This week world leaders met at the
United Nations to discuss world events, one of which was the war in
Syria. As the world has watched the mass exodus of people from Syria
to, first refugee camps in neighboring countries, and then to the
more economically desirable lands of Europe, it has become apparent
that a solution to this conflict is not fast arriving.
For some time now it has seemed as if
everyone and his brother are fighting in Syria; the Assad government,
which is attempting to remain in power, the various rebel factions
trying to depose Assad, the terrorist group ISIL, which apparently
wants Syria as part of its caliphate, the Kurds who would like a cozy
enclave of their own to attempt a socialist experiment, and a
coalition of Western powers, including the United States, who are
hunting ISIL. Oh, wait, I forgot Turkey, who seems to be allying
with the US led coalition to fight ISIL, maybe. Except they seem to
be hunting Kurds more so than ISIL extremists. But the one power who
seemed to be keeping a distance was Russia. Oh, sure, there was some
hint here and there of Russian intelligence working the area, but no
significant build up of military hardware or troops. Until recently.
Apparently the Russians have set up anti-aircraft batteries, flown
in fighter planes, and have brought in some troops, presumably to man
the equipment sent in. Of course there is speculation as to their
purpose. Are they there to support Assad, fight ISIL, or simply be
on site to conveniently pick up the pieces if things go south for
Assad? Only one man knows for sure.
This is just a portion of the Charlie
Rose interview with Vladimir Putin that aired on 60 Minutes, but it gives the gist of his
thinking, and has the benefit of being short.
There are a couple of things wrong with
his reasoning about supporting the “legitimate” government of
Bashar Assad, one of which is that it is questionable, since so many
Syrians are opposed to his government, that it actually is
legitimate. The other being that Assad's government would work for reform.
Here is Putin's speech at the United Nations.
Mr. Putin talks about human rights and
the right to life in his speech. Yet he is proposing supporting a
government that has shown it has no compunction in killing its own
people, which has helped lead to the displacement of millions of
Syrians.
Mr. Putin wonders about people not
learning lessons from the past. He might want to ask
himself that question.
179 comments:
You sorta didn't mention that Putin also hopes to leverage his position in Syria into a get out of jail free card on the Ukraine. There are indications that several European leaders, notably including Angela Merkel, who're eager to accommodate him in that maneuver.
I had a thought come up overnight… If Iran and Hezbollah wearied of propping up Assad, as it seems they did, should we really expect Putin's Russia to summon up the necessary staying power?
I saw this one coming; didn't think it'd come this quick:
"Russian officials have demanded that American warplanes exit Syrian
airspace immediately, a senior U.S. official told Fox News early
Wendesday."
FoxNews
They've cleaned up that misspelling on ‘Wendesday’, but that was original.
I think Fox is a little histrionic with their take on the plane thing. But Russia did warn the US that they were going to be flying a mission over Syria and to stay away from Syrian airspace. One could take it as a courtesy, or an attempt to back the US off. The Russians conveniently did not tell us where they would be flying. We did not discontinue flying.
Apparently the airstrike was also in an area where ISIL isn't. So Putin is being true to his word about supporting Assad.
Yup, I see problems ahead.
You sorta didn't mention that Putin also hopes to leverage his position in Syria into a get out of jail free card on the Ukraine.
He made clear in that interview that Russia will continue their activities where ever they choose to. So whatever Europe or America chooses to do may make no difference to him. I am of the belief that this Syria venture by Putin is, at least in part, an answer to that question of what would he do if backed into a corner, as I said in the prior thread.
A rather interesting Op Ed piece by Thomas Friedman
"I think Fox is a little histrionic with their take on the plane thing."
May well be. I'm fully expecting that to happen, but later down the line. It's a little early for him to be playing that card just yet.
Curiously, it seems we have Turkey and Russia bombing different parties (the Kurds in the case of Turkey, and the non-ISIS Sunni Arab rebels in the case of Russia) both under cover of a claim to be targeting ISIS.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"So whatever Europe or America chooses to do may make no
difference to him."
I don't think that's true. Not even close. It may have been true once, but back then he had the money and the leverage that Russia's energy supplies gave him. With that money came the ability to simply pay the black market prices for what he and the rest of the autocracy wanted and needed. (Too damn bad for the average Russian on the street, but they were, and still are, loyal supporters anyway, for the most part.)
Now, with the crash in energy prices, there's not enough money to feed the beast's normal appetites, much less pay the black market premium. He badly wants an end to sanctions and intends to leverage his ‘leadership’ in Syria into an end to those sanctions, or, if not a total end, then at least some significant relief.
"A rather interesting Op Ed piece by Thomas Friedman"
It was; I thought about putting up a link to it; you beat me to it.
"Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said western leaders trying to
end the carnage in Syria must accept the central role of Russia in
world affairs…
Bloomberg
He doesn't call for an end to sanctions, yet, but that's comin’.
"Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, said Tuesday that
there were no circumstances in which his country would accept the
Russian effort to keep Mr. Assad in power.
"He hinted that if a political solution that led to his departure could not
be found, the shipment of weapons and other support to Syrian rebel
groups would be increased."
NYT
Curiously, it seems we have Turkey and Russia bombing different parties (the Kurds in the case of Turkey, and the non-ISIS Sunni Arab rebels in the case of Russia) both under cover of a claim to be targeting ISIS.
A dream made in heaven for ISIL.
He badly wants an end to sanctions and intends to leverage his ‘leadership’ in Syria into an end to those sanctions, or, if not a total end, then at least some significant relief.
I can see where he would want an end to the sanctions. He must be getting pressure from within his own oligarch ranks. But that will only go so far, as long as oil prices languish in the basement. And that may depend upon China's economic situation.
If his "leadership" in Syria involves propping up Assad and then maybe fighting ISIL, it will be interesting to see how that pans out. What I don't want to see is the US dealing with ISIL even as Putin props up Assad. We are in effect giving him a free hand then.
I suppose it will depend upon what transpires in Syria with Russian forces. At what point do the people in Russia wake up and realize that Putin is committing them to expensive ventures in multiple countries and start to get restless? and, as Friedman pointed out, will Russia be making enemies that are quite willing to strike at the Russian heartland? In effect, taking the place of the United States as enemy number 1?
Russia has `absolutely crucial' role to play on Syria
Possibly so, but what role that may be, is the question.
"He hinted that if a political solution that led to his departure could not
be found, the shipment of weapons and other support to Syrian rebel
groups would be increased."
Yup. Now why did I see that coming?
Careful we don't slip into World War III here.
"Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, said Tuesday that
there were no circumstances in which his country would accept the
Russian effort to keep Mr. Assad in power.
"He hinted that if a political solution that led to his departure could not
be found, the shipment of weapons and other support to Syrian rebel
groups would be increased."
Meaning IS. Arming IS. Which the US could stop with a harsh phone call to the desert dwellers.
"Arming IS. Which the US could stop with a harsh phone call to the
desert dwellers."
