This afternoon I spent an hour and fifteen minutes on a conference call with three “senior administration officials” who gave me a preview of Obama’s speech and strategy. I spent most of the time on the call pulling my hair out.
I am very concerned about the decision to escalate and in particular to get involved in Syria. Very concerned.
But, first, let me give you the good news. The good news is that this policy has been set by some very, very smart well-intentioned people who are not bullshitting to deceive the country into supporting their plan. They have been deliberate and methodical, and the steps they have taken so far have made a lot of sense and have saved a lot of lives.
Here’s what they are getting right. First, they couldn’t do shit in Iraq until Prime Minister Maliki was gone because they would have been perceived as the Shia’s air force. They forced him out and they did it in consultation and with the consent of both Sunni powers and Iran. There are important Sunnis in Iraq, like the governor of Anbar Province, who are eager to work with us and with the new government in Baghdad. As a result of vigorous efforts in recent weeks, for the first time in a long time the regional powers are coming together rather than plotting to destroy each other. The people they are sending to Iraq and the strikes they are carrying out are being done at the request and with the blessing of the Iraqi government and with the consent of the regional powers. And their involvement in Syria is calibrated in a way that it has at least the potential to destroy ISIS without simultaneously helping the Assad regime gain ground or cause the Sunni powers to turn against the effort.
Now, the bad news. It may be difficult to get the Iraqi army and the Kurds’ peshmerga to become an effective fighting force even with American air power. We saw how effective this kind of arrangement can be when the Northern Alliance routed the Taliban, so don’t totally discount it, but the Northern Alliance was a more united armed force that was able to hold things together for a time after victory. The Iraqi and Kurdish forces are as likely to fight each other as ISIS.
Next there is the problem with Assad. The civil war will not end until Assad is gone. The administration doesn’t want to talk about a post-Assad Syria. They don’t have a plan for what to do with Syria anymore than Bush had a plan for what to do with Iraq.
We can train and equip so-called moderate opponents of Assad, but we’re going to run into problems with our relations with both Russia and Iran if we try to send them into Damascus. The administration doesn’t want to talk about that. What they did assure me is that they’ve spent the last two years working with so-called moderates and now they have a comfort level and the intelligence to feel like they know who they’re dealing with. They think they have opened the pipelines into Syria to where they can get the weapons into the correct hands. I’m glad they didn’t spend the last two years arming ISIS, but the fall of Mosul shows what can happen even with the best vetting in the world.
Here’s my problem. This plan is not bad by any means. It’s close to as good as I could come up with on my own. But it’s a very difficult plan to execute that relies on the American people being very patient. And I don’t believe that the American people are going to be patient. I worry that they will not get the time they need to make this work. I am not even sure any plan can work.
On the upside, the coalition they are putting together has the potential to end the sectarian warfare and improve relations between nations, and it could ultimately save many lives. I am really torn about this. I’m definitely feeling like Hamlet tonight.
Yep, The Goo Goo Dolls have the right line for this policy:
“Here’s what they are getting right. First, they couldn’t do shit in Iraq until Prime Minister Maliki was gone because they would have been perceived as the Shia’s air force. They forced him out and they did it in consultation and with the consent of both Sunni powers and Iran”
This I love. So we think we understand the domestic politics of Iraq better than the Iraqi politicians?
Why do we think that. Yea, I know everyone went to Harvard – but that does just mean they did well in high school. This is the first sign that we are in trouble. THEY DON”T KNOW BETTER!
Really smart people once had a great idea: let’s put Lon Nol in charge of Cambodia – then we can really go after the VC.
I could go on, but this is just pure hubris.
“Their involvement in Syria is calibrated in a way that it has at least the potential to destroy ISIS without simultaneously helping the Assad regime gain ground or cause the Sunni powers to turn against the effort”
I do not think it is possible to calibrate policy in this region in this manner. There are too many variables at play.
“We can train and equip so-called moderate opponents of Assad, but we’re going to run into problems with our relations with both Russia and Iran if we try to send them into Damascus. The administration doesn’t want to talk about that.”
The logical result of this policy is a never ending and murderous civil war – which is exactly what lead to the ISIS policy in the first place. They don’t want to talk about the what if – because the what if will require escalation.
It’s a fucked up policy that makes the same mistake Americans have been making for 50 years. All because some images floated across our tv’s, and people who have been told they are smarter than everyone else think the can help.
But history tells us unambiguously that the best and the brightest aren’t smart enough, and we continue to think we know better than everyone else.
Bottom line – the war mongers have sold us another war.
The Best and the Brightest
I’m hearing echoes of Vietnam and Cambodia. And cringe at the horrors that were inflicted on Cambodia after Nixon escalated the conflict to that country.
Vietnam is not much of a parallel – very different circumstances. I do not believe US ground forces are going back in strength.
But the Cambodia example is one worth thinking about. Not in the sense of the Killing Fields – an extreme and horrible result so barbaric it is unlikely to be repeated.
But in this sense: this policy has essentially led us to change a government. As in Cambodia, we think we have a better idea of what needs to be done. But that policy itself had horrific unforeseen consequences. As did, it must be said, our policy in Libya.
One result of all of this is to once again increase Iranian influence – which has been an ironic result of our policy in the ME since we invaded Iraq. I am not smart enough to see others.
What really bothers me is that this policy is likely to lead to a longer civil war in Syria – and the result of that should scare everyone.
We desperately need to let got of the outcome in the ME. We cannot change it in a material way. The Arabs have to figure out how to reconcile modernity and Islam. I get the sense that reconciliation is far from clear. Until that reconciliation happens, any ME policy is based on quicksand.
Echoes. South Vietnam = Iraq. By 1970 the US had spent fifteen years building up ARVN, elevating and later deposing a few presidents, and withdrawing troops from the S. Vietnam battlefields. Now the formal announcement of US escalation/bombing of Cambodia came a few days after the Cambodian coup that ousted Prince Sihanouk; whereas, Assad clings to power. The new leader, Lon Nol quickly aligned the country with S. Vietnam. ARVN troops (backed up by some US troops and air cover/bombs) engaged in battle in Cambodia against the Viet Cong and N. Korean troops that Sihanouk had tolerated in the country. The civil war began later that year. Lon Nol government forces = “moderate” Syrian rebels. Khmer Rouge = IS. Supported by China, N. Korea, and N. Vietnam. Alliances with other countries shifted during the course of the civil war.
