shia and has the economic and technological horses to be up to the task, but with its current leadership, it is unlikely to be either an agent of reform or a committed regional leader. That leaves only Egypt, which is too insecure at home and can't even quell the violence in its own Sinai or in its neighbor to the west.

Theoretically, the world could carve up the Middle East along ethnic/religious lines and along natural geographical barriers (what few there are there) to make nations there more closely resemble reality (certainly this would be more desirable than the current system), but that is highly unlikely, as the world community has neither the commitment to do so nor the power.

We operate under the delusion that every problem can be solved (and the equally deleterious delusion that every problem needs solving), and I think we've only just begun to see what a true stinkhole the Middle East is.

 

[volprof]

On a very related note, a time may come - and I think it is nigh - when we will have to ask ourselves as Americans if the Middle East is worth it.

With innovative technologies for renewable energy rapidly increasing, the Middle East becomes less "worth it" every passing day.

 

[volinbham]

So the feckless need someone who isn't feckless to lead them. I can understand that. I suppose he could be a bit more "hardline," in the sense of setting hard lines and standing by them. I still don't know where exactly that gets us, other than reassuring our feckless allies. I guess that in-and-of-itself warrants merit, but it still doesn't actually solve anything. I guess my biggest criticism of those who criticize Obama's approach to Russia in general is that there is rarely anything that resembles an actual plan, or even strategy, in their critiques. Obama's foreign policy may not be "good," but neither are many of the criticisms of his foreign policy.

My critique (and the French FM as I read it) is that Obama has no plan. It's not about hardline or softline - it's about no line (except the red line of course...).

I honestly would have more support for him if he stood by any position. If he said this is not our fight and thus we will only do this then at least there is a position. Ambiguity is the word the FM used and I agree.

 

[volinbham]

On a very related note, a time may come - and I think it is nigh - when we will have to ask ourselves as Americans if the Middle East is worth it.

With innovative technologies for renewable energy rapidly increasing, the Middle East becomes less "worth it" every passing day.

We could drill, drill, drill too. We could be energy self sufficient if we truly went with an all of the above strategy.

I believe the electorate is already asking this question without knowing it. Trump and Sanders are indicators that people have said everything is on the table.

Our role as the economic stabilization force should be up for question as well.

Let's see how the utopia of Denmark likes losing it's free ride of global peace via US influence, logistics and firepower.

 

[volprof]

My critique (and the French FM as I read it) is that Obama has no plan. It's not about hardline or softline - it's about no line (except the red line of course...).

I honestly would have more support for him if he stood by any position. If he said this is not our fight and thus we will only do this then at least there is a position. Ambiguity is the word the FM used and I agree.

Obama is probably caught in the same dilemma as most of his critics: none of them have any plan, because there isn't really a "good one." But, yes, I see what you're saying. It should be the role of any leader to actually lead with a plan, as inadequate as it would most likely be.

 

[volinbham]

Historically, that part of the world has fared best when it had a regional hegemon in place - Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and the Arab caliphs (which were strong because they were heavily Persian-influenced).

The US could have been that hegemon, but it had (past tense is appropriate now) too much working against it: too far away (and therefore, too costly) and not Islamic.

Basically, this points to following dilemma. The Middle East needs fundamental reform to ever experience long-term change, but, due to its geography, that reform is most unlikely, making the only other viable alternative a stable regional hegemon. The problem with that is that there is no viable source in place to be such an authority. Iran is the most well-equipped historically, but has several factors working against it today: namely, the US/Israel will not allow it and Sunnis are likely to never accept it today as they might have had in the past. Saudi Arabia would never work, as it is too insecure at home and not powerful enough technologically or economically. Turkey could be the best candidate today, as it has always managed to tread a fine line between Sunni and Shia and has the economic and technological horses to be up to the task, but with its current leadership, it is unlikely to be either an agent of reform or a committed regional leader. That leaves only Egypt, which is too insecure at home and can't even quell the violence in its own Sinai or in its neighbor to the west.

Theoretically, the world could carve up the Middle East along ethnic/religious lines and along natural geographical barriers (what few there are there) to make nations there more closely resemble reality (certainly this would be more desirable than the current system), but that is highly unlikely, as the world community has neither the commitment to do so nor the power.

We operate under the delusion that every problem can be solved (and the equally deleterious delusion that every problem needs solving), and I think we've only just begun to see what a true stinkhole the Middle East is.

During my grad studies I needed an elective and took a Political Economy class. Made me wish I'd taken more of them.

One thing that always stood out was Hegemonic Stability Theory.

 

[volprof]

We could drill, drill, drill too. We could be energy self sufficient if we truly went with an all of the above strategy.

I believe the electorate is already asking this question without knowing it. Trump and Sanders are indicators that people have said everything is on the table.

Our role as the economic stabilization force should be up for question as well.

Let's see how the utopia of Denmark likes losing it's free ride of global peace via US influence, logistics and firepower.

Even though it sucks to say, the Middle East is still "worth it," especially as long as Big Oil is allowed to influence our foreign and economic policies. It is still worth it for two reasons. Firstly, great power struggle. (Rule 1 of Great Power Struggle: Never allow any peer(s), even a seemingly peaceful one, to have complete control of any region in particular, especially one of geostrategic interest for its energy, because said peer(s) can one day be your enemy.) Secondly, we still need it economically since our renewables are not advanced enough and systemic enough yet.

But one day, and it will most certainly come, the above will no longer apply. When that day comes, we had best pack our bags and get the hell out as soon as we can, even if it means dumping some allies. And I hope we blow a big fart in their faces on our way out.

 

[volinbham]

Big Oil controls our FP sure but so does Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Labor, Big (insert your favorite special interest impacted by global activity).

Some of this is influence, some is strategic but some of it is inertia and institutionalized thinking.

I sorta pulling for either Trump or Sanders as a crack in the ice of old thinking; an assault on the inertia of conventional wisdom.

We need disruptive innovation in thinking about government. Obviously my preference is that the disruption would be grounded in Constitutional principles but either way some disruptive factor is needed.

Time for a midlife crisis