Author Topic: Syria  (Read 119372 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #250 on: July 30, 2015, 02:31:26 PM »


Syria

The U.S. has spent nearly $500 million to train just 60 rebels from the Free Syrian Army to take on Islamic State. Now, just two weeks after they hit the ground in Turkey, the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra has kidnapped one of their leaders. Reuters reports that Nusra fighters captured Nadim al-Hassan, a leader from the "Division 30" group, north of Aleppo.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18496
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18496
    • View Profile
murdering people with guns bombs knives etc
« Reply #252 on: April 07, 2017, 11:04:24 AM »

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1548
    • View Profile
Facta Non Verba
« Reply #253 on: April 09, 2017, 09:35:22 AM »
Did Prez Trump do a "Facta Non Verba" on Assad?
So he could control him?
Yes, he did on Assad, N Korea, China...


https://medium.com/incerto/facta-non-verba-how-to-own-your-enemies-ea79a34c9c49

Facta non Verba: How to Own Your Enemies

Dead horse in your bed — Friendship via poisoned cake –Roman Emperors and U.S. presidents –A living enemy is worth ten dead ones

The best enemy is the one you own by putting skin in his game and letting him know the exact rules that come with it. You keep him alive, in the knowledge that he owes this to your benevolence. The notion that an enemy you own is better than a dead one was perfected by the order of the Assassins, so we will do some digging into the work of that secret society.

An offer very hard to refuse

There is this formidable scene in the Godfather when a Hollywood executive wakes up with the bloody severed head of a horse in his bed, his cherished race horse.  He had refused to hire a Sicilian American actor for reasons that appeared iniquitous, as while he knew the latter was the best for the role, he was resentful of the “olive oil voice” that charmed one of his past mistresses and fearful of its powers to seduce future ones. It turned out that the actor, who in real life was (possibly) Frank Sinatra, had friends and friends of friends, that type of thing; he was even the godson of a capo. A visit from the consigliere of the “family” neither succeeded to sway the executive, nor softened his Hollywood abrasiveness –the fellow failed to realize that by flying across the country to make the request, the high ranking mobster was not just providing the type of recommendation letter you mail to the personnel department of a state university. He had made him an offer that he could not refuse (the expression was popularized by that scene in the movie).

It was a threat, and not an empty threat.

As I am writing these lines, people discuss terrorism and terrorist groups while making a severe category mistakes; there are in fact two totally distinct varieties. The first are terrorists that are terrorists for about every person equipped with ability to discern and isn’t a resident of Saudi Arabia or works for a think tank funded by Sheikhs; the second are militia groups largely called terrorists by their enemies, and “resistance” or “freedom fighters” by those who don’t dislike them.

The first includes nonsoldiers who indiscriminately kill civilians for effect and don’t bother with military targets as their aim isn’t to make military gains, just to make a statement, harm some living humans, produce some noise and, for some, a low-error way to go to paradise. Most Sunni Jihadis, of the type to take incommensurable pleasure in blowing up civilians, such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, the “moderate rebels” in Syria sponsored by former U.S. president Obama’s, are in that category. The second group is about strategic political assassination –the Irish Republican Army, most Shiite organizations, Algerian independence fighters against France, French resistance fighters during the German occupation, etc.

For Shiites and similar varieties in the Near and Middle East, the ancestry, methods, and rules originate in the order of the Assassins, itself following the modus of the Judean Sicarii during Roman times. The Sicarii are named after the daggers they used to kill Roman soldiers and, mostly their Judean collaborators, owing to what they perceived was the profanation of the Temple and the land.

I have the misfortune to know a bit about the subject as I am the only one of those “notable” former students listed on the Wikipedia page of the Lycée Franco-Libanais, my elementary and high school, whose notability doesn’t originate for having, like my classmates and childhood friends, having being the victim of a successful or attempted assassination.

The Assassins

Sanjar became in 1118 the sultan of the Seljuk Turkish Empire of Asia minor (that is, modern day Turkey), Iran, and parts of Afghanistan. Soon after his accession, he woke up one day with a dagger next to his bed, firmly planted in the ground. In one version of the legend, a letter informed him that the dagger thrusted in hard ground was preferable to the alternative, being plunged in his soft breast. It was a characteristic message of the Hashishins, a.k.a. Assassins, making him aware of the need to leave them alone, say send them birthday gifts, or hire their actors for his next movie. Sultan Sanjar had previously snubbed their peace negotiators; so they moved to phase two of a demonstrably well planned out process. They convinced him that his life was in their hands and that, crucially, he didn’t have to worry if he did the right thing –they had proven to him that they were both in control and reliable. Indeed Sanjar and the Assassins had a happy life ever-after.

You will note that no explicit verbal threat was issued. Verbal threats reveal nothing other than weakness and unreliability. Remember, once again, no verbal threats.

The Assassins were a 11th-14th C. sect related to Shiite Islam and was (and still is through its reincarnations) violently anti-Sunni. They were often associated with the Knight Templars as they fought frequently on the side of the crusaders –and if they seem to share some of the values of the Templars, in sparing the innocent and the weak, it is more likely because the former group transmitted some of their values to the latter. The chivalric code of honor has, for second clause: I shall respect and defend the weak, the sick, and the needy.

The Assassins supposedly send the same message to Saladin, informing him that the cake he was about to eat was poisoned… by them.

The ethical system of the Assassins is that political assassination help prevent war; threat of the dagger-by-your-bed variety are even better for bloodless control[1]. They supposedly aimed at sparing civilians and people who were not directly targeted. The methods focusing on precision meant to reduce what is now called civilian “collateral damage”.

Assassination as Marketing

Those readers who may have tried to get rid of pebbles in their shoes (that is, someone you bothers you and doesn’t get the hint) might know that “contracts” on ordinary citizens (that is, to trigger their funeral) are relatively easy to perform and inexpensive to buy. There is a relatively active underground market for these contracts. In general, you need to pay a bit more to “make it look like an accident”. However skilled historians and observers of martial history would recommend the exact opposite: in politics, you should have to pay more to make it look intentional.

In fact, what Captain Weisenborn, Pasquale Cirillo, and I discovered, when we tried doing a systematic study of violence (debunking a confabulatory thesis by the science writer Steven Pinker), was that war numbers have been historically inflated… by both sides. Both the Mongols and their panicky victims had an incentive to exaggerate, which acted as a deterrent. Mongols weren’t interested in killing everybody; they just wanted submission, which came cheaply though terror. Further, having spent some time perusing the genetic imprints of invaded populations, it is clear that if the warriors coming from the Eastern steppes left a cultural imprint, they certainly left their genes at home. Gene transfer between areas by happens by group migrations, inclement climate, unaccommodating soil rather than war.

More connected to recent events, I discovered that the Hama “massacre” of Syrian Jihadis by Assad senior was at least an order of magnitude lower than what was reported; the rest came from inflation –numbers swelling over time from 2,000 to close to 40,000 without significant information. Simply, Assad wanted, at the time, to intimidate and his enemies, the Islamist and their journalist sympathizers, former U.S. president Obama’s wanted to aggrandize the event.

Assassination as Democracy

Now, political life; if the democratic system doesn’t fully deliver governance –it patently doesn’t, owing to cronyisms and the Hillary Montanto-Malmaison style of covert legal corruption; if the system doesn’t fully deliver governance, we have known forever what does: an increased turnover at the top. Count Munster’s epigrammatic description of the Russian Constitution explains it: “Absolutism tempered by assassination”.

While today’s politicians have no skin in the game and do not have to worry so long as they play the game, thanks the increased life expectancy of modern times, they stay longer and longer on the job. France’s pseudo-socialist Francois Mitterrand reigned for fourteen years, longer than many French Kings; thanks to technology he had more power over the population than most French Kings. Even a United States President, the modern kind of Emperor (unlike Napoleon and the Tsars, Roman emperors before Diocletian were not absolutists) tends to last at least four years on the throne, while Rome had five emperors in a single year and four in another. The mechanism worked: consider that all the bad Emperors Caligula, Caracalla, Elagabalus, Nero ended their career either murdered by the Pretorian guard or, in the case of Nero, suicide in anticipation. In the first four hundred years of empire, only 20, that is less than a third, of emperors died a natural death, assuming these deaths were truly natural.

[1] It appears that what we read about the Assassins can be smear by their enemies (including the apocryphal accounts according to which their name comes from consumption of Hashish, Cannabis in Arabic, as they would get into a trance before their assassination).
« Last Edit: April 11, 2017, 05:58:37 AM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18496
    • View Profile
Here we go again?
« Reply #254 on: April 28, 2017, 02:00:47 PM »
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-28-13-49-00

NK makes sense to me.  This stuff doesn't unless if had to do with ISIS?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18236
    • View Profile
Syrian Crematorium
« Reply #255 on: May 16, 2017, 08:24:37 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #256 on: May 18, 2017, 05:20:07 PM »
U.S. Strikes Advancing Syrian-Led Troops
Military action taken to protect U.S.-backed rebels
By Maria Abi-Habib
May 18, 2017 2:44 p.m. ET
3 COMMENTS

WASHINGTON—The U.S.-led military coalition in Syria launched airstrikes on Syrian regime forces as they approached U.S.-backed rebels in al-Tanf, on the border with Jordan, according to two U.S. officials.

The U.S. strikes hit advancing regime forces at 4 p.m. local time to head off their advance on al-Tanf, where U.S. special operations forces operate along with Maghaweer al Thawra, an elite Syrian rebel force.

“The coalition struck regime elements in vicinity of Tanf after the regime failed to respond to warning to stop [the] advance,” said one U.S. official briefed of the incident. “There have been worries recently that this would happen as regime and regime-affiliated forces get closer to Tanf.”

Over the past week, U.S. officials have expressed concern that Syria’s government and its allies were preparing to launch a military offensive at al-Tanf, officials said.

