Obamaspeak on Syria: New wine in old bottle

[bemildred]

Not bad.

---


Obama’s remarks yesterday signaled that Washington hopes to work with Russia rather than confront Russia over Syria. He pooh-poohed the ‘great game’ theories going around. Obama’s punchline:

But we’re not going to make Syria into a proxy war between the United States and Russia. That would be bad strategy on our part… Our battle is with ISIL… This is not some superpower chessboard contest. And anybody who frames it in that way isn’t paying very close attention to what’s been happening on the chessboard.

---

It is in such that Obama stands out as an extraordinary statesman. To realize one’s own weakness – and, to admit it openly – does not come easy, especially for a politician – and that too, an American president.

In this case, it is not only the loneliness of a long-distance runner but the exasperating conduct of a political class that is myopic or delusionary – “And when I hear people offering up half-baked ideas as if they are solutions, or trying to downplay the challenges involved in this situation – what I’d like to see people ask is, specifically, precisely, what exactly would you do, and how would you fund it, and how would you sustain it? And typically, what you get is a bunch of mumbo jumbo”.

Perhaps, the most significant part of Obama’s remarks was the quiet confidence he exuded in anticipating that at some point Putin too would “begin to recognize that it is in their interest to broker a political settlement”. Therefore, Obama said, “we’re prepared to work with the Russians and the Iranians… to come up with that political transition [in Syria]… I think it is still possible. And so we will maintain lines of communication”.

http://atimes.com/2015/10/obamaspeak-on-syria-new-wine-in-old-bottle/

[bemildred]

1. Take Putin at his word: Social disintegration in the Middle East is the issue

Russia’s intervention in Syria seems to demarcate a major change in Russian policy. Russia in the past sought to benefit from instability, but it now fears instability. Russia and China appear aligned on the issue.

Vladimir Putin’s Sept. 28 address to the UN General Assembly was the most lucid account of the state of the world I have heard from any national leader in decades. It’s painful to hear the truth from Putin, but infinitely more painful to ignore it. Not only Russia, but China as well, regards the metastasizing Islamist movement as an existential threat. A seventh of the Russian population are Muslims; there probably are fewer than 25 million in China, but they dominate China’s enormous and sparsely-settled Western province of Xinjiang. We are not playing on the old chessboard of the Cold War, but on the suppurating ground of civilizational collapse.

http://atimes.com/2015/09/take-putin-at-his-word-social-disintegration-in-the-middle-east-is-the-issue/

[malthaussen]

2. I've been pretty much avoiding comment on this issue here at DU

...because it opens up too much potential for cans of worms about religious and cultural prejudices. But on the one hand, while I am skeptical that IS represents any reasonable existential threat to civilization as we know it (except in the region itself, where you can forget about it), on the other hand when the major powers are all showing signs of serious concern (however confused), I have to wonder what they know that I don't. And after all, Mohammed started out with only a handful of followers.

-- Mal

[bemildred]

3. Spengler tends to have a thing about civilizational collapse,

generally centered on Islam. They did it before you know. I think it's more ecological collapse we need to worry about, but ...

Anyway, it's worried me since they took Mosul and I got acquainted, there as aspects of ISIL that are very movement-like, ideological, and fanatical. They are trouble, and we have a world ripe for trouble.

And then there are the refugees, and even if they are not all due to ISIL, they still have plenty to answer for and they make great scapegoats. Even the Sauds are against ISIL theoretically, that is the argument being made, that supporting Assad helps ISIL, and Russia is not attacking ISIL, and so on.

[malthaussen]

5. I'm with you on the ecological collapse thing.

Quite literally, we are fiddling while Rome burns.