Dumbass. That was never true; certainly is not true now that we've made our first deal with the Shia (re: nukes). The House of Saud has feared and hated the Shia since before there was a United States. They're more afraid of them than they are of us.
I do believe that they'll go to arming ISIS if the coördinated attacks from Iran/Syria/Russia coalition and ISIS manages to destroy the non-ISIS Sunni rebellion; you got that part right. And they'll do regardless of what we think about it.
Ya'll think Saudi and Qatar have been arming IS for years now without ya'lls tacit approval? Phuleazze? You really think them ayrabz would have the chutzpaw to go at it alone? Without massas approval? Better think again.
"Better think again."
Perhaps you'd better consider their support for ISIS' predecessor organization when we were fighting them in Iraq as AQII, and our soldiers were getting whacked with weaponry and by soldiers financed by the Saudi and Qatari.
Or maybe you're one of those total conspiracy clowns who think that the American ‘deep state’ had something to do with the 09/11 attacks. (Over here we call ‘em ‘Truthers’ and a lot of them claim that the Bush administration at least knew in advance it was comin’)
Finally someone's gonna beat back the IS maniacs. Putin to a reluctant rescue after the "west" did fuckall in 4 years. Great news!
Some seem to prove themselves better att fondling kiddy fiddlers in Kandahar than killing actual terrorists. Better leave the job of a man to a real man. Putin.
An don't be callin' me a dumbass you hick bastard paedo schmoocher.
"Finally someone's gonna beat back the IS maniacs."
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Better leave the job of a man to a real man. Putin."
I'll be reminding you of this one day when it's necessary to remind you that I'd already pegged ya for a dumbass.
Putin from the air. Assads diehards and the Hezzies on ground and those pilot burning, child torturing women buying jihadi wannabe tourists will run like rabbits. Or better yes die smoldering.
Better leave the job of a man to a real man. Putin.
Hmmm...8:30 in Croatia...yup...cocktail time...
" jihadi wannabe tourists will run like rabbits."
Except, here's the thing. Putin's gonna go after the non-ISIS rebels first. (He may even offer to coöperate with Erdoğan in going after the Kurds, if Erdoğan pulls out this next election. That'd be one way of buying Erdoğan off on the Assad disagreement.) Most likely that'll not work out for him, and the best case is he'll get Assad holdin’ on in a small partitioned state along the Mediterranean Sea, (which'll get him a port that's actually of no particular use to Russia anyway and which will have cost him a bundle by then.)
Putin's gonna go after the non-ISIS rebels first.
Yup, that's just what he did.
And one Homs resident, Ahmad Abu Mohammad, wrote in a Facebook message that Russia was “a partner of the Assad gangs,” adding ominously: “Russia is an enemy of the Syrian people and its interests must be targeted.”
Can't say I blame him for that reaction.
"Yup, that's just what he did."
Wasn't hard to figure. Putin moved in high-end air defense missile systems and his high-end air combat fighter planes.
ISIS has no air capabilities. Putin's figuring to take out the de-facto safe zones Turkey had set up near the Turkey/Syria border, and he's also figurin’ to be ready to go toe-to-toe with American air power if we object to his taking down the non-ISIS rebellion. Assad has always feared them more than ISIS; Putin seems to concur.
Our problem is that Assad still runs the legally recognized government of Syria, member of the United Nations and all that, and so Putin has ‘international law’ clearly on his side.
Headline Putin’s Jets in Syria Are a Threat to the U.S. ― Daily Beast
In the days immediately ahead we (the U.S.A. that is) are going have to erect a special guard against those who so easily fall prey to the ‘do somethings’.
There will be a great hue and cry to ‘do something’.
This is because folks have been taken somewhat by surprise. Putin has taken a dramatic and unexpected first step.
But, there is a point here that needs to be remembered. This was unexpected ‘cause this was a dumb move. Folks weren't expecting Putin to make a dumb move, so they'll be convincing themselves it was a stroke of genius instead; they'll be workin’ hard on that one.
We will want to do something, of course, but first we need to figure out what we want to be the final outcome, then we figure on how to maybe get there. And we're not in any need to hurry those decisions--Putin's dumb move ain't gonna get any smarter upon prolonged exposure to the native elements.
Rush Limbaugh has remarked on his show that the discovery of water on Mars is a part of a plot to ‘advance a liberal agenda’ probably related to climate change and global warming. He's now claiming that these remarks are being ‘taken out of context’.
However:
"The original story on POLITICO cited a transcript and video of
Limbaugh from the left-leaning website Media Matters, a long-time
critic of the radio host that has called on advertisers to boycott his
program. A transcript posted on Limbaugh's own website, however,
matches Media Matters' version word for word.
***
"It's not clear, however, how exactly Limbaugh felt he was being
misinterpreted. A spokesman for the radio host declined to elaborate."
Politico
I can explain the context thing to them. Rush said those things with an arrogant sneer in his voice, fully expecting that his audience would buy into what he said just ‘cause he said it.
However, in cold print, without the arrogant sneer effect, it just sounds goofy.
That's the difference in context.
According to Bloomberg
"[I]t is a small but encouraging sign that [the Obama/Putin] meeting on
Monday was ‘genuinely constructive,’ according to U.S. Secretary of
State John Kerry, who also said Obama and Putin agreed that Syria
should remain a single, secular state."
This was released before Putin started his bombing campaign against non-ISIS rebels, so the joint claim that the meeting was ‘genuinely constructive’ is perhaps less encouraging than Kerry would lead us to believe. More to the point, it's not at all encouraging that Obama is apparently still committed to keeping Syria intact, with the Sikes-Picot borders, as drawn by Europeans for their own benefit, at the end of WWI.
Slept on the thought of what we ought to do… My conclusion is that the very first thing we should do is go to our ersatz allies in Europe with the observation that a renewed arial campaign by Assad, or by the Russians on Assad's behalf, is almost guaranteed to lead to a surge in refugees. Now is the time to prepare for them, new refugee camps, and better refugee camps--upgrades to the existing ones too, to absorb the influx. Lobby them hard to join us in coming up with a joint American/European Union plan for housing the refugees in the Middle East, closer to their own homes. (Maybe even take it to the United Nations after we have a plan and ask them to bless it with a UN flag--not necessarily with UN blue helmet troops--they're almost worthless.) That'll give everybody something constructive to do while we figure out the next move.
I'll have to read the links later. But in regard to the need to prepare for more refugees, I think that goes without saying. And the bill should be sent to Putin.
I think we will have to think about this one for a bit as well. But to do absolutely nothing is probably not a wise choice. It will be a fine line to walk.
I don't know that sending the bill to Russia will do any good, but getting the issue of more refugees mentally linked to the Russian's move to shore up Assad can't hurt.
