• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Syrian opposition welcomes Obama's announcement.....

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Syrian and Iranian officials criticized the Obama administration on Thursday for excluding them from an international coalition coming together in the battle against the Islamic State group, while a state-run Syrian daily warned that unauthorized U.S. airstrikes on Syria may trigger the "first sparks of fire" in the region. The strongest reaction, however, came from Russia, Syrian President Bashar Assad's main international ally. A Russian Foreign Ministry statement said such military action without a U.N. Security Council resolution "would be an act of aggression and flagrant violation of international law."

Syria's main Western-backed opposition group, meanwhile, welcomed Obama's first-ever authorization of U.S. airstrikes in Syria, saying it stands "ready and willing" to partner with the international community to defeat the militants. But the Syrian National Coalition said that airstrikes need to be coupled with a strategy for ultimately toppling Assad.....snip~

Syrian opposition welcomes Obama's announcement

As some of us Mentioned, and of course the MB backed Rebels want Assad out so they can take power. Quite willing to go and take on the Militants as long as Assad is targeted too. In the meantime the New UN Envoy says he will work towards a political settlement over the Syrian Conflict. How do you think this now affects BO strategy? What say ye?

69a8116aa54b56235f0f6a706700248f.jpg

Graphic shows possible coalition support in the fight against the Islamic State group
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
The New UN Envoy met officially with Assad today.


Syrian Minister for Reconciliation, Ali Haider, warned that "any action without the approval of the Syrian government is an aggression on Syria." Speaking to reporters Thursday, he said international law dictates that any military action needs Damascus' approval, and should also be coordinated with the government. "I wonder how an international coalition can be formed and Syria, which is targeted by terrorism in depth, is shunned aside?" Syrian lawmaker Sharif Shehadeh told The Associated Press in Damascus. He said violating Syrian sovereignty will have "negative repercussions on regional and international security." He did not elaborate. The state-run al-Thawra newspaper warned in a front-page editorial that Obama's authorization of airstrikes in Syria might be "the first sparks of fire in the region."

The new U.N. envoy to Syria, meanwhile, said "the top priority now is to fight terrorism." Speaking on his first visit to Damascus following a meeting with Assad on Thursday, Staffan de Mistura said he will strive "with a renewed energy" to move toward a political settlement to the Syrian conflict......snip~
 

Brich

Banned
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
159
Reaction score
59
Location
NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Syrian and Iranian officials criticized the Obama administration on Thursday for excluding them from an international coalition coming together in the battle against the Islamic State group, while a state-run Syrian daily warned that unauthorized U.S. airstrikes on Syria may trigger the "first sparks of fire" in the region. The strongest reaction, however, came from Russia, Syrian President Bashar Assad's main international ally. A Russian Foreign Ministry statement said such military action without a U.N. Security Council resolution "would be an act of aggression and flagrant violation of international law."

Syria's main Western-backed opposition group, meanwhile, welcomed Obama's first-ever authorization of U.S. airstrikes in Syria, saying it stands "ready and willing" to partner with the international community to defeat the militants. But the Syrian National Coalition said that airstrikes need to be coupled with a strategy for ultimately toppling Assad.....snip~

Syrian opposition welcomes Obama's announcement

As some of us Mentioned, and of course the MB backed Rebels want Assad out so they can take power. Quite willing to go and take on the Militants as long as Assad is targeted too. In the meantime the New UN Envoy says he will work towards a political settlement over the Syrian Conflict. How do you think this now affects BO strategy? What say ye?

69a8116aa54b56235f0f6a706700248f.jpg

Graphic shows possible coalition support in the fight against the Islamic State group


This should have been done at least a year ago and the SOF agreement should have been signed.

images9L2RQ0RL.jpg
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
China weighed in too. They more or less went with Russia and the Sovereignty issue with Syria.

Syria is a sovereign country. I would expect the same response if we decided to bomb any other sovereign country, just because rebel groups want to take power. We are already arming the rebels, and as far as I know, it has not been proven that Assad was the one who used sarin gas. How would this be beneficial for him? This is not our affair, and even our allies, Great Britain and Germany, will not take part, other than to provide humanitarian aid for the victims.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Syria is a sovereign country. I would expect the same response if we decided to bomb any other sovereign country, just because rebel groups want to take power. We are already arming the rebels, and as far as I know, it has not been proven that Assad was the one who used sarin gas. How would this be beneficial for him? This is not our affair, and even our allies, Great Britain and Germany, will not take part, other than to provide humanitarian aid for the victims.

