The Russian/Syrian connection thread

[fathertime]

Something we have been discussing for a  long time as inevitable


"Aleppo is Obama's Legacy" -  Charles Krauthammer. 


"Bloodbath in Aleppo will haunt humanity" - Washington Post editorial

republican congress and figures have been leading the charge to entangle us in syria from the very beginning.  we can stay out, should have never fomented, and not armed 'the rebels'. 


Fathertime! 

[Bounder]

No, the USSR would have collapsed even without the invasion of Afghanistan. 

The Soviets invaded before the CIA ran covert operations.  The CIA did analyze Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion, when Taraki seized power.  There was already opposition to him, because of (a) tribal differences; and (b) human rights abuses, and that lead to the mujahadeen rebelling against him. 

Brezhnev insisted on invading Afghanistan, against the advise of both the KGB and the GRU.  It was then that the US trained the mujahadeen.

The Soviet economy was stagnating even before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  It had been stagnating since the 1950's, and was only kept afloat with oil sales and arms deals.  The collapse of oil prices in the 1980's probably had more to do with the collapse than the cost of the war in Afghanistan.  That, and outside factors, such as Eastern Europe not being kept in check, the influence of Pope John Paul, Reagan's arm's escalation, and the flaws in the KGB's "Khrushchev redux", Gorbachev, and so called "perestroika", including not foreseeing a Yeltsin.

Good analysis, but you forgot the arms race.  With a habitually stagnant economy, the vast spending on the arms race to keep up with the Americans, surely helped sink the Soviet Union as a viable entity.

[BillyB]

republican congress and figures have been leading the charge to entangle us in syria from the very beginning.  we can stay out, should have never fomented, and not armed 'the rebels'. 

I think Europe wanted to get involved with Libya and Syria more than Obama but to please our allies, he got involved. Obama has the power to end the war quickly instead of letting it drag on killing over a quarter of a million people and displacing tens of millions from their homes. Ideally it would've been best to leave it alone or end it quickly than what is currently taking place. Obama should take ownership of the mess he got involved with and let grow since he regularly blamed Bush for his mess. The Syrian civilian deaths is one thing but also the greatest terrorist group known to man, ISIS, grew from this. When countries destabilize and law and order ceases to exist, bad guys come out of the woodwork.

[fathertime]

I think Europe wanted to get involved with Libya and Syria more than Obama but to please our allies, he got involved. Obama has the power to end the war quickly instead of letting it drag on killing over a quarter of a million people and displacing tens of millions from their homes. Ideally it would've been best to leave it alone or end it quickly than what is currently taking place. Obama should take ownership of the mess he got involved with and let grow since he regularly blamed Bush for his mess. The Syrian civilian deaths is one thing but also the greatest terrorist group known to man, ISIS, grew from this. When countries destabilize and law and order ceases to exist, bad guys come out of the woodwork.

I don't know about us ending the war quickly...I suspect more serious involvement by us would have escalated the war even more. We didn't need to involve ourselves. 


Fathertime! 

[GQBlues]

It's high time Germany remove itself from the underpinnings of the Marshall plan (Japan & SK, too) so they can generate their own military. This way, the US can get out of those respective bases and allow Germany to advance their own interest in their need to expand their commerce. Merkel had Obama by his silly tail doing her dirty work for her in Ukraine and the middle-east. The EU is desperate to generate revenue to sustain their unsustainable social system. We get caught up in the muck in places like Ukraine, ME, Africa and Asia. For what?

Let the European countries continue their colonial hold on these petty little countries again, like the good ol' days. I'm elated to see the UK getting out of that union.

[Gator]

I am not certain the Obama administration can be blamed.

 

The liberal media such as the Washington Post and the MSNBC disagree with you.

Further, the damage is far from over.  Far from it!   Russia and Iran have plans for the next 20 years in the Middle East to exercise more and more control.     

With regard to Aleppo, Assad together with Putin and Iran are the war criminals, not Obama.  However, the naïve baby steps taken by Obama throughout his 8 years greatly extended the suffering, and worse, gifted the Middle East to Iran and Russia. 