It was unclear what elements of the Damascus-aligned forces the coalition airstrikes hit. They Syrian government is supported by Russian forces, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite militias and Iran.

The incident at al-Tanf brings the U.S. and the Syrian regime and its allies closer to full-on military conflict when the U.S. and Russia are discussing ways to de-escalate and find ways to avoid striking each other in Syria’s volatile mix of regional and international forces fighting on various fronts.

The U.S. in April struck a Syrian air base with dozens of cruise missiles in response to the regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons, in the first such U.S. operation. The strike on Wednesday apparently was the first to target Syrian military personnel.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18496
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #257 on: May 19, 2017, 04:53:50 PM »
ok  we wipe out Assad .  then what?

didn't we go through this in somaila, iraq, lybia etc?


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Nanzi Pelosi used to like Assad
« Reply #258 on: May 19, 2017, 05:49:44 PM »


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17920536/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/pelosi-shrugs-bushs-criticism-meets-assad/#.WR-R6WjyvIU
 
Pelosi shrugs off Bush’s criticism, meets Assad
Democrat raises issues of Mideast peace, Iraq with Syrian president

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi meets with President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on Wednesday.
 
updated 4/4/2007 9:28:36 AM ET
Print Font:
DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country.
Pelosi said Assad assured her of his willingness to engage in peace talks with Israel, and that she and other members of her congressional delegation raised their concern about militants crossing from Syria into Iraq, as well the Israeli soldiers kidnapped by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas.
The Californian Democrat spoke to reporters shortly after talks with Assad at the end of a two-day visit to Syria.
She said the delegation gave the Syrian leader a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert whose essence was that Israel was ready to hold peace talks with Syria.
She did not say more about the message, but Israel has previously made such talks conditional on Syria’s cutting off its support for hard-line Palestinian groups and Hezbollah.
“We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi and accompanying members of Congress began their day by holding separate talks with Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem and Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa and then met Assad, who hosted them for lunch after their talks.


Pelosi’s visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.
Bush voices criticism
Bush has said Pelosi’s trip signals that the Assad government is part of the international mainstream when it is not. The United States says Syria allows Iraqi Sunni insurgents to operate from its territory, backs the Hezbollah and Hamas militant groups and is trying to destabilize the Lebanese government. Syria denies the allegations.
“A lot of people have gone to see President Assad ... and yet we haven’t seen action. He hasn’t responded,” he told reporters soon after she arrived in Damascus on Tuesday. “Sending delegations doesn’t work. It’s simply been counterproductive.”
Pelosi did not comment on Bush’s remarks but went for a stroll in the Old City district of Damascus, where she mingled with Syrians in a market.
Wearing a flowered head scarf and a black abaya robe, Pelosi visited the 8th-century Omayyad Mosque. She made the sign of the cross in front of an elaborate tomb which is said to contain the head of John the Baptist. About 10 percent of Syria’s 18 million people are Christian.
At the nearby outdoor Bazouriyeh market, Syrians crowded around, offering her dried figs and nuts and chatting with her. She bought some coconut sweets and looked at jewelry and carpets.
On Tuesday night, Pelosi met Syrian human rights activists, businessmen and religious leaders at the U.S. ambassador’s residence.
‘Better late than never’
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem was quoted Wednesday as saying that Pelosi and other members of Congress were “welcome” in Syria.
“Better late than never,” he told the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Anba in an interview. He said the visits were taking place because Americans and Europeans had realized that their policy of trying to isolate Syria had failed.
However, the Syrian ambassador to Washington, Imad Moustapha, was quoted as saying Syria was “wary of the sudden U.S. openness” and would respond cautiously.
“Syria will not hurriedly offer concessions when it refused to offer them under much greater pressure from the United States in the past,” he said in an interview with the Al-Baath newspaper, the mouthpiece of the ruling party.
“Syria will take a step forward every time the Americans take one,” he added.

Toward U.S. engagement with Syria?
Democrats have argued that the United States should engage its top rivals in the Mideast — Iran and Syria — to make headway in easing crises in Iraq, Lebanon and the Israeli-Arab peace process. Last year, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended talks with the two countries.
Bush rejected the recommendations. But in February, the United States joined a gathering of regional diplomats in Baghdad that included Iran and Syria for talks on Iraq.
Visiting neighboring Lebanon on Monday, Pelosi noted that Republican lawmakers had met Assad on Sunday without comment from the Bush administration.
She said she hoped to rebuild lost confidence between Washington and Damascus.
‘No illusions’
“We have no illusions but we have great hope,” said Pelosi, who met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank city of Ramallah earlier Tuesday.
Relations between the United States and Syria reached a low point in early 2005 when Washington withdrew its ambassador to Damascus to protest the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Many Lebanese blamed Syria — which had troops in Lebanon at the time — for the assassination. Damascus denied involvement.
Washington has since succeeded in largely isolating Damascus, with its European and Arab allies shunning Assad. The last high-ranking U.S. official to visit Syria was then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in January 2005.
The isolation, however, has begun to crumble in recent months, with visits by U.S. lawmakers and some European officials.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #259 on: May 19, 2017, 09:04:22 PM »
"ok  we wipe out Assad .  then what?"

Among the arguments for this:

1) We break up the Russian Iranian axis from the Indian Ocean to the Baltic Sea, perhaps even denying the Russian naval base on the Syrian coast

2) We establish credibility in the Sunni world as a strong horse.  Note the assemblage the Saudi have pulled together for Trump's visit.

3) Arguably this enables pressure on Iran viz both its nuke program and its ICBM program.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18496
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #260 on: May 20, 2017, 06:41:00 AM »
"Among the arguments for this:
1) We break up the Russian Iranian axis from the Indian Ocean to the Baltic Sea, perhaps even denying the Russian naval base on the Syrian coast
2) We establish credibility in the Sunni world as a strong horse.  Note the assemblage the Saudi have pulled together for Trump's visit.
3) Arguably this enables pressure on Iran viz both its nuke program and its ICBM program."

Sounds good, but ......

When has any intervention in the Middle East ever gone according to plan?  How do you know we create a vacuum that allows Iran to move in even more strongly then before?
We are going to start another , forever occupation of predominantly Americans and a few token "international" forces who will ceaselessly be training the few but the brave who want American style democracy to fight against the rest?





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #261 on: May 20, 2017, 08:51:48 AM »
Fair points all-- OTOH what happens if we leave the Middle East to the Russian-Iranian Axis?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #262 on: May 20, 2017, 08:54:25 AM »
Fair points all-- OTOH what happens if we leave the Middle East to the Russian-Iranian Axis?

Let it burn. The latest Sunni-Shia war can kick off and we can watch.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
GeoFut: Al-Tanf Crossing
« Reply #263 on: August 03, 2017, 11:32:11 AM »
•   Syria: We need to better understand the level of cooperation between Russia and the U.S. in Syria. Despite the increase in tensions between the two countries over sanctions, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar has reported on a potential agreement for the U.S.-backed Syrian groups that control the al-Tanf border crossing to hand it over to Russian-backed Syrian forces.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Bloomberg: Israel persuading Russia to break alliance with Iran in Syria?
« Reply #264 on: June 02, 2018, 10:05:38 AM »

Politics & Policy
Israel's Campaign to Break the Iranian-Russian Alliance in Syria

One conflict held them together. Now it’s ending, and Iran may suffer.
by Eli Lake
26
June 1, 2018, 11:15 AM PDT

Power play.

Photographer: Ivan Sekretarev/AFP, via Getty Images

Since Iran and Russia reached an agreement in the summer of 2015 to coordinate a military campaign to save the regime of Syria's dictator, that war has held together an unholy alliance of those three states. It worked. Bashar al-Assad has withstood the uprising.

Now, as that war comes to a close, the Iranian-Russian alliance that saved the Assad regime appears to be fraying. Consider some recent developments. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Assad that foreign military forces will exit Syria at the onset of a political process to end the war. This week, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said all foreign forces – a reference to Iran and its allied militias – should immediately leave the Daraa province, which borders Israel. On Friday a leading Arab newspaper is reporting that Israel and Russia reached an agreement this week for just that.

All of this is significant for a few reasons. To start, being forced to withdraw from Syria would be a major blow to Iran’s prestige at a moment when its economy is bracing for crippling sanctions following America's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal. What's more, the removal of Iran and its allied militias from Syria would stymie Tehran's plans for a land bridge to southern Lebanon – a supply line of advanced weapons to Iran's most important client, Hezbollah.

Preventing a permanent Iranian presence in Syria has been a top priority for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in the last two years. In 2017 he pressed the Trump administration to commit to challenge Iranian forces in Syria after victory in the campaign against the Islamic State. He was not successful in Washington, so he tried something different: He went to Moscow.

Israel has had a channel to Moscow since Russia first established its air presence in Syria in fall 2015. This channel though was primarily to warn Russia's military when Israel launched airstrikes on convoys and shipments of arms to Hezbollah. In the last year, Netanyahu and his top ministers have stepped up diplomacy with Moscow to make the strategic case that it's not in Russia's interest to allow Iran to turn Syria into a client state like Lebanon, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.

The latest such visit was on Thursday when the Israeli defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman, flew to Moscow to meet with his Russian counterpart. Following those meetings, Lieberman tweeted: "The state of Israel appreciates Russia's understanding of our security concerns, particularly regarding the situation at our northern border."

So far, that understanding has resulted in a new policy from Russia toward Israeli airstrikes in Syria. Russia has the ability to protect Iranian forces with its own air force and air defense systems in Syria, but it has opted not to use them to stop Israel.

Elliott Abrams, who served as a deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration, told me Friday that Netanyahu has been explaining to Putin " the threat to Israeli security posed by Iran's presence in Syria." Abrams said the message was initially asking Putin to constrain Iran, which Putin had been unwilling to do. But over time, Russia has changed its position. "We see there is a gap between Iranian and Russian interests, and Netanyahu has been explaining that," Abrams said. "It seems to be coming to fruition now."