"I am almost of the mind that we should just leave the Russians to it…"
Lynnette In Minnesota @ Fri Sep 25, 10:00:00 p.m. prior thread
The more I study on this, the more inclined to that conclusion I become. In fact, I think we maybe oughta help them get stepped in it clear up to their knees and higher if we can. (Whilst trying to minimize the damage to non-ISIS fighters and civilians to the extent we can.)
In fact, I think we maybe oughta help them get stepped in it clear up to their knees and higher if we can. (Whilst trying to minimize the damage to non-ISIS fighters and civilians to the extent we can.)
That does have a certain appeal. Perhaps the "do something" may be the same as the "do nothing" strategy. That is, perhaps stepping aside and letting what will be, be, in regard to others supplying anti-Assad forces with weapons may be the only thing to do.
And here's a place we might be able to help bog Putin down, get him committed to the fight. This was a Turkish backed pressure on Assad that they're talking about going after, described as:
"An alliance of insurgent groups including the al Qaeda-linked
Nusra Front and powerful Ahrar al-Sham made rapid gains in Idlib
province earlier this year, completely expelling the government from
the area bordering Turkey."
We might want to surreptitiously see to it that Turkey can buy what it needs to funnel to its proxies here. Ain't much we can do for them regarding the Russian bombing, but the ground operations can be supplied without great risk to us.
Breedlove said he suspects Russia is trying to set up what the military calls a “anti-access, area-denial,” or A2AD, zone in western Syria. Moscow has recently established these zones in the Baltic region and in the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014. “We are a little worried about another A2AD bubble being created in the eastern Mediterranean,” Breedlove said.
The point of these zones is to give Russia exclusive access to strategic regions, Breedlove claimed. In the case of western Syria, an A2AD zone helps to ensure that Moscow can send forces into the eastern Mediterranean, which NATO has dominated since the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991.
The Russians do seem rather arrogant.
We might want to surreptitiously see to it that Turkey can buy what it needs to funnel to its proxies here.
Not just Turkey, I believe the Saudis may be interested as well.
I couldn't resist. I had to slip over and see what The Saker had to say about Putin's moves in Syria, if only for comic relief.
"I believe the Saudis may be interested as well."
I figured that where we'd come in. The Turks have the access; the Saudi have the money. Somebody's gotta get ‘em coördinated.
I notice that the winefalcon doesn't seem to have gotten the memo about Hezbollah pulling back to the Lebanese borders.
"It's da Roooskies!"
Nothin' more cathartic than Putin swoopin' in again to allow our Yank friends to show their true bloodthirsty colors and hypocrisy.
I had been wondering how you were going to reconcile your admiration for Putin's politics with the observable world. So this is it?
@ Lynnette,
I noticed that the Treasury Department has marked 5 November 2015 as the day we hit the current debt ceiling limitation. Boehner's last day is 31 October (that's a Saturday, so his last effective day may be 30th).
Nothin' more cathartic than Putin swoopin' in again to allow our Yank friends to show their true bloodthirsty colors and hypocrisy.
*sigh*
The Russians swoop in and cream a bunch of civilians to prop up a brutal dictator with a penchant for barrel bombs and it's just peachy keen, we suggest a little push back, which will happen with or without us, and we're bloodthirsty?
*even deeper sigh*
I noticed that the Treasury Department has marked 5 November 2015 as the day we hit the current debt ceiling limitation.
Ahh...so we are entering uncertain territory rather soonish.
Gotta run...lots to do today. Planning on seeing "The Martian" tomorrow.
Islamic rebels attempt to strike Russian air force
Despite evidence Pentagon Slams Moscow for using "dumb bombs"
There is a glaring difference in a piece of the reporting in these two articles.
"I am almost of the mind that we should just leave the Russians to it…"
Lynnette In Minnesota @ Fri Sep 25, 10:00:00 p.m. prior thread
It would appear that the Obama administration has come to substantially the same conclusion.
Allahu Akbar :'((
Bye, CIA mercenary scum. Nice shiny toys you had there.
I'm not the only person who's come to the conclusion that Putin's Syrian move wasn't among the game plans on account of it was too dumb a move to expect from Putin. (Lee C. @ Wed Sep 30, 11:57:00 p.m. ↑) The folks over at VOX are thinking the same thing:
"[T]he Russian intervention is so incredibly stupid that it took the US
by surprise that Putin would actually do it. And while Putin's actions
may be bold, that doesn't mean they'll be effective, much less worth
their costs.
"…if the US is going to take a cue on its Syria policy from a despotic
foreign leader, it shouldn't be Putin, but Napoleon, who once famously
warned, ‘When your enemy is making a mistake, do not interrupt him.’"
And, just by the way, I still think our first move should be to go public with an effort to get an American/European Union response the expected bump in refugees. Issue a public call for a meeting with representatives of the EU if necessary. Every day goes by without that coming up for discussion is another day with the opportunity missed.
And, just by the way, given the Russian initiative in Syria, I'm rethinking my opposition to American participation in the creation of ‘Safe Zones’ in Syria. We might want to consider doing that to the extent we declare certain areas off limits to aerial warfare--no Russian planes allowed. We'd have to have somebody else offer to enforce peace on the ground; American troops would just be a magnet for violence in what we would want to be a safe area. But, if somebody else is willing to put boots on the ground, we might offer air cover and area denial to all other air power. It's worth a thought--now anyway.
I may not come down there in the end, but I'm thinking about it now.
Bye, CIA mercenary scum. Nice shiny toys you had there.
Judging by those Allahu Akbars my guess is they probably weren't mercenaries, but actually had some other motive besides cash. Scum they may be, but if they are Al-Nusra it's doubtful the equipment was provided by the CIA.
It's amazing how people like to blame only the CIA when there are so many other obvious contenders in that mix.
Btw, why are you mad at us? We have no power here to change what happens there.
‘When your enemy is making a mistake, do not interrupt him.’"
I rather like that idea as well.
Well, it is pretty clear, so far anyway, that the Russians are not interested in trying to mitigate any pain or suffering of the Syrian people. They seem to be only interested in carving out their sphere of control, not influence mind you, but control, over a region with Assad, or someone like him, in power.
For the sake of speculation, lets imagine that the Russians are successful in their goal of securing that zone of control with Assad in power. Then what? That is only a portion of Syria, what of the rest? Are the Russians fully prepared to attempt to clear out all of the other actors in those other regions? Or are they going to hunker down in the bunker of their making? Because my guess is that that territory will become a lightening rod for all in the region who are unhappy with the Russian move.
Do the Russians want the extra expense on top of their adventure in Ukraine? And what of the Russian people? From what I gather they are not supportive of sending Russian troops into Syria.
And, just by the way, I still think our first move should be to go public with an effort to get an American/European Union response the expected bump in refugees. Issue a public call for a meeting with representatives of the EU if necessary. Every day goes by without that coming up for discussion is another day with the opportunity missed.
I think that is necessary on a humanitarian level, these people need help, and also to make the point that Putin has just added to all of the chaos and suffering in that region. Which is simply the truth.