Vietnam was done with the Khmer Rouge after signing of the Paris Peace Accords. (Not to be forgotten is that Russia, far more so than China, had long-standing ties with NV and later Vietnam.) Phnom Penh fell in 1975 (another helicopter evacuation of a US embassy). Lon Nol fled to California. Then the four year “Killing Fields.” Vietnam took out the Khmer Rouge in 1979. Sihanouk restored as King in 1993.
There is a sectarian and religious dimension to Iraq that makes it different.
The Cambodia example cuts both ways. If in 1974 you knew a Khmer Rouge victory would result in the killing fields, the case for staying involved in Cambodia would arguably have been much higher.
If in 1970 you knew that a Khmer Rouge victory would result in the “killing fields”, you would not have put Lon Nol in power and violated Cambodian sovereignty through invasion. Or would you have anyway because of “peace through honor”?
I wouldn’t have EVER become involved in Cambodia. But in ’74 we had already intervened, as we have in Iraq.
Look, I am against all of this, but the Cambodia case does at least give me pause.
Again echoes. Back in 2002-03 when I said remember Vietnam and quagmire, was told Iraq is a desert, not a jungle; so there’s no parallel. Yet, a dozen years, occupation, huge amounts of money, torture rooms, an incompetent military that we’ve trained and supplied, and an unstable government is not dissimilar.
To see the parallels to Cambodia and Syria, one has to view the divisions through the lens of cultural, ethnic, and governmental organization and not religion, although that wasn’t completely absent in Indochina. Start the clock in Cambodia in 1969 and not 1974. And recall that the US occupied S. Vietnam; thus, S. Vietnam and Iraq are the parallels.
In both Vietnam and Iraq, it was US intervention that led to what looked like a civil war. In Vietnam, we created a division when amongst the population there wasn’t one. We went in to prop up the dregs of the elite in S. Vietnam left over from France’s colonization (who did happen to be Catholic). We and our S. Vietnamese puppet governments (several coups) were the enemy.
Like Syria up until now, the US never owned direct participation in unseating the pre-existing government. Where it differs is that Sihanouk fell quickly to a faction that wasn’t without some power in the prior government and quickly aligned with the US and S. Vietnam. The subsequent US bombing and arming was to prop up that government which was under attack from those that preferred Sihanouk and what could be seen as a more radical split off faction, the Khmer Rouge. Had Sihanouk not been ousted, the Khmer Rouge may never have come into existence or achieved any significant power. There would have been the Lon Nol faction to his right and the Pol Pot faction to his left and Sihanouk would have been at the center.
Assad is battling forces to his right and they have been aligned with each other to unseat Assad. Idiots like McCain didn’t bother to differentiate between the two. But here’s the key point. The Sihanouk government was reasonably stable. Unlikely to become in conflict with Vietnam once the US got the hell out of there. The Assad regime had been reasonably stable — able not to engage in conflict with the Hussein Sunni government or Shia Iran. Accommodated to the fractured Iraqi government the US created. Perhaps a bit too much as huge numbers of Iraqi Sunnis fled to Syria.
Set your mind back to 1974 and imagine that Sihanouk is still in power and fending off those that wanted him out. Officially (Nixon had other ideas but he was being ushered out of the WH by then), the US was done with S. Vietnam and we were on our way out. Officially that is our current position wrt to Iraq. Would that be the time to interfere in Cambodia and support the Lon Nol faction with money and arms? To take on both the Sihanouk regime and little known and somewhat murky Khmer Rouge that had grown militarily fierce because US allies had begun funding them in 1972 for the sole reason that they too wanted to topple Sihanouk? That’s where we are today wrt to Syria. And I highly doubt that any American that had opposed to the Vietnam War and was only too happy to leave that country to its people would then have been supportive of using US military means to oust Sihanouk.
Differences. No carpet bombing. No Dan Rathers dodging bullets. No body counts. No defoliants; it is a desert, not a jungle. No external sanctuaries. No fragging. No shock about My Lai. No Madame Nhu.
And only now do we get a correspondence with Cambodia because of the attempt to get a vassal state, which ignited a civil war, which brought in highly discipline ideologues using mass terror as a political tool.
Depleted uranium instead of defoliants. (Congenital birth defects in both countries increased significantly from US military weapons.)
Fewer Iraqis died from our strategic bombings there than from the carpet bombing in Vietnam. But have to remember that the population of Vietnam was half that of Iraq and the estimate of deaths from sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s is half a million.
also, Cold war, proxy wars in process globally –
how about religious proximity [Abrahamic faiths, western religions vs easter]
Sometimes need to fall back on KISS. Do note the presence of various proxy war elements in both situations. The two constants seem to be the US and Russia, but introducing that adds complexity that isn’t analogous to the Cambodian precedent. A difference may be that IS isn’t a Syrian homegrown force like the Khmer Rouge was. A similarity is that neither the US nor Russia directly funded/supported the rise of the Khmer Rouge or IS. Too many cooks in both pots.
Capitalism v. communism were like proxy religions during the Indochina wars. And extremes of both led to as much crazed violence as seen today in the ME from religion.
Well, I was just referencing that the cold war period involved proxy wars – and as a separate point that the religious traditions of SE Asia are “Eastern” and those of ME, USA are [predominantly] “Western”, all Abrahamic. the difference creates a wide difference in way cross cultural understand happens/ is possible.
As far as proxy wars, well some ppl would like to return to that era, but I don’t see it happening.
I find these parallels pointless; the USA is very different now to begin with. do you have any idea how far away Vietnam was in 1970? no internet, no previous engagements there; no sizable population living for generations near Detroit?
Then history and the history of all wars must be pointless to you.
I stand with Santayana on this:
And:
Those that get bogged down in trees (oak trees aren’t like pine trees) have trouble seeing that the forests are remarkably alike.
