Carter: US Not Cooperating With Russia Against Islamic State
Source: Associated Press
ROME — Oct 7, 2015, 12:29 PM ET
U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Wednesday the U.S.-led coalition has not agreed to cooperate with Russia in the fight against the Islamic State and no collaboration is possible as long as Moscow continues to strike other targets.
He said the U.S. will conduct basic, technical talks with Russia about efforts to ensure that flights over Syria are conducted safely, and, "That's it."
Carter spoke during a press conference in Rome with Italian Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti. A Russian official has called for broader talks on cooperation in the Syrian conflict.
The United States, Carter said, is not prepared to cooperate with a strategy of Russia's that is "tragically flawed."
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/carter-us-cooperating-russia-islamic-state-34308416
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)I just love this approach to diplomacy. We do this all the time. We refuse to discuss critical issues with other nations because there are critical differences between us, so, basically, "We won't talk to them until there is nothing to talk about." Makes sense to me!
potone
(1,701 posts)I don't see how this can end well.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)I think all we did was make the situation worse by helping the "moderate rebel forces." Certainly, with Russia and the US helping opposite sides, the conflict will be longer and bloodier than it would have been otherwise.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)borders insulated with countries that support them. Assad does.
uawchild
(2,208 posts)"You don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies." Communication is essential.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)"My opponents are in front of me, my enemies are to my rear"
In the British Parliament, the "Government" (The ruling party or coalition) sits on benches opposite the members of Parliament NOT in the Government. Thus the Prime Minster sits opposite the leader of the opposition and their fellow party members sit behind both of them. Thus in Churchill's opinion his enemies were within his own party, Labour was only the opposition.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)During the height of the Vietnam War a US Senator advised Lyndon Johnson to Declare victory in Vietnam and pull out. i.e say we accomplished what we wanted to do and thus won, we are now leaving South Vietnam to handle the VIet Cong by themselves. Putin has no ground forces in Syria, he is relying on Syrian and Iranian ground forces. Putin can bomb the opposition to his heart's content, and any any time declared the job over and it is up to Syrian forces to clean up what remains. Given the mountains along the coast and Lebanon are all loyal to Assad the bombing should be enough. It was enough in El Salvador, it was enough in Greece and Turkey in the post WWII era. People forget that in most guerrilla wars, the rebellion is crushed, it is the exception for the guerrilla's to win. Thus Putin is NOT looking into a Quagmire, but a short quick war that destroy the infrastructure support for ISIS and once that is destroyed it is up to the Syrians to finished them off.
Putin has a fair portion of the EU, and China at his back, at least for now, and all the positional advantages you could want. When Erdogan opened those Refugee Camp Gates, he opened Pandora's Box, he did.
I am still sort of amazed at the delusional policies, Merkel seems to be a fool. But I thought that after how she handled Ukraine too.
Mostly I'm wondering what the Persians will do, and what Putin will let them do.
I don't expect the Chinese will leave much beside commercial people. The stick and the carrot, Russia and China
And we and our allies have to decide whether to thrash around some more or start making sense again. We used to know how to make sense, I remember it.
Yeah, mountains are easy to defend, that's why you find old peoples there, Kurds, Basque, Berber.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)The US just might form a committee to issue a sternly worded comunique.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has said he is losing patience with Russian jets crossing the border after Moscow launched an air campaign in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad last week. "An attack on Turkey means an attack on NATO," he warned.
The military alliance has, rhetorically at least, leapt to Turkey's defence, describing the Russian violations as "extremely dangerous", raising the prospect of direct confrontation between the former Cold War adversaries.
Russia's actions are galling for Erdoğan, who has lobbied in vain for Assad's removal. The Syrian army carried out what appeared to be its first major assault backed by Russian air strikes on Wednesday, highlighting how Turkey has been left impotent as the conflict over its southern border takes on an increasingly international dimension.