An element of the Israeli strategy has also been to back up the diplomacy with force in Syria. In the last two months, the Israelis have gone farther into Syrian territory to strike Iranian targets than they had before. In April Israeli airstrikes hit a base deep in Syrian territory, where Iranian commanders were coordinating militias. On May 10, a day after Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, Iran and Israel exchanged strikes, with Israel hitting major Iranian infrastructure inside Syria.

What's notable about the May 10 strike is that no Russian officials condemned it. The day before, Netanyahu was in Moscow for meetings with Putin. Netanyahu told Israeli reporters after he returned home that he did not expect Russia to try to protect Iranian targets from Israel.

It's too soon to say whether Israel's diplomacy with Russia will result in the removal of Iran and its allied militias from Syria altogether. A senior Israeli diplomat warned me this week that no agreement has been made for all of Syria, and that Israel would not be satisfied with a partial agreement to only keep Iranian forces away from its border.

Even so, Netanyahu has succeeded diplomatically where the Obama and Trump administrations had failed. The prime minister understands something the Americans have forgotten: Diplomacy can be effective only if the other side believes you are willing to use force if it fails.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
GPF: Iran open to leaving Syria?
« Reply #265 on: June 13, 2018, 11:29:31 AM »
Iran: Iranian President Hasan Rouhani told French President Emmanuel Macron that his government has not ruled out withdrawing Iranian troops from Syria, if there were no longer a need for foreign troops there. This comes about a month after Russia called for foreign troops to leave Syria. Under what conditions could there be a withdrawal of foreign troops? What would be Iran’s motivations for leaving Syria, and is this the first time Rouhani has made such a comment? Watch for any reactions from the U.S. and Turkey.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
WSJ: Putin's Confliction Zone
« Reply #266 on: June 29, 2018, 09:49:54 AM »
Putin’s Confliction Zone
How the Russians conned Trump in southwestern Syria.
Syrians displaced by government forces' bombardment in the southern Daraa province countryside ride in tractors and trucks near the town of Shayyah, south of the city of Daraa, towards the border area between the Israeli-occupied Golan heights and Syria, June 28.
Syrians displaced by government forces' bombardment in the southern Daraa province countryside ride in tractors and trucks near the town of Shayyah, south of the city of Daraa, towards the border area between the Israeli-occupied Golan heights and Syria, June 28. Photo: mohamad abazeed/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
By The Editorial Board
June 28, 2018 6:47 p.m. ET
47 COMMENTS

The White House has confirmed that Donald Trump will meet with Vladimir Putin at a July 16 summit. Whatever else happens, let’s hope Mr. Trump doesn’t make another agreement like the one his Administration struck with Russia in 2017 for a “deconfliction” zone in southwestern Syria.

Bashar Assad’s regime is now firing artillery and conducting airstrikes on rebel areas in Daraa and Quneitra provinces near Jordan and Israel with Russian and Iranian help. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports at least 90 people have died and the United Nations estimates about 45,000 civilians have fled.

The attacks violate a July 2017 agreement among Russia, Jordan and the U.S. to “de-escalate” conflict in the area so the countries could turn their attention to fighting Islamic State. A State Department official said at the time that the U.S. was “morally bound where there’s an opportunity to bring about a cease-fire to save people’s lives and to de-escalate the violence.” Morally bound apparently doesn’t translate well to Russian.

The cease-fire was a head fake, which then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Mr. Trump were eager to believe. The lull in fighting in the southwest allowed Mr. Assad to press offensives elsewhere, especially against rebel strongholds in the Damascus suburbs in May. That campaign is now done, so Mr. Assad can turn to wiping out the rebels in the southwest, no matter the previous arrangement.

The Trump Administration has reacted by waving its hands and begging Mr. Putin to stop. Last month State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert headlined a statement “Assad Regime Intentions in the Southwest De-escalation Zone,” imploring Russia to “live up to its self-professed commitments.” This month Ms. Nauert issued another statement to “request that Russia fulfill its commitments.” Last week U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley issued another entreaty. Begging is embarrassing.

Mr. Assad and his backers figure that Mr. Trump wants to proclaim mission accomplished in Syria and bring U.S. troops home. The White House’s limp reaction to the fighting in southwestern Syria shows they’re probably right. Mr. Putin has been watching all this and wondering if Mr. Trump can be conned as easily and as often as Barack Obama was.

Appeared in the June 29, 2018, print edition.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18496
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 12:15:06 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18496
    • View Profile
opposite policy objectives from day to day
« Reply #268 on: December 19, 2018, 08:17:41 AM »
Couple of days ago I read this from the Washington hoarse compost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/syria/us-troops-in-syria/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2baca524c3dd

Then today I read this :

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/19/donald-trump-signals-troop-withdrawals-from-syria/

Like one day Trump - willing to "shut down " Fed gov for wall money then next day it is the opposite
I have no idea what or who to believe

don't know why all this happening .
is it conflicting media reports?
is it fake news?

is it Donald changing his mind from day to day ?
is he finally cracking from the strain from those  who ceaselessly try to destroy him in every way imaginaageable ?


« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 01:02:12 PM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #269 on: December 19, 2018, 09:15:30 AM »
The decision to leave makes me quite uneasy.  That said,

a) He ran on getting us out of needless wars;
b) he defined our mission as getting ISIS, not much more;
c) this is far from the first time he has wanted to make this move
d) there is, as has been noted here in not inconsiderable detail for several years, the complexity of Turkey's strategy in all this-- is Turkey going to serve to block Iranian hegemony?  Are we going to let the Kurds get fukked over yet again as part of trying to reach an understanding with Turkey?  Turkey controls the Bosphorus-- what implications for Ukraine?  For dealings with Russia?

That said, my initial reaction is that this is a mistake.

Team Trump has been weak in understanding that Lebanon is controlled by Hamas; if Iran establishes land bridge then likelihood of war with Israel increases etc

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18236
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #270 on: December 19, 2018, 01:44:46 PM »
"The decision to leave makes me quite uneasy.
...
my initial reaction is that this is a mistake."

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

I agree.  This looks like a mistake.

Stay until ISIS is defeated?  Our exit last time (out of Iraq) under Pres. Obama is what enabled the rise of ISIS.

We should maintain some presence - if we have any right or justification to do so and if we can effectively defend those who stay.

Are we declaring Syria a victory or a defeat?  If this is a victory then we have earned some right to stay behind to ensure the 'peace'.  Did we leave Germany or Japan on the day fighting ended?  What did we negotiate in exchange for our help and our leaving?  Maybe something Trump isn't disclosing.  If nothing, this is Obama level thinking all over again.  


"Team Trump has been weak in understanding that Lebanon is controlled by Hamas"

Hezbollah?  I also think Pompeo and Bolton get it as much as we do.  Mattis probably too.   Either the plan is better than what appears on the surface or other voices in the administration or other considerations won out over these high officials.

ISIS and Islamic jihad wanted a caliphate and began to conquer and form one.  The goal isn't limited to the middle east.  They want Spain too, France, Britain, Sweden, etc. and the US eventually.  

ISIS controlled areas, 2015, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISIL_territorial_claims

To call it a thousand year war from their side is an understatement.  Does anyone believe they have given up?





« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 01:49:01 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18496
    • View Profile
From a month ago
« Reply #271 on: December 19, 2018, 03:23:49 PM »
It really irks me when the LEft accuses W of mass murder
We are not killing Arabs - they kill each other.
indeed we got rid of Saddam a mass tyrant and then they go ahead and kill each other even more



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-executed-600-iraqi-prisoners-rights-group-says/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #272 on: December 20, 2018, 08:39:09 AM »
"Team Trump has been weak in understanding that Lebanon is controlled by Hamas"

"Hezbollah?"

Correct.  My brain fart.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
WSJ: Syrian "tolls"
« Reply #273 on: December 24, 2018, 02:31:31 PM »
 By Raja Abdulrahim
Dec. 23, 2018 10:00 a.m. ET

AL-DADAT, Syria—On a warm October morning, Mona al-Mukhlif set out with her life’s possessions for the city of Raqqa to live with her two children. Several roadside checkpoints later, not one-third of the way there, she was nearly out of money and stranded.

“I’m stuck here until someone has pity on me,” said Ms. Mukhlif, who is 55, sitting on a rock by the side of the road surrounded by pots and pans, foam mattresses and a baby carriage. “They’re all thieves.”

Syria’s nearly eight-year war has gutted the country’s economy. Inflation has soared and output has fallen. Factories and industrial zones have been reduced to rubble. Three-quarters of working age Syrians are either unemployed or inactive, the World Bank said last year.  But roadside extortion is still booming. The business has become an enduring feature of Syria’s wartime economy, with pro-government soldiers and militias as well as antiregime rebels exploiting insecurity to justify their checkpoints, where bribe-taking and kidnapping are rife. The most lucrative ones—often taking advantage of the humanitarian need arising from a battle or siege—are sometimes referred to as millionaire checkpoints.

“It’s quite pervasive to the point that it becomes its own industry,” says Alex Simon, Syria program director for Synaps, a Beirut-based research firm that has tracked the social and economic impact of Syria’s conflict. A report from Synaps described the country’s economy as “cannibalistic,” where “impoverished segments of Syrian society increasingly survive by preying upon one another.”

Internal borders that divide warring parties mean ordinary Syrians must cough up cash to navigate daily life, even as the conflict begins to wind down. The predatory practices also ratchet up the costs of goods that cross the country, as the same checkpoints which extract bribes also impose internal tariffs.

Bribes are factored into bus and taxi fares, residents say. As they pass through checkpoints, experienced taxi and bus drivers will often reach out and pay the allotted amount—sometimes cash, sometimes a carton of cigarettes.

Factories and industrial zones in Syria have been reduced to rubble. Above, a destroyed factory last year.


