Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

The 54 Syrian fighters supplied by the Syrian opposition group Division 30 were the first group of rebels deployed under a $500 million train-and-equip program authorized by Congress last year. It is an overt program run by United States Special Forces, with help from other allied military trainers, and is separate from a parallel covert program run by the C.I.A.

After a year of trying, however, the Pentagon is still struggling to find recruits to fight the Islamic State without also battling the forces of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, their original adversary.

The willing few face screening, but it is so stringent that only dozens have been approved from among the thousands who have applied, and they are bit players in the rebellion. The program has not engaged with the biggest, most powerful groups, Islamist factions that are better funded, better equipped and more motivated. Even the program’s largest supporters now concede that the goal of generating more than 5,000 trained fighters in the first year of the program is unrealistic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/world/middleeast/us-to-revamp-training-program-to-fight-isis.html

via Greenwald

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG3j8OYKgn4&t=8m48s

More on the worrying trend of magically regenerating ISIS fighters:

https://twitter.com/TheMediaTweets/status/641150874354610176

I don't usually read Kristoff in the NY Times but just did--

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/opinion/nicholas-kristof-compassion-for-refugees-isnt-enough.html?emc=edit_th_20150910&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=37355772&_r=0

the U.S. has admitted only 1,500 since the war started four years ago,

...

The least bad option today is to create a no-fly zone in the south of Syria. This could be done on a shoestring, enforced by U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean firing missiles, without ground troops.

That would end barrel bombings. Just as important, the no-fly zone would create leverage to pressure the Syrian regime — and its Russian and Iranian backers — to negotiate.

“If they can’t use their aircraft, the day after they will know they can’t survive, and that will bring them to the table,” said Reza Afshar, a former British diplomat who now advises the Syrian opposition through his group, Independent Diplomat.

The aim of the talks, with no preconditions on either side, would be a cease-fire with a tweaking of boundary lines.

Look, this would be ugly. It would amount to a de facto partition of Syria and the partial survival of the regime, perhaps with a new Alawite general replacing President Bashar al-Assad. Yet otherwise we may be standing by as the slaughter spirals toward genocide.

Robert Ford, a former American ambassador to Syria who resigned because he found the Obama administration’s Syria policy indefensible, says a negotiation, even if successful, might drag on for two years as the carnage continued. Still, that’s better than the alternatives.

“It’s irresponsible to throw up our hands and say there’s nothing that can be done,” he added. “Then, almost certainly things will get worse.”

earlier discussion of this in July

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-28/u-s-shoots-down-idea-of-syria-safe-zone

The White House is wary of any plan that could put it in military conflict with the Assad regime, and has made no decision to protect opposition forces or civilians from its air assaults.

Former officials and Mideast experts noted this week that protecting the area from Assad's bombs was key to whether or not a safe zone would actually work. Frederic Hof, a former State Department Syria official, pointed out some of the holes in the still-murky U.S.-Turkey plan. "A marginal ground combat component is one problem faced by the coalition. Another is Assad regime aerial operations. They are major arrows in the quiver of ISIL," wrote Hof. "So although recent developments are positive, they can be potentially decisive only to the extent they transcend what's being reported: specifically in the category of protecting civilians."

There's no chance of getting a broad no-fly-zone through the Security Council and talking up a humanitarian one while also clearly backing regime change isn't likely to be a winner with Russia or China either.

We had that Benjamin Netanyahu in our place of work today... not that I actually saw him.

a report on npr this morning made it sound like russia is about to open up a base in syria to defend the regime with airstrikes, etc.