No, that’s not what I wrote. History is to be studied and analyzed, and restudied, the first task in history is always a detailed analysis of event and circumstances. I’m saying, to discuss Obama’s proposal drawing facile comparisons with Vietnam is pointless. in fact even a cursory comparison of the circumstances shows the differences are vast . not seeing that shows an ignorance of history and how to do history (which in fact I happened to be trained in, thank you very much)
Except that’s not the historical comparison I made. Although one could say that Obama inherited the mopping up stage of Iraq as Nixon did Vietnam because, you know, it’s true, regardless of your training in history that says it’s not. That is the backdrop to the expansion of US military actions to topple the government of a neighboring country in both instances. Timelines differ. And Nixon’s expansion into Cambodia was officially and primarily another effort to win in Vietnam. Plus Lon Nol had quickly succeeded in Cambodia; whereas, the “moderate Syrian rebels” have not. However, in both instances the US bombing was presented as necessary to defeat an armed enemy to a government we installed/support allegedly operating from a third country.
I get your concerns.
But my question to you would be – do you see any alternatives? Could we afford the risk of doing less?
Doing nothing is already too much. We need to do less than nothing. To do penance for past American sins.
That’s the wrong way of asking the question.
The question should be “is trying and failing worse than not trying at all?”
Can you answer that question?
Because that’s the key question.
Failure is a very possible outcome of this effort.
Look, things are already a lot improved from where they were a month ago, but I’d rather move slower with less commitment to Syria. I’d like to focus on Iraq. See if the new government can get its shit together. See if a coalition can come together that can focus on sectarian reconciliation in Iraq.
I know the border is kind of arbitrary at the moment, but the headache in Damascus is more than we can chew right now. It’s just very risky.
I think we’ve done all we can in the worse than not trying front. How many years did we spend training Iraqis and how much good did it do us? When have we ever been able to successfully arm rebels where we haven’t made things worse? According to Jeffrey Goldberg’s tweet these Syrian guys are the same ones Obama told him couldn’t fight very well 6 months ago and they hate us too.
Yes I think keeping them from conquering Iraq as we currently are is good, and training the Kurds is good but that’s about it.
I’m not feeling very positive at the moment and so I basically agree with you, but I try to be optimistic.
So, let me at least give a shot outlining a positive scenario.
If they can put together a coalition that can work together across sectarian and ethnic lines and regional lines to beat back ISIS then maybe that same coalition can have some success in negotiating an end of the civil war in Syria that results in Assad stepping down willingly. And then they would have the framework for rebuilding Syria.
What this would mean is that we’d be building the relationships to do what is kind of unthinkable at the moment and put both Iraq and Syria back on their feet as multi denominational countries.
It’s a nice dream.
If it could succeed it would be 100% worth doing.
My problem is that it’s just so hard to pull off and so many things can go wrong.
Even if we should work toward that possibility, I think the president overcommitted tonight. He took more risk than was necessary, in my opinion. But, at least he did it for the right reasons. He isn’t trying to sell us a phony threat or promise an easy solution.
If the attempt to form a broad coalition can be made without pouring more troops in, then I can support it provisionally. If its more than a nonzero chance then fine but the potential for escalating the commitmet rests on one person’s (Obama’s, later maybe Clinton’s) discretion (Congress is heavily at fault here) and that makes me quite nervous.
At least I’m fairly confident Obama is sincere in personally not wanting to escalate.
And the more that Iraqi stability translates into Syrian stability, the more worried Israel becomes unless the Palestinian have gotten their autonomy from the apartheid state either within a unitary state in which they are the majority or within a two=state solution.
That’s the elephant in the room that no one is talking about tonight.
“is trying and failing worse than not trying at all?”
Yes, that’s probably a better way of framing the question. I wanted to ask because I wasn’t clear from what you’d written. I understand your position better now.
I really don’t know how to answer the question myself. Your suggestion about limiting involvement to Iraq makes me wonder if that’s possible – given the porous border.
There’s just a lot I don’t know.
Well, the military is not going to want a sanctuary on a porous border, but remember that Obama announced more than just cross-border strikes. He’s arming the rebels in Syria now, and that won’t solve the civil war unless they win it. And that means going to Damascus.
Did you conference call include any discussion about the role of countries like Saudi Arabia and/or Iran in all of this? I’m thinking particularly of their involvement in the Syrian civil war.
Yes and no.
Perhaps the only bullshit I encountered was a refusal to admit any coordination with Iran.
Saudi Arabia, however, was brought up repeatedly as an eager partner. They did not point out the irony of the situation, even to boast about the breakthrough.
Which is real bs, because without doing something about Hezbollah in Syria there’s no way things there are going to end well there.
“is trying and failing worse than not trying at all?”
And the answer to this is sadly, no. Not trying at all in this case is very, very bad. I think it’s not about whether we go after ISIL, but how. And you can’t go after them without also going after them in Syria. They’ve been active in Lebanon recently, too. But they at least need to be greatly reduced. They’re just too barbaric.
Here’s another positive scenario that isn’t so hard to imagine: We work to really annihilate ISIL in Iraq, but just vastly reduce them in Syria. Once they’re so reduced in Syria, just mic drop and get the F out. The trick there is to actually leave. The Military Industrial boys do like selling stuff.
But the bottom line is, we couldn’t do nothing. We just couldn’t.
Also, Hi, NL!
How about we tell all our allies that have been training and supplying IS to cut it out and take them out?
Of course that doesn’t lead to the toppling of the Assad regime which is the primary objective of this whole effort. But that can’t be stated publicly since our buddies in London refused to go along with it last year when the chemical weapons false flag was detected by too many other countries.
Parliament justifiably refused to sanction the UK’s participation in attacking Syria but I doubt it had anything to do with that “false-flag” op. I know plenty of sources claim the Syrians did it. Others, especially Russia, claim one of the opposition groups did it. I’m not sure why we could state with confidence that it was a false-flag op or not. It was convenient that’s for sure but that’s not proof of anything.
The best evidence points to a rebel false flag. I know it’s popular in the US to claim that Assad is crazy and/or stupid, but he’s neither and would have know that it was crazy and stupid to “gas his own people” with all the anti-Assad factions running around and ready to scoop up anything that would entice the US to assist them.
