Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

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

ISIS def the wildcard (and it seems pretty clear that Assad tacitly supports them bc they make a cohesive Sunni coalition so improbable). i'd think it would look something like - Alawite / Kurdish / Sunni partition (actually think Druze state would be fantastic as well but these 3 are pretty much already in existence), and then supporting Kurds, Iraqi military, and non-ISIS Sunni actors to push back on ISIS. i don't see a power sharing resolution that includes ISIS so unless we're okay w/ either the status quo or genocide, ISIS is gonna have to go. xp

but who knows really i mean corbyn-style doves are fond of saying that we should negotiate with our enemies so maybe we should give ISIS a chance to legitimize themselves internationally in exchange for control of Sunni partition in Syria. i obv think that's insane but

Nobody has ever suggested a power sharing agreement with ISIS afaik. The idea would be to create a coalition to defeat them.

LOL, Corbyn even getting a kicking from M

ordy now

oh that shouldn't be surprising if u know anything about me

Waiting for the Pope to have a go at him next, or the Dalai Lama.

ISIS is gonna have to go

atm, the west is trying to use containment. but that is leading to a flood of refugees. it's hard to deal effectively with a ruthless and violent enemy without resorting to limitless violence yourself.

Refugees have much less to do with ISIS than the underlying civil war.

imho the west - ie the US and NATO as a proxy for US policy - should formally recognize the Kurdish Regional Government and arm them. presumably this will make Turkey unhappy but idgaf about Erdogan's hard-on for bombing Kurds.

the US and NATO as a proxy for US policy

NATO of which Turkey is a member.

it's not like they have a veto

They have US air bases.

trade incerlik for a war in kurdistan

betcha KRG would be happy to provide US air bases in exchange for arms

Not sure Iraq would be massively thrilled either.

Or the Syrian government the US had already recognised as legitimate for that matter.

it will take some courage to recognize the Kurds but i think it's a. the right thing to do and b. one of the few things that could help the situation

Idk how creating a statelet opposed by all its neighbours would help solve a crisis in which they are not the main protagonists whether it's the right thing to do or not.

The YPG has taken back more land from ISIS than all the other military groups combined.

It's not all about ISIS though. They are a symptom of the crisis not the cause.

it's not about whether they're a symptom of a cause. it's that any kind of resolution needs to have ISIS out of the picture to be successful. just spitballing here but the way it would work in a perfect world is IS gets squeezed between YPG + Iraqi army, both buttressed by NATO airstrikes on ISIS positions. shut down ISIS' power + economic oil base in Iraq and arm FSA to make a big push against them in Syria. broker a deal w/ Putin to partition Syria - give part to Kurds, carve out Alawite stronghold to let Assad stay in power and protect his ppl, and the rest goes to FSA.

That's the scenario other countries in the region like Iraq, Turkey and Jordan are specifically trying to avoid. Even though an Alawite state might be plausible, there is a huge risk of the "Sunni" segment fragmenting further with continued civil wars and an obvious knock-on effect in other countries with large Kurdish populations. Iraq would probably fragment, the Turkey / Kurdistan war could reignite fully, etc. etc.

^^^

Kurds are attractive to the west for p obvious reasons but heavily arming them so that they could take on Turkey, ISIS and Iraq just seems crazy. like pouring gasoline on a fire

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34300223

Syrian government war planes have launched one of the heaviest bombardments yet on the city of Palmyra, which is held by Islamic State (IS) militants, activists say.

So is the Syrian government now attacking Isis more, because Russia has encouraged them to do so

http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2015/09/Russia-Israel_Horo-635x357.jpg

Putin pressin' the flesh like nobody's business these days.

probably sees US backing off the middle east as a good opportunity to relitigate some of these cold war relationships

They have always had a fairly good relationship iirc.

http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=61218

When no good options remain, tough decisions have to be made. Hard ethical judgment calls, too. Is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a murderous dictator who has waged unbelievably brutal war on his own people to stay in power? Yes. Would anyone be better off if the so-called Islamic State were residing in Damascus instead of him? Certainly not. So is it possible that maybe, just maybe, Russia is doing the right thing by contemplating air strikes against the Islamic State to support Assad? Well, perhaps.