I've always thought some kind of "safe zone" or "zone of sanctuary", as someone else said, would be at least of some benefit to mitigate some of this suffering of people in Syria.
P.S.
Your earlier point on who would control the area on the ground is of concern. But I have always thought that perhaps the Kurds, or even the Jordanians, might be candidates for that.
"…if they are Al-Nusra it's doubtful the equipment was provided by
the CIA."
But, it is possible. While al-Nusra got the vast majority of their equipment from other sources, they have stolen (or in some cases purchased) American equipment from those we were arming in the hopes they'd turn out to be those ‘moderate’ Muslim fighting forces that never did actually materialize.
"Then what?"
I think a rump Alawite state that holds on down east coast of the Mediterranean, enough to ensure that base in Tartus, is his fall-back position if nothing else works out for him. Right now he's trying to entice EU support and assistance for more than that. (Some people in the EU are making agreeable noises too.)
Mostly, he's got his rump state secure he thinks, and he's wingin’ it for more.
Sounds like someone screwed up in Afghanistan, bombing a Doctors Without Borders hospital. Bad intelligence or someone didn't pass on the word that the hospital was at that location? We were warned. Someone screwed up badly.
... they have stolen,,,
This was the same argument made when ISIL stole equipment from the Iraqis. I don'd think it holds water. This is a fact of war. If people can't hold onto their equipment that is their fault, not ours.
...(or in some cases purchased) American equipment from those we were arming in the hopes they'd turn out to be those ‘moderate’ Muslim fighting forces that never did actually materialize.
This is more of an issue in my book. Finding good partners in that region has always been difficult. But I do have to ask why they would be selling the equipment? Do we not provide some kind of cash support? Even our military gets that. You can't fight and feed your family at the same time.
I think a rump Alawite state that holds on down east coast of the Mediterranean, enough to ensure that base in Tartus, is his fall-back position if nothing else works out for him. Right now he's trying to entice EU support and assistance for more than that.
If I were the Europeans I'd think twice about supporting the Russians in anything.
Terror attack in Australia. A shooting outside a police station. The shooter was 15.
Gotta run...have to go grocery shopping before the movie...
"But I have always thought that perhaps the Kurds, or even the
Jordanians, might be candidates for that."
If we're talking about camps in Syria, I think the Kurds and the Jordanians are doing quite enough just policing their own borders and handling the problems ISIS and Assad have already sent their way.
I'd ask for Egyptians maybe; offer them UN blue helmets maybe, but offer for the UN to pick up their pay while in Syria in any case. Or, maybe Algerians, or Indonesians. Maybe even Saudi, but they could pay their own way.
"Btw, why are you mad at us? We have no power here to change
what happens there."
You're asking such questions of somebody who opens with ‘Allahu Akbar’? Waste of time. Remember: "You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into." Jonathan Swift
Federica Mogherini, the EU's ‘High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission’ seems to have some rather different ideas about what to do with the flood of refugees hitting Europe than I had proposed.
1. The EU has committed to absorbing 160,000. The rest will be sent back. (There's already 350,000 in Europe.)
2. Rather than waste time and money on housing and caring for the refugees, the EU, and ‘especially…the United States’ shall ‘solve the conflicts in Syria and Libya’ (Good luck with that.)
3. The EU will also depend on Iran to play a ‘constructive role’. The nature of which Mogherini left unspecified, but which will apparently result in shutting off the flow of immigrants to Europe.
4. The EU will pretend that Russia and Iran agree that Assad must go. And the removal of Assad will do much to ease the crisis.
And that seems to be pretty much it.
(I do think we need to have a real serious talk with these people.)
"But I do have to ask why they would be selling the equipment? Do
we not provide some kind of cash support?"
They're selling it because it's valuable to people who intend to fight, which they do not. They got paid while they were training, but that's not fighting. Now the training's over and they have to go to fighting if they want to keep getting paid. They don't want to keep getting paid badly enough to go to fighting with ISIS. So, they don't want the weapons nearly as much as they want the money they can get for the weapons.
I'd ask for Egyptians maybe; offer them UN blue helmets maybe, but offer for the UN to pick up their pay while in Syria in any case...
I have never had much confidence in the UN after what happened at Srebenica. I'm also thinking it needs to be someone who could stand up to ISIL, as well as someone with an immediate interest, like the Kurds or the Jordanians.
The rest will be sent back.
To where?
"I have never had much confidence in the UN after what happened
at Srebenica…"
I don't have much faith in the UN either, which is why I was thinking about picking the military first, and then maybe bequeathing UN status and legitimacy upon somebody who's gonna be more dependable than just whomever shows up next on the list for UN duty. But, I'm thinking about who maintains order inside the refugee camps. Keeping ISIS (and the rest of the warring parties) away from the camps is another matter, one that will also have to be considered.
For inside… The Egyptian military is at least a semi-professional military, and they've crossed purposes with Islamists before; not friends. The Indonesians have had trouble with Islamic terrorism also; also not friends. The Algerians suffered through an Islamist uprising resulting in civil war--Islamists lost the war, and they get about 12-15% of the vote in open elections these days, generally regarded as fairly clean elections; again, not friends. For refuges in Jordan, of course the Jordanians would be in charge.
"To where?"
I think the High Representative was non-specific on that point.
I think the High Representative was non-specific on that point.
It's a rather critical point to be non-specific about.
Keeping ISIS (and the rest of the warring parties) away from the camps is another matter, one that will also have to be considered.
This would be the most difficult issue if a safe zone were to be set up. The High Commissioner seemed to think safe zones wouldn't work because people simply would't feel comfortable, or basically safe, enough to go back. It would be critical to show that they would actually be protected.
Perhaps they could be set up on the borders of Syria with Turkey on the north and Jordan on the south. Get a UN resolution and have the Turks and the Jordanians authorized to extend their sovereignty over the border and around the camps (some sort of definitely militarized zone given over to the Turks and Jordanians, with backup as needed from interested parties.) Of course, Turkish coöperation and participation depends on what happens in the upcoming elections.
I'm just floating notions here; give you an idea of the sort of solutions I think might be workable if we worked on them. I'm not committed to any of these specifics; too many ways I haven't thought of for any of them to be bad ideas.
Perhaps they could be set up on the borders of Syria with Turkey on the north and Jordan on the south.
That was kind of my thought. The problem with the northern area near Turkey would be the dispute between the Turks and the Kurds. Both are, in a sense, our allies. Yet they don't get along. Both would object to the other being involved on the ground.
*sigh*
The Turks had already set up a de facto no-fly zone and safe zone near the western Syrian border, north of Allepo, effectively cutting off the extreme western Kurdish area from the rest of the Kurds. (map) They were not happy about it, but, being the pragmatist they tend to be, they soon turned their attention to other pressing matters more deserving of their immediate attention.
Hmmm...I assume the Russian intervention has thrown a spanner into the Turks plans? They are on opposite sides of this whole thing. Those anti-aircraft batteries would probably work against Turkish planes as well as American...