You make some good points but here are my issues with them. I don’t think the best evidence clearly indicates which party was at fault for this attack. To accept your premise I would have to discount the evidence that points to a regime attack. I’m willing to do this but I’m just as skeptical of alternate sources as I am of most Western media outlets. My point is that there’s enough chaff in the works to prevent reaching a reasonable conclusion for who was actually at fault which is why I question those who express certainty one way or the other.
Assad is certainly not crazy or stupid as the media tends to portray most dictators. However, this does not mean that one cannot make a crazy or stupid decision in the heat of battle. It’s also certainly possible that he simply had no operational control over regime elements in that area.
Well Booman called them Raw and a level bad and we so!show managed to turn a cold shoulder to that.
I like the coalition building and no ground troops. I just wish there was a war tax added in.
Hell, even I know you don’t tax wars.
And recognition of a Hamas-led Palestinian state.
And an embargo on arms shipments to Israel.
And a Apollo-project sized commitment to alternative energy.
And a pony.
I haven’t digested it all yet but a few questions. First, what makes them think the so called moderates in Syria just won’t sell the weapons to ISIS? They are good friends with Bandar? Second, why are we even taking on Assad at this time? and third, why are the Saudis or the Turks or the Jordanians not part of any of this?
I would also like to know where the oil ISIS has is going and through whom? Turkey perhaps?
they are in the coalition, that was reported a few days ago
Definitely not taking on Assad at this time. Obama’s brief mention in the speech was to assure Congress and the press that we’re not allied with Assad (but I think practically speaking, for the moment, we are, indirectly, through a semi-secret alliance with Iran).
That’s the second time you’ve mentioned smart well intentioned people but smart well intentioned people have led this country to some regrettable military adventures in its time.
yes, I know.
but they are better than stupid bad-intentioned people.
I disagree with the naysayers with regard to the fight against ISIS, but I agree with them if we get actively involved in the Syrian civil war.
The typical hopeless setup for US wars in my lifetime has been either brilliant or stupid people running misconceived, ill-intentioned wars. So it really didn’t matter much whether they were brilliant or stupid, it was all guaranteed to be a waste of blood and treasure.
I can’t think of one war we were involved in in my lifetime that wasn’t based on lies and false premises. Maybe there were one or two, but they don’t come to mind.
I don’t think that’s the case here. It is a very difficult situation, but the fight against ISIS is necessary, it has widespread regional and international support, we do have intelligent people, and we are not sending ground troops.
To me, the fight against ISIS is pretty straightforward and doesn’t need an analogy. But there is a real analogy between Assad and Saddam Hussein. If we try to further destabilize Assad, if we do anything in Syria other than fight ISIS, it is a recipe for disaster. Inevitably the fight against ISIS will have some effect on the civil war in Syria, but hopefully not too much.
Let’s say that Obama’s strategy works: ISIS’ power is broken and the organization ceases to exist. Okay, now will all those trained and motivated fighters return to whatever they did before taking to the field or will they form other groups some of which will be even more nihilistic and destructive than ISIS or even the Republican party? Looks to me like destroying ISIS may well be the prelude to years of playing whack-a-mole in the region and possibly beyond. Moreover, it can’t have gone unnoticed by actors both inside and outside of Iraq that its army has a bad habit in combat of folding like a cheap suit. Much mischief may stem from that alone.
Groups like ISIS feed on anger and discontent. You’re right that they will regroup, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will be as effective.
The rise of ISIS could be the cautionary tale that convinces the players in the region that it’s time to get their act together and quit playing games with dynamite. They have to genuinely decrease the anger and discontent.
Otherwise you’ll be proven right.
I think too many liberals bought into the hubris that the Democrats would simply have better results with foreign policy and running the wars than the Republicans. The past few years have shown me there is very little difference between the liberal interventionists that dominate the Obama WH and the neocons that ran Bush era foreign policy. Sorry, these people may not be as malevolent but they are just as naive and stupid when it comes to prudent foreign policy.
That is the reason I never joined the liberals that focused on the seeming ineptitude of Bush/Cheney in the occupation of Iraq while giving them a pass on the war itself. Why I opposed Obama’s decision to renew military engagement in Afghanistan and fight his “smart war.” It would have cost less to get out of there and to distribute some reparation payments to Afghan women and the results wouldn’t have been worse and might have been better.
I don’t think that this is going to end well. Assisting the Peshmerga with air strikes was one thing, this is another. No doubt that the US will, once again, play a considerably larger role than mere partner in a coalition.
What could possibly go wrong? Well,the Sunni street may not take this as well as we do, especially using Shias to attack other Sunnis.
The coalition is key and foregrounding the coalition is key . it’s not the USA trying to fix the situation Bushco messed up, it has to be (and it is, so far) a coalition of nations and regional groups (what do we call the Kurds) with an interest in removing ISIS from the region.
I read some comments over at the Orange place after the speech. lots of isolationism. ppl don’t have a concept of “non-hegemonic leadership” and ppl write we’re bound to mess up, leave the region alone) but the non hegemonic leadership is the only way forward for us for any issue. and in this instance are we supposed to sit by and watch the heirs of the cradle of civilization be destroyed? what we need is a lot of discussion about the coalition, – how it’s working and what it’s already achieved.
The Kurds, the Anbar Sunnis and the southern Iraq shias are regional governments of Iraq. Like more autonomous Canadian provinces and with their own militias that approach armies.
I see Juan Cole is not optimistic
http://www.juancole.com/2014/09/obama-fight-against.html
Let’s get right on providing arms and training to some of the Syrian rebels. If we start now there’s every chance that Syria will turn out as well as Libya did.
Too late; already a Charlie Foxtrot.
So many damn plays lurking on this chessboard. Can’t help but think of Putin as he watches two coalitions formed in a matter of weeks that Russia is on the wrong side of.
But looking at ISIL it may hold true that their leadership and its structure is not battle tested. They may be strong bullies but it’s too young an organization to have leaders that have backbone.
I did like the X-Files tact to tell ISIL the coalition forces were coming…with no date, time or dark alley certain.