Well today we were questioning if Assad just used Chlorine within the last few weeks again. Which Team BO wanted to get that out Right away, with whats going on Syria besides the terrorists.
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Well today we were questioning if Assad just used Chlorine within the last few weeks again. Which Team BO wanted to get that out Right away, with whats going on Syria besides the terrorists.

Assad is fighting the rebels who want to topple the government. He is a college-educated leader who wants his people to be able to join the 21st Century instead of going backwards like the rebels would like to do, where women have no rights, and are forced to wear those hideous burkas. Where in the H*** do the Democrat women in Congress stand on this? They're quick enough to attack those who don't agree with them on birth control pills and womens' rights in America! Again I ask - is it logical that Assad would use sarin gas, or chlorine, or anything else, on his people? To what benefit? Last I read, he had an approval rating of about 70% with his people.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Assad is fighting the rebels who want to topple the government. He is a college-educated leader who wants his people to be able to join the 21st Century instead of going backwards like the rebels would like to do, where women have no rights, and are forced to wear those hideous burkas. Where in the H*** do the Democrat women in Congress stand on this? They're quick enough to attack those who don't agree with them on birth control pills and womens' rights in America! Again I ask - is it logical that Assad would use sarin gas, or chlorine, or anything else, on his people? To what benefit? Last I read, he had an approval rating of about 70% with his people.

Well, it has been confirmed Chlorine was used. But even the UN said both Assad and the Rebels used it. Although now it is known Assad gave up all the other Chems that were listed.

US 'deeply troubled' by Syria chlorine report.....

The United States said it was "deeply troubled" Wednesday after the world's chemical watchdog confirmed the systematic use of chlorine as a weapon in war-torn Syria. Syria did not have to declare its stockpile of chlorine -- a weak toxic agent that can be considered a chemical weapon if used offensively -- as part of a disarmament deal agreed last year because it is widely used for commercial and domestic purposes.

All of Syria's declared stockpile of dangerous chemicals has either been destroyed in country or exported for destruction as part of a deal agreed a year ago in a bid to head off US-backed air strikes on the Syrian regime following a deadly chemical attack in Damascus.....snip~

US 'deeply troubled' by Syria chlorine report
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Well, it has been confirmed Chlorine was used. But even the UN said both Assad and the Rebels used it. Although now it is known Assad gave up all the other Chems that were listed.

US 'deeply troubled' by Syria chlorine report.....

The United States said it was "deeply troubled" Wednesday after the world's chemical watchdog confirmed the systematic use of chlorine as a weapon in war-torn Syria. Syria did not have to declare its stockpile of chlorine -- a weak toxic agent that can be considered a chemical weapon if used offensively -- as part of a disarmament deal agreed last year because it is widely used for commercial and domestic purposes.

All of Syria's declared stockpile of dangerous chemicals has either been destroyed in country or exported for destruction as part of a deal agreed a year ago in a bid to head off US-backed air strikes on the Syrian regime following a deadly chemical attack in Damascus.....snip~

US 'deeply troubled' by Syria chlorine report

So the US is "deeply troubled" about the chlorine report in Syria. I understand that Syria is the headline of the week at the moment, but were they equally troubled by Boko Haram who abducted 300 schoolgirls in Africa, and is raping and torturing them...while burning down villages that don't agree with them, after hacking them to death. Have we sent "advisors" there? How about Hamas in Palestine who uses women and children as shields? Did we intervene there? Those leaders are evil - Assad is not, IMO. He may be a bastard, but the UN confirmed that he did destroy his chemical weapons, as he agreed to do. Hamas has yet to abide by any agreements they make, but I guess that's different. The hypocrisy is sickening! :thumbdown:
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
So the US is "deeply troubled" about the chlorine report in Syria. I understand that Syria is the headline of the week at the moment, but were they equally troubled by Boko Haram who abducted 300 schoolgirls in Africa, and is raping and torturing them...while burning down villages that don't agree with them, after hacking them to death. Have we sent "advisors" there? How about Hamas in Palestine who uses women and children as shields? Did we intervene there? Those leaders are evil - Assad is not, IMO. He may be a bastard, but the UN confirmed that he did destroy his chemical weapons, as he agreed to do. Hamas has yet to abide by any agreements they make, but I guess that's different. The hypocrisy is sickening! :thumbdown:


Yep some advisors and FBI.....yes they did confirm he gave up the Chems. Just like they confirmed the MB backed Rebels for using Chems and Chlorine too.