Gotta run...yard work to to today, and hopefully some painting...
"I assume the Russian intervention has thrown a spanner into the
Turks plans?"
The rebels have since pushed south out of the de facto zone created by the Turks. Their successes helped decide Putin on it being time to get his guys in the fight. So far as I know the Russians haven't yet pushed north far enough to reach the areas where the Turks previously had been ‘escorting out’ any Syrian aircraft which they deemed to be straying ‘too close’ to their border (their stated reason for exercising dominion over what is, in fact, Syrian air space not Turkish air space). It is widely assumed that the Turks will think twice about facing off against Russian planes in the same manner as they pushed back Syrian planes and choppers, but the Russians haven't yet pushed it.
"Those anti-aircraft batteries would probably work against Turkish
planes as well as American..."
If you will recall, I previously linked you up with a Turkish analysis which concluded that those anti-aircraft batteries were there precisely to work against Turkish planes. This is what the guy was referring to.
And, just as a ‘heads up’… There are indications that the Obama administration is preparing to support a renewed Kurdish push across the Euphrates River to connect up with the Kurdish regions on the west side. If the Sunni Arab forces falter in the face of Russian bombing then that'll leave Assad room to move in, and it looks like we may be getting behind the Kurds' plans to move in first. (Effectively reversing the Turks' grab at that area--via their support of non-ISIS Islamist factions--before the Kurds could consolidate it last time.)
According to the Russians there have been quite a few desertions among the fighters they have bombed.
Rumor has it that Iraq is requesting Russian air strikes against ISIL in Iraq as well as Syria.
Hmmm...things are getting complicated...
"According to the Russians there have been quite a few desertions
among the fighters they have bombed."
It could be true. The Russian's Rules of Engagement allow for bombing even in the presence of civilians, so the ‘human shields’ trick doesn't work against the Russians. Could be the jihadi don't like being exposed to open bombing where civilians as cover don't work anymore. Or, could be the Russians are counting as jihadi all the civilians who're fleeing. Or, could be the Russians are just making it up.
Probably have to wait for confirmation from more reliable sources before we know which it is.
Also reports that the Turks locked a radar on a Russian bombing run that came within 5 miles of the Turkish border. Looks like they're gonna play chicken for a bit, may wind up shooting at each other if they're not careful.
Here's a link
Here's the way of things. The Russians are fairly openly bombing civilian targets in Syria. They deny it, but it's like the denial that they were staging an invasion of Crimea; totally non-credible.
We accidentally hit a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan (I don't think anybody seriously contends that we hit the hospital on purpose; although there is some indication that the Doctors Without Borders group were tolerating a Taliban presence, and Taliban firing from the hospital grounds, and the Afghans may have called in a strike on the location. cite).
So, now Doctors Without Borders are calling for prosecution of ‘War Crimes’ against America; The United Nations is making sympathetic noises about that war crimes accusation, and the Russians get a pass.
Turks and Russians playing more games of flying chicken.
The NYT tells us that the Obama administration is considering both a Kurdish/Sunni Arab assault on Raqqa and a Kurdish drive west across the Euphrates River to gain Kurdish control clear across the Syrian/Turkish border.
Erdoğan had conniption fits over the Kurds almost consolidating their hold on the border a few months ago, and ain't likely to like it much better now, but he's also ‘otherwise engaged’ and may not be able to spare any fight over this just now. Also, the Kurds are going to include some Sunni Arab fighters in the westward push, and they hope that mollifies Erdoğan somewhat. The NYT article says it's already been discussed with Erdoğan. (Best case scenario is Erdoğan's party loses the election, but that's probably a long shot; although it's looking like they won't get an absolute majority either. Caveat to that, pre-election polling in Turkey can be unreliable.)
Life in the Islamic State ― WaPo
They finally DID get a Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement inked. NBCNews Now it'll go to the Senate for some major fussing before it gets an up or down vote, no amendments.
Could be the jihadi don't like being exposed to open bombing where civilians as cover don't work anymore. Or, could be the Russians are counting as jihadi all the civilians who're fleeing.
Whether that report is even accurate is questionable. The other part I didn't mention was that the Russians gave a number o 600 people and that they were fleeing to Europe. How they could know either of those things is a mystery.
A rather interesting aside, another article I read in WaPo was about the myths of migrant/refugees. ( I was going to link to that Life under ISIL one yesterday, but it wasn't up yet, or I just couldn't find it.) Anyway, one of the myths was in regard to terrorists slipping into Europe via the refugee streams. They made the point that they probably wouldn't take the risk of loss of life going through the smugglers channels. They'd fly in.
I don't know if the Russians mentioning that about fleeing to Europe was just to stoke more fears in that quarter or not.
The incursion into Turkish airspace might have been an error, but you would think the Russian pilots, if they were good at their job, would know where they were flying.
Although they apparently aren't too careful about who and what they are bombing, so perhaps it was actually an honest mistake. If it happens again, we'll know.
So, now Doctors Without Borders are calling for prosecution of ‘War Crimes’ against America;
I think that a bit over the top. They are working in a war zone. It was not deliberately decided that we should bomb a hospital. Someone screwed up, either on the coordinates or in deciding how to deal with any shooters who may have been near the facility.
The Russians are fairly openly bombing civilian targets in Syria.
And apparently medical facilities. Why should they get a pass?
Btw, I was reading somewhere that the Russians believe it is a precision strike if they are within X number of miles of target. (I forget it is 5 or 2.) But in any case in my book if you aren't dead on target, it isn't "precision".
"…in my book if you aren't dead on target, it isn't ‘precision’."
I figure ya gotta be within a few feet of whatever you were aiming at. They are bombs after all. Horseshoes and hand grenades, and all that…
"The incursion into Turkish airspace might have been an error…"
It may have been an error, but that just means they managed to fly into Turkish air space earlier than they'd planned on it. They were going to test Turkish resolve on that. They probably will again.
... the accord on Monday faced initial skepticism in the U.S. Congress.
Now why am I not surprised?
It looks like the Russians are digging in deeper in Syria.
If the Russians are not careful their actions, considering the many divergent goals of people within Syria, and the greater Middle East, will lead us into WWIII.
Russia moves into Syria, by Michael Totten
P.S.
You may want to read some of the comments attached to that Totten article.
Putin's claim that Russia wasn't going to put in ‘boots on the ground’ as it's phrased over here, appears to have been false. No great surprise there. He denied for weeks that the ‘little green men’ who took over Crimea were Russian soldiers. He admitted it eventually, when the takeover was a faite accompli, but he denied it for weeks even after it was clear he was lying through his teeth.
I'm not sure Putin's thought this through. He's probably expecting the Europeans to cave as usual, and, also as usual, to put pressure on us to cave. However, I don't know that he's considered the Sunni Arab element. They've been contesting with the Shia for centuries on end (almost from the beginning of Islam). They are not going to tire of it now. Saudi and the Gulf States are in this for the long haul. I don't know that Putin's got legs to go the distance against them.