The war’s disruption to industry and the reduced incentive to work has weighed heavily on Syria’s economy, the World Bank said. The bank estimates that during fighting from 2011 until the end of 2016, Syria shed an estimated $226 billion of its economic output. A recovery could take decades, it said.

As much of the fighting has subsided, the Syrian government says it is trying to tackle various forms of corruption to spur any recovery.

In July, the Syrian government cabinet approved a number of measures to curb corruption by individuals and establishments, saying that nobody is above the law; it added that no leniency would be shown in dealing with the problem now that the country was on the cusp of reconstruction, according to Syrian state media.

The Syrian government didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Residents trying to flee fighting in northern Aleppo province earlier this year confronted demands for thousands of dollars to pay smugglers to cross regime-controlled checkpoints, according to Abdulrahman Ahmad, who paid 1,000,000 Syrian pounds, or nearly $2,000 for himself and his wife. The smugglers paid kickbacks to the Syrian soldiers, he said.

Unlike such millionaire checkpoints, more modest operations have allowed some rebel outfits to pay salaries, buy food and purchase weapons. A rebel commander in northern Syria said his group and others have turned to checkpoints to make up for lost foreign funding.

Roadside bribes aren’t the only means of wringing revenue from Syrians.
A camp north of Raqqa for internally displaced people.
A camp north of Raqqa for internally displaced people. Photo: Ahmed Deeb for The Wall Street Journal

In August, Human Rights Watch released a report accusing the U.S.-backed Kurdish-led authority in northeast Syria of unlawfully restricting the movement of people living in internal displacement camps, by confiscating IDs and preventing them from leaving the camps at will. Some camp residents had to pay officials or smugglers to get out to access health care or reunite with their families, according to the report.

“Unfortunately we have seen that people have tried to benefit from the extreme loss and suffering of Syrians,” said Lama Fakih, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “There has been no limit to the level of exploitation.”

An official at one of the camps mentioned in the report defended the policy for security reasons and insisted it was easy for residents to obtain passes, renewed every 10 days, to enter and leave. He denied that people had to pay to get out.

Abductions also appear increasingly common. Kidnapping victims—once mostly the country’s wealthy businessmen—now include aid and medical workers. They are seen as key to a big payday, given that humanitarian aid is one of the few sources of funding in some parts of the country.

In October, the head of a large charity operating in Syria was kidnapped at a checkpoint, according to the organization’s security supervisor, who didn’t want his name or organization identified for fear it would make them more of a target. The security supervisor said the kidnappers asked the man while he was blindfolded how much to ask in ransom.
Related

    Syria Withdrawal Could Imperil Millions in Need of Aid
    Erdogan Promised Trump Turkey Will Take Over ISIS Battle in Syria
    Key U.S. Partner in Syria Thrown Into Disarray
    In Shift, Trump Orders U.S. Troops Out of Syria

Hours later, though, the kidnappers released the charity organization’s chief without a ransom being paid because of the local attention his case had drawn, the security supervisor said.

In September, Mr. Ahmad’s brother-in-law, a father of four who works with the Syrian government’s media agency, was kidnapped by a rebel group after being pulled off a bus at a checkpoint. Kidnappers, Mr. Ahmad said, wanted $5,000.

“If we pay they’ll let him go, but if we don’t give them money they’ll keep him locked up,” Mr. Ahmad said. “Where are we going to get $5,000?”

His abductors didn’t seem to care. By November Mr. Ahmad’s brother-in-law still wasn’t free, and his ransom price had gone up to $6,000.

“The big fish eat the little fish,” said Mr. Ahmad.

Back at the al-Dadat checkpoint, the stranded Ms. Mukhlif waited to find a driver to ferry her across yet another checkpoint on the way to Raqqa. A man in a pickup truck offered to drive her for 1,000 Syrian pounds, or about $2, to the square of a nearby town where she could catch a bus to Raqqa.

The ride would only get her slightly closer to her destination, but she could at least afford it. She still wasn’t sure she would have enough money to reach her children, but she climbed in, her possessions sloppily thrown into the back, and the truck drove off in a cloud of dust.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
WSJ: Euros react to Syrian pullout
« Reply #274 on: December 24, 2018, 03:22:44 PM »
U.S.’s Mideast Pullout, Mattis Exit Alarm Europeans
Trump’s unilateral decision to remove troops from Syria and Afghanistan sparks fresh calls in Europe for greater strategic independence from Washington

By Laurence Norman and
Daniel Michaels
Dec. 22, 2018 7:00 a.m. ET

BRUSSELS—President Trump’s unilateral decision to pull U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan combined with Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis’s planned departure have sparked unease across Europe and fresh calls for greater strategic independence from Washington.

The planned quick exit of American troops surprised European diplomats who had been in talks in recent weeks with the U.S. State Department on how to jointly stabilize areas of Syria and Iraq where Islamic State extremists were uprooted.

Consultation before the announcement “would have been helpful,” said German government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer on Friday, voicing a frustration expressed across Europe.

European officials say they worry that Russia and Iran will fill the gap of diminishing U.S. presence and cite a growing estrangement in a trans-Atlantic alliance that has helped sustain peace and prosperity for generations. Diplomats expressed a sense of betrayal because Europe faces much greater threats from terrorists, missiles or refugees from these countries than the U.S. does.

Syrians fleeing Islamic State and Syria’s civil war were among more than one million people who crossed Europe’s borders in 2015, roiling Europe’s political landscape to this day.

In Afghanistan, Europeans have thousands of troops alongside U.S. forces as part of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission to support the fragile government and fight the Taliban. U.S. cuts there potentially put remaining forces at greater risk, just as many European governments were adding troops under pressure from the U.S. The Europeans are now likely to reassess their commitments.
German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, left, visited allied troops in Afghanistan in 2016. Europeans are concerned about the planned U.S. troop departure there.
German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, left, visited allied troops in Afghanistan in 2016. Europeans are concerned about the planned U.S. troop departure there. Photo: Gregor Fischer/Zuma Press

Beyond Mr. Trump’s decisions, his unpredictability rekindles anxiety many Europeans felt with his surprise 2016 election victory. “We just see now all the questions coming back that came two years ago,” said Ulrich Speck at the German Marshall Fund, a think tank in Berlin.

Mr. Trump’s abrupt decisions on Syria and Afghanistan follow his decision early this year to pull the U.S. from the 2015 Iran deal aimed at containing Tehran’s nuclear program. He acted despite European entreaties not to and efforts in Paris, London and Berlin to accommodate his demands by placing additional restrictions on Iran.

Europeans are also concerned that Mr. Trump’s withdrawal could further embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has actively supported Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and—closer to Europe—is supporting rebels in Ukraine.

“Deterrence is rooted in perception,” said Stefano Stefanini, a former Italian ambassador to NATO. “Trump has already undermined it in words. Syria’s withdrawal undermines it in deeds. Moscow is watching.”

U.S. officials say the Trump administration is not retreating from the world stage and will continue to press its global influence. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently told an audience in Brussels that Mr. Trump “is returning the United States to its traditional, central leadership role in the world.”

Examples he cited include U.S. renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, its pressure on North Korea to abandon its nuclear program and its demand that the World Trade Organization and other multilateral bodies restructure or lose U.S. support.

Still, unilateral U.S. military and diplomatic moves have prompted growing calls in Europe for greater strategic independence. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both recently advocated creation of a European military force. In Berlin on Friday, the new leader of Ms. Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, said it was time to reflect on “greater responsibility for Europe in the face of developments in the U.S.”

Following through on such calls has proven difficult. Europeans are struggling to coordinate their military planning and adapt to less support from Washington despite years of U.S. admonishments to spend more on defense. Mr. Trump has lambasted European NATO allies for failing to meet commitments but he has only amplified a longstanding U.S. grievance.

In 2011, President Obama’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, warned European NATO members of “a dim, if not dismal future for the trans-Atlantic alliance” unless Europeans increased military spending. Only three of NATO’s 27 European members now meet their 2014 commitments to spend 2% of gross domestic product on defense and fewer than a dozen have plans to do so by 2024.
President Trump, speaking Friday in Washington, didn’t warn U.S. allies in Europe about his plans to remove U.S. troops from Syria, prompting frustration across the continent.
President Trump, speaking Friday in Washington, didn’t warn U.S. allies in Europe about his plans to remove U.S. troops from Syria, prompting frustration across the continent. Photo: joshua roberts/Reuters

Still, Europeans have been heartened by increased U.S. military spending and deployments in Europe to counter Russia since Mr. Trump took office. Many credited Mr. Mattis, a retired four-star marine general and strong advocate for NATO and Europe. His resignation Thursday in protest against Mr. Trump’s decisions on Syria and Afghanistan dismayed Europeans.

“What this signals—particularly the departure of Jim Mattis—is that the bastion of the trans-Atlantic alliance in the Trump administration is gone,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of the International Affairs Institute think tank in Rome and a defense-policy adviser to EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. She sees Mr. Trump’s other top advisers as a mix of isolationists and interventionists.

“They don’t share very much but what they do share is a complete disdain for international institutions and multilateralism—and ultimately those are the things that the trans-Atlantic alliance is made up of.”

Mr. Trump’s decisions could also affect diplomacy at its day-to-day level.

Marc Otte, a former European EU Special Representative for the Middle East and an adviser to the Belgian Foreign Ministry, said European-U.S. cooperation on planning for parts of Syria freed from Islamic State had been premised on a continued U.S. troop presence providing security and helping with logistics.

“The announcement is not only another blow to the concept of U.S. alliances and to U.S. allies, Mr. Otte said. “It’s also a blow to people who were setting up programs” in Syria.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Euros react to Syrian pullout
« Reply #275 on: December 24, 2018, 03:29:35 PM »
The toddler in the backseat doesn't get consulted about the drive.


