![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luvdovz.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThere's a certain sense of confusion in some European and Asian capitals right now about the fact that the current US administration, with a remarkable persistence that's worthy of a much nobler cause, keeps insisting on deposing Assad in Syria - what's more, they want to do it before the terrorist groups there have been eliminated. I.e., right here, right now. But putting short-term goals ahead of long-term consequences is not something that should be a surprise as far as US foreign policy is concerned, is it.
Hillary Clinton, the "presumed" nominee of the Democrats, is the one prominent presidential candidate to support this view. The arguments in favor of that proposal are as well-known as they're unconvincing. The Department of State and the White House seem to believe that the root cause for all the mess in Syria and the ascent of the Islamic State is none else but Assad himself (omitting to mention how the US invasion of Iraq was what really unlocked the gates for the ascent of extremism; plus some other reasons that are not so convenient to know, and are therefore discussed even less). Even more amazing is the belief that some sort of "moderate" opposition does indeed exist in Syria, and not only that, but it's capable of replacing the current oppressive regime, and oppose the the terrorists adequately. I'm sure most people with a brain have figured out by now that this is much closer to fantasy than reality.
Seen from a different standpoint though (sure, one that's now being mostly voiced by Putin's Russia, for lack of another active party on the issue), all of this wishful thinking looks absurd, to say the least. From a first reading, it would seem that either the US intel is completely messed up, or the US intelligence is being deliberately misled - not sure which it is yet.
Except, as the above-linked Seymour Hersh article indicates, the situation in Syria is actually pretty well known and thoroughly understood by both the US intelligence and Obama's administration (including the Defense Intelligence Agency).
What's more, both the DIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been spamming the White House with reports ever since 2013, outlying exactly what the rest of the world can only learn from the press, namely that the bulk of the Syrian opposition has either been effectively rendered inert at this point, or has fallen under the control of radical Islamist groups. Thus, in case of an Assad downfall, Syria wouldn't be very different from what Libya has become these days: the "moderate" rebels have turned out to be a myth; and in Syria's case, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, with CIA's tacit approval, are actively aiding the radicals and further inflaming the situation for the sake of maintaining a permanent state of "constructive chaos" in the region - the vast economic and human cost for both the local societies and the adjacent regions (like Europe) notwithstanding.
The US military (and more curiously, not the civilian leadership of the Pentagon but the JCS, DIA and the generals themselves) must have realized that the hard truth they've been trying to relay to their political superiors is actually not wanted by anyone in the White House - so, as it turns out, they may've been sharing said intel with Assad himself, and even carried out ingenuous spec ops, aiming at aiding the Syrian military in coping with the Islamist pressure. The collaboration between the US military and Assad, of course, was presumably not being done directly, but via the proxy partnership of Germany, Israel and Russia. In other words, until recently, the JCS and the US intelligence were pursuing a foreign policy of their own on Syria, separate from that of Obama's administration and the CIA, and often even directly contradicting it.
As a whole, the position of the Department of State on the Syrian question has been mostly passive: endless and meaningless negotiations with Russia, and buying time until the winner of the backstage diplomatic standoff was known. Even when the unyielding chief of the JCS, Martin Dempsey, and the restless boss of the foreign intelligence, Michael Flynn were forced to resign by the new Defense Secretary, Ashton Carter, the ultimate winner was still not known.
So there are two questions that come out of all this. First: when some country is talking with America on important issues like Syria, which America exactly are they looking at in search of accord? Is it the pragmatic military, or the tootlhess Department of State, or Obama's administration itself, which seems to be maniacally (as Hersh calls it) keeps insisting on Assad's removal? And second: why does Obama insist so much on Assad's downfall?
The latter question is particularly important in the context of the presidential primaries, because the positions on this issue are remarkably disparate between the candidates - and this time the division is not along party lines.