ISIS/ISIL has incorporated trained officers and NCOs from both the Free Syrian Army and the army of Iraq. ISIS’ forces are largely highly motivated light infantry who are veterans of mobile and urban warfare in Syria. These forces are augmented by experienced fighters from Chechnya and the Balkans. This is not a ragtag band of religious fanatics who just recently picked up weapons and began to fight. ISIS/ISIL has made effective use of captured armor, artillery, and anti-aircraft weapons, that’s not something within the abilities of untrained troops.
Yes but I was thinking of Baghaddi where this article describes who he is as their commander “Some of his commanders have gone astray for unknown reasons” This is yet a splintered group, coming from many other battles but they are untried under this command, with a structure that is based on passion.
So the Turkish are going to continue to do hundreds of millions of dollars a month business with the Daish?
Hard to believe a NATO ally doing that while we’re spending taxpayers’ money at the other end of the supply chain trying to root them. Erdogan must have really given us the finger.
ISIS has hostages from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan….the list goes on. That is why Obama did not name the Arabs who are part of the coalition. At some point the hostage taking got to end up like the Somali pirate thing.
A coalition of anonymous Arabs, you’re saying? This will end well.
Thanks for the background. The good parts are indeed good (for now) and agree with most of the stuff that has been coming out independently about the situation in Iraq. The fact that they are consulting with Iran and other regional powers (presume that means Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Israel at least keeps everyone in the loop so they can posture domestically.
Boyoh do I share your concerns and especially the way the President spun the Syria operation. My most optimistic take is that he is trying to shut up McCain and Graham, who have a habit of making situations escalate through their influence on the media. In practice, it is possible for him to slow walk this to the tempo of events and to the extent there is US-Russian agreement on Syria.
Who exactly are these Syrian moderates and how exactly is the US going to ensure that they do not just become a back-channel means of delivering arms to ISIS? Is there any sense that the administration understands this problem or is the military and diplomatic community in denial about this issue?
Another concern was the part about beefing up our intelligence. Is it possible at all to turn the intelligence community around from its strategy of wasting money unconstitutionally conducting a dragnet of all of the world’s citizens and focus on intelligence related to actual terrorist threats and politics? The big data approach has obscured what the US most needs to understand.
What has to happen is for all of the parties concerned to back off of the use of force of arms and return to normal politics that actually involves honest negotiation. It is obvious that as a transnational disciplined outside ideological force that ISIS has ensured that it cannot be part of that dialogue. But the major political parties in Iraq certainly can be sharing power more responsibly for the entire population. The US has done more than enough to facilitate that happening in easing Maliki into retirement. It is up to the personalities involved now to carry that forward. It probably time for the US to stop brokering that relationship and let the people there figure out how to make it work.
I worry about the attitudes of US personnel in Iraq. The cultural arrogance of Americans in general and a lot of the military personnel in particular in the past has undone much that the US intended to do. And I also worry that there are hidden commercial agendas being carried out that contradict the US activities as an honest broker and provider of air cover and undermine the ability to improve local relationships.
As long as the battle is defending Iraqi towns and cities against further ISIS advance, I think that airstrikes will be pretty straightfoward even with ISIS having captured some US anti-aircraft systems. However, when the coalition of various Iraqi troops and militias and allies (such as Iranian Quds units) are working to dislodge ISIS from an already captured town or city, using US troops to paint targets become riskier. Having casualties under those situations will become a problem for the American public and there will be Congressional pressure and grandstanding to double down on the American presence there, which is the trap that ISIS wants to set. Alternatively, using drones extensively in urban spaces endangers Iraqi civilians, the very people we are trying to protect. And that plays into the trap that ISIS wants to set as well; we have seen how poor intelligence and military tone-deafness has complicated those issues in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Somalia for all the bragging the President did about our successes there. Pakistan is in shaky political condition right now precisely because the use of drones is such an issue.
It is an extremely difficult plan to execute because it depends on the political evolution of our primary partners in Iraq. And it will work only to the extent that all of them continue to see ISIS as their first and primary threat. And that is a shaky thing that we must test constantly and be prepared to leave rather than double down if we start becoming the problem.
In Syria, the only legitimate role I see is in the coalition containing ISIS through airstrikes against major equipment and artillery if there is, for example, an ISIS campaign against Aleppo. Remote imaging intelligence and good signals intelligence shared within the coalition might be the US contribution instead of actual sorties by US aircraft from Turkey or the Mediterranean.
What would look like success in this operation? First of all political accommodation among the three semiautonomous regions of Iraq in that permits containing ISIS from advancing out of Sunni territory. Then the slow eviction of ISIS fighters from Sunni territory through support of Sunni and other coalition troops. Interdicting ISIS supply lines from Syria would be a regular operation. And the liberation of Mosul from ISIS rule would be a major accomplishment.
Having normal economic and social life return in most of Iraq and suppressing IED attacks would be the next mark of success. This would have to occur through the effective operation of the Iraqi Security Forces and the increased legitimacy of systems of justice in Iraq. That is going to be a very heavy lift for Iraqis. Iraq must prove itself capable of governance and administration much more effectively and freer than what ISIS is capable of. And ISIS will be provoking security state repression in order to prevent this. Iraqi Security Forces and the people who advise them must not take the bait.
The struggle of the President and the US military will be to keep the US presence minimal but just enough to tip the balance toward the self-determination of the locals. Dependent on local knowledge instead of systematic US military training will come hard to the US military. But that sort of humility will be required if the they don’t want this operation to backfire.
It is indeed dicey, but if it can shut up the GOP warsquawkers for three months, it might be a useful plan.
In my opinion, leadership in this situation requires a good sense of practical minimalism.
The usual critics are betting that the US policy desires permanent chaos and permanent military expenditures. This is a good opportunity for the administration and the US military to signal that that is not (or is not longer) the case.
Who exactly are these Syrian moderates and how exactly is the US going to ensure that they do not just become a back-channel means of delivering arms to ISIS?
Isn’t that the real problem. Isn’t it also telling that Congress doesn’t want to have a vote on all of this? What does that tell you?