=(

Russia is unlikely to attack the Free Syrian Army but there's talk of them possibly using it as a base against ISIS in the future. It's speculation at this stage.

like that time turkey was beginning to launch airstrikes against isis but blew up a bunch of pkk positions instead

Attacks on the Free Syrian Army would escalate Russia's underlying issues with the EU / US and might even lead to stronger sanctions, which they would want to avoid. If the base did go ahead, it would definitely be seen as a renewed vote of confidence in Assad but the long game might be more subtle than just blowing up its enemies. There was an air defence show in Russia two weeks ago that drew high-level representatives from Syria, Iran and Saudi which has widely been seen as cover for a diplomatic conference between Putin and the latter two. Putin seems to want to position himself as the only person who can build trust on both sides and an increased Russian presence in Syria (which would not mean Russian troops fighting alongside Assad) could be a way of strengthening their own position at the negotiating table.

There are lots of strange little games being played with this that are difficult to unpick. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Russia has substantially increased arms sales or technical support to Syria but they have apparently been making sure that the weapons they're selling are visible on the top decks of the boats sailing across (shipping them uncovered so they show up on satellite imagery). Russia has always been very open about how much they're doing to support Assad's government but they seem to be making it even more explicit following media reports that they were on the verge of abandoning him.

At the same time, the recent rash of articles and commentary in the West about a dramatic escalation (which, again, seem completely unsubstantiated and in some cases fabricated) is being seen in Russia as an attempt to torpedo the apparent warming of relations between Russia and Saudi Arabia and the idea that a negotiated settlement, which seems the only way out, might be run on Russian lines (to keep the Ba'ath party in power - if not Assad) rather than based on US assumptions (with Khoja ultimately stepping in).

idk, none of it is easy to interpret.

that's interesting, sharivari

cf this excerpt from interview with retired saudi general eshki (which i linked upthread like 2 weeks ago, http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-saudis-reply-to-irans-rising-danger-1440197120):

Riyadh isn’t limiting itself to Jerusalem in courting potential new friends. He suggests that a thaw in the kingdom’s relations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia is under way following the rupture caused by Moscow’s sharp support for its clients, Tehran and the Assad regime, in the Syrian civil war. Riyadh and the Kremlin may now work together to stabilize Syria.

“We have to concentrate to solve the problem” in Syria, the general says. “But we don’t like Assad to stay. Because the people in Syria don’t want him to stay.” He notes that Saudi King Abdullah, who died in January, “at the beginning of the revolution called on Assad six times to solve the problem quickly: ‘Don’t kill your people. Don’t ally yourself with Iran. We need Syria united and independent.’ At the end of that, President Assad said: ‘The situation is not under my control.’ That means: Iran has much influence over him.”

Now the Kremlin is gradually coming around to Riyadh’s view of the conflict. “Russia is a great country,” he says, “but they don’t like to change their promises” to allies—in contrast to you-know-who. “Russia supported by weapons Iran and Assad in the civil war in Syria. But now Russia believes, has been convinced, that they are not in the right path. Saudi Arabia needs Russia in the Middle East, not to destabilize countries but to be a friend.”

A political solution would preserve the Syrian state apparatus while replacing the regime sitting atop it. “We don’t like that regime,” Gen. Eshki says. “There’s difference between the system and the regime. When the United States came to Iraq, they destroyed the system, and the problems ensued. We have to maintain the system but remove the regime.” He believes stabilizing the region will require a “Marshall-style project to rebuild” Syria and Yemen, a cause he personally promotes.

Such a project is the only permanent antidote to the Islamist extremism of groups like Islamic State. Using the Arabic term for the group, Daesh, the general says that its terrorism wouldn’t be possible in a country “if that country is not destabilized, if it has equity. When Syria became destabilized, Daesh came to Syria. When the government in Iraq had so much corruption and pushed the Sunni out, Daesh came to Iraq quickly. If Iraq became stabilized and strong, Daesh wouldn’t be in Iraq or in Syria.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-10/major-humiliation-obama-iran-has-sent-soldiers-support-russian-troops-syria

Haven't read this guy before. Link is to his take on Russia and Iran backing Syria, with some asides on Yemen as well where things are also a mess.

zerohedge guy is kind of a douche, seems libertarianish, though I've never read him on foreign policy

He is mostly known in finance circles. I read him once in a while -- he is good at seeing through wall street bullshit/Kool-Aid but not always so good on the details.

its too bad nobody wants to throw in with the US backed unicorn brigade of secular anti baath anti isis rebels

https://www.rt.com/usa/314766-pentagon-syria-isis-training/

The first group of 54 US-trained fighters was ambushed and scattered in late July by Jabhat Al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda group fighting against the government in Damascus. They never saw combat against Islamic State.