Now this New UN Envoy wants to work out a political solution even though the MB backed Rebels say Assad must go.

I doubt Kerry or our UN Ambassador has talked with this New Envoy.
 

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
5,417
Reaction score
3,732
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Syria is a sovereign country. I would expect the same response if we decided to bomb any other sovereign country, just because rebel groups want to take power. We are already arming the rebels, and as far as I know, it has not been proven that Assad was the one who used sarin gas. How would this be beneficial for him? This is not our affair, and even our allies, Great Britain and Germany, will not take part, other than to provide humanitarian aid for the victims.

Assad did not do the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta.

"Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.[...] But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed." (Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad's regime: U.N. official - Washington Times)

"A team of security and arms experts, meeting this week in Washington to discuss the matter, has concluded that the range of the rocket that delivered sarin in the largest attack that night was too short for the device to have been fired from the Syrian government positions where the Obama administration insists they originated." (BERLIN: New analysis of rocket used in Syria chemical attack undercuts U.S. claims | Syria | McClatchy DC)

"Syrian President Bashar Assad has repeatedly rejected requests from his field commanders for approval to use chemical weapons, according to a report this weekend in a German newspaper.

The report in Bild am Sonntag, which is a widely read and influential national Sunday newspaper, reported that the head of the German Foreign Intelligence agency, Gerhard Schindler, last week told a select group of German lawmakers that intercepted communications had convinced German intelligence officials that Assad did not order or approve what is believed to be a sarin gas attack on Aug. 21 that killed hundreds of people in Damascus’ eastern suburbs." (BERLIN: Intercepts caught Assad rejecting requests to use chemical weapons, German paper says | National | McClatchy DC)

"This statement has now come under fire. In a 23-page report, two US experts from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) concluded that the attack could not have originated from "the heart" of the regime-controlled area.

In detail, the former United Nations weapons inspector Richard Lloyd and national security expert Theodore A. Postol explained that the rockets were much too short-range to have been fired from the center of the government-controlled areas. The "heart" of Damascus, they said, is between five and ten kilometers from the scene of the strike, while the missiles in question could only have flown two kilometers.


The reason for this unusually short range was that the attackers attached Sarin canisters on the rockets which impaired their ability to fly. This, the MIT experts say, would have curtailed their range from 20 kilometers to just two." (Analysts question US intel on Syria chem attack | World | DW.DE | 18.01.2014)
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Yep some advisors and FBI.....yes they did confirm he gave up the Chems. Just like they confirmed the MB backed Rebels for using Chems and Chlorine too.

Now this New UN Envoy wants to work out a political solution even though the MB backed Rebels say Assad must go.

I doubt Kerry or our UN Ambassador has talked with this New Envoy.

What can the UN envoy do? Russia is going to veto any attempt to overthrow Assad, and if one veto won't do it, China and others will probably join in. No one wants a war that can't be won without destroying a large part of this planet, and the people who live there. The MB does not make the rules in this game!
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Assad did not do the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta.

"Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.[...] But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed." (Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad's regime: U.N. official - Washington Times)

"A team of security and arms experts, meeting this week in Washington to discuss the matter, has concluded that the range of the rocket that delivered sarin in the largest attack that night was too short for the device to have been fired from the Syrian government positions where the Obama administration insists they originated." (BERLIN: New analysis of rocket used in Syria chemical attack undercuts U.S. claims | Syria | McClatchy DC)

"Syrian President Bashar Assad has repeatedly rejected requests from his field commanders for approval to use chemical weapons, according to a report this weekend in a German newspaper.

The report in Bild am Sonntag, which is a widely read and influential national Sunday newspaper, reported that the head of the German Foreign Intelligence agency, Gerhard Schindler, last week told a select group of German lawmakers that intercepted communications had convinced German intelligence officials that Assad did not order or approve what is believed to be a sarin gas attack on Aug. 21 that killed hundreds of people in Damascus’ eastern suburbs." (BERLIN: Intercepts caught Assad rejecting requests to use chemical weapons, German paper says | National | McClatchy DC)

"This statement has now come under fire. In a 23-page report, two US experts from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) concluded that the attack could not have originated from "the heart" of the regime-controlled area.