Obama’s cringing, false, just-walking-through-the-usual-bullshit-because-I’m-almost-outta-here-and-it’ll-be-someone-else’s-he
adache-while-I-collect-my-(
un)just-rewards speech. It looked like something you might hear in a second year public speaking class by someone who has to get to work at McDonald’s in half an hour. Did he have a cab waiting or what?Even more disgusting? The pandering media…including Booman, who knows better and can’t really come down with both feet for Obama anymore but needs to stay in a leftiness media position in order to feed his family.
So it goes.
And so we go as well.
Back down even further into the Economic Imperialist World Police inferno.
Stay tuned.
It’s gonna get worse before it gets better.
Watch.
AG
you can be a real asshole.
the people putting this policy together are trying their best to get it right. It’s just not a situation that accommodates easy answers.
that might have been the most agonizing thing about listening to them explain their plan. They are doing so much right. But their chances of success are not so great.
To hear you say that I am feigning my conflicted feelings to get a paycheck is very insulting.
Your posts about this Iraq War v.3 are totally conflicted, Booman. Sorry, but there it is, as obvious as the sun rising on a cloudy day. Over and over again you mention your work in the leftiness media and how hard it is. You also speak with some pride of your telephone conferences and other contacts with representatives of the Obama regime, etc. Yet your core values seem to be in direct conflict with the results of this administration’s tactical decisions…decisions that are made with little or no regard to true, minute-to-minute morality. These decisions are then hyped in the media…and in truly loathsome, lie-filled speeches by Obama and the likes of John “Goldigger” Kerry…as examples of the highest morality, as decisions that are based on treal humanitarian principles.
I call bullshit.
Up and down the line.
These are the same kinds of decisions that have led the U.S. on an ever-accelerating downward journey since its first incursions into Viet Nam 60+ years ago. They are wrong on principle, and the ongoing failure of this country and its culture bears more than adequate witness to their error. It is often said that the definition of insanity is the act of repeating the same actions over and over again even though the results of those actions are not what they were meant to be. By that definition the United States is now officially nothing less than batshit crazy.
You compromise your root principles…the ones you mentioned recently as having been inculcated in you by witnessing your father’s outrage at Nixon-era criminality…every time you bow to the so-called “necessities of power,” something that you have been doing with greater and greater regularity here on this site. I can relate. My grandfather’s loathing of Joe McCarthy had the same effect upon me. I trust that you are not doing all of these long, hard hours of work with the established leftiness media for free, right? And as a result of this work, you establish contact with higher and higher levels of the Permanent Government as well. You are climbing a ladder, Booman, and there is no way that you can deny this. Everybody has to make compromises…I made mine when I was raising my son, to my eternal loss on some levels…but during a long life I have found where my own set of compromises must end if I am to remain an honorable and moral man in my own eyes.
Lines must be drawn, and the buck has to stop somewhere, Booman. Call me an asshole for pointing this out to you if you wish to do so, but I speak from experience. You are of course free to make your own decisions…or at least freedom of that sort is the commonly held opinion in this world although there are some very wise people who have intimated otherwise. So were Bernie Madoff, Al Capone, Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi “free”, just to name a few contrasting examples. Most of us reside somewhere in the middle of that moral range, but you do have to be careful regarding which ladders you choose to climb. Some of them lead straight down into hell. Bet on it.
Have a nice day, as they say at the cash register.
Have a nice day.
Later…
AG
“Doing things right” but at the same time getting the country mired in other conflicts while ignoring others at home. I don’t know what political writers think is going to happen if we meddle in other countries in this fashion. I don’t think Booman can give a unfiltered opinion if he is connected to white house officials for information.
Because we would have the same problem if Jay Carney had a blog and talked about the “reality on the ground ” Just like we have the same problem w/ any politicos connected w/ information who seem to be distorting the actual reality further.
The truth is, Isis isn’t a threat to us on the scale urgency we must face. I have more of a chance of being the next Batman on the big screen than I do of my family being attacked. I think Booman knows this is madness deep down inside but he is too tethered to a faltering shining light of the world.
Eventually we all have to take a step back and realize we can’t erase threats in the world, we just replace them w/ more complex & fractured threats that are harder to deal w/ than ever before.
All we can do is say condolences to all those who are lost and fight the best you can. We are sorry for the fact that we are addicted to meddling w/ other countries when we can’t even get our country resonant and sound. We never actually did, that has been just a illusion we like to play over and over to make us feel better of how many lives we shattered in this country over ignorance and pride.
If we really are concerned w immoral and atrocities we wouldn’t be an ally to Saudi Arabia, where 20 beheadings have taken place since 2012-some over the crime of witchcraft.
If Oil is that important to us, we can’t clearly have this righteous holier than thou discussion concerning morality and exceptionalism. Better to focus on issues at our shore than abroad, we will be more respected and we might gain footing in finding a little resolution we can all benefit from.
Read this if you have not done so already:
Is Morality In Government Possible? If Not, We Might Just As Well Give Up Now.
Here is part of it:
That states my case quite well, and I rest it there.
I am sorry if you are offended by my actions. As always, I take them in good faith.
Moral good faith. (See my sig for more.)
AG
A little political context on this speech:
What I saw was placing this operation under the original authorization to use force against terrorism and not the AUMF for Iraq. Now can Congress expire the original Iraq AUMF since they have a democratic government in place?
Aren’t we ignoring international authority? US drones in Pakistan and Yemen operate with the approval of those governments — even if not publicly and formally announced. Under what authority can the US bomb targets in Syria? Overflights aren’t even legal without the approval of Syrian authorities. Bombing any targets in Syria is an act of war and as such, the Syrian government has the legal authority to respond.
International “authority” is not sovereign – it only has as much authority as it is given by the sovereign nations who are “ruled” by it. IOW it’s just a mechanism for enforcing the consensus of powerful nations; if there is no consensus between powerful nations then international authorities are merely marionettes without a puppeteer.
Our authority is our will and our military, same as it has been for at least 6,000 years for the big dog on the block. Dogs and blocks have changed but the simple principle of “Might makes right” hasn’t changed and never will no matter how many multinational trappings we hang over it.
Many excellent posts in this thread!
