Speaking of bass-ackwards, truculent policies, the editors of the Wall Street Journal are crestfallen at the advances being made by the Syrian Army with the assistance of Russia, Iran, et al.:
The Syrian disaster is becoming so painfully obvious that even members of the pro-Obama national security establishment are calling for the President to drop his let-it-burn policy. Veteran diplomats Nicholas Burns and James Jeffrey wrote last week in the Washington Post that the Syrian war “has metastasized into neighboring countries and the heart of Europe. It could destabilize the Middle East for a generation.†No kidding.
The duo called for more U.S. help for “the moderate Sunni and Kurdish forces†as well as “the creation of a safe zone in northern Syria to protect civilians, along with a no-fly zone to enforce it.†We wonder where these fellows were five years ago when we and Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham were calling for precisely these steps, but maybe they can shame Mr. Kerry at the next Council on Foreign Relations meeting.
Since neither the rebels nor DAESH have an air force, a “no-fly zone” can only pertain to the Syrian government. Given the present reality that the force they’re trying to prevent from flying is the Russians, it seems to me that trying to establish a “no-fly zone” now brinksmanship of the most extreme kind, giving provoking nuclear Armageddon the old college try.
To what end? There has never been a viable moderate opposition capable of governing a unified Syria or even participating in such a government. The opposition has always treated Sunni Arab domination of Syria as a precondition for the cessation of hostilities.
They are also assuming without evidence that Assad is completely lacking in support among Sunni Arabs. I know of only one way to determine that conclusively. How about an internationally-supervised election?
To what end would they provoke nuclear Armageddon? Some billionaire donors have probably found a way to short civilization and stand to make a financial killing if the real killing starts.
It’s all about presidential politics. The WSJ is committed to the Obama-is-weak narrative, because apparently two and a half wars are not enough.
We should be very glad Mr. Obama walked back his red line on Syria. Either we’d have prevailed against Mr. Assad and be left to try to manage the resulting humanitarian and military shit storm at a cost of god only knows how many hundreds of billions of dollars, or the Russians would have acted earlier to prop up Mr. Assad and we’d be shooting at Russians now.
What I notice is a remarkable lack of pressure from Israel on this, they’re the canary in this mine, if anyone should be panicking you’d think it would be them. So why are they so apparently sanguine about Russia in Syria?
This is a bullet dodged. The Russians want to inherit this mess? Proceed.
I assume it’s because they’re getting what they want right now. I can only speculate as to what that is but my guess is:
a. They want the U. S. to back the rebels against Assad.
b. They want Hezbollah tied up backing Assad.
If so I’m not sure I agree with their implied reasoning but does that sound credible?
The WSJ editors don’t read their own rag. Today they are reporting that Erdogan is having a coniption fit over US aid to the Kurds.
Dugin had it right when he said Sovietphobia was in large part a mask for Russophobia in the US and any part of Europe occupied by the American Empire. Research Cohen’s latest audio interview on Obama/Russia/Ukraine in the Nation. Obama has placed the military
in unprecedented position against Russia since the invasion of Germany WW2.
Furthermore quit giving Obama the credit for retreating on Syria. Putin assisted, or forced him to, doing the chemical weapons deal.
Dave:
I don’t know, but the Israelis are remarkably savvy about DC, so they must know we’re doing fuck-all to support the anti-Assad rebels. I think what the Israelis can’t say is that they’re just fine with Assad. Syria isn’t picking fights with Israel, and better Assad than a Syria with zero government and a hundred terrorist groups. So what strikes me is that Israel is not yelling that we need to either take down Assad or finish off ISIS. Nor are they freaking out about the Russians.
As for Hezbollah, yes, I suspect they’re laughing quietly at Hezbollah’s losses in men and materiel. Not to mention that the whole horror show in Syria and Iraq is making even Netanyahu look like Bernie Sanders.
My take is that the Israelis consider Iran their number one threat. They are mostly fine with IS going after Assad. There are certainly rumors that they have been at least indirectly aiding them, or at least their Sunni benefactors. That said, I don’t think they are wild about Assad. In their best case scenario both sides probably kill themselves off, but I suspect they are OK with the current efforts and that is why they are quiet.
Steve
That’s probably true. If they don’t the Iranians haven’t tried hard enough.
Israeli officials are on record as preferring ISIS to Hezbollah-Damascus-Tehran. Military and civilian officials.
And I cannot brook unread people who give Obama credit for being any kind of dove. He is a neolib hawk through and through. In all likelihood he was vetted by the powers that be before they allowed his initial victory over Hillary.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-great-reversal-obamas-military-buildup-15151