Of all the Democratic candidates, Clinton alone is unequivocally in favor of the immediate removal of Assad, right here and now. Her opponents Sanders and O'Malley have said there is a danger of repeating the Iraq and Libya scenario if this happens. This position is also shared by Republican candidates like Cruz and Rand Paul. And Trump has argued the whole crisis is caused by the "poor personal relations" between the two leaders, Obama and Putin. In his typical simplistic manner, he claims the whole problem would go away if he just met with Putin tete-a-tete and sorted things out like "man to man". As if we're in the kindergarten. Or in a Western movie.
Hillary's view on the issue is shared by Marco Rubio on the right, whose foreign policy program is aligned with that of the neocons. Jeb Bush could also be put in that category, although he's been sliding fast towards irrelevancy lately.
Hillary's interest here is very understandable. Her close ties to the Saudi lobby dictate her to label Assad as America's main obstacle in the Middle East at the moment. Because of course Assad is Saudi Arabia's main obstacle in the region, being Iran's major proxy (now that the relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have deteriorated, this issue will be getting ever more urgent).
But what's Obama's interest in all this? The thing is, as a Democratic president, today he's mostly focused on preserving his legacy, and possibly paving the way for the Democratic nominee towards the presidency in 2016. And the whole Democratic establishment is evidently already betting heavily on Hillary (but of course, it's a democracy by the people for the people, right). And if on the issues of domestic policy she has moved sufficiently to the left, and Obama doesn't have to worry about the preservation of Obamacare for example, on the foreign policy front there are still a lot of question marks. And the top one in the Middle East is the normalization with Iran, which is probably the biggest international achievement of Obama the Nobel peace prize laureate. And Saudi Arabia's biggest nightmare. Yeah, that same Saudi Arabia that Obama's heir-apparent intends to be such good friends with. Things are getting a bit complicated here, right?
If Iran's proxy Assad manages to hold his ground and stay in power, then after the imminent defeat of the Islamic State, Iran would finally be able to complete their arc from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea, and now without the economic sanctions - and this would make Iran the apparent leader of the entire Middle East. Like I said, such a situation is a nightmare for Saudi Arabia, and also Turkey. And Israel, too. And that could force Hillary's hand, and make her direct her efforts against a further normalization of the US-Iran relations.
That's why Obama needs an Iran that is in good relations with America, but still is unable to completely dominate the region. And this is where the attempt to urgently eliminate Iran's major Mediterranean ally is coming from. These are the realities of modern US foreign policy in the Middle East. Divide and rule. Never allow any other player to raise their head too high, lest they become a threat to your dominance. In the modern globalized world, the line between "pax Americana" and "perpetual war à-la America" has become pretty blurred.
The problem that most other "lesser" countries are having with this sort of situation is, they don't know where exactly they're supposed to stand on this. So far, the contribution of most other players (save for Russia and Turkey) has been pretty minuscule. On the other hand, everyone's knowledge of America's true intentions is also pretty symbolic, and that makes things rather unpredictable and complicated. And no one quite fancies following a leader that consistently sends such inconsistent signals.
Hillary Clinton, the "presumed" nominee of the Democrats, is the one prominent presidential candidate to support this view. The arguments in favor of that proposal are as well-known as they're unconvincing. The Department of State and the White House seem to believe that the root cause for all the mess in Syria and the ascent of the Islamic State is none else but Assad himself (omitting to mention how the US invasion of Iraq was what really unlocked the gates for the ascent of extremism; plus some other reasons that are not so convenient to know, and are therefore discussed even less). Even more amazing is the belief that some sort of "moderate" opposition does indeed exist in Syria, and not only that, but it's capable of replacing the current oppressive regime, and oppose the the terrorists adequately. I'm sure most people with a brain have figured out by now that this is much closer to fantasy than reality.
Seen from a different standpoint though (sure, one that's now being mostly voiced by Putin's Russia, for lack of another active party on the issue), all of this wishful thinking looks absurd, to say the least. From a first reading, it would seem that either the US intel is completely messed up, or the US intelligence is being deliberately misled - not sure which it is yet.
Except, as the above-linked Seymour Hersh article indicates, the situation in Syria is actually pretty well known and thoroughly understood by both the US intelligence and Obama's administration (including the Defense Intelligence Agency).