The U.S. administration and it’s neo-colonial allies have been messing with Syria since the year 2005 in favor of the Sunni Gulf States. The overall intention was to break the axis Iran – Baghdad – Damascus – Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Obama White House has taken the lead to overthrow President Assad, the same as in Libya and Bush did with Saddam Hussein. The removal of Assad and inflicting pain on Iran was in close coordination with the Israeli regime of right-wingers/settlers. It’s almost pacifying Israel’s hunger to bomb Iran in 2012 that Obama agreed on this path of regime change. Obama and its allies were fully part of the coalition to support the FSA and the political outsiders lining up abroad for decades. The inability to form a political opposition was another grand failure of Hillary Clinton. The U.S. has allowed tons of arms to be shipped from Libya to Syria via NATO partner Turkey. The US have trained “moderate rebels” in Jordan and on NATO bases in Turkey. The Al Nusra Front and ISIS have expressed their deepest appreciation to the US for training their men. Arms and fighters moved from the moderates to the Al Qaeda affiliated groups. ISIS was born out of the Sunni insurgency of Anbar province started in March 2003. Listen to the excellent interview with George Mitchell and read his articles in the Boston Globe.
I have no confidence in the people of the White House to get the policy right this time.
If Obama can’t fix the Israelis to move forward on a two-state solution with the Palestinians, he won’t succeed in any other campaign to remove ISIS or Assad. Saudi Arabia has been Israel’s ally in warfare against the ayatollahs of Iran, but the national interest of the Saudis force them to back the U.S. against ISIS that was created between them. The Saudis are no partner for peace in the region, they should be our nr. one foe to stop their funding of extremeists, preaching hate and propagate Wahhabism throughout the world.
The points you made are at the heart of the matter. You play with the devil you pay a heavy price. As long as the US keeps kissing the Saudies the ME is toast. Its truly an upside down world. Excellent post.
I’ve been looking but couldn’t find anything so far. I thought Iraq asked Pres Obama to help push back ISIL and help the situation with the Yezidis. If asked, maybe it was limited to that situation.
I see people saying this is just like W. Bush, but if we are asked to intervene and if Pres Obama has been saying Iraq needs to have a more inclusive government (which they are doing) before he committed then it’s not the same.
In 2009 and early 2010 I was thinking the Tea Party would collapse and the US would get back to normal civility. After the 2010 midterms I realized it would never be the same.
I see the Middle East the same way. We are never going back to some kind of “peace” that we determine. They’ve been fighting for centuries. They’ve had intervention from other countries deciding their fate and interfering. They don’t have the same desires for their country that we do or the same idea of Democracy. Not to say they don’t want to vote or have peace. Just saying they don’t have the same values or culture we do.
I was in college during the Vietnam War. What I saw then and certainly with Bush was American doctrines and values being imposed on those countries for our own interests. I don’t see that now. I see one absolute mess that has the potential to spread into a massive conflict in that region.
It’s a fluid situation with all kinds of forces at work. There is a transformation going on and it will come to a new balance. We can have a part in what the balance looks like. It’s not a matter of controlling any group or country to make them do our will. We have to deal with uncertainty, look at each situation as it comes up and respond with intelligence and care. I have a great deal of respect for Pres Obama and his thoughtful approach.
A misunderstanding? No, the executive branch of government and Office of the President of the United States of America is not the source of International Law. See also the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
A declaration by President Obama, Muammar Gaddafi is illegitimate and can be taken out is not based on Internatonal Law.
A declaration by President Obama, Bashar Assad is an illegitimate head of Syria and the United States recognizes the NSC as the legitimate representative of the state of Syria is not based on International Law and is just bat crazy.
A declaration by President Obama, General Sisi is the illegitimate head of state of Egypt and regime change was in fact a coup d’état does hold water. The elected president Morsi was overthrown by a popular uprising in July 2013, nevertheless Obama and Secretary Kerry announced Egypt and president Sisi will be part of the coalition against ISIS. Peculiar, former president Morsi was member of the Muslim Brotherhood in a strong alliance with Erdogan in Turkey, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the emir of Qatar. General Sisi declared the MB a terrorist organization, cut ties with Hamas and stopped Egyptians to join the jihad by traveling to Syria to overthrow Assad.
○ MB Axis Egypt – Turkey – Qatar Faces Defeat
A declaration by President Obama, the legitimately elected Yanukovich in the Ukraine should be overthrown by force by support of the violent protests in Kiev and especially the Right Sektor throwing molotov cocktails towards unarmed police. A new government in place after “elections” on May 25 used planes for bombing raids and artillery fire on the population of the districts of Luhansk and Donetsk. Over 2,600 persons have been killed, yet the Obama administration and NATO allies expand their support fot the Kiev junta.
○ Amnesty International: Abuses and war crimes by the Aidar Volunteer Battalion in the north Luhansk region
The United States supports the minority regime in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia send troops in support of the Sunni elites. Nearly three quarters of the population is Shia and have little or no say in the government. The presence of a base of the US Naval Fleet seems to be an argument not to support democracy.
From Central America to the Middle East …
○ US Violations of International Law by Rick Sterling
Is there any talk whatsoever of lifting sanctions on the Kurdish PKK militia? You know, the only group with a lot of success in kicking ISIS ass? Stuff like that tells me how serious the president is about confronting this supposed threat to the US.
Does it also rely upon a flux capacitor?
I have a theory.
There is nothing that Obama can do domestically considering this Congress and the one that will be elected in a couple months, so Obama’s domestic legacy is already written. What can he focus on for the remainder of his presidency that can benefit the country and bolster his overall legacy? He can’t seriously touch Ukraine without sparking WWIII, so the only significant play is in the Middle East. Israel and Hamas already gave him the finger on the Palestinian question so we have the fallout from Bush’s Misadventure in Mesopotamia. Fixing what Bush farked could be both beneficial to his legacy and a definitive black eye to Bush’s legacy. However, playing in the ME tends to go badly, so there is significant risk. History may say:
I hope it works out for him, and for us.
I’m a little angry at the progressive defeatism over the election in the first week of September.
The issue for Democrats in mid-term elections is that Democratic voters don’t turn out in numbers like they do in Presidential years. In particular, minorities, women, youth, and lots of progressives don’t turn out in mid-term elections.