"You may want to read some of the comments attached to that
Totten article."
Totten tends to draw followers from the neo-con perspective, although some of Totten's followers are sui generis true flakes.
Putin's claim...
I think Putin likes to say all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean they are true.
I'm not sure Putin's thought this through.
It seem as if he is engaging in multiple conflicts at the expense of the Russian people.
I found this comment from that comment section interesting.
Craig • 19 days ago
The only thing surprising about this is that it took so long.
That's not surprising. Putin needed to know first and foremost that there would be no US air strikes against Assad, before he could deploy Russian forces to defend Assad. Russian soldiers killed by American strikes would be bad. So would American planes being shot down by Russian soldiers. Putin also needed to know there would be no American military advisers deployed with anti-Assad rebels, because American soldiers killed by the Russian military would be bad, as would Russian soldiers being killed by forces American soldiers were embedded with.
To a lesser extent, Putin needed to know American proxies acting independently would not be engaged with Russian forces. This one was somewhat optional, since it is classic proxy war and the whole point of proxy war is so that external powers backing each side can pretend they aren't actually fighting each other. But Putin probably didn't want a proxy war against the US, much as he fondly remembers the Cold War.
Putin now has assurances on all these matters, and on top of that he is even being encouraged by the United States, which is also boosting Assad via Hezbollah and the Grand Bargain with the Iranian regime.
Because, frankly, knowing that Russia has been allied with Assad I have wondered why they have not acted before this to shore him up.
Totten tends to draw followers from the neo-con perspective, although some of Totten's followers are sui generis true flakes.
That's why I said some of the comments. The more outlandish I tend to skim. But sometimes there are ones of interest. Whether or not Craig is right in his speculation it is a point to wonder about, Russia's timing, that is.
"Russia's timing, that is."
The timing seems fairly clear to me. Assad was soon to fall, even with Iran and Hezbollah support. The Syrian rebels were advancing from the north and moving closer to Damascus in the south. There were noises coming out of the Shia camp that Assad might have to be replaced with another Iranian puppet and a peace deal negotiated. Russia might have gotten left out of that negotiation, and that means Russia might be at risk of losing its base in Tartus. Had Assad gotten in that shape earlier, Putin would have moved earlier. (A problem lightly glossed over by those who claim that we should have found the non-existant ‘moderates’ earlier and beefed them up way back when and then it would have worked out different. That's BS. All that would have done is caused Iran and Russia to step up their support back then, as necessary to protect their investment. This will end when they tire of it, wasn't going to end because they forgot to keep watch and got taken by surprise.)
Post Script:
Riyadh and Tehran are more than willing to fight this to the last Syrian, but there is a limit to how much of their own capital they're willing to invest.
By the way, I've come to terms with the terminology to be used. I've been referring occasionally to ‘non-ISIS’ Syrian rebels. There's really no need for that. ISIS isn't Syrian; the actual Syrian rebels aren't ISIS. (There are non-ISIS Islamists some Syrian, some, like al-Nusrah blend Syrian and non-Syrian and there may on occasion be some reason to specify ‘non-ISIS Islamists’ as the subject noun, but ISIS aren't Syrian rebels and I don't think any more specificity is usually needed.)
Some pros and cons for the Syrian Kurds considering an alliance with Russia.
The Kurds have proven politically adept and agile; I suppose it's a necessary talent to have cultivated. I wouldn't be totally surprised if they somehow manage to capitalize on the possible advantages while avoiding the downsides. Much still depends on the results of the Turkish elections (set for 1 November I believe), and on the politicking that occurs inside Turkey after those elections. I think the Kurds will have difficulty making peace with Erdoğan this time, should he win, but if his party loses and is turned out of power perhaps a negotiated settlement with Ankara is possible, and then they can turn to coöperating against ISIS.
Some pros and cons for the Syrian Kurds considering an alliance with Russia.
Funny, I never thought about this possibility. Probably because the Kurds seem so intent on having their own space, that I wouldn't think they would care to have Assad remain in power. But I can see where an alliance with Russia might be considered, if Russia is really serious about taking on ISIL.
But I can see where this would definitely exacerbate tensions between the Kurds and Turkey.
I'm not sure what good options there are for the United States in this mess. Half of me wants to just throw up my hands and say we should just dump the entire mess in Putin's lap. But then the other half says that that may not be the best option, considering our alliance with countries like Jordan and groups like the Kurds, who have fought so bravely against ISIL.
"Funny, I never thought about this possibility."
Then you have not been paying close enough attention. In Putin's speach before the UN he said that only Assad and the Kurds had been effective forces in opposition to ISIS. I took note of that at the time. He did not include that reference by accident or to no purpose. And, of course, the KRG in Iraq has long been friendly with the Iranians who're probably their primary source of small arms and ammunition. The Baghdad government gets bitchy when we arm the Kurds but says nothing when Tehran arms the Kurds, as I'm sure you've noticed me remark before.
"Half of me wants to just throw up my hands and…"
Well then, I can happily tell you that I'm not near the isolationist you may sometimes take me for, ‘cause that option has never crossed my mind. (If one is going to wait for an opening, a course of action I've advocated before, one has to be there waiting when the opening comes.)
I have no particular objection to the Kurds buddying up to Putin. He'd give them a little leverage with the Turks. (I have no objection to the Iraqi KRG making nice to Tehran either.) The Kurds seem to be more than capable of compartmentalizing. The tensions between us and Tehran are not their problem, and they have shown no signs of being disloyal to us. They are, first and foremost, for the Kurds, and are open and honest about that. I expect we'll find the YPG operating on the same level. So the idea that they might coöperate with Putim bothers me not at all. I still say we make it sure it's well known that the Kurds are our favored folks in the region, and that includes the YPG, although not the PKK, whom we can't officially support ‘cause Turkey is officially a NATO ally. (This'll make it easier for them to ask things of Putin while not having to promise him anything in return.)
Germany's beginning to have problems in its refugee facilities. Small wonder I suppose.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Syria is looking more like a ‘boots on the ground’ operation for Russia every day. And its becoming increasingly clear that ISIS is not their primary concern.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Iran's ‘Supreme Leader’ has ‘forbidden’ any further talks with the United States on any subject. I gotta wonder if this isn't because of the Iranian involvement in Syria; perhaps he's trying to reassure his hardliners in the Revolutionary Guards, who're no doubt all excited about being able to make mischief in Syria under Russian air cover. This is to let them know that he's not going to allow the civilians in the government to negotiate away their game. And, then again, he's also gotta be worried that the coming generation in Iran ain't all that impressed with his old revolutionary fervor and hatred of The West, especially of the Great Satan, i.e. the United States.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Speaking of Russian air cover: The flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet is taking up a position just off the Syrian coast. This ship is capable of sophisticated area air defense and is outfitted with Russia's best surface to air missile system, the S-300.