In detail, the former United Nations weapons inspector Richard Lloyd and national security expert Theodore A. Postol explained that the rockets were much too short-range to have been fired from the center of the government-controlled areas. The "heart" of Damascus, they said, is between five and ten kilometers from the scene of the strike, while the missiles in question could only have flown two kilometers.


The reason for this unusually short range was that the attackers attached Sarin canisters on the rockets which impaired their ability to fly. This, the MIT experts say, would have curtailed their range from 20 kilometers to just two." (Analysts question US intel on Syria chem attack | World | DW.DE | 18.01.2014)

Greetings, Mr. Invisible. :2wave:

So Assad is not guilty as charged! I'm actually relieved to hear that scientifically explained by the inspectors. He may be beleaguered at the moment by others who want him gone for their own reasons, but he is not stupid. It just made no sense that he would make such a move that would bring him no benefit.
 

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
5,417
Reaction score
3,732
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Greetings, Mr. Invisible. :2wave:

So Assad is not guilty as charged! I'm actually relieved to hear that scientifically explained by the inspectors. He may be beleaguered at the moment by others who want him gone for their own reasons, but he is not stupid. It just made no sense that he would make such a move that would bring him no benefit.

Good day ma'am.

It seems so. While I don't like Assad, from the very beginning the whole thing never made since to me. Assad is trying to win the civil war, why would he risk US intervention- and thus losing the civil war- in order to use chemical weapons? And if I recall correctly, this was during the time when Assad was making strides due to his allies in Hezbollah coming to his aid. So why would he risk his comeback by using those weapons?
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
What can the UN envoy do? Russia is going to veto any attempt to overthrow Assad, and if one veto won't do it, China and others will probably join in. No one wants a war that can't be won without destroying a large part of this planet, and the people who live there. The MB does not make the rules in this game!


Mornin' Lady P. :2wave: Well he says he will look for a political solution with Syria. Which we know Assad will not step down. So this would be putting a wrinkle in BO's plans for Regime change.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Syrian and Iranian officials criticized the Obama administration on Thursday for excluding them from an international coalition coming together in the battle against the Islamic State group, while a state-run Syrian daily warned that unauthorized U.S. airstrikes on Syria may trigger the "first sparks of fire" in the region. The strongest reaction, however, came from Russia, Syrian President Bashar Assad's main international ally. A Russian Foreign Ministry statement said such military action without a U.N. Security Council resolution "would be an act of aggression and flagrant violation of international law."

That the U.S. announced a "broad coalition" before it had put it together was mind-boggling enough. Now the Arabs have come on board, but with a very weak arrangement that does not assure any kind of military contribution. The Jeddah Communique has weak commitments relative to the Arab states' interests (especially security-related interests) at stake.

At the same time, the U.S. risks major problems by failing to work with other parties that have major interests at stake. The U.S. cannot reasonably expect those countries to be indifferent in the face of actual and/or perceived threats to their interests. The U.S. need not have allied itself to the Assad regime given its position, which itself reduced its room for maneuver, but it needed to put in place mechanisms to assure that an anti-ISIS effort could not reasonably be perceived as a "backdoor regime change" approach and would have a low probability of evolving in that direction.

Both matters illustrate anew that lack of strategic thinking capability that has hobbled American foreign policy in recent years, leaving it excessively ad hoc and reactive in nature. My guess is that the thought process that led to the unveiled strategy did not consider what a post-ISIS Mideast would look like, is not anchored in a larger foreign policy doctrine for that region, and, therefore, never laid out a practical series of steps toward those ends with full (if any) consideration of the reaction of all the major parties with interests at stake (friendly Arab states and other major powers i.e., Russia and Iran). Contingency planning has been an Achilles Heel for U.S. military and political leaders in recent years. The released strategy strongly suggests that this deficiency has not been resolved. As a result, there is a real risk that the strategy will wind up far less effective than it could have been, despite the reality that Russia, Iran, and the Arab states all have an overriding interest in quashing ISIS. Arms supplies to sectarian elements in Syria could increase weapons leakage to ISIS and intensify Syria's bloody sectarian conflict that has claimed the lives of an estimated 140,000 persons.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
That the U.S. announced a "broad coalition" before it had put it together was mind-boggling enough. Now the Arabs have come on board, but with a very weak arrangement that does not assure any kind of military contribution. The Jeddah Communique has weak commitments relative to the Arab states' interests (especially security-related interests) at stake.