What's more, both the DIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been spamming the White House with reports ever since 2013, outlying exactly what the rest of the world can only learn from the press, namely that the bulk of the Syrian opposition has either been effectively rendered inert at this point, or has fallen under the control of radical Islamist groups. Thus, in case of an Assad downfall, Syria wouldn't be very different from what Libya has become these days: the "moderate" rebels have turned out to be a myth; and in Syria's case, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, with CIA's tacit approval, are actively aiding the radicals and further inflaming the situation for the sake of maintaining a permanent state of "constructive chaos" in the region - the vast economic and human cost for both the local societies and the adjacent regions (like Europe) notwithstanding.
The US military (and more curiously, not the civilian leadership of the Pentagon but the JCS, DIA and the generals themselves) must have realized that the hard truth they've been trying to relay to their political superiors is actually not wanted by anyone in the White House - so, as it turns out, they may've been sharing said intel with Assad himself, and even carried out ingenuous spec ops, aiming at aiding the Syrian military in coping with the Islamist pressure. The collaboration between the US military and Assad, of course, was presumably not being done directly, but via the proxy partnership of Germany, Israel and Russia. In other words, until recently, the JCS and the US intelligence were pursuing a foreign policy of their own on Syria, separate from that of Obama's administration and the CIA, and often even directly contradicting it.
As a whole, the position of the Department of State on the Syrian question has been mostly passive: endless and meaningless negotiations with Russia, and buying time until the winner of the backstage diplomatic standoff was known. Even when the unyielding chief of the JCS, Martin Dempsey, and the restless boss of the foreign intelligence, Michael Flynn were forced to resign by the new Defense Secretary, Ashton Carter, the ultimate winner was still not known.
So there are two questions that come out of all this. First: when some country is talking with America on important issues like Syria, which America exactly are they looking at in search of accord? Is it the pragmatic military, or the tootlhess Department of State, or Obama's administration itself, which seems to be maniacally (as Hersh calls it) keeps insisting on Assad's removal? And second: why does Obama insist so much on Assad's downfall?
The latter question is particularly important in the context of the presidential primaries, because the positions on this issue are remarkably disparate between the candidates - and this time the division is not along party lines.
Of all the Democratic candidates, Clinton alone is unequivocally in favor of the immediate removal of Assad, right here and now. Her opponents Sanders and O'Malley have said there is a danger of repeating the Iraq and Libya scenario if this happens. This position is also shared by Republican candidates like Cruz and Rand Paul. And Trump has argued the whole crisis is caused by the "poor personal relations" between the two leaders, Obama and Putin. In his typical simplistic manner, he claims the whole problem would go away if he just met with Putin tete-a-tete and sorted things out like "man to man". As if we're in the kindergarten. Or in a Western movie.
Hillary's view on the issue is shared by Marco Rubio on the right, whose foreign policy program is aligned with that of the neocons. Jeb Bush could also be put in that category, although he's been sliding fast towards irrelevancy lately.
Hillary's interest here is very understandable. Her close ties to the Saudi lobby dictate her to label Assad as America's main obstacle in the Middle East at the moment. Because of course Assad is Saudi Arabia's main obstacle in the region, being Iran's major proxy (now that the relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have deteriorated, this issue will be getting ever more urgent).
But what's Obama's interest in all this? The thing is, as a Democratic president, today he's mostly focused on preserving his legacy, and possibly paving the way for the Democratic nominee towards the presidency in 2016. And the whole Democratic establishment is evidently already betting heavily on Hillary (but of course, it's a democracy by the people for the people, right). And if on the issues of domestic policy she has moved sufficiently to the left, and Obama doesn't have to worry about the preservation of Obamacare for example, on the foreign policy front there are still a lot of question marks. And the top one in the Middle East is the normalization with Iran, which is probably the biggest international achievement of Obama the Nobel peace prize laureate. And Saudi Arabia's biggest nightmare. Yeah, that same Saudi Arabia that Obama's heir-apparent intends to be such good friends with. Things are getting a bit complicated here, right?
