I was surprised when I saw this article at ABC News:
Following lengthy talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow today, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said the United States is not seeking regime change in Syria and that the U.S. and Russia see the conflict “fundamentally very similarly.”
“The United States and its partners are not seeking so-called regime change as it is known in Syria,†Kerry said in a news conference inside the Kremlin, before immediately adding that the U.S. continues to believe that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has no possibility of remaining the country’s leader in the future. However, Kerry said the talks didn’t focus on “what can or can’t be done immediately about Assad†but rather on establishing a political process where Syrians will be able to choose their own leader.
The statement appeared to be the most explicit sign yet that the U.S. is softening its policy towards Assad and marked a significant rhetorical shift for the U.S. towards Russia’s policy in Syria, which previously American officials have said was almost fundamentally at odds with their own.
Short form: Assad stays for now; getting rid of the Alawite regime is not U. S. policy. That strikes me as a major and welcome course correction in American policy.
My immediate reaction was that Sec. Kerry had spoken out of turn and the Obama Administration would be reversing him shortly. However, those who’ve seen the pictures of Victoria Nuland’s reaction to Sec. Kerry’s announcement (to paraphrase it looks as though she’s just eaten a whole cow pie) suggests that she’s been overruled.
About time. One of the biggest errors in Obama’s foreign policy has been his persistence in trying to oust Assad. You might have been able to make a case for it years ago, but Assad clearly stopped being the bad actor in the area long ago.
Steve
President Obama’s biggest mistake was helping the Europeans overthrow Gaddafi. The Egyptian army saved him from that being a bigger disaster, but it is still a large rift.
Now, I expect an apology from those who supported this nonsense, or I expect you to denounce the president, Republicans excepted.
Actually, my previous comment is not quite accurate. Libya is a disaster for the region, and allowing Syria to be taken over by terrorists (ISIS or al-Qaeda) would be worse. The Russians were not going to allow that to happen, and unless Turkey got into a hot war with Russia, no Arab country or countries would ever beat the Russians.
President Obama has reversed positions, and there is no way any terrorist, supporter, or potential recruit will see it as anything else. It will not only tarnish President Obama, but it will also affect the office of president. The next president will need to remove the stain. Among the “civilized” countries, this is not a problem, but for countries where violence is more prevalent, it will be.
The gnashing of teeth, hair pulling, and constant wailing will not help the situation. Like removing a band-aid, it would be best to criticise him once or twice and to be done with it. Carrying on for years will only remind the enemy of the event, and if you really care about a strong US, you do not want to weaken the country for personal pleasure or political gain.
“President Obama has reversed positions, and there is no way any terrorist, supporter, or potential recruit will see it as anything else.”
Nonsense. He went from making Assad his priority to making IS his priority. That should have been done long ago. He finally did the right thing, and the “terrorists” (LOL) aren’t going to see this as tarnishing the presidency.
Steve
@steve
You can pretend whatever you like. Most people, including terrorists, know what “has to go” means, and it does not including staying. According to President Obama, Assad is on the wrong side of history, and therefore, President Obama must be over there as well.
I realize that you are a company man, but you can save the company line bullshit for your political opponents. I do not give a rat’s ass about anybody’s agenda. The world does not work like the grammar school playground. Weakness is not a virtue.
In the real world and in the rough areas, you do not “write a check your ass can’t cash”. Even worse, he could cash it, but he refused. The first is stupid, but it takes balls. The second is simply weak, and nobody in the rough areas of the world respects weakness.
President Obama decided to carry out President Bush’s Iraq withdrawal plan, and he should have left well enough alone. The US had no business meddling in somebody else’s coup attempts unless the proper government asked for assistance – Mubarak, Gaddafi, or Assad. They can deal with their people as they see fit.
If President Obama would like to continue meddling in Middle East affairs, he should have arranged for long term bases in Iraq, and by “arranged”, I mean “make them an offer they can’t refuse”. (It is well past time for playing patty-cake with this region.)
He can either put on his big boy pants or shut the f*ck up. I am sick and tired of listening to the Republicans, conservatives, and right wing complain about him. I defend him where I think he was not wrong, and I would like anybody to deny that my defense is not vigorous.
I am sick and tired of listening to the Democrats, progressives, and left wing defend him. I am not a company man. I do not give a sh*t about him or his agenda. I care about the country and the office of president. Obama, the man, should use the woman’s restroom. He is a worthless sack of sh*t. My two 19 year old nieces have more balls than he does. They want to go to Afghanistan to fight. (They wanted to join the Marine Corps, but my asswipe sister talked them into the National Guard.)
They walked it back today at the White House press briefing.
Most people, including terrorists, know what “has to go†means, and it does not including staying.
I remember when straight talk didn’t need to be explained to people. God, I am old!
TB-In the real world people don’t always make the correct decision the first time. Just a fact. A mark of good leadership is being willing to change when things aren’t working. I have opposed our being heavily involved in Syria. I have explicitly said before that I thought that Obama was wrong for not changing his policy on getting rid of Syria. What they are doing now is the right thing. I would be willing to bet big bucks there aren’t any terrorists out there thinking “Oooo, now Obama’s reputation is tarnished”.