I also agree that IS is trouble, not so much because of their fundamentalist religious world-view (although that is definitely not good), but because I think we (the First World, if you will) have created conditions such that a whole generation of people have nothing to do but burn down the world. Idle hands being the Devil's playthings, and all. While in "civilized" areas, we are working ourselves to death (and consuming more resources, hastening the day of that ecological collapse), in other areas of the world there is poverty, starvation, and no infrastructure or support to give the people any reason to build up (and the fact that we bomb them back to the stone age whenever they lift their heads has got to be plenty discouraging, too). You know the old line, "when you ain't got nuthin', you've got nuthin' to lose." The rich countries of the Earth have created a world where more and more of the people ain't got nuthin' -- and when combined with the vast amounts of free weapons floating around, this is a recipe for disaster. But it seems like Vietnam to me, as well: short of turning the region into a parking lot, what exactly do we think we can do except add to the body count? I've never known bombing to change anybody's mind, and I have a distinct suspicion that it is about as effective in the current Mideast situation as it was in Vietnam. But we love our bombs. OTOH, we aren't too crazy about Putin's.

-- Mal

[bemildred]

6. Yep. nt

[bemildred]

4. And I share your skepticism about the magnitude of the threat. nt

[KoKo]

7. Putin’s Blitz Leaves Washington Rankled and Confused

(An interesting bit at the end about what could be Putin's Strategy...or not. Whitney can get a bit excited at times in his articles--but, I thought this was an interesting read)

------------------

Putin’s Blitz Leaves Washington Rankled and Confused

By Mike Whitney

October 02, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "Counterpunch"- On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a blistering critique of US foreign policy to the UN General Assembly.

On Tuesday, Barack Obama shoved a knife in Putin’s back. This is from Reuters:

“France will discuss with its partners in the coming days a proposal by Turkey and members of the Syrian opposition for a no-fly zone in northern Syria, French President Francois Hollande said on Monday…

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius “in the coming days will look at what the demarcation would be, how this zone could be secured and what our partners think,” Hollande told reporters on the sidelines of the annual United Nations General Assembly…

Hollande said such a proposal could eventually be rubber-stamped with a U.N. Security Council resolution that “would give international legitimacy to what’s happening in this zone.”…(France, partners to discuss northern Syria ‘safe zone’: Hollande, Reuters)

Hollande is a liar and a puppet. He knows the Security Council will never approve a no-fly zone. Russia and China have already said so. And they’ve explained why they are opposed to it, too. It’s because they don’t want another failed state on their hands like Libya, which is what happened last time the US and NATO imposed a no-fly zone.

But that’s beside the point. The real reason the no-fly zone issue has resurfaced is because it was one of the concessions Obama made to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for the use of Incirlik airbase. Washington has kept the terms of that deal secret, but Hollande has let the cat out of the bag.

So who put sock-puppet Hollande up to this no-fly zone nonsense?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43022.htm

[bemildred]

8. Whitney is always entertaining.

I read him with somewhat the same attitude that I read Rude Pundit.

[malthaussen]

9. "they don't want another failed state on their hands..."

,,,like Libya? Instead, they want a failed state like Syria or Iran? The reporter may be correct in his assessment, but if so that is so damned illogical thinking. Which is no surprise.

However, my suspicion is that they don't care one percent about the state, they just want to ensure (somehow) the continued flow of petrochemicals. If IS could guarantee that, the tune would change instantly.

-- Mal

[bemildred]

10. With the exception of the pro-Assad team I think they are all butt covering.

To be clear. Generally in the form of casting doubt on the Russians activities. Various pretexts have been advanced for that, but none of them really hold up under examination. But for the purpose, saving face, they work fine.

Russia is new in the game and doesn't have much to apologize for yet in Syria.

[KoKo]

14. This bit from Whitney that I thought was an interesting reminder:

My thoughts about the Turkey Air Base deal:

Remember the Kurd free "buffer zone" that Turkey wanted? And, wasn't it shortly after the agreement to allow U.S. to use Incirlik that the Kurds started to be attacked and pushed back? Some articles seem to suggest that Turkey under its current leadership had "pulled a fast one" on the U.S. because it allowed them to attack the Kurds on their border which Turkey has always seen as a threat. The U.S. got what it wanted using the air base and Turkey got what their leadership wanted for the next election?