Foreign powers, including Obama and Hillary, encouraged various Syrian factions to rebel against Assad and supplied the rebel groups, e. g., US giving arms captured from Libya.  Obama even drew a red line. Then we abandoned what we started, similar to the Bay of Pigs, except this time there were multiple rebel groups, some worse than Assad. 

Other than no fly zones, what was the option?

 

Not enforcing the no fly zone was huge.  Kerry even admits such.  Obama could have destroyed Assad's air force.  France asked us to join them in doing it.   If Assad's air force were destroyed, he would have fallen.  Even with his air force intact, the rebels were winning until  Putin entered. 

Instead of enforcing the red line, a "lead from behind" Obama was outsmarted by Putin.  That was the beginning of the end for the rebels in Aleppo.   

   Sending in American troops? 

Troops were not necessary other than advisors, which have already been assigned to some rebel groups. 

More important,  regular American combat units were already there (in nearby Iraq).   Obama's removal of troops from Iraq allowed ISIS to capture the financial assets to strengthen its forces in Syria, further weakening Assad's control. 

Given that the opposition is now primarily Sunni Islamists, what is the advantage to the West in defeating the Assad regime and installing another Sunni Islamist one?

Obama  stated, "Assad must go."  That was the wrong mission.  The rebels only needed to push Assad back to western Syria, home of the Alawites, freeing the rest of Syria for the rebel groups (who would now be fighting among themselves) until a Lebanon-type truce could be reached. 

Yemen, incidentally, is even more vicious than Syria.  But we don't hear much about it, as it's so bad, journalists aren't even covering it.

Yemen is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Sunni vs. Shia.   Yemen is a better preview of  what will happen in the Middle East than Syria.   

You say Yemen is "more vicious."   How do you measure this?

[Gator]

I'll also state that this should tell us something about how much Russia respects human rights.  Obliterate apartment buildings, hospitals, even schools full of civilians.  It doesn't matter if civilians die en masse.  That type of scorched earth policy was used in Chechnya as well.

Russia does this because their goal is to win, not to be drawn into a quagmire.

For all the liberals reading this thread, do you  see what happens when the US withdraws!  Bad hombres usually move in.  It was ISIS in Iraq and Russia in Syria.  Bad hombres don't have rules of engagement.   

[Gator]

The US have absolutely no business here, or in any other regions of conflict. Period.

We have now seen four different models for regime change to bring democracy to people under the ruthless control of a dictator representing a minority of the people.


Iraq - troops and air power.

Libya - no troops; but air power and support of rebel groups.

Afghanistan - troops, air power, economic aid. 

Syria - no troops, no air power; but support of rebel groups.

None are a success, so maybe you have a point.  The jury is still out in Afghanistan.  Iraq could have worked with a better governance plan. 

What do we do if a foreign power with no respect for human rights attempts the same?

All of these are matters fit for the United Nations' disposition. 

UN is good for peace-keeping, not bringing peace.   The UN will fail. 

[Gator]

Let the European countries continue their colonial hold on these petty little countries again, like the good ol' days. I'm elated to see the UK getting out of that union.

I agree with you regarding the Middle East.  We have been immersed in the Middle East since WWII - the reason........ oil and Israel.   


The US is energy independent.  The Europeans depend far more on Middle East oil than we do.   Let Europe and the Sunni nations deal with Russia and Iran.   

[I have been advocating this position for  long time]

The policy decisions about this region conflict will soon be Trump's responsibility.  I am not sure what Tillerson will recommend.   

[GQBlues]

...What do we do if a foreign power with no respect for human rights attempts the same?...

So what? Haven't we learned anything enough about getting stuck for someone else's sake? We have more than enough problems here at home. Trump is right, over a trillion dollars in the Middle-East and what do we have to show for it today? All we get for any of this is bring trouble upon our doorsteps.

Best we attend to our own from here on in and let everyone else fend for themselves for a change.

...UN is good for peace-keeping, not bringing peace.   The UN will fail...