The Russians have launched ship-based cruise missiles on Syrian targets. Some are speculating that the Russians used these instead of airplanes (which are much closer to the targets) just to prove they can, on account of we've already proven we can; we've been using cruise missiles in various places for over a decade now.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Obama has personally called the head of Doctors Without Borders (a/k/a MSF) and apologized for the attack on the hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. (CNN). I rather doubt that will mollify them in an even small degree.
Monterey Shale oil estimates in California fall from 15.4 Billion to 21 Million barrels:
http://www.postcarbon.org/usgs-downgrade-of-recoverable-oil-in-the-monterey-shale-of-california/
I wonder, can the EIA really be that inept? Or were they deliberetely blowing estimates way out of proportion to crash prices? I can understand mistakes, but this is so insanely wrong it does make one curious about other agendas.
"To put this in perspective a resource which in 2011 the EIA estimated was 15.4 billion barrels—enough oil to meet all of U.S. needs for nearly 3 years—has been reduced to 21 million barrels, or enough oil to meet U.S. needs for 28 hours."
Lynnette:
"Hmmm...8:30 in Croatia...yup...cocktail time..."
Hehe, how could you tell?
Fact is I'm still pondering Russias involvment in Syria. It could lead to improvments. Or it could be that without it the regime would have fallen which could have led to increased chaos. But it could also lead to a prolonged war with ever more sticks poking at the hornets nest. I am so far cautiously optimistic that it will at least be for the "not worse". But obviously Syria as a nation won't be fixed anytime soon. Probably never.
It seems clear that the Russian strikes are focusing on the front lines where regime forces are under most pressure, and to help the regime try to eradicate rebels in the pockets within regime controlled areas, such as around Homs. This means they have mostly attacked non-IS rebels, so far.
For Russia itself I'd not be surprised to see blowback in the Caucasus. Or terrorists from the Caucasus striking in Moscow or elsewhere in Russia. I think they'd have to consider this not only a possibility but as something quite likely.
^me
How's this for a grand idea?
Let the Allawis keep the Med coastal areas they already control. Let the kurds in the north have their own region eventually melting together with the kurdish parts of Iraq into the beginnings of that Kurdistan nation. Let the Shia keep southern and eastern Iraq.
Then the sunnis can have a huge sunnistan in the middle. Maybe they'll find more oil there even, lots of uncharted areas I hear.
I would advocate they went with some kind of democracy or semi democracy. Second choice would be some sort of sunni nationalism. Stomp out the religous extremists.
Otherwise, by all means, go with extremisms, as long as it's contained. It could be called the Islamic Caliphate of No-One-Want's-To-Live-There.
"It could lead to improvments."
How ya figure that?
Dead terrorists.
"It is worth remembering that the vast majority of refugees in
Europe are running not from the Islamic State, but from the Assad
regime, and its hold on power means that they could stay in Europe
forever."
NYT
"‘They [the Russians] are sending planes and messages to Turkey
and NATO,’ said Sutyagin, once a military policy expert for the
Russian government. The message, he said, is that ‘this area, where
you want to establish safe zones…is not safe because we are
approaching there, entering your airspace, and there might be
clashes.’"
WaPo
And, it is worth noting that the majority of the Russian's efforts, like the majority of Assad's efforts, have been to fight against native Syrian rebels under the clearly bogus claim that the rebels are all terrorists.
Might also note that not all Islamists are terrorists, in fact, most are not. An inclination to reestablish the historical caliphate does not necessarily mean that they think the way to do that is to bomb civilians in the decadent west.
@ Lynnette,
Congressional Republicans, faced now with a potential collision with the debt-ceiling on 5 November, before they'll have a good chance at working out some idea on how to manipulate that to their advantage (being currently consumed by the leadership races), have decided that their first line of defense will be to just not believe it's true.
Global warming, evolution, basic college level economics--Econ 101 as it were, and now arithmetic gets added to list of things to not be believed.
Final note on the ‘dead terrorists’ fantasy as proposed by Marcus:
Putin was initially putting forward the bogus claim that the Russians' intentions were to fight ISIS because he thought that would make the Euroweenies more inclined to accept and support his intervention in Syria. If he'd told them up front that he intended to label all resistance to Assad as terrorism and to take on the Syrian rebels instead of ISIS that'd have made it rather harder for them to swallow. Too big for one bite.
Of course, now that he's in there, he can change the story and they'll swallow what they have to in order to pretend it's all good.
"Videos posted by the Russian Ministry of Defence to demonstrate
that Russia was striking on the Islamic State at its Syrian
headquarters in Raqqa were revealed to be bombing raids of
positions more than 100 km away."
Conversation
@ Lynnette,
Keving McCarthy has dropped out of the running to replace Boehner as Speaker of the House. CNN He was gonna get the Republican nomination--had that sewn up, but it appears he decided he either didn't want the job after all, or he didn't want the tougher fight that was coming to win the election as Speaker after he got the Republican nomination. It appears he took everybody by surprise when he decided to drop out of the contest.
That would be Kevin McCarthy, not Keving.
"It is worth remembering that the vast majority of refugees in
Europe are running not from the Islamic State, but from the Assad
regime, and its hold on power means that they could stay in Europe forever."
Hogwash! Only 21% of registered refugees are even from Syria, as Eurostat mentions and as I have already linked to. Hard to see any fraction out of 21% representing a "vast majority". Scare tactics to use the refugee crisis in Europe as a bat to beat on Assad/Russia.
"If he'd told them up front that he intended to label all resistance to Assad as terrorism and to take on the Syrian rebels instead of ISIS that'd have made it rather harder for them to swallow."
I kinda expected that from the get go. The main aim of Putin/Russia is to prop up Assad. And that's why the focus and most attacks are on the rebels closest to Assad forces. In most (but not quite all) cases they are not IS.
"Hogwash! Only 21% of registered refugees are even from Syria,
as Eurostat mentions and as I have already linked to.
Yeah, I noticed that even before I posted the quote. I think that's probably just bad editing. The majority of Syrian refugees are running from Assad, either from his troops or from being conscripted as his troops; I figure that's probably what they meant to say.
"In most (but not quite all) cases they are not IS."
In this case I think it's 96.3% not ISIS, and that's even counting that those bombing runs on Raqqa were faked, which would raise to about 98% not ISIS.
"…and that's not even counting that those bombing runs on Raqqa were faked, which would raise it to about 98% not ISIS."
And, just by the way, Syrian refugees have an incentive to not register until they get to Germany or Sweden or another of those northern nations which automatically grant refugee status on the basis of being Syrian. That kinda skews the numbers when you go to limiting it to ‘registered’ immigrants, as I'm sure you're already well aware.
@ Lynnette,
And, McCarthy does plan on keeping his job as Majority (Republican) Leader. That means the elections for both of the posts below the Speaker are now off, as Scalise had not resigned as Majority Whip prior to running for McCarthy's current job as Majority Leader, so now Scalise will undoubtedly stay put too.