I could see Putin watching that situation closely and the aftermath when the U.S. increased its Syrian airstrikes which seemed to have accomplished little as ISIS (that conglomerate of varying factions) continued to advance. Concerns about protecting Russia's base there gives him a plausible reason to protect his territory and a bit of an "out" because of the growing backlash of the streams of refugees pouring into Europe...many dying along the way, which is finally recognized as causing humanitarian relief problems (and money) for the Eurozone and soon here in the USA. Putin has his interests and there is such a mess in the ME with U.S. allies failed policy...the time was ripe.

I do wonder if Obama isn't very happy to hand off the mess to Putin...although I don't see how that insulates him from the NeoCon/McCain/Cheney rabid attacks. Except that they have nothing better to offer but more "Boots the Ground and Bomb Away" which is what Obama alluded to in his latest address.

From the article:

The significance of the Reuters article cannot be overstated. It suggests that there was a quid pro quo for the use of Incirlik, and that Turkey’s demands were accepted. Why is that important?

Because Turkey had three demands:

1–Safe zones in north Syria (which means that Turkey would basically annex a good portion of Syrian sovereign territory.)
2–A no-fly zone (which would allow either Turkish troops, US Special Forces or US-backed jihadi militants to conduct their military operations with the support of US air cover.)
3–A commitment from the US that it will help Turkey remove Assad.

Did Obama agree to all three of these demands before Erdogan agreed to let the USAF use Incirlik?

[bemildred]

17. Turkey does not have that kind of leverage over the US.

Turkey is part of NATO and cannot do whatever it likes militarily.

The OP is the best deconstruction of the situation I've seen so far; it is too soon to speculate about Putin's intentions, other than that he intends to protect Assad and the coast. I suspect he will see how many jihadis he can kill how spectacularly. Some suggest he will try to take back all of Syria, but I doubt it. Somebody else like Iran might decide to do that, but without Putin.

You have to remember this is still a theatrical war, a proxy war. I find Bhadrakumar's notion that Putin will be allowed to curb Erdogan interesting. Erdogan, like Bibi, is not antagonizing Putin now, where you would think he would be very upset.

[bemildred]

19. This is happening now for two reasons:

1.) The Iran deal is done.
2.) Turkey opened the gates of the refugee camps.

One suspects that Erdogan did that in a fit of pique, and he will now regret it.

[bemildred]

21. Some examples of "casting doubt":

Russia’s military is unlikely to turn the tide in Syria’s war

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russias-military-is-unlikely-to-turn-the-tide-in-syrias-war/2015/10/03/1b9fff04-686a-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205_story.html

Is Putin Winning?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-is-putin-winning.html?_r=0

Cameron Adds to Criticism of Russian Airstrikes in Syria

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cameron-adds-to-criticism-of-russian-airstrikes-in-syria-1443886450

This is tame stuff as Putin criticism goes, no threats, just a sincere concern for the Russians success in helping us fight ISIL.

[bemildred]

22. Angelo Codevilla: Russia doesn’t have its objectives conditioned by lesser powers

Iran is not in a position to make anything “a condition of its cooperation with the Russians.” And the Russians, unlike the fools in Washington, are not in business to have their objectives conditioned by lesser powers.

Few errors are as fundamental in Washington as the assumption that Russia is adding water to Iran’s mill–or indeed to Assad’s or to anyone else’s. Russia is supporting them only insofar as they help Russia to accomplish its objectives in the Med and with regard to the Sunni militancy that threaten its Caucasian parts. They will dump Assad for someone more pliant and salonfaehig. As for Iran, it is paying top dollar for Russian equipment (think of those $150 billion). I would not bet on those S-300s being operable when the Russians decide they should not be. Russia will then cut deals with the Saudis/Egyptians, with whom it has no fundamental quarrel any more than with Israel.
Yes. Russia, is playing an “elementary, dear Watson” game.

http://atimes.com/2015/10/angelo-codevilla-russia-doesnt-have-its-objectives-conditioned-by-lesser-powers/

And similarly on the other side too.

[bemildred]

11. Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu says its relationship with Russia is 'good'

See? Bibi wants to get along too. We are all going to look forward now.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel wants to avoid an adversarial relationship with Moscow and is unsure how Russia's recent military intervention in Syria will affect the situation there.