'Peace and the UN' are no longer a pair. Not since the revelations of Iraq's Oil-for-Food scandal. Hell, maybe it never has been, at least that we are aware of.

Hard to run a global organization where you have 5 permanent seats composed of countries (WWII victors) serving their own interest, yet have the power to veto. The UN is, never has been, any different than the League of Nations. They promote peace and diplomacy, while at the same time making nefarious deals behind closed doors.

Let us just simply learn from Iraq's saga.

[fathertime]

   

Not enforcing the no fly zone was huge.  Kerry even admits such.  Obama could have destroyed Assad's air force.  France asked us to join them in doing it.   If Assad's air force were destroyed, he would have fallen.  Even with his air force intact, the rebels were winning until  Putin entered. 

Sounds like a bunch of partisan Monday morning quarterbacking, as usual.  As if other nations were all just going to sit idly by and permit the US to dictate the winner in another distant foreign land.  We should have never even mentioned a 'no fly zone'...


Fathertime! 

[fathertime]

Russia does this because their goal is to win, not to be drawn into a quagmire.

For all the liberals reading this thread, do you  see what happens when the US withdraws!  Bad hombres usually move in.  It was ISIS in Iraq and Russia in Syria.  Bad hombres don't have rules of engagement.   

   

I    Let Europe and the Sunni nations deal with Russia and Iran.   

[I have been advocating this position for  long time]

Looks like you are trying to have it both ways as usual.  On one hand saying we shouldn't be involved while stating we need to be involved to 'help'.


Fathertime! 

[Gator]

   ...What do we do if a foreign power with no respect for human rights attempts the same?...

So what? Haven't we learned anything enough about getting stuck for someone else's sake? We have more than enough problems here at home. Trump is right, over a two trillion dollars in the Middle-East Iraq alone and what do we have to show for it today? All we get for any of this is bring trouble upon our doorsteps.

Best we attend to our own from here on in and let everyone else fend for themselves for a change.

This was America's foreign policy before WW I.  We changed, and we enjoyed immense prosperity for most of those 100 years.    A British diplomat explained to me at a party that  English is the international language not because of the British empire, but because of American business in those 100 years.  The world benefitted too.

We can not go back.  The world is not flat, and the US is not an island.  Globalization is here to stay.

We should avoid military conflicts.  Our sense for humanity means we can not use Russian tactics.  Thus, we can not win.   

Instead of military power,   we can use sanctions to further our policies.  These can work well in accelerating globalization, because most nations depend upon trade.  However, ordinary people tend to suffer the most from sanctions (and in Russia, sanctions have had little effect and Putin enjoys high popularity).   

For murderous dictators,  we can ignore them.  It seems Arabs and Iranians are intent on killing each other, something that have done with fervor for centuries.    So sell them weapons and let them go at it.  Ignoring them means ignoring genocide, beheadings, etc.  And if we ignore that, why should we be concerned about human rights such as women's rights in Pakistan?    Liberals must stay silent even with such inhumanity around us. 

What I am saying, it is not as simple as letting everyone else fend for themselves.  It will not be long before they send jihadists to our shores. 

[Brasscasing]

So what? Haven't we learned anything enough about getting stuck for someone else's sake? We have more than enough problems here at home. Trump is right, over a two trillion dollars in the Middle-East Iraq alone and what do we have to show for it today? All we get for any of this is bring trouble upon our doorsteps.

Best we attend to our own from here on in and let everyone else fend for themselves for a change.


This was America's foreign policy before WW I.  We changed, and we enjoyed immense prosperity for most of those 100 years.    A British diplomat explained to me at a party that  English is the international language not because of the British empire, but because of American business in those 100 years.  The world benefitted too.

We can not go back.  The world is not flat, and the US is not an island.  Globalization is here to stay.

We should avoid military conflicts.  Our sense for humanity means we can not use Russian tactics.  Thus, we can not win.   

Instead of military power,   we can use sanctions to further our policies.  These can work well in accelerating globalization, because most nations depend upon trade.  However, ordinary people tend to suffer the most from sanctions (and in Russia, sanctions have had little effect and Putin enjoys high popularity).   