@ Lynnette,
I looked it up. The last time the House gridlocked and couldn't elect a Speaker of the House on the first ballot was in 1855, just prior to the collapse of the Whig Party (and immediately prior to the organization of a new political party who called themselves ‘Republicans’; their first presidential candidate, who was not Abe Lincoln, lost the next Presidential election in 1856), and only five years' prior to the outbreak of the American Civil War.
Correction: Last time was in 1923. The Republicans had an uprising within their ranks against then Speaker Frederick Gillett, who finally won on the ninth ballot. He did not run for the House the next year (1924); ran for Senate instead, and won, but only served one term as a Senator before he retired from politics altogether.
I'm still alive. Been busy. My Mom's in the hospital and I've been running around like crazy. Then there was the little matter of someone rear-ending me on Saturday. *sigh* When it rains it pours.
I'll try to catch up on comments tonight.
@ Lynnette,
It occurs to me that the gridlock and chaos we're now seeing in the House Republican caucus may presage a similar situation in the Republican nominating convention when they meet to pick a presidential candidate in July.
You may recall my earlier analysis of the probable effects Donald Trump's campaign in a spread field such as we have before us. It matters where he settles out. If he's in the low teens for support, he'll fade away. If he's up in the low to mid twenties, he can start picking up significant delegates. High teens could go either way. He's settling out now in the low twenties it would seem. And, even if he drops further, it's still a spread out field. It could easily go to the Republican convention with no clear winner, and have to be negotiated there, even absent any significant effect from Donald Trump.
That might be gridlock and chaos too.
The Russians fired at least one batch of 26 cruise missles from the Caspian Sea, aiming at targets in Syria, as I mentioned earlier.
"Monitoring by U.S. military and intelligence assets has concluded
that at least four [cruise] missiles crashed as they flew over Iran."
CNN
The Russians appear to be highly offended by this report.
If I were McCarthy I wouldn't want that job either!
But I did not see that one coming.
The Russians appear to be highly offended by this report.
The Russians seem very intent on trying to prove that they are as good as the US military. I wonder why? That is, I wonder why they feel it necessary if they really are as good?
The Iranians are denying the claim. Supporting their ally? If I were them I'd be rattling some cages in Russia if it is true. This time the countryside, next time a city.
Lee: "And, just by the way, Syrian refugees have an incentive to not register until they get to Germany or Sweden or another of those northern nations which automatically grant refugee status on the basis of being Syrian."
The flip side of that coin is all the non syrian arabs and even some africans have an incentive to try to register as syrians to get asylum easier. Most likely a way, way greater issue than the one you mention.
First of all it's not like it's hard to get a fake syrian passport, as this dutch reporter discovered:
https://twitter.com/HaraldDoornbos/status/644056427716345856/photo/1
Complete papers for $825 after just a day or two snooping around. But the thing is that about 90% of refugees (in sweden anyway) arrive with no papers at all. In most cases because they're making bogus claims and are in fact economic migrants and not real refugees.
Lynnette: "The Russians seem very intent on trying to prove that they are as good as the US military. I wonder why? That is, I wonder why they feel it necessary if they really are as good?"
They are not and everyone knows it, they do too.
I think they launched those missiles partly to prove to the world that they can, partly to test them in a live war environment now that they had the chance, and partly to create good propaganda for domestic consumption. Maybe also because there were targets that needed to get hit but I don't think that was the main reason.
"The flip side of that coin is all the non syrian arabs and even some
africans have an incentive to try to register as syrians to get asylum
easier. Most likely a way, way greater issue than the one you mention."
I believe the stat you gave us was that 21% of the people who registered were Syrians, a figure that, by its terms, does not include those who'd like to be thought Syrians but ain't.
@ Lynnette,
I mentioned earlier the 1855, pre-Civil War dust up over who'd be Speaker of the House. There is more to be said.
"The class of 1854 did not convene on Washington, D.C. until December
1855, leaving ample time for incoming members to jockey for support.
‘There are about thirty modest men who think the country needs their
service in the Speaker’s chair,’ quipped Ohio congressman Timothy
Day, and ‘to get rid of this swarm of patriots will take time.’"
Politico.com
It took 133 ballots (and several months) before Nathaniel Banks finally got his Majority of the Whole House and was elected Speaker.
We are currently having no such problem with swarms of Republican patriots eager to advance to the Speaker's Chair. You may have noticed this difference.
Lee "I believe the stat you gave us was that 21% of the people who registered were Syrians, a figure that, by its terms, does not include those who'd like to be thought Syrians but ain't."
I believe the figure are those who have been registred as syrians. I fail to see how Eurostat could get any figure on how many register as syrians but are not really syrians. It's not like they jump up and scream "gotcha!" once the paperwork is done.
And of course I just about said as much from the very beginning:
---------------------------------------------------
Marcus said...
Only one in five of the "refugees" into the EU in the second quarter this year was from Syria:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6996925/3-18092015-BP-EN.pdf/b0377f79-f06d-4263-aa5b-cc9b4f6a838f
And of course not all "syrians" are necessarily from Syria, but could be claiming so for asylum reasons.
Sat Sep 19, 10:18:00 a.m.
-----------------------------------------------
"I fail to see how Eurostat could get any figure on how many register
as syrians but are not really syrians."
I suppose they're getting their info the same way you got this info:
"In most cases…they're making bogus claims and are in
fact economic migrants and not real refugees."
Marcus @ Fri Oct 09, 02:13:00 a.m. ↑
Although, I suspect they're rather more meticulous in their application of ‘adjustments’ to the raw data than you are. (Part of the job of being a good pollster is being able to ‘weight’ the responses to achieve a decent approximation of the real world from the analysis of limited data)
And, I'll note again that they say that:
"One out of five [21%] first time asylum seekers originates from Syria."
They do not say that one out of five claim to originate in Syria. Presumably if you can see through the bullshit asylum seekers toss about, the professionals can do an even better job.
I think they launched those missiles partly to prove to the world that they can, partly to test them in a live war environment now that they had the chance, and partly to create good propaganda for domestic consumption. Maybe also because there were targets that needed to get hit but I don't think that was the main reason.
If I were someone living in the Middle East I think I would resent being used as some kind of laboratory rat. There are certainly targets that need hitting, but I'm not sure if they are finding them.
As for domestic propaganda, from what I saw there is a majority of Russians who do not want Russian troops in Syria.
I honestly don't know how this will improve things. And I am not just saying that because I am anti-Russian or anything. It just seems as if there are too many parties willing to wage war in Syria at the drop of a hat. It has become a lightening rod for all those who want to fight.
And as for testing their missile capability, if they actually had some go astray in Iran they have some work to do.
I have been meaning to try to do another post, but with everything going on I simply haven't had the time. I wanted to make mention of PeteS, as he decided to remove himself as a contributor to the blog when he cleaned up his Google accounts. I