---

"We don't want to go back to the days when, you know, Russia and Israel were in an adversarial position," said Netanyahu, who met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow late last month.

"I think we've changed the relationship. And it's, on the whole, good."

---

"I'm not going to rehash the deal," he said. "... Let's look forward. Let's keep Iran's feet to the fire. Let's make sure that they keep all their obligations under the nuclear deal."

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-israel-pm-benjamin-netanyahu-says-its-relationship-with-russia-is-good-2131361

[KoKo]

15. Yes...a bit of a Cheshire Cat smile there from BiBi...

I thought that Russia supplies replacement parts for some of Israel's fighter jets, though. Some article I read said they keep their older jets going on those parts. The new stuff comes from the U.S. If that is true, then Bibi probably doesn't want to risk getting on Putin's bad side at this point. Or he has thoughts of making a deal in some other way.

[bemildred]

20. Israel has large population of Russian extaction and they have power.

And economic ties too. Bibi and Putin both prefer to get along whatever their differences.

[bemildred]

23. As Syria Reels, Israel Looks to Expand Settlements in Golan Heights

And this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/world/middleeast/syria-civil-war-israel-golan-heights.html

[KoKo]

26. Very interesting slide show on the Golan Heights.

also the article. I had no idea what GH looked like. I've only seen maps and thought it was just Desert strip that bordered Syria as a buffer zone which Israel had annexed for security reasons and not the lush terrain described in article and photos. That its being developed at this time makes one wonder: "What could go wrong?"

I also found it surprising to see this from NYT.

Also this slide show from Yemen at your NYT link:

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2015/09/13/world/middleeast/yemen-air-campaign-s-heavy-toll/s/13yemen-ss-slide-EXTL.html

[bemildred]

12. Dyer: In Syria, a war renewed

---

If you want to stop ISIS, you have to do it with troops, and the only ground troops fighting ISIS in Syria are the Syrian army and the Kurds along the northern border with Turkey. But the U.S. has been duped by Turkey into betraying the Kurds, and it will not use its airpower to help the Syrian army, which is now on the ropes.

That’s why Palmyra fell to Islamic State forces in May. Despite all the other American airstrikes against ISIS forces in Syria, it made not one to help the Syrian forces when they were desperately defending the historic city, and so they eventually had to retreat. It was more important to Washington not to be seen helping Assad than to save the city.

This is a fine moral position, as Assad’s regime is a deeply unattractive dictatorship. Indeed, the great majority of the 4 million Syrians who have fled the country were fleeing the regime’s violence, not that of ISIS. But if you don’t want the Islamist extremists to take over the country (and maybe Lebanon and Jordan as well), and you’re not willing to put troops on the ground yourself, who else would you help?

Washington’s fantasy solution to this problem has been to create a “third force” of rebels who will somehow defeat Islamic State while diplomacy somehow removes Assad. But the other big rebel organizations in Syria, al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham, are also Islamists, little different from ISIS in their ideology and goals. In fact al-Nusra is a breakaway faction of ISIS, now affiliated with al-Qaida. (Remember al-Qaida? Chaps who did the 9/11 attacks?)

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20151003/OPINION/151008180/2011/OPINION

[bemildred]

13. Russia vows to intensify Syria bombing campaign

---

Summing up the results of Russia's first three days of strikes, a senior official with the General Staff said Russian jets had made more than 60 sorties over 50 IS targets and added that Russia would ramp up its aerial campaign.

"Our intelligence shows that militants are leaving areas under their control. Panic and desertion have started in their ranks," Colonel General Andrei Kartapolov, a senior Russian General Staff official, said in a statement.

---

Kartapolov said Russian officials had contacted their foreign counterparts and recommended that they pull their personnel from the region.

Russia also recommended that Washington pull out "those valuable employees who were trained at the expense of American taxpayers," Kartapolov said with heavy irony.

http://www.france24.com/en/20151003-russia-vows-intensify-syria-bombing-campaign

[KoKo]

16. ...!