It was the first group of 'moderate rebels' to be trained as part of the $500 million US program, run by the Pentagon and separate from the covert CIA operation. Using training camps in Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the program’s aim was to create a 15,000-strong force by the end of 2017. In early July, Defense Secretary Ash Carter admitted that the goal of training 3,000 fighters by the end of 2015 did not seem very realistic.

NY Times editorial

The United States has asked countries on the flight path between Russia and Syria to close their airspace to Russian flights, unless Moscow can prove they aren’t being used to militarily resupply the Assad regime. Bulgaria has done so, but Greece, another NATO ally, and Iraq, which is depending on America to save it from the Islamic State, so far have not. World leaders should use the United Nations General Assembly meeting this month to make clear the dangers a Russian buildup would pose for efforts to end the fighting.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/12/us-yemen-security-idUSKCN0RC07920150912

Saudi bombing of Yemen with civilian casualties. UN-brokered peace talks are supposed to happen shortly

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34241680

12 people, including several Mexican tourists, killed by the Egyptian military.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside

URL says it all.

memory is a funny thing but i kind of thought that was conventional wisdom at the time, in the earlier days of the syrian revolt

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Netanyahu-to-visit-Russia-next-week-for-talks-with-Putin-on-Syria-416286

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will travel to Moscow next week to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin and discuss Russia's recent troop deployments in Syria, the Prime Minister's Office announced on Wednesday.

According to the Prime Minister's Office, Netanyahu will speak to Putin about the threats Israel is facing from the transfer of state-of-the-art weaponry to Syria, and the danger that some of this weaponry will find its way into the hands of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations.

Kerry's been making calls to Russians too. Not sure any of them will dissuade Putin

Israel's decision to let everything go to shit around them could end up being a pretty bad idea.. time will tell, I guess.

Not sure I know what you mean by "Israel's decision...". If Israel had somehow reached out and come to an agreement with the Palestinians, would that be enough to influence everything that is going on in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, etc.

I mean not engaging in syria w/ al nusra or against isis because the surrounding chaos benefits them

because the surrounding chaos benefits them

i don't see how
disagree with this assessment & assignment of blame; idgi

I think the argument is that if Al Nusra and Isis and Assad are all fighting one another in Syria, then things will largely be quiet in the Golan with Israel. Similarly if Syria is busy with an internal war they have less ability to help Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But Mayor J seems to think it would have been a good idea for Israel to go into Syria and take on Al Nusra and Isis. I think.

Im just thinking half thoughts out loud, making no value judgment on the strategy. it just seems weird on a simplistic level that israel is our no. 1 ally in the region, has these two groups america fuckin cant stand on their doorstep and doesnt do anything.

fair enough (just thinking half thoughts out loud here too). just think it odd criticism
that israel is our no. 1 ally in the region, has these two groups america fuckin cant stand on their doorstep and doesnt do anything

“doesn’t do anything”
i assume any military intervention israel might engage in wd be closely coordinated & discussed with u.s.; afaik it’s not case that israel has in any way declined to cooperate in u.s.-led coalition
so is idea here, that israel as our ally shd have gone in on its own & somehow waged ground war in chaotic mess of syria, which somehow wd fix things— war which the u.s. (whether rightly or wrongly but for good reason) has not been willing to wage itself?