U.S.’s Mideast Pullout, Mattis Exit Alarm Europeans
Trump’s unilateral decision to remove troops from Syria and Afghanistan sparks fresh calls in Europe for greater strategic independence from Washington

By Laurence Norman and
Daniel Michaels
Dec. 22, 2018 7:00 a.m. ET

BRUSSELS—President Trump’s unilateral decision to pull U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan combined with Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis’s planned departure have sparked unease across Europe and fresh calls for greater strategic independence from Washington.

The planned quick exit of American troops surprised European diplomats who had been in talks in recent weeks with the U.S. State Department on how to jointly stabilize areas of Syria and Iraq where Islamic State extremists were uprooted.

Consultation before the announcement “would have been helpful,” said German government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer on Friday, voicing a frustration expressed across Europe.

European officials say they worry that Russia and Iran will fill the gap of diminishing U.S. presence and cite a growing estrangement in a trans-Atlantic alliance that has helped sustain peace and prosperity for generations. Diplomats expressed a sense of betrayal because Europe faces much greater threats from terrorists, missiles or refugees from these countries than the U.S. does. (Then put on your big girl panties and take care of yourselves.)

Syrians fleeing Islamic State and Syria’s civil war were among more than one million people who crossed Europe’s borders in 2015, roiling Europe’s political landscape to this day.

In Afghanistan, Europeans have thousands of troops alongside U.S. forces as part of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission to support the fragile government and fight the Taliban. U.S. cuts there potentially put remaining forces at greater risk, just as many European governments were adding troops under pressure from the U.S. The Europeans are now likely to reassess their commitments.
German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, left, visited allied troops in Afghanistan in 2016. Europeans are concerned about the planned U.S. troop departure there.
German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, left, visited allied troops in Afghanistan in 2016. Europeans are concerned about the planned U.S. troop departure there. Photo: Gregor Fischer/Zuma Press

Beyond Mr. Trump’s decisions, his unpredictability rekindles anxiety many Europeans felt with his surprise 2016 election victory. “We just see now all the questions coming back that came two years ago,” said Ulrich Speck at the German Marshall Fund, a think tank in Berlin.

Mr. Trump’s abrupt decisions on Syria and Afghanistan follow his decision early this year to pull the U.S. from the 2015 Iran deal aimed at containing Tehran’s nuclear program. He acted despite European entreaties not to and efforts in Paris, London and Berlin to accommodate his demands by placing additional restrictions on Iran.

Europeans are also concerned that Mr. Trump’s withdrawal could further embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has actively supported Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and—closer to Europe—is supporting rebels in Ukraine.

“Deterrence is rooted in perception,” said Stefano Stefanini, a former Italian ambassador to NATO. “Trump has already undermined it in words. Syria’s withdrawal undermines it in deeds. Moscow is watching.”

U.S. officials say the Trump administration is not retreating from the world stage and will continue to press its global influence. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently told an audience in Brussels that Mr. Trump “is returning the United States to its traditional, central leadership role in the world.”

Examples he cited include U.S. renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, its pressure on North Korea to abandon its nuclear program and its demand that the World Trade Organization and other multilateral bodies restructure or lose U.S. support.

Still, unilateral U.S. military and diplomatic moves have prompted growing calls in Europe for greater strategic independence. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both recently advocated creation of a European military force. In Berlin on Friday, the new leader of Ms. Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, said it was time to reflect on “greater responsibility for Europe in the face of developments in the U.S.”

Following through on such calls has proven difficult. Europeans are struggling to coordinate their military planning and adapt to less support from Washington despite years of U.S. admonishments to spend more on defense. Mr. Trump has lambasted European NATO allies for failing to meet commitments but he has only amplified a longstanding U.S. grievance.

In 2011, President Obama’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, warned European NATO members of “a dim, if not dismal future for the trans-Atlantic alliance” unless Europeans increased military spending. Only three of NATO’s 27 European members now meet their 2014 commitments to spend 2% of gross domestic product on defense and fewer than a dozen have plans to do so by 2024.
President Trump, speaking Friday in Washington, didn’t warn U.S. allies in Europe about his plans to remove U.S. troops from Syria, prompting frustration across the continent.
President Trump, speaking Friday in Washington, didn’t warn U.S. allies in Europe about his plans to remove U.S. troops from Syria, prompting frustration across the continent. Photo: joshua roberts/Reuters

Still, Europeans have been heartened by increased U.S. military spending and deployments in Europe to counter Russia since Mr. Trump took office. Many credited Mr. Mattis, a retired four-star marine general and strong advocate for NATO and Europe. His resignation Thursday in protest against Mr. Trump’s decisions on Syria and Afghanistan dismayed Europeans.

“What this signals—particularly the departure of Jim Mattis—is that the bastion of the trans-Atlantic alliance in the Trump administration is gone,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of the International Affairs Institute think tank in Rome and a defense-policy adviser to EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. She sees Mr. Trump’s other top advisers as a mix of isolationists and interventionists.

“They don’t share very much but what they do share is a complete disdain for international institutions and multilateralism—and ultimately those are the things that the trans-Atlantic alliance is made up of.”

Mr. Trump’s decisions could also affect diplomacy at its day-to-day level.

Marc Otte, a former European EU Special Representative for the Middle East and an adviser to the Belgian Foreign Ministry, said European-U.S. cooperation on planning for parts of Syria freed from Islamic State had been premised on a continued U.S. troop presence providing security and helping with logistics.

“The announcement is not only another blow to the concept of U.S. alliances and to U.S. allies, Mr. Otte said. “It’s also a blow to people who were setting up programs” in Syria.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18496
    • View Profile
assad from eye doctor to murderer
« Reply #278 on: April 05, 2019, 09:12:00 AM »
hey, why be an ophthalmologist
when one can become a murderous tyrant instead:

Wikipedia:

***Medicine: 1988–1994

In 1988, Assad graduated from medical school and began working as an army doctor at the Tishrin Military Hospital on the outskirts of Damascus.[37][38] Four years later, he settled in London to start postgraduate training in ophthalmology at the Western Eye Hospital.[39] He was described as a "geeky I.T. guy" during his time in London.[40] Bashar had few political aspirations,[41] and his father had been grooming Bashar's older brother Bassel as the future president.[42] However, Bassel died in a car accident in 1994 and Bashar was recalled to the Syrian Army shortly thereafter.

Bassel al-Assad, Bashar's older brother, died in 1994, paving the way for Bashar's future presidency.

Rise to power: 1994–2000
Soon after the death of Bassel, Hafez al-Assad decided to make Bashar the new heir apparent.[43] Over the next six and a half years, until his death in 2000, Hafez prepared Bashar for taking over power.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #279 on: October 30, 2019, 02:00:06 PM »
TTT


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Glick: Trump's Syrian Chessboard
« Reply #281 on: November 01, 2019, 07:37:47 AM »
The ever thoughtful Israeli journalist Caroline Glick

http://carolineglick.com/al-baghdadi-and-trumps-syrian-chessboard/

Articles
Al-Baghdadi and Trump’s Syrian Chessboard
11/01/2019
It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+


US President Donald Trump’s many critics insist he has no idea what he is doing in Syria. The assassination of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi over the weekend by US Special Forces showed this criticism is misplaced. Trump has a very good idea of what he is doing in Syria, not only regarding ISIS, but regarding the diverse competing actors on the ground.

Regarding ISIS, the obvious lesson of the Baghdadi raid is that Trump’s critics’ claim that his withdrawal of US forces from Syria’s border with Turkey meant that he was going to allow ISIS to regenerate was utterly baseless.

The raid did more than that. Baghdadi’s assassination, and Trump’s discussion of the mass murderer’s death showed that Trump has not merely maintained faith with the fight against ISIS and its allied jihadist groups. He has fundamentally changed the US’s counter-terror fighting doctrine, particularly as it relates to psychological warfare against jihadists.

Following the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration initiated a public diplomacy campaign in the Arab-Islamic world. Rather than attack and undermine the jihadist doctrine that insists that it is the religious duty of Muslims to fight with the aim of conquering the non-Muslim world and to establish a global Islamic empire or caliphate, the Bush strategy was to ignore the jihad in the hopes of appeasing its adherents. The basic line of the Bush administration’s public diplomacy campaign was to embrace the mantra that Islam is peace, and assert that the US loves Islam because the US seeks peace.

Along these lines, in 2005, then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice prohibited the State Department, FBI and US intelligence agencies from using “controversial” terms like “radical Islam,” “jihad” and “radical Islam” in official documents.

The Obama administration took the Bush administration’s obsequious approach to strategic communications several steps further. President Barack Obama and his advisors went out of their way to express sympathy for the “Islamic world.”

The Obama administration supported the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood against Egypt’s long-serving president and US ally Hosni Mubarak and backed Mubarak’s overthrow with the full knowledge that the only force powerful enough to replace him was the Muslim Brotherhood.

As for the Shiite jihadists, Obama’s refusal to support the pro-democracy protesters in Iran’s attempted Green Revolution in 2009 placed the US firmly on the side of the jihadist, imperialist regime of the ayatollahs and against the Iranian people.

In short, Obama took Bush’s rhetoric of appeasement and turned it into America’s actual policy.

The Bush-Obama sycophancy won the US no good will. Al Qaeda, which led the insurgency against US forces in Iraq with Iranian and Syrian support was not moved to diminish its aggression and hatred of the US due to the administration’s efforts.

It was during the Obama years that ISIS built its caliphate on a third of the Iraqi-Syrian landmass and opened slave markets and launched a mass campaign of filmed beheadings in the name of Islam.

In his announcement of Baghdadi’s death on Sunday, Trump unceremoniously abandoned his predecessors’ strategy of sucking up to jihadists. Unlike Obama, who went to great lengths to talk about the respect US forces who killed Osama bin Laden accorded the terrorist mass-murderer’s body, “in accordance with Islamic practice,” Trump mocked Baghdadi, the murdering, raping, slaving “caliph.”

Baghdadi, Trump said, died “like a dog, like a coward.”

Baghdadi died, Trump said, “whimpering and crying.”