Oh my! I've read the Russians have a great sense of humor and irony...

Russia also recommended that Washington pull out "those valuable employees who were trained at the expense of American taxpayers," Kartapolov said with heavy irony.

[bemildred]

18. Yeah, they do it all the time.

Lavrov is very entertaining at times, he has a great deadpan, so serious, like a Saint Bernard.

[KoKo]

24. Max Fisher at VOX didn't take kindly to the Kerry/Lavrov Presser....

I watched it at the time and thought it was interesting that Lavrov reveled his pretty good command of the English language but did think it was a bit awkward--in that they didn't seem quite coordinated and it seemed hastily convened. It's been pretty obvious that they get along very well from the Iran Negotiation snips that were shown on MSM, though. I also wondered if Obama had approved their appearance together. Although my view wasn't as harsh as Max.

But Max thought it was a bad idea:

John Kerry just made a significant and consequential gaffe on Russia and Syria
Updated by Max Fisher on September 30, 2015, 7:44 p.m. ET @Max_Fisher [email protected]

Early Wednesday evening in New York, a few hours after Russia's intervention force in Syria began bombing targets on the ground, Secretary of State John Kerry did something odd: He gave a joint statement with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

The two men, standing shoulder to shoulder somewhere in the United Nations building, said they were working to, as Lavrov put it, Kerry nodding along at his side, "establish channels of communications to avoid any unintended incidents" between their militaries in Syria, as well as work on the "political process" for resolving Syria's war.

They didn't say much. But the event spoke volumes, and probably not in ways that the United States wants, intended, or will find helpful.

This press conference was a bad idea

The statement was brief, vague, and unnecessary. Kerry, though he is known as spectacularly talented in behind-the-scenes negotiations, can be clumsy when it comes to managing on-camera stagecraft. But this was more than just bad stagecraft — it was a real mistake, one that could be have consequences that, while not world-changing, go beyond mere optics.

The image of Kerry nodding alongside Lavrov, the two of them discussing their efforts to "deconflict" in Syria, lent, however unintentionally, the appearance of an American stamp of legitimacy on Russia's Syria intervention. It will be difficult for the Obama administration to shake the appearance that it's decided to accept Russia's intervention and to deem it as legitimate.

That's more than just a gaffe when the entire world is watching to see how the United States handles Russia's Syria strikes and is waiting to take — or not take — America's cue.

More at:

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9429039/syria-russia-kerry-lavrov/in/9204014

[bemildred]

25. Well, the War Party does not like it.

Remember Nuland trying to stop Putin's supply flights through Bulgaria? But they are not in control now, that stopped when Obama met Putin and the person handling Syria got to resign. So now it's just bloviating. Meanwhile Kerry seems to have been given a new task, hence the rough performance at the presser. Like improv.

[KoKo]

27. ...?

Was that General Allen who resigned? The one who leaked that only 4 trainees of CIA were operative. Weren't there supposed to be 150-200 trained to get the Anti-Assad rebels into shape to fight ISIS...but, most of them were captured or killed and only four were left? I never heard it mentioned that there were only 4 left because the others were captured or killed. But, my reading source might not have had the correct info.

Still it makes no sense, logically, that only 4 would have been trained...just on the face of it. And, I haven't heard much follow up since the blurb that Allen resigned. Assume he was fired for leaking that...but, maybe I have the wrong general.

Anyway..yes..does seem Kerry has new task. Thanks for reminder re Nuland....if she's truly sidelined that would be positive step.

[bemildred]

28. This one:

Pentagon's top Russia official resigns

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/pro-defense-farkas-wrightewing-214223

There was another story a bit before that, not specific, about the Pentagon being replaced by Kerry.

All you can REALLY infer from that is Obama wants to go the diplomatic route, hence want Kerry & Lavrov.

The Ukraine thing looks like it is going to "freeze" now too.

[KoKo]

29. Thx...a bit more on Farkas

I'd never heard of her so did some more searching for her background to see if any affiliation with NeoCons/Nuland, etc. Didn't find anything in her bio's or background that would link her.