If Iran's proxy Assad manages to hold his ground and stay in power, then after the imminent defeat of the Islamic State, Iran would finally be able to complete their arc from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea, and now without the economic sanctions - and this would make Iran the apparent leader of the entire Middle East. Like I said, such a situation is a nightmare for Saudi Arabia, and also Turkey. And Israel, too. And that could force Hillary's hand, and make her direct her efforts against a further normalization of the US-Iran relations.
That's why Obama needs an Iran that is in good relations with America, but still is unable to completely dominate the region. And this is where the attempt to urgently eliminate Iran's major Mediterranean ally is coming from. These are the realities of modern US foreign policy in the Middle East. Divide and rule. Never allow any other player to raise their head too high, lest they become a threat to your dominance. In the modern globalized world, the line between "pax Americana" and "perpetual war à-la America" has become pretty blurred.
The problem that most other "lesser" countries are having with this sort of situation is, they don't know where exactly they're supposed to stand on this. So far, the contribution of most other players (save for Russia and Turkey) has been pretty minuscule. On the other hand, everyone's knowledge of America's true intentions is also pretty symbolic, and that makes things rather unpredictable and complicated. And no one quite fancies following a leader that consistently sends such inconsistent signals.
(no subject)
Date: 5/1/16 12:43 (UTC)Because, contrary to what some people would desperately try to convince us, the US is an empire.
(no subject)
Date: 5/1/16 14:27 (UTC)We saw this time and again throughout the Cold War. The short term goal of stymieing the opposition was the foremost concern; the fallout in terms of regional conflict and chaos in wake of proxy wars was less important to either side. In Iraq, strange power-plays and partisan dick-waving shoved concerns like actually rebuilding the country and mitigating insurgency into the backseat. And, as brilliant as some of the intelligence analysis is (that one document you linked is a great example of how the Defense Intelligence agency highlights various scenarios, and what those scenarios would mean in terms of various goals and setbacks - and no, "washington's blog," that does not mean that U.S. "Supported the creation of ISIS, jeez.) we're still left with the decisions being made by people who are beholden to a mob that thinks doing something (anything, even something harmful) is superior to measured patience. (A government by the people, for the people indeed!)
Again, I'll point out that the Constitutional framers may have had the right idea in removing certain offices from popular election, because the decisions being made by those bodies are now subject to popular whim and not the measured consideration of elder statesmen.
That, and the fact that, yeah, money talks, regardless of who's handing it out.
---
But yeah, Clinton is a 1980s Republican when it comes to foreign policy, and I'm not sure if I'm really comfortable with that. I mean, it's not a binary thing, there's "bad" and then there's "worse," and she's still head-and-shoulders better any of her rivals in the other party (especially when we then consider domestic policy and the potential for Supreme Court nominations) but in terms of reigning in military adventurism and "nation-building," there doesn't really seem to be much a choice. (Well, we do have a choice, it's just that our choice is really between "bad" and "staggeringly horrific," except for a couple of candidates who, to be honest, don't have a whelks chance in a supernova of winning the primary election.)
Still voting for Bernie though.
(no subject)
Date: 6/1/16 01:25 (UTC)http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary
Meanwhile, check out this craziness:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary
Looks like some sanity is sneaking in at the last minute though:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-iowa-presidential-republican-caucus
Cruz: Anti-choice, pro-gun lobby, anti marriage equality, anti Obamacare... The stage is set for a good ol' party-line fracas!
(no subject)
Date: 5/1/16 22:25 (UTC)http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/21/what-saddam-gave-isis.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-hidden-hand-behind-the-islamic-state-militants-saddam-husseins/2015/04/04/aa97676c-cc32-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/mideast-crisis-iraq-islamicstate/
And as long as all we're going to hear from the EU is whining about deeds actually done by others, the people actually willing to do things will give the whining in one ear and out the other and no more than that and there's no reason in the world for Putin or any US President to give a damn.