Trump posted a picture on his Twitter page of the Delta Force combat dog who brought about Baghdadi’s death by chasing him into a tunnel under his compound and provoking him to set off the explosive belt he was wearing, and kill himself and the two children who were with him.

Trump later described the animal who killed Allah’s self-appointed representative on earth as “Our ‘K-9,’ as they call it. I call it a dog. A beautiful dog – a talented dog.”

Obama administration officials angrily condemned Trump’s remarks. For instance, former CIA deputy director Mike Morell said he was “bothered” by Trump’s “locker room talk,” which he said, “inspire other people” to conduct revenge attacks.

His colleague, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff retired admiral James Winnefeld said that Trump’s “piling on” describing Baghdadi as a “dog” sent a signal to his followers “that could cause them to lash out possibly more harshly in the wake.”

These criticisms are ridiculous. ISIS terrorists have richly proven they require no provocation to commit mass murder. They only need the opportunity.

Moreover, Trump’s constant use of the term “dog” and employment of canine imagery is highly significant. Dogs are considered “unclean” in Islam. In Islamic societies, “dog” is the worst name you can call a person.

It is hard to imagine that Baghdadi’s death at the paws of a dog is likely to rally many Muslims to his side. To the contrary, it is likely instead to demoralize his followers. What’s the point of joining a group of losers who believe in a fake prophet who died like a coward while chased by a “a beautiful dog – a talented dog?”

Then there is Russia.

Trump’s critics insist that his decision to abandon the US position along the Syrian border with Turkey effectively surrendered total control over Syria to Russia. But that is far from the case. The American presence along the border didn’t harm Russia. It helped Russia. It freed Russian President Vladimir Putin from having to deal with Turkey. Now that the Americans have left the border zone, Turkish President Recep Erdogan is Putin’s problem.

And he is not the main problem that Trump has made for Putin in Syria.

Putin’s biggest problem in Syria is financial. The Russian economy is sunk in a deep recession due to the drop in global oil prices. Putin had planned to finance his Syrian operation with Syrian oil revenues. To this end, in January 2018, he signed an agreement with Syrian President Bashar Assad that effectively transferred the rights to the Syrian oil to Russia.

But Putin hadn’t taken Trump into consideration.

US forces did not withdraw from all of their positions in Syria last month. They maintained their control over al-Tanf airbase which controls the Syrian border with Jordan and Iraq.

More importantly, from Russia’s perspective, the US has not relinquished its military presence adjacent to Syria’s oil facilities in the Deir Azzour province on the eastern side of the Euphrates River. Indeed, according to media reports, the US is reinforcing its troop strength in Deir Azzour to ensure continued US-Kurdish control over Syria’s oil fields.

To understand how high a priority control over Syria’s oil installations is for Putin it is worth recalling what happened in February 2018.

On February 7, 2018, a month after Putin and Assad signed their oil agreement, a massive joint force comprised of Russian mercenaries, Syrian commandos and Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces crossed the Euphrates River with the aim of seizing the town of Khusham adjacent to the Conoco oil fields. Facing them were forty US Special Forces deployed with Kurdish and Arab SDF forces. The US forces directed a massive air assault against the attacking forces which killed some 500 soldiers and ended the assault. Accounts regarding the number of Russian mercenaries killed start at 80 and rise to several hundred.

The American counter-attack caused grievous harm to the Russian force in Syria. Putin has kept the number of Russian military forces in Syria low by outsourcing much of the fighting to Russian military contractors. The aim of the failed operation was to enable those mercenary forces to seize the means to finance their own operations, and get them off the Kremlin payroll.

Since then, Putin has tried to dislodge the US forces from Khusham at least one more time, only to be met with a massive demonstration of force.

The continued US-Kurdish control over Syria’s oil fields and installations requires Putin to continue directly funding his war in Syria. So long as this remains the case, given Russia’s financial constraints, Putin is likely to go to great lengths to restrain his Iranian, Syrian and Hezbollah partners and their aggressive designs against Israel in order to prevent a costly war.

In other words, by preventing Russia from seizing Syria’s oil fields, Trump is forcing Russia to behave in a manner that protects American interests in Syria.

The focus of most of the criticism against Trump’s Syria policies has been his alleged abandonment of the Syrian Kurds to the mercies of their Turkish enemies. But over the past week we learned that this is not the case. As Trump explained, continued US-Kurdish control over Syria’s oil fields provides the Kurdish-controlled Syrian Democratic Forces with the financial and military wherewithal to support and defend its people and their operations.

Moreover, details of Baghdadi’s assassination point to continued close cooperation between US and Kurdish forces. According to accounts of the raid, the Kurds provided the Americans with key intelligence that enabled US forces to pinpoint Baghdadi’s location.

As to Turkey, both Baghdadi and ISIS spokesman Abu Hassan al-Mujahir, who was killed by US forces on Tuesday, were located in areas of eastern Syria controlled by Turkey. The Americans didn’t try to hide this fact.

The Turkish operation in eastern Syria is reportedly raising Erdogan’s popularity at home. But it far from clear that the benefit he receives from his actions will be long-lasting. Turkey’s Syrian operation is exposing the NATO member’s close ties to ISIS and its allied terror groups. This exposure in and of itself is making the case for downgrading US strategic ties with its erstwhile ally.

Even worse for Turkey, due to Trump’s public embrace of Erdogan, the Democrats are targeting the Turkish autocrat as Enemy Number 1. On Tuesday, with the support of Republican lawmakers who have long recognized Erdogan’s animosity to US interests and allies, the Democratic-led House overwhelmingly passed a comprehensive sanctions resolution against Turkey.

The al-Baghdadi assassination and related events demonstrate that Trump is not flying blind in Syria. He is implementing a multifaceted set of policies that are based on the strengths, weaknesses and priorities of the various actors on a ground in ways that advance US interests at the expense of its foes and to the benefit of its allies.

Originally published in Israel Hayom.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
GPF: Turkey, Russia, and Syria
« Reply #282 on: February 17, 2020, 01:35:10 PM »


Retaking Syria. The Syrian government is reclaiming a lot of the territory it lost in the course of the country's civil war, thanks in no small part to Russian airstrikes. In the past weekend alone, the regime has consolidated control over 12 townships and villages west of Aleppo, a province once considered one of Syria’s most important financial hubs. The regime’s complete control over the M5 highway and seizure of Sahraa and Nubl, close to the Syrian-Turkish border, has enabled forces to envelop and pressure Turkish positions in eastern Idlib.

Turkey has since reinforced what many are calling a “steel line” along Turkish observation posts outside the city of Idlib, dispatching a convoy of 100 vehicles and 45 armored personnel carriers, howitzers and commando units to halt Syria’s advance west into the city. Turkey and Syria exchange the occasional gunfire, but so far no major clashes have been reported.

Russia and the U.S., meanwhile, continue to compete for Turkey’s limited cooperation in Syria. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently met with an official from the U.S. State Department, and even spoke on the phone with President Donald Trump, who praised the Turkish leader’s efforts to prevent a “humanitarian disaster” in Syria and condemned Russia’s support for the government in Damascus. And last weekend, the foreign ministers of Russia and Turkey met to discuss possible avenues of cooperation in Syria. (Those discussions continue today.) Even so, it’ll be difficult for the two to find much middle ground. Ankara is preoccupied with preventing migrant flows into Turkey and strengthening a buffer zone along its southern border, while Russia is focused on helping its ally Syria retake its country.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Iran trying to return to business as usual in Syria
« Reply #283 on: June 11, 2020, 07:55:35 AM »
Iran Trying to Return to 'Business as Usual' in Syria
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
June 11, 2020
https://www.investigativeproject.org/8433/iran-trying-to-return-to-business-as-usual-in

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Stratfor on new US sanctions: Syria
« Reply #284 on: June 22, 2020, 03:44:05 AM »
New U.S. Sanctions Will Keep Syria Firmly in Russia and Iran's Corner
2 MINS READ
Jun 22, 2020 | 10:00 GMT
New U.S. sanctions against the Syrian government will likely leave Damascus dependent on Russian and Iranian support, while deterring aid from potential future partners such as China and the United Arab Emirates. On June 17, the United States sanctioned 39 individuals associated with the Syrian government, including President Bashar al Assad and his wife. Washington also indicated that more sanctions were to come in order to force the Syrian government back into U.N.-led peace negotiations.

With stronger U.S. sanctions now in effect, countries that have previously shown interest in providing Syria aid are unlikely to see many opportunities in the war-torn country's reconstruction. The Syrian economy — already wracked by nine years of civil war, the loss of vital trade due to nearby Lebanon's economic meltdown, and the now likely spread of COVID-19 inside Syria — has very few ways to reverse its current downward trajectory without reconstruction, which the U.N. estimates will require $500 billion in foreign aid. But Syria's closest allies, Russia and Iran, are unwilling and unable to provide that sum due to their own constrained budgets, which has left Damascus looking for other potential partners, including the United Arab Emirates and China. Following sanctions, however, these countries and their businesses are unlikely to risk incurring potentially powerful U.S. sanctions in pursuit of economically limited reconstruction contracts in Syria, leaving Damascus with Moscow and Tehran as its primary links with the international community.

New U.S. sanctions will likely leave Syria dependent on Russian and Iranian support, while deterring aid from potential future partners such as China and the United Arab Emirates.

The sanctions will also exacerbate Syria's already dire economic situation, which is producing dissent from inside Syrian loyalist territories, and increasingly threatens the stability of the al Assad family's hold on the state. The financial fallout could undermine the Syrian government's military capabilities, creating a more permissive environment for militants, including those affiliated with the Islamic State and al Qaeda, to regroup and potentially expand their operations in the country.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
GPF: The Caesar Act and Assad's Moment of Reckoning
« Reply #285 on: July 01, 2020, 07:55:09 AM »
   
    The Caesar Act and Assad’s Moment of Reckoning
The measure is aimed as much at Syria’s patrons as it is Syria itself.
By: Hilal Khashan

Last December, U.S. President Donald Trump signed the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act – with strong bipartisan Congressional support – to hold the Syrian regime accountable for atrocities committed by security forces against protesters who demanded political reforms. The measure was born from a report prepared by the Syria Study Group of the United States Institute of Peace arguing that to safeguard its national security, the U.S. ought to quit downplaying its role in shaping the outcome of the Syrian conflict. The report rejected Bashar Assad’s claim that his government had won the war and that the world must accept its legitimacy as the sole representative of the Syrian people.