At the same time, the U.S. risks major problems by failing to work with other parties that have major interests at stake. The U.S. cannot reasonably expect those countries to be indifferent in the face of actual and/or perceived threats to their interests. The U.S. need not have allied itself to the Assad regime given its position, which itself reduced its room for maneuver, but it needed to put in place mechanisms to assure that an anti-ISIS effort could not reasonably be perceived as a "backdoor regime change" approach and would have a low probability of evolving in that direction.

Both matters illustrate anew that lack of strategic thinking capability that has hobbled American foreign policy in recent years, leaving it excessively ad hoc and reactive in nature. My guess is that the thought process that led to the unveiled strategy did not consider what a post-ISIS Mideast would look like, is not anchored in a larger foreign policy doctrine for that region, and, therefore, never laid out a practical series of steps toward those ends with full (if any) consideration of the reaction of all the major parties with interests at stake (friendly Arab states and other major powers i.e., Russia and Iran). Contingency planning has been an Achilles Heel for U.S. military and political leaders in recent years. The released strategy strongly suggests that this deficiency has not been resolved. As a result, there is a real risk that the strategy will wind up far less effective than it could have been, despite the reality that Russia, Iran, and the Arab states all have an overriding interest in quashing ISIS. Arms supplies to sectarian elements in Syria could increase weapons leakage to ISIS and intensify Syria's bloody sectarian conflict that has claimed the lives of an estimated 140,000 persons.


Mornin DS'. :2wave: I have Kerry here talking about Airstrikes in Syria. Also if you note, there was no mention of an endgame. Also the UN has now sent a NEW Envoy to Syria. He has stated he will work for a Political Solution with Syria. This would be in opposite of what Team BO and Kerry are saying about the MB backed Rebels. How do you think this Envoy will affect BO's policy with Assad and Syria?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...63-kerry-u-s-not-war-isis.html#post1063747817
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Mornin DS'. :2wave: I have Kerry here talking about Airstrikes in Syria. Also if you note, there was no mention of an endgame. Also the UN has now sent a NEW Envoy to Syria. He has stated he will work for a Political Solution with Syria. This would be in opposite of what Team BO and Kerry are saying about the MB backed Rebels. How do you think this Envoy will affect BO's policy with Assad and Syria?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...63-kerry-u-s-not-war-isis.html#post1063747817

The envoy's efforts will not influence the Obama Administration's thinking. By plunging into a hasty call for regime change on account of failing to recognize that Syria was gripped by a sectarian not democratic revolution, the Administration squandered strategic flexibility on the matter. It cannot make a 180° turn to cooperate with Assad, much less work with him to combat ISIS. The best it can do is not arm sectarian elements, but locked into its earlier flawed assumptions about the nature of the sectarian conflict, it is unable or unwilling to take that modest step.

Having said that, the UN envoy probably won't have much success in facilitating a political settlement. Sectarian conflicts involve parties with very basic differences and a zero-sum perspective that precludes the kind of pragmatism needed to reach such settlements. Typically battlefield exhaustion, the battlefield situation, or a conclusive battlefield outcome bring about a settlement. There is little evidence that the parties are exhausted. The extreme civilian death toll is an enormous tragedy, but none of the parties has demonstrated much concern for civilian welfare. Hence, the civilian death toll does not figure much in their attitudes and calculations. What would figure in their calculations is if they were losing a sufficient number of fighters and an inability to replenish their ranks so as to create a possibility that their forces might essentially face total destruction. I don't think either side has reached that point. Hence, I have very little expectation that UN envoy will bring about a political settlement anytime soon.