For murderous dictators,  we can ignore them.  It seems Arabs and Iranians are intent on killing each other, something that have done with fervor for centuries.    So sell them weapons and let them go at it.  Ignoring them means ignoring genocide, beheadings, etc.  And if we ignore that, why should we be concerned about human rights such as women's rights in Pakistan?    Liberals must stay silent even with such inhumanity around us. 

What I am saying, it is not as simple as letting everyone else fend for themselves.  It will not be long before they send jihadists to our shores.

Ya think? Brexit, TPP and Trump say different. I think this globalization thing may have hit it's high water mark (or at least has been slowed for the time being).

Brass

[GQBlues]

So what? Haven't we learned anything enough about getting stuck for someone else's sake? We have more than enough problems here at home. Trump is right, over a two trillion dollars in the Middle-East Iraq alone and what do we have to show for it today? All we get for any of this is bring trouble upon our doorsteps.

Best we attend to our own from here on in and let everyone else fend for themselves for a change.


This was America's foreign policy before WW I.  We changed, and we enjoyed immense prosperity for most of those 100 years.    A British diplomat explained to me at a party that  English is the international language not because of the British empire, but because of American business in those 100 years.  The world benefitted too.

We can not go back.  The world is not flat, and the US is not an island.  Globalization is here to stay.

We should avoid military conflicts.  Our sense for humanity means we can not use Russian tactics.  Thus, we can not win.   

Instead of military power,   we can use sanctions to further our policies.  These can work well in accelerating globalization, because most nations depend upon trade.  However, ordinary people tend to suffer the most from sanctions (and in Russia, sanctions have had little effect and Putin enjoys high popularity).   

For murderous dictators,  we can ignore them.  It seems Arabs and Iranians are intent on killing each other, something that have done with fervor for centuries.    So sell them weapons and let them go at it.  Ignoring them means ignoring genocide, beheadings, etc.  And if we ignore that, why should we be concerned about human rights such as women's rights in Pakistan?    Liberals must stay silent even with such inhumanity around us. 

What I am saying, it is not as simple as letting everyone else fend for themselves.  It will not be long before they send jihadists to our shores.

It wasn't too long ago where I read The Atlantic's report about the US's military involvement the world over. Obama actually heightened our military involvement despite what everyone believe.

Yes, you're right. It was $1.7 trillion dollars spent between both administration. Surprisingly, Obama outspending W.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-wars-numbers/474531/

Let's be done with all these. too many lives and too much cost. Africa had been just as violent albeit not getting nearly as much exposure. As bad as Syria is today, IMO, still pales in comparison to what the Tutsis went through at the hands of the Hutus.

ME/Africa. Two of the most volatile regions in our world today. Both still being victimized since the colonial era due mainly for their resources by western need/greed.

Sad.

[Gator]

Ya think? Brexit, TPP and Trump say different. I think this globalization thing may have hit it's high water mark (or at least has been slowed for the time being).

Depends upon how you define and measure globalization.  I assert the world has been globalizing ever since Marco Polo.  And the pace is accelerating.  Even if the rate of acceleration is slowed,  globalization continues across many of its parameters. 


There is no widely accepted definition of globalization other than trade is a core measure.    Besides trade, the term encompasses economic aspects such as movement of capital, monetary policy, etc.   Globalization is more than economics and includes political, social, cultural and environmental components.  For example, I mentioned earlier how English became the international language because of trade.   

Some of these non-economic aspects of globalization are the subject of debate.    You are correct that Brexit stopped political globalization, which will spill into other areas.  Social aspects such as movement of people and migration are now key issues in political elections, focusing on local economic impacts and assimilation of diverse cultures.  OTOH,one key cultural aspect, the dissemination of information and knowledge,  continues at a rapid rate of acceleration.

Aren't these secondary to economics? I assert economics will continue to drive globalization.   As hard as Great Britain attempted to protect its cotton cloth manufacturing, they could not stop Gandhi and India from spinning the cotton themselves.  And Walmart will open new stores.  And capital will move to where it earns the greatest ROI.  Isolationism is not the answer.