Rev. William Barber and the Moral Monday movement is working hard to turn this around in several states (and not just North Carolina). And his strategy build national turnout by building turnout to flip the state legislature.
In Georgia, the GOTV campaign is focusing on getting 50 voters per precinct who did not vote 2010 and did vote in 2012 to vote in 2014 in addition to normal GOTV activities.
In Kentucky, there is the unique opportunity to dump Mitch McConnell if a sufficient number of voters who rarely turn up for mid-term elections actually go vote for Allison Grimes. In Georgia the same is true for the Governor and US Senate races. Concentrating on legislative races could produce similar outcomes by catching GOP candidates in “safe districts” napping.
Politics is a matter of persuasion, human choice, and human action. The presence of opinion polls gives it the appearance of being out of human control, like the weather.
There are seven weeks left to work an electoral miracle in the US. Changing the pattern of who turns out to vote in midterms. Hopefully Ferguson, the issue of police impunity, and yet another war will turn people out to vote who had not had an reason to before now.
IMO only Barack Hussein Obama can slow walk action in Syria and shut up the GOP war hawks. He just has to make them afraid of him acting strongly and shutting up their shtick.
He can now say, “We now have in place a strategy that our military and I agree is practical. We need to be patient while our wonderful military works that strategy.” And the Middle East disappears as a GOP issue for the election. At that point, he is totally dependent on the competence and obedience of the US national security and intelligence community not to play politics with how they implement the strategy. And not to use backchannels to Congress to do budget plays or staffing plays using complaints about Obama as a foil.
You dig into the fact sheet on this strategy relative to Syria and for the moment it is Congress that must act relative to Syria by framing a Congressional authorization (likely as a sense of the Congress resolution) about Syrian policy. That will take a little time; the appropriations for aiding moderate opposition will take a little time; deciding who is and who is not eligible as “moderates” for that funding will take a little time; figuring out how weapons aid does not fall into the hands of ISIL will take a little time. The President is not obligated to show publicly any action in Syria likely until after the election and the appropriations bills (which have been moved after the election) are complete.
It will take ISIL provocation to keep the issue of Syrian and Iraq in the public eye for the next two months. Meanwhile the righty talker are dealing with a “war President”.
IMO, the next two months are a hit the streets moment for progressive activists doing diverse sorts of tactice. Delivering Michigan from Snyder will take what amounts to a refugee relief and voter mobilization operation in Detroit and raising Democratic voter turnout numbers in the rest of Michigan. In the South, there are lots of opportunities for involvement in Moral Monday activities leading up to the election and putting pressure on politicians.
In most large cities, the Fight for $15 movement could use additional people in the street with fast food workers keeping the minimum wage issue alive for the election.
St. Louis folks have the obvious issues of local government corruption and police impunity in the 90+ suburban municipalities.
Wisconsin, Florida, Texas, and Arizona have issues of reclaiming government from the crazies. And folks in Pennsylvania should not be complacent because the poll numbers look good for the govrnors race. And there are legislatures to deal with in all of these states.
It is time for all of us to get out like we haven’t done since 2006 or 2008. Maybe since the 1968-1970 period.
This election is a test of whether electoral politics is still a valid means of political change in the US. It is an existential election for both institutional parties although few realize that yet. It’s time the remaining Democrats in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party act like it matters and go for broke in the next seven weeks not to support particular candidate but to change the political culture. Proving that people power is more powerful than all of the Kochs’ and Adelsons’ and Trumps’ money and that media ad buys don’t matter anymore through creative culture-jamming tactics.
It is the little stuff that lots of individuals do that matter more than what people say in the opinion polls. You will see this on the landscape in the opinion polls closer to the election.
Between now and Christmas could very well be the fight of our lives.
We will likely keep the Senate, but it would take a miracle for us to take the House. That’s not defeatism, that’s just the reality of this gerrymandered Congress. Not saying that it can’t happen, just not expecting the miraculous.
Obama’s legacy on foreign policy is already chipped in stone: a complete failure. The next 28 months can only limit the extremity of his failure. Syria quagmire is Obama’s responsibility, the failure in the overthrow of Gaddafi played an important role with transfer of arms, funds and jihadists. Every revolt attracts the worst of extreme jihad fighters from all over the globe. Stop creating chaos and the US may succeed in limiting terror. The Israel-Palestinian issue has exposed the US for what it is, extremely biased in favor of Israel. The Arab states are fully aware of the US role. The US cannot play the Gulf States as proxies, there is too much wealth and influence embedded/invested in the western financial centra.
Kevin McDonald, ISIL Isn’t Medieval: Revolution, Statemaking, and Terror are Modern
Look to the fallout from the French Revolution and dress it up in Hollywood orientalism of Jack Bauer’s worst nightmare. The staging if ISIL’s terror tactic.
…and it’s suckered Ted Nugent.
Notice not one peep on Saudi Arabia on news networks, looks like our morality courage ends right about where our oil pipeline starts.
Saudi has it all though, beheadings,torture & bearded men in robes telling you that the US is satan, seems to be the next target for injustice. We can do it, AMERICA!
from 2012:
“Saudi man executed for ‘witchcraft and sorcery’
The man, Muree bin Ali bin Issa al-Asiri, was found in possession of books and talismans, SPA said. He had also admitted adultery with two women, it said.
The execution took place in the southern Najran province, SPA reported.”
Human rights groups have repeatedly condemned executions for witchcraft in Saudi Arabia.”
Oh really?
○ The Atlantic: Saudi Arabia’s War on Witchcraft
Posted earlier in my diary – Quite Depressing Really, Obama and the ISIS Crisis | Aug. 26, 2014 |.
Listen up.
Saudia Arabia is our puppet. Or, we’re their puppet. Doesn’t matter…
They are on our official Allies!TM list. And they sell us lots of oil.
So it’s cool if they behead people.
I’m sure the coalition of the willing is going to work this time. It JUST has to, and if it doesn’t it is the fault of the emoprog movement! See? I have this all figured out if things go wrong…
Bombs and bullets have been solving the Middle East’s problems since time immemorial, so I’m sure this time we’ll be hailed as liberators with more flowers than last time!