” by “arrangedâ€, I mean “make them an offer they can’t refuseâ€.”
Long term hostile occupations in the ME have always worked out just so well haven’t they? Point of fact, off the top of my head I can’t think of anywhere that the US has had a successful long term occupation in hostile territory. Who has? Russia? Pretty mixed results I would say.
Steve
@steve
President Obama decided to follow President Bush’s plan to withdraw from Iraq leaving no foothold for US forces. The US voters elected Bush and Obama to be president, and each of them thought it was a good idea to withdraw. Nobody called me, and I doubt they would have liked the answer.
President Bush washed his hands of the mess, and most people thought that President Obama had done the same. He did some things after that I did not like. I did my bellyaching, and I try not to bring it up. Everything was everything, but he decided to start meddling there again.
I was not called this time, either.
The reason why Russia, or more properly the Soviet Union, failed is because they are not as ruthless as needed. Uncle Joe may have been able to quell the Afghans, but it takes somebody with a special blood lust and psychotic disregard for other humans – a Mao perhaps. The Russian people are not uncivilized savages.
As to making somebody “an offer they can’t refuse”, it could be “their signature or brains” on a contract but not necessarily. You figure out what makes them tick. If President Bush had wanted long term bases in Iraq, he would have gotten them in there, and President Obama could have done the same.
Often, you do not need to use violence or the credible threat of violence. Money talks – as in long term contracts. Do you really think that the countries that should hate the US are somehow different, or do you think, maybe, it is the billions spent on long term contracts affecting their brains?
You assume everything has a price and everyone can be bought. No true as history shows us. Sometimes the price is just too high. Iraq really didn’t want us occupying their land anymore. They had a price, the ability to imprison and prosecute our soldiers, that was just too high. Even then, it is not clear that Sadr’s people would have gone along, so would likely have been an occupation force in a hostile territory. And all to what end? To act as bodyguards for whatever strong man holds Baghdad? To sit in the middle of the protracted Sunni-Shia civil war?
We should not have wanted to stay. Bush was actually correct in what he did. If they had asked to stay, and been willing to do the things that would have made it worth it to stay, like reach an accord on the oil, real representative government addressing Kurdish issues, etc., it would have been worth it to help them against residual AQ efforts. Wasn’t going to happen. We didn’t know IS was going to come along, so we actually did the right thing.
Steve
Everyone having fun?
Merry Christmas.
@steve
… the ability to imprison and prosecute our soldiers …
They only had what the US allowed them to have. If they would not fight a ragtag terrorist army, they would have been sliced and diced by the US military. The US military has fought with one hand tied behind its back and both legs in a potato sack.
It was/is a moot point. President Bush, President Obama, the Obama voters, and many (most?) of the US public decided they had enough of Iraq. I rarely voice my opinion, and I am usually defending President Obama. If President Bush had arranged for long term bases, I would defend his decision, but he refused to do it.
Your problem is that you do not know how to argue with me. I do not spout the normal Republican, conservative, right-wing company talking points, but I am definitely not in your camp. To make things even worse, I think everybody knows I do not really like the guy, his ideology, or policies, but I defend him and attack his opponents on this issue.
If President Obama wanted to stay, the US would have stayed. Do you think the Cubans are allowing the US to remain in Guantanamo? Do you think the Panamanians or Filipinos kicked out the US? Do you think the Jamaicans will actually kick out the US is the US ever leaves? How about the Germans, Japanese, or S. Koreans? Like everything else, getting your foot in the door is the hard part.
But, none of this matters. Well, it does not matter until you want to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs, and then, you have a real problem. Now, you do not have any place to base troop and to begin a troop build up. This is why when you decide to get out, you get out. Period.
You are trying to push some outdated company line about why he should have gotten out, and it was a bad idea to do this or that. If he wanted out, he should have stayed out. Now there is a bigger mess, and the mess is no longer isolated in Iraq with Iran’s meddling. Now it runs from Libya to Iran, and who know how far it will spread. (I do not count the terrorist division as much of a problem as al-Qaeda.)
I do not follow events in the ME closely enough to know whether ISIS was foreseeable or not. It is my understanding that IS had been around, but I do not know if they were using conventional military munitions and tactics. When I first learned that ISIS was using conventional military munitions and tactics, I immediately knew that this was something different, and it was apparent neither the Administration nor the Republicans could see it.
It was foreseeable that knocking off a dictator was not a good idea. In fact, it was such a bad idea that President Obama repeated it almost every day, and the first chance he had to use his dictum he tossed it aside.
I am not a company man. I do not accept contradictions. Take your pick: If Assad must go, the US is meddling and should have stayed. If the US should have left, Assad should take care of ISIS. Say what you want about them, but the Republicans are consistent.
@steve
In the US, is there anything a Wall Street fat cat cannot get a politician to do? You seem to think the wealthy can buy a lot of power. I guess the US is a foul corrupt nation, but Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are the bastion of honesty. Nobody does anything for money in these places.