[Gator]

Let's be done with all these. too many lives and too much cost. Africa had been just as violent albeit not getting nearly as much exposure. As bad as Syria is today, IMO, still pales in comparison to what the Tutsis went through at the hands of the Hutus.

Good point. 800,000 people were slaughtered in Rwanda in about three months, and it received little attention other than a couple of Hollywood films.  The UN could not stop the slaughter. It ended only when Tutsis from surrounding countries intervened.  Twice that number of Cambodians were killed by the Khmer Rogue with only one film.   The world moved on. 

As a country  where the US played a heavy hand and then abandoned it, Vietnam has mostly forgotten its civil war (or war of liberation)  and transformed itself into an economic dynamo.  The world moved on.

I am not sure that the Middle East will move on.  They seemingly are unwilling to embrace modernity.  The Shia and Sunni will continue killing each other.   The Russians have replaced the US as the leading foreign power  in the region, and my limited perspective says its not important for the US to wiggle back into the region.   I say this because the US is not dependent upon ME oil.  We will get a good preview of Trump's plans in the Tillerson confirmation hearing. 

 

[BillyB]

Isolationism is not the answer.

Being in a bad partnership isn't a good thing either. Trump says Bill Clinton's NAFTA is the worst trade deal every. Maybe an exaggeration but Trump wants to change things. I do know America is doing fine without being in the EU and I doubt somebody could convince me why it would be better for us to join the EU. Maybe Britain can do better without the EU too. We will see and if Brexit was the wrong choice, they can always join back up with the EU if the EU continues to exist. I predict more countries will leave.

[Belvis]

There is no widely accepted definition of globalization other than trade is a core measure.    Besides trade, the term encompasses economic aspects such as movement of capital, monetary policy, etc.   Globalization is more than economics and includes political, social, cultural and environmental components.

US have greatly benefited from globalization in the last 100 years. So they promoted it strongly but the trend does not look irreversible. China moved on in the last dacades to cream off the best of what brings the globalization. History shows  the repetition of multi-year cycles where global processes are similar in nature but leading actors have been changed. 
The developed  world enjoyed the peace for over 70 years that looks rather as the anomaly from historical perspective. Internal hidden contradictions may be  accumulating and finally blow up, no one has a gift to foreseen future.
So we must be ready for any turn and assume wide set of option, let's say, from transformation of globalization towards isolationism to more apocalyptic outcome in the style of Mad Max movies, just to avoid it. If it's possible in principle to change the cycles.

[GQBlues]

Apparently the shooter of the Russian ambassador to Turkey was reportedly heard screaming "Remember Aleppo. God is great!".

Then in Germany, one dead so far and multiple injuries as a truck crashed unto Berlin's Christmas market! Many believe this to be an intentional act, possible terrorism.

Too bad for Germany! And Hillary wanted to increase the refugee count to the US at 500%.

[Boethius]

Canada took in over 35,000 Syrian refugees.  No terrorist attacks to date.


The issue in Europe is porous borders and lack of screening, not where the refugees come from.

[GQBlues]

They should all be sent to Canada then... 

DNI previously admitted that proper vetting of these refugees is next to impossible. How can you properly vet them when the source of information for proper vetting is, at this time, non-existent?

I still support Trump's safe zone.

[Boethius]

You can't know, but chances are if you do as Canada did, and only take families, rather than single men, you aren't going to have the problems Europe is having.

[GQBlues]

Could be, Boe...Tough world out there today though still...

IYWR, when Trump first declared Belgium was a hellhole even before the Paris attack, he got lambasted not only here at home (especially the liberal media), but also by Belgium's public officials. Saying he doesn't know what he's talking about...

Then a short while later...history happened.

[Boethius]

By that logic, there are a lot of hellholes in the United States, too.

Part of the issue in Europe seems to be lack of screening.  If you import goat herders who can't read or write their own language, they usually aren't going to be productive members of your society.  Contrast that with Pakistani surgeons or Indian dentists.