What could change this is if the outside great powers (Russia, U.S., Iran) put pressure on the parties to accept a ceasefire that recognized the on-the-ground reality: the Assad government will not be leaving in the near-term (though its role might be modified to some extent), but would afford opportunities for greater political participation among its civilian opponents. This would be an imperfect outcome, but a practical settlement would be preferable to a continuation of the sectarian conflict. At the same time, amnesty and later opportunities for rehabilitation in Syrian society would almost certainly have to be granted to the armed elements on condition that they disarm with a verification mechanism enforced by the major powers to assure amnesty is implemented. Of course, ISIS and al-Nusra should be excluded. But that's probably the only path that has some prospect of leading to a future political settlement. For obvious reasons, the U.S. is not likely to participate in such an approach, because it staked out a regime change position that has deprived it of the strategic flexbility that would allow it to play such a role. External developments related to Russia's intervention in Ukraine and Iran's nuclear activities further diminish prospects for such an outcome. In short, the great power approach is not likely to be pursued and this reduces prospects for a near-term political settlement.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
The envoy's efforts will not influence the Obama Administration's thinking. By plunging into a hasty call for regime change on account of failing to recognize that Syria was gripped by a sectarian not democratic revolution, the Administration squandered strategic flexibility on the matter. It cannot make a 180° turn to cooperate with Assad, much less work with him to combat ISIS. The best it can do is not arm sectarian elements, but locked into its earlier flawed assumptions about the nature of the sectarian conflict, it is unable or unwilling to take that modest step.

Having said that, the UN envoy probably won't have much success in facilitating a political settlement. Sectarian conflicts involve parties with very basic differences and a zero-sum perspective that precludes the kind of pragmatism needed to reach such settlements. Typically battlefield exhaustion, the battlefield situation, or a conclusive battlefield outcome bring about a settlement. There is little evidence that the parties are exhausted. The extreme civilian death toll is an enormous tragedy, but none of the parties has demonstrated much concern for civilian welfare. Hence, the civilian death toll does not figure much in their attitudes and calculations. What would figure in their calculations is if they were losing a sufficient number of fighters and an inability to replenish their ranks so as to create a possibility that their forces might essentially face total destruction. I don't think either side has reached that point. Hence, I have very little expectation that UN envoy will bring about a political settlement anytime soon.

What could change this is if the outside great powers (Russia, U.S., Iran) put pressure on the parties to accept a ceasefire that recognized the on-the-ground reality: the Assad government will not be leaving in the near-term (though its role might be modified to some extent), but would afford opportunities for greater political participation among its civilian opponents. This would be an imperfect outcome, but a practical settlement would be preferable to a continuation of the sectarian conflict. At the same time, amnesty and later opportunities for rehabilitation in Syrian society would almost certainly have to be granted to the armed elements on condition that they disarm with a verification mechanism enforced by the major powers to assure amnesty is implemented. Of course, ISIS and al-Nusra should be excluded. But that's probably the only path that has some prospect of leading to a future political settlement. For obvious reasons, the U.S. is not likely to participate in such an approach, because it staked out a regime change position that has deprived it of the strategic flexbility that would allow it to play such a role. External developments related to Russia's intervention in Ukraine and Iran's nuclear activities further diminish prospects for such an outcome. In short, the great power approach is not likely to be pursued and this reduces prospects for a near-term political settlement.

I like how you put that.....that BO and his team lost the strategic flexibility by going with Regime change with Assad. Hastily too. Myself, I don't think this Envoy will be able to even get a cease fire. The MB backed Rebels are excited now that the US will give them a lil somethin' somethin' and that they can fight on against Assad. That it was not a Democratic revolution but a sectarian conflict. Says it all.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yesterday, I noted that NATO member Turkey had not signed the Jeddah Communique, even as it committed none of the signatories to military action against ISIS. It turns out Turkey's position was not only indifferent, but potentially undercut U.S. efforts. From the BBC:

US Secretary of State John Kerry is pressing Turkish leaders in Ankara to support more military action against Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria.

The visit comes after Turkey refused to allow the use of its air bases to launch attacks on the jihadist group.


BBC News - Kerry in Turkey to boost support for anti-IS coalition
 

Fearandloathing

Just watchin'
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
22,274
Reaction score
18,879
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Syrian and Iranian officials criticized the Obama administration on Thursday for excluding them from an international coalition coming together in the battle against the Islamic State group, while a state-run Syrian daily warned that unauthorized U.S. airstrikes on Syria may trigger the "first sparks of fire" in the region. The strongest reaction, however, came from Russia, Syrian President Bashar Assad's main international ally. A Russian Foreign Ministry statement said such military action without a U.N. Security Council resolution "would be an act of aggression and flagrant violation of international law."