"Russia coming in highlights that Turkey's policies in Syria are not working," said Jonathan Friedman, Turkey analyst at Stroz Friedberg, a risk consultancy.
http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_furious-but-powerless-turkey-left-smarting-by-russian-action-in-syria_400906.html
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)Three years after 9/11, President Bush appeared to draw the same line in the sand. Addressing members of the 101st Airborne Division, he declared, “If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist.”
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and Russian aircraft have not only bombed at least two of our ally rebel groups, they have been increasingly encroaching on airspace where NATO aircraft are conducting operations...
It's only a matter of time before Russia "accidentally" shoots down another western aircraft, and then the shit hits the fan...
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)any Doctors Without Borders to bomb. Seriously, we are in no position to declare moral high ground.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Don't forget to demand an independent investigation of this one, too...
Thank you, good night, and drive home safely.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I guess that makes everything alright then.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)It's pretty embarrassing to note that Russia will have this done in a much shorter timeframe, should they choose to. So again, what's our stated purpose there, and what good can we possibly do in the area?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Obama said he didn't want to arm rebels, but actually did so for years. He said Assad must go, repeatedly, but did little to make that happen besides half-heartedly arming/supporting/training aforementioned rebels. He wanted the Pentagon to train a fighting force, but only to fight ISIS, NOT Assad--even though he still said Assad must go, even though we already had CIA trained rebels in the field to fight Assad. Not sure what kind of hocus-pocus was going on there, assigning two different agencies to two separate missions in the same country. The administration can't decide if it will even DEFEND our rebels. The ISIS war stalled out since last spring--we cut back on airstrikes that were helping the Kurds, in order to woo Turkey into letting us use Incirlik AB, we stood back and watched Ramadi fall in Iraq, plans to retake Mosul were revealed "by accident" at CentCom and suddenly were no more...There's no ISIS war czar soon, John Allen is leaving that post...I mean, we've been flailing for months. I think it was because we were afraid of pissing off Iran and wanted the Iran deal to happen above all. As soon as that ink was dry, Iran and Russia made their move in Syria. Their main objective is to prop up Assad--crystal-clear and achievable. We need to completely cede Syria, at this point. There's no reason to risk a major war, we have little at stake except for some endangered rebels and our ISIS efforts to date.
ausboy
(11 posts)It's Saudia Arabia and it's regional allies that want Assad gone. Do we really think that Assad is that bad a threat directly to US interests? Ofcourse not.
So regional enemies of Syria, who are US allies, will pay the US to be a mouth piece for the world stage. That's why there's the constant changing of policy and lack of direction... Because the direction is dictated by the oil powers.
I agree to cede Syria would be wise - but the Saudis are not going to give up that easily, no matter how much the US would like to do so...
Every time there's a shift of policy, never just look at the policy and the said reasons. what isn't said is always more important than what is said.
Go back several years, and the proposed pipeline that was supposed to run through Syria and provide gas to Europe, is the nexus of this thing. If it went ahead, it would've starved Russia's gas export. However Syria rejected the demand, and surprise surprise Assad all of a sudden became a tyrant, a dictator or human rights abuses etc etc.
Amazingly, nothing is ever said about the far more entrenched Saudi human rights abuses...
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Would Turkey be next?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)It also has a long-standing alliance with Russia.
eissa
(4,238 posts)Maybe Russia can do what other nations have not for the past five miserable years -- put an end to this madness. You whine about REFUGEES flooding Europe, yet complain when Russia gets involved to help stop this ruthless war and allow people to regain some type of normalcy back in to their lives. Our misguided efforts to help "moderate" rebels is pathetic; "moderate rebel" is about as real as compassionate conservative.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)If your understanding of what you want and how you plan to get it is confused, as our policies have been since the Neocons realized their mistake in Iraq, then you are unlikely to get it. Instead of getting ahead of the curve of change, we chose to hang on to a delusional past and procrastinate, essentially assuming a defensive posture on turf that was not our own, half-way around the planet. Vietnam in the desert, just like we said in 2003.