on whose behalf/ in whose interest? israel’s, the u.s.’s, ? what interests, exactly?
so criticism is that israel not hawkish enough? has not decided (or has decided not to) involve itself in mess of a ground war in syria— not as part of coalition but by itself— which somehow wd have been in u.s. national interest? like it shd have done this for itself, or as u.s. military proxy?

like there seems to be premise here that israel = supersoldiers
& while it’s prudent for other countries (incl u.s.) to feel reluctance wrt military intervention, israel’s reluctance to intervene/ wage war in chaotic mess of syria is blameworthy & in bad faith? why is israel uniquely responsible for not involving itself— by itself— in ground war in syria?

btw reminded of article from way while back, old news— http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/the-crisis-in-us-israel-relations-is-officially-here/382031/— in particular this paragraph which stuck with me:

I ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly. This official agreed that Netanyahu is a “chickenshit” on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat. The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. “It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”

i’ve read & reread this paragraph
haven't found way to rationalize/ decreepify it

not surprised u.s. allies like saudi arabia & israel are talking to putin on their own now

I was talking to folks (who are not running for office in the Republican Party) who think the US should send ground troops to Syria and Iraq to stop ISIS et al. and that the US should maintain a presence there as long as it takes, just as the US still has troops in Japan and Germany. That would be messy and who knows where it could lead with Russia in Syria

yes let's embroil ourselves in an endless imperialistic resource-sucking adventure, if there's anything the last thousand years or so have taught us it's that that always turns out totally awesome

it also isnt helpful that the US is no longer the hegemon of the world which made such endless occupations of the past 'affordable'

Taliban still haven't gone away in Afghanistan, likely some Isis types will stubbornly hang on elsewhere. I am with you. But the folks I talked to are convinced that this is necessary to address the ongoing refugee issue; and because they believe Isis will encourage more terrorist attacks in US and UK and elsewhere

Seems like despite the facts to the contrary, some folks seem to think that the US can roll through Isis and company as we eventually did with lots of assistance (and despite many deaths) in WW II; or at least they think we can perfect the Iraq war in a second chance...

Ground troops are the only way I can see ISIS being dislodged from towns and cities. Their expansion has slowed to some extent so they are less vulnerable than when they were constantly on the move. They aren't going to be turfed out of places like Mosul without street to street fighting. The U.S. can't go in alone and can't go in without some form of negotiated settlement in Syria / political detente in Iraq but It isn't unthinkable troops might have a role in the future.

By any measure, President Obama’s effort to train a Syrian opposition army to fight the Islamic State on the ground has been an abysmal failure. The military acknowledged this week that just four or five American-trained fighters are actually fighting.

But the White House says it is not to blame. The finger, it says, should be pointed not at Mr. Obama but at those who pressed him to attempt training Syrian rebels in the first place — a group that, in addition to congressional Republicans, happened to include former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/world/finger-pointing-but-few-answers-after-a-syria-solution-fails.html?_r=0

Congressional Republicans should have urged Obama to send a cake and a Bible to the moderate Syrian opposition. It would have been much cheaper and just as effective.

if this is accurate, O should've taken this deal when it was presented to him:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside

doesn't really seem credible to me, whole thing reads more like Russia running interference/slandering the west to give them political cover for their current shenanigans

i don't think russia was able to deliver that

They still claim they can press Assad into power sharing.

he's sure sharing power now isn't he

syria partition seems like the only viable end game that doesn't involve genocide at this pt

how would that work? just gonna give a bunch of territory to ISIS and tell them to chill out?

every now and again i flip through a big thread like this just to get a sense of what the momentum of the year was, just came across this gem:

seriously tho what are they going to do with these attack helicopters? like, who are Egypt's enemies that they require attack helicopters?

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:09 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

their own people, I suppose?

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:09 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they're going to keep buying parts and ammo for the attack helicopters, i think is the deal

― goole, Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:11 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lighting up mexican tourists is what, turns out