Syria's main Western-backed opposition group, meanwhile, welcomed Obama's first-ever authorization of U.S. airstrikes in Syria, saying it stands "ready and willing" to partner with the international community to defeat the militants. But the Syrian National Coalition said that airstrikes need to be coupled with a strategy for ultimately toppling Assad.....snip~

Syrian opposition welcomes Obama's announcement

As some of us Mentioned, and of course the MB backed Rebels want Assad out so they can take power. Quite willing to go and take on the Militants as long as Assad is targeted too. In the meantime the New UN Envoy says he will work towards a political settlement over the Syrian Conflict. How do you think this now affects BO strategy? What say ye?

69a8116aa54b56235f0f6a706700248f.jpg

Graphic shows possible coalition support in the fight against the Islamic State group



The strongest reaction, however, came from Russia, Syrian President Bashar Assad's main international ally. A Russian Foreign Ministry statement said such military action without a U.N. Security Council resolution "would be an act of aggression and flagrant violation of international law."


seems we're back at the "Red Line" thingy and the "international community"

Nice how Iran, with her $600 billion in restored sanction money is joining in the fray.....

The past, it seems, continues to haunt Mr. Obama's foreign policy
 

Fearandloathing

Just watchin'
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
22,274
Reaction score
18,879
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What can the UN envoy do? Russia is going to veto any attempt to overthrow Assad, and if one veto won't do it, China and others will probably join in. No one wants a war that can't be won without destroying a large part of this planet, and the people who live there. The MB does not make the rules in this game!

Very good point, Polgara...

This is why Russia and Iran have raised the stakes and cite the UN specifically. Putin knows without asking China will veto anything, and Putin can sit back and jeer.

We are back at the "international community" and Obama's "red line" that was first an "attack" on Syria, then a "teeny attack" then Ukraine happened.

He is still in the same dilemma, he attacks Syria he risks staring an all out war and he can't put boots on the ground. ISIS is not the barbarian bunch of brain dead monsters as they are being painted, they appear very clever at this juncture...it appears to be a chess game with the best possible scenario for the US is a draw.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
seems we're back at the "Red Line" thingy and the "international community"

Nice how Iran, with her $600 billion in restored sanction money is joining in the fray.....

The past, it seems, continues to haunt Mr. Obama's foreign policy

Notice this is all these MB backed Sunni Rebels care for.....taking over Syria. They aren't concerned about all the civilian deaths. Just getting rid of Assad and the Shia.

But the Syrian National Coalition said that airstrikes need to be coupled with a strategy for ultimately toppling Assad.....snip~
 

Fearandloathing

Just watchin'
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
22,274
Reaction score
18,879
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Notice this is all these MB backed Sunni Rebels care for.....taking over Syria. They aren't concerned about all the civilian deaths. Just getting rid of Assad and the Shia.

But the Syrian National Coalition said that airstrikes need to be coupled with a strategy for ultimately toppling Assad.....snip~


And Putin is going to allow that?

As I have been saying all along, this is much more complex than the US media has been portraying. Of course ISIS is beheading and slaying civilians, it is what terrorists do and has been going on since Alexander the Great.

In this case I firmly believe that ISIS has deliberately gone overboard to entice the US to attack. The very high profile beheading was exactly that.

Now, in light of the fact that Obama is being squeezed by Syria, Russia and Iran, does it look like a good strategy to attack, especially since the idea of a similar strategy to Yemmen and Somalia has been exposed as hopeless here?
 

Fearandloathing

Just watchin'
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
22,274
Reaction score
18,879
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And Putin is going to allow that?

As I have been saying all along, this is much more complex than the US media has been portraying. Of course ISIS is beheading and slaying civilians, it is what terrorists do and has been going on since Alexander the Great.

In this case I firmly believe that ISIS has deliberately gone overboard to entice the US to attack. The very high profile beheading was exactly that.

Now, in light of the fact that Obama is being squeezed by Syria, Russia and Iran, does it look like a good strategy to attack, especially since the idea of a similar strategy to Yemen and Somalia has been exposed as hopeless here?

This is one very nasty chess game with too many players and the operative strategy appears to be a trap.
 
Top Bottom