It all makes sense now. If the US were only more like the places that want to destroy the US, all would be right. They are the righteous. Silly me, having one’s wife or daughter gang raped is how civilized people conduct investigations.
Maybe I should get my wife a clitoridectomy for Christmas.
“If President Obama wanted to stay, the US would have stayed.”
Only if wanting to stay trumped all other concerns. We would have had to give up immunity, and the Iraqis weren’t willing to do their part by sharing power as I noted above. Bad deal.
” If Assad must go, the US is meddling and should have stayed.”
That only peaked with the Arab Spring and the riots in Syria, well after we were gone. It is simply not feasible to invade and occupy a largish ME country just to force them into letting us have bases there. We have never done that in hostile territory. Germany and Japan were both time limited, and they both had functional, secular government before their war efforts. Also, need I point out that we did stay longer in Afghanistan, a lot longer, and it really hasn’t made much difference. Whenever we leave Afghanistan, be it next year or 20 years from now, it will fall apart as soon as we leave also.
” but Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are the bastion of honesty.”
Nope, they are much more corrupt. However, what you can’t buy is the means to change religious fanatics. No matter what, a large portion of the Sadr camp were going to see it as wrong to be occupied by the US. Sure, you could buy off some of them, but lots of them were not going to sell out their faith. Too many people here in the secular West will never understand that. You do realize that even now Iraq is still rejecting a lot of our help? They really don’t want us there very much.
“I do not follow events in the ME closely enough to know whether ISIS was foreseeable or not.”
Tough call. I really don’t know anyone who predicted that a jihadist group would be able to sign up Saddam’s old military. Once they did that they went from just another group of head choppers to a fighting force. I also don’t think most people thought the Iraqi army would perform as awful as it did. What I think was foreseeable is that there would be Sunni-Shia conflict after we left. While we were there, we saw no movement towards power sharing, oil sharing, etc. We were, in effect, Maliki’s bodyguard while he misruled the country. If we couldn’t force him to change and rule in a way that had a chance to resolve issues while he still needed us, what were the chances he was going to change after the Surge and we left 20,000 troops behind? About zero.
“consistent”
But things change. Issues are so much more complex in the ME that you really can’t have one policy fits all. Assad really is a bad actor. It would be nice if he were gone and we had a better ruler in Syria, but now we should prioritize ISIS.
Steve
Yeah, the Obama Administration has allowed the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Ideally, DAESH would vanish, the Assad regime would vanish, and the Assad regime would be replaced with a liberal democratic one. IMO getting rid of Assad can be deferred until a later date (that’s been Putin’s position) and accepting that the Alawite regime is the lesser evil is pretty likely to be where things end up.
@steve
… give up immunity … sharing power …
[…]
… to invade and occupy …
You live in a fantasy world. The Iraqis never wanted the US in their country, and yet, there we were. Somehow, for all those years, without any agreements, the US was hanging around. The British and French had empires into the 20th century, and they were in places where they were not wanted. This is not some difficult task. The invasion had already taken place, and there is no special trick to colonizing or some offshoot or derivative of it.
As to whether the US should have stayed in Iraq or left, you are attempting to argue with the wrong person. You need to find a Republican, conservative, or right-winger. President Obama ran on getting out of Iraq, and he won – end of story.
Nope, they are much more corrupt. However, what you can’t buy is the means to change religious fanatics. …
With a very few exceptions (Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, and Jesus), everybody can be bought, but money is not always the price. It could be fame. It could be power. It could be your wife not getting gang raped, or your child being able to keep both eyes. It could be 52 virgin little boys waiting to be buggered.
… I really don’t know anyone who predicted …
You follow political pundits, and they do not know their ass from a hole in the ground. Arab armies are worthless. The Jordanians are passable, but barely. Saddam’s army was somewhat acceptable. Training the Iraqis using US methods was foolish. They needed Soviet style methods – elite troops behind the front lines to shoot any deserters.
As to IS becoming ISIS, I do not follow political pundits on issues. I would follow something like Col. Lang’s site, but I am not endorsing his site. Using him as an example, he is a primary source for a lot of knowledge. He is also a secondary source for other issues, and he can be used as a starting point to study more about a subject.
The conventional wisdom is almost always wrong, and what “could never have been predicted” was most usually predicted. You just have to look in the right places.
But things change. Issues are so much more complex in the ME that you really can’t have one policy fits all. …
This is what the Republicans, conservatives, and right-wing have been saying, and it is one of the reasons they wanted the US to remain in Iraq among their long list of policy disputes with President Obama.
They have been consistent. You are trying to have it both ways. Now that it looks like they were right, you are trying to modify your earlier position, and I am not interested. You can make all sorts of claims, but it is nonsense.
I am not really sure what your position is. As far as I can tell, the US should have gotten out of Iraq. Now the US should be dealing with ISIS. ISIS is in Iraq, but Iraq does not want the US in their country. How this is done I am not sure, but to you, contradictions seem not to matter.
In Syria, “Assad must go” has changed to “it would be nice if he were gone”, but the second does not negate the first. I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word “must” is. I know – “It’s a Democrat thing. I just don’t get it.” Maybe one day my brain will be able to twist reality, or I could just start dropping acid.