But here is another article which popped up reporting what the Politco Link says from the Same Reporters but, oddly, adds more information. It's from a RW source but does give more specific links to her travels in Ukraine and Georgia that are interesting additions.

Yes..very interesting that she is now gone from her position..

-------

Pentagon's top Russia official resigns

By Austin Wright and Philip Ewing

09/29/15 02:20 PM EDT

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/29/report-obamas-top-russia-official-resign/

“There are not a lot of Europe experts in this administration who have a long record of accomplishment,” said the official. “There’s no doubt this leaves the Pentagon weaker in terms of its policy-making on European issues.”

Farkas received her appointment five years ago. She was one of the few people in Obama’s administration that vocally opposed Russian aggression towards Ukraine, including the annexation of Crimea.

“Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukrainian sovereign territory and continued aggressive actions are not just a threat to European security, but a challenge to the international order,” she told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in May 2014.

She visited Ukrainian troops in May with U.S. Army Europe commander Lieutenant-General Ben Hodges in Yavoriv. The U.S. Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team were training the troops to combat against Russian forces. Moscow claimed the training could lead to more destabilization in Ukraine.

“I don’t know how it could possibly be considered destabilizing… The big difference is that we are here at the invitation of the Ukrainian government. The Russians are in Ukraine at nobody’s invitation,” said Hodges.

She also took part in a meeting between the U.S. and Georgia in April to work on “defense and security” within the country’s “strategic partnership charter.” Georgia remains concerned about Russia as they control two breakaway regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

“The United States will continue to remain active in the region and to strengthen our defense and security relationship with Georgia under the umbrella of strategic partnership commission,” said Farkas.


On Monday, Obama and Putin met in person for the first time in two years to discuss the Syrian civil war and Ukraine crisis. Russia is a strong ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad while the U.S., along an international coalition, want Assad to step down. American leadership has publicly been out of out of sync, as Obama told the UN that Assad must go, but Secretary of State John Kerry said the dictator is needed in the “long term” for Syria.

As Politico points out, Obama dismissed Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel “after he urged a stronger American response to Russia’s aggression” and did not agree with the president about “arming so-called moderate Syrian fighters against the Islamic State.” On Saturday, officials confessed Syrian rebels handed over their U.S. weapons and equipment to al-Qaeda.

[bemildred]

30. Thank you, that is indeed interesting.

You see how the Russians are parroting her language in Syria:

The big difference is that we are here at the invitation of the Ukrainian government. The Russians are in Ukraine at nobody’s invitation

And she is involved in the Saakashvili business in Odessa, I would indeed wager that is one of Nuland's minions, officially or not.

[bemildred]

31. Everything You Need to Know About Russia's Intervention in Syria

Russia has started military operations in Syria. Here’s what we know so far.

As reported worldwide last week, Russia has started bombing a range of targets in Syria. The main purpose of this intervention is to prop up Bashar al-Assad’s flagging regime, which has been under siege by the Islamic State, western-backed rebels, and al-Qaeda- affiliated groups, such as the al-Nusra front. Looking at Bellingcat’s report and images of the Bassel al-Assad airbase at Latakia, we can discern that Moscow has deployed at least 12 fighter-bombers (SU-25 Frogfoot.) (The BBC claims that at least 20 jets have been deployed to Syria.) Dave Majumdar at The National Interest also reports that Russia has deployed 10 SU-24M2 Fencer and four SU-34 Fullback.

According to the Russian government, these planes are supposed to provide close air support for Assad’s troops fighting IS. However, Washington has accused Moscow of also striking rebel groups affiliated with the western-backed Free Syrian Army. (The Russian Ministry of Defense has released drone videos showing airstrikes against IS; you can see them here.)

Russia has apparently also deployed attack helicopters to Syria. According to an unconfirmed photo, this includes one of Russia’s most heavy-hitting choppers, the Mi-24, nicknamed “the flying tank.” Dmitry Adamsky just published a great article in Foreign Affairs laying out what this might mean for Russia’s foreign policy.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/everything-you-need-to-know-about-russias-intervention-in-syria/