The Caesar Act took effect earlier this month as the familiar battle lines in the war are wearing down. Russia has consolidated its naval and air presence along the coast and reached terms with Turkey to de-escalate tensions in northwestern Syria. The Kurds control most of the northeast. The Islamic State is defeated, and its remnants have gone underground. The U.S. has been criticized for years for being able to articulate what it didn’t want in Syria but never what it wanted. The Caesar Act means to fix this, not just in Syria but also in Lebanon.

Breaking the Alawites

The origins of the act are nearly as old as the Syrian conflict itself. In June 2012, the Action Group for Syria held a peace conference in Geneva, during which it issued a roadmap for peace that called for an immediate halt of the violence. The Syrian government ignored it. Later, in 2015, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2254, which affirmed its commitment to the June 2012 Geneva communique, advocating free elections and encouraging exiled Syrians to participate in the peace talks. The communique also entitled them to an unobstructed and safe return to their original place of residence in Syria. The Caesar Act means to compel Syria to abide by the U.N. resolution.

The Caesar Act is more stringent than all the sanctions that came before it because it lumps in the countries that cooperate with Damascus. However, it gives Damascus the option of ending the sanctions campaign provided it implements unequivocal measures to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict. It does this in part by targeting the Assad regime’s supporters, its Alawite constituency, and its regional backers. It doesn’t spare the Syrian people, but since it applies unprecedented pressure on the regime and its foreign backers, the Caesar Act’s impact on Lebanon threatens to speed up the country’s total economic collapse and exploits its inherently flawed political system.

The repercussions of the Caesar Act on the Syrian regime are staggering. It will aggravate the social and economic crisis to the point where it may actually affect the powerbrokers in the Alawite community. It may also deepen the family feud already underway in the Assad clan, including the rivalry between Bashar Assad and his maternal cousin, Rami Makhlouf. The rivalry has stunned the Alawite community since it is over entitlement to material resources and not the preservation of the sect’s political power. Assad is keen on transferring control over Syria’s economic assets from Makhlouf, sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, to the family of Assad's wife Asma al-Akhras, who is not under sanctions. For years, Makhlouf served as the business front for the regime after it adopted economic neoliberalization and privatization. His business endeavors are extensive and cover a broad range of domains.

One would expect the poorer Alawites who fought and died in droves for Assad to rethink their loyalty to a government obsessed with personal wealth. It’s difficult for Alawites to accept the imposition of sanctions after the regime deluded them into believing they won the war. The Alawites are growing increasingly restive and disillusioned with the regime. There is muted anger and frustration over the casualties they’re taking. More than one-third of all Alawites in the Syrian army have died since the war began.

Lebanon, another pillar of Assad’s power, is meanwhile facing its gravest economic and financial crisis since its independence in 1943, and Hezbollah is under more pressure to pull out from Syria. An increasing number of Lebanese, including Shiites, are unable to make ends meet. Hezbollah’s constituency is mostly poor working class. If it continues to support the Syrian regime, Hezbollah will put Lebanon face to face with the United States, which expects Beirut to take a clear stand on sealing its border with Syria.

The Caesar Act could make the situation in Lebanon go from bad to worse. Assad expects Hezbollah to continue to provide Syria with badly needed supplies. Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah pledged to keep open the line of supplies to Syria: “Those who offered martyrs to keep Syria united and free from falling to America and Israel will not allow it to succumb to the Caesar Act.” In a dramatic and unprecedented escalation apparently against Israel, Nasrallah announced that Hezbollah would not allow the Caesar Act to hurt Lebanon and threatened to kill whoever tries to starve its people.

The Lesser Evil

The Russian military intervention in 2015 to save Assad added to the complexity of the Syrian conflict. It elevated the Russian position as the dominant actor in Syria without dislodging Iran, which became a second-tier actor. The war degraded Assad’s regime, and Syria devolved into a proxy battlefield. But Iran’s loss of dominance in Syria didn’t mean it lost the influence it wields in Lebanon via Hezbollah.

Russia is disillusioned with Assad because, despite rescuing his regime from collapse, he did not evict Iran and Hezbollah from Syria and resisted halting the war against the opposition. Russian President Vladimir Putin doesn’t even hide his exasperation with Assad and clearly prefers a quick exit from Syria, especially after he achieved his objectives there. He fears that an extended stay there would turn it into another Afghanistan for the Russian military.

Russia now prefers to get rid of Assad because it perceives him as incompetent and incapable of realizing that Iran is an agent of subversion in the region, which Tehran considers an arena of confrontation with the U.S. Putin privately welcomes the Caesar Act because it does not target Russian interests in Syria, and its consequences for the Assad regime do not disturb him. He understands that he must work closely with the U.S. to bring about a settlement for the Syrian conflict, and it is clear to him that the Caesar Act could make that happen. Putin is keenly aware that for Russian companies to participate in the reconstruction of Syria, Moscow needs to establish an entente with Washington.

As for Iran, the U.S. has made it clear that it will not allow Tehran to use Syria and Lebanon as bargaining chips to spread its regional influence. To that end, the Caesar Act informs Iran that the U.S., in consultation with Russia, determines its influence in Syria, which rules out military intervention. Clearly this doesn’t sit well with leaders in Tehran, who seem determined to resist. On June 20, Hezbollah released a video clip that showed coordinates of targets in Tel Aviv and elsewhere in Israel that it claims are within range of its missiles. Nasrallah commented on the extraordinary revelation that “no matter what you do to block the pathway, it is over, and the task is done” – a reference to frequent Israeli attacks on missile manufacturing sites in Syria and arms convoys destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Nasrallah’s defiance drew an immediate reaction from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reiterated his determination to prevent Iran from enabling Hezbollah to develop advanced missile technology. There is little doubt that Hezbollah’s missile announcement is meant to provoke an Israeli response. It appears that the so-called axis of resistance – Iran, Syria, Hezbollah – has concluded that regional war is a lesser evil than economic strangulation.   






Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Bolton: Chem War in Syria
« Reply #290 on: March 16, 2021, 07:58:52 AM »
‘Red Line’ Review: The Calculus Didn’t Change
U.S. diplomacy didn’t stop Bashar al-Assad from murdering Syrians with chemical weapons. It only gave him cover.

A poison-hazard sign in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun on April 5, 2017.
PHOTO: OGUN DURU/ANADOLU AGENCY/GETTY IMAGES
By John Bolton
March 15, 2021 6:35 pm ET


Barack Obama’s 2013 deal to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons was touted at the time as proof that arms-control diplomacy can avert peril without resorting to force. The deal proved many things, but not that. It allowed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to escape from the consequences of his own malfeasance. It also showed rogue states and terrorists how to survive, and Iran and Russia how to play America. The losers: Syria’s people, America’s credibility, and Middle Eastern peace and security.

President Biden yearns to rejoin his former boss’s Iran nuclear-weapons deal, which was under intense negotiation as the Syria drama unfolded. Before he does that, he may wish to read Joby Warrick’s “Red Line: The Unraveling of Syria and America’s Race to Destroy the Most Dangerous Arsenal in the World.” This study, by a longtime national security reporter at the Washington Post, has important implications for countering proliferation generally.

Syria’s military precipitated the 2013 crisis by bombing Moadamiyeh, outside Damascus, with sarin, a deadly nerve agent, killing over 1,400 people. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the attack “the worst use of weapons of mass destruction in the twenty-first century.” Fortunately a U.N. inspection team was in Damascus to investigate reports of prior chemical-weapons strikes and so brought international attention to it.

How would Mr. Obama respond? In 2011 he had said, “Assad must go.” But despite substantial assistance to anti-government rebels, Mr. Assad remained in power. Then, in August 2012, Mr. Obama casually observed that “a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.”


Not by much. Although Mr. Obama considered responding militarily, he hesitated. He was “uneasy” after German chancellor Angela Merkel urged caution and British prime minister David Cameron lost a House of Commons vote that eliminated Britain as a partner. Trying to shift responsibility, Mr. Obama sought congressional approval, which he didn’t need and didn’t get anyway. At hand were the makings of a humiliating debacle.



Secretary of State John Kerry saw no diplomatic path for Mr. Assad to surrender or destroy his chemical weapons, saying on Sept. 9 that “he’s not about to do it.” But Mr. Assad did it—albeit not as a result of U.S. negotiations. Although the facts are unclear, the Syrian dictator had delegated authority to use chemicals to his generals, meaning the Moadamiyeh attack might have been ordered without considering the proximity of U.N. inspectors or even knowledge of Mr. Obama’s “red line.” Mr. Assad rapidly concluded he had made a terrible mistake and agreed to a deal.

Moscow applied pressure but clearly never intended to jettison Mr. Assad. Two years later, Russia significantly increased its air presence at Syria’s Khmeimim air base, complementing its nearby Tartus naval facility. Mr. Obama was again surprised. “Oh God, they’re getting ready to go in. They’re not going to let Assad lose,” said one adviser. Mr. Kerry, having been told that Russian planes were deploying to Syria, remarked cluelessly that “the level and type [of aircraft] represents basically force protection.” He was wrong. If the Russians only wanted to protect their assets, they could have kept them at home.


Mr. Assad didn’t surrender everything. In 2015, following the destruction of Syria’s declared chemical-weapons materials, Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons investigators found indications in Syria’s records that Mr. Assad may have concealed assets. This is critical. The OPCW and the U.N. depended on what Syria declared; they had little capability to gather additional evidence, and foreign intelligence in Syria was obviously inadequate. Mr. Warrick enumerates not only sarin, but considerable amounts of other nerve agents and toxic chemicals that went unaccounted for.

Mr. Assad simply switched chemicals. Instead of using sarin, the regime carried out scores, perhaps hundreds, of strikes using chlorine, not explicitly banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention but nonetheless used as an asphyxiant, which the Convention generically prohibited. This was, as Mr. Warrick puts it, “a perfect loophole.” Said one expert, “It’s brilliant . . . Low-casualty, but psychologically effective.”

Mr. Assad, Mr. Warrick demonstrates, was not “chastened or deterred.” At Khan Sheikhoun, in April 2017, Syria’s military again used sarin, proving either that it still had the nerve agent or had resumed production of it. President Trump’s military retaliation was inadequate. Mr. Assad subsequently used chlorine, striking several times, including a significant attack in Douma, one year later. After a confused internal debate, Mr. Trump retaliated again. He had learned nothing about Syria, Iran or Russia, concluding instead that the U.S. ought to withdraw its forces from the region completely, which he tried unsuccessfully to do for two years.

It is therefore wrong to conclude, as Mr. Obama’s admirers still do, that successful diplomacy ended Mr. Assad’s chemical-weapons threat. Mr. Warrick acknowledges that “ultimately neither president succeeded in changing Assad’s behavior or shortening Syria’s war.” The Syria case proves that mere physical destruction of mass-destruction weapons and materials is insufficient. While Syria (or Iran) possesses the knowledge and ability to produce them, it can always rebuild what it “destroys.”

Iran emerged victorious from two presidents’ failures against Mr. Assad’s chemical bellicosity. For America, Mr. Assad is not the central threat; the real menace is Tehran, which has emerged even more dominant inside Syria, buttressing its arc of control from Iran through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean. The mullahs almost certainly saw Mr. Obama’s hesitancy to use force in Syria as fear of undercutting the ongoing Iran nuclear negotiations. They correctly surmised that the American president wanted a nuclear deal more than he wanted to guarantee eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons.


The ayatollahs now watching Mr. Biden can discern this desire anew. Messrs. Obama and Biden both proceed, despite their denials, as if deals themselves are the objectives, not whether they are effective or ineffective. Their blinkered focus on the “deal” is very Trumpian, and correspondingly damaging to American national security. That is the real lesson.

Mr. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., served as national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019.

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the March 16, 2021, print edition as 'The Calculus Didn’

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Stratfor: In Syria Russia plays with fire restricting aid
« Reply #293 on: July 13, 2021, 06:59:47 PM »
In Syria, Russia Plays With Fire by Restricting Idlib Aid
4 MIN READJul 13, 2021 | 20:38 GMT





Civilians and humanitarian workers form a human chain calling for the continuation of U.N.-authorized aid near Syria’s Bab al-Hawa border crossing with Turkey.
Civilians and humanitarian workers form a human chain near Syria’s Bab al-Hawa border crossing calling for the continuation of U.N.-authorized aid from Turkey.

(OMAR HAJ KADOUR/AFP via Getty Images)

Russia's push to erode humanitarian conditions in Syria's Idlib province could trigger retaliatory attacks from Turkish forces and local militant groups, raising the risk of another major Russo-Turkish military confrontation and a new refugee surge into Turkey. Since the beginning of the year, Russia has been squeezing humanitarian corridors that lead into the still rebel-held province, which hosts around 2 million internally displaced Syrians. In February 2021, Russian warplanes struck logistics centers associated with the Bab al-Hawa crossing on the Syria-Turkey border, where U.N.-authorized humanitarian aid flows into Idlib. Then, through the spring, Moscow signaled it might block the re-authorization of the crucial crossing, which is the only one still operating under a 2014 U.N. mandate that allows aid through Turkey. On July 9, Russia voted to re-authorize the Bab al-Hawa post, but only under the condition that it remain the sole crossing and would be subject to greater scrutiny.

In February 2020, a Russian airstrike killed 33 Turkish soldiers in Idlib, sparking a major military confrontation between the two that both Moscow and Ankara were eager to de-escalate through a cease-fire the following month.

Before the last major round of fighting in Idlib province, Russian-backed Syrian forces had been attempting to undermine Turkey’s control of Idlib by attacking small slices of territory and surrounding Turkish-manned observation posts designed to prevent incursions.

By controlling the flow of aid from Turkey, Russia and its allies in the Syrian government are hoping to influence the behavior of militants in Idlib and create leverage to cut deals with rebel groups to surrender. Damascus and its allies will be able to cut off aid in reaction to militant attacks or offensives, and may also seek to direct aid to certain groups that agree to surrender. Such efforts, however, will risk exacerbating the already dire humanitarian crisis in northwest Syria.

Syria’s economy in both Idlib remains deeply damaged, with basic goods and services scarce, including gas, bread and electricity. The inflow of humanitarian aid is crucial to maintaining livable conditions at refugee camps in Idlib.

The United Nations has warned that without aid deliveries into the province, Idlib’s 3.4 million people — 2 million of whom are refugees — would face imminent hunger.

Idlib’s Role in the Syrian Civil War

Idlib was the site of years of back-and-forth fighting between Syrian factions and their various allies. But in 2015, Idlib emerged as a major rebel bastion following the Islamic State’s seizure of much of the Euphrates River Valley and rebel forces’ setbacks in southern Syria. The Syrian government also cut deals with some rebel enclaves to allow them to withdraw to Idlib province, including the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta in 2018. After the fall of Aleppo to government forces in 2016, Idlib remains the last remaining rebel-dominated province in the war-torn country, with the other areas not under Syrian control protected by either Turkey or the United States.

 

In retaliation, Turkey and militant groups in Idlib are likely to attack Syria and its allies to pressure them to regrant access to aid without restrictions. Turkey, its proxies, and more independent militant groups can threaten the fragile cease-fire in the province and escalate their attacks on the Syrian-aligned forces along the current frontlines, including by targeting Russian forces in the more distant Latakia province with drones and artillery. Turkey can also use its physical control of the Idlib border to re-open humanitarian corridors without U.N. authorization, but that unilateral decision would worsen Turkey-Russia relations and also potentially lead to Russian sabotage efforts against new crossings. Militants not under Turkish influence could inflict casualties on Syrian or Russian forces, sparking a major Syrian-led counterattack on Idlib. Conversely, Syrian and Russian forces, responding to Turkish or militant harassment designed to loosen aid restrictions, might inflict heavy losses on Turkish forces, compelling Turkey to militarily respond.

A larger military conflict would likely push more Syrian migrants into Turkey. A surge of displaced Syrians to Turkey’s borders would further fuel anti-Syrian sentiment from Turks concerned that their country’s limited financial resources are being used on refugees. But another major Russo-Turkish confrontation would likely produce a new wave of refugees into Turkey, especially as further Syrian-led advances will cut down on the already limited territory still under rebel control.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Stratfor: Syria
« Reply #294 on: July 30, 2021, 07:46:44 PM »
SUBSCRIBE
SIGN IN
SUBSCRIBE TO WORLDVIEW
SITUATION REPORTS
ANALYSIS
FORECASTS
EXPLORE
MEDIA
RANE

STRATFOR SITES
HELP & SUPPORT
SNAPSHOTS
In Syria’s Civil War, the South Reemerges as a Battleground
Jul 30, 2021 | 20:33 GMT





A picture taken on Aug. 2, 2018, shows destroyed buildings in the southern Syrian city of Daraa.
A picture taken on Aug. 2, 2018, shows destroyed buildings in the southern Syrian city of Daraa.

(MOHAMAD ABAZEED/AFP via Getty Images)

If government and rebel forces in Syria fail to ink a new cease-fire agreement, an escalation of fighting in the south could inspire unrest in other regime territories and send a new flood of refugees into Jordan. Tensions erupted between regime and rebel forces in the southern border city of Daraa on July 29, marking what the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights called the “most violent and broadest clashes in Daraa since it came under regime control.” The Syrian Al-Watan newspaper claimed a military operation had begun against rebel forces, while activists and opposition sources said that rebels had taken military checkpoints and repelled government attacks. Daraa has been in crisis since June 25, when Syrian forces demanded former rebels turn over light weapons under a cease-fire deal signed in 2018. But rebels balked at the prospect, with Syrian forces surrounding the city in an attempt to pressure rebels into...



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
D1: So, Trump was right?
« Reply #296 on: October 21, 2021, 03:31:49 PM »
U.S. troops attacked in Syria. A few rockets allegedly hit a base in southern Syria that houses American troops on Wednesday, AP's Lita Baldor reported. None of the Americans were injured, but it's unclear if the Syrian forces at al-Tanf were hurt.
Reminder: The U.S. outpost remains in place ostensibly to fight ISIS, though it's location also location also presents a target for Syrian and Iranian-linked troops in the region.
Says one critic: "The longer U.S. forces remain in Syria on an open-ended and ill-defined mission, the more likely an American will be pointlessly killed or seriously injured by a rocket or drone attack," said Daniel DePetris of the Defense Priorities think tank in Washington. "The only responsible course is a full withdrawal, saving U.S. troops from needless risk."

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18496
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #297 on: October 21, 2021, 04:32:00 PM »
wasn't obamas withdrawal what led to ISIS to start with ?

so let's do it again?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69376
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #298 on: October 21, 2021, 08:05:10 PM »
Trump said "We're destroying the Caliphate and then we are leaving."

The generals hornswoggled him and left some behind.  What purpose do they serve now other than to be a target and as such, a  trip wire?


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18496
    • View Profile
maybe your post from Afghanistan thread is reason
« Reply #299 on: October 22, 2021, 09:49:26 AM »
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17871/afghanistan-withdrawal-terrorist-cocktail

why could this not happen in Syria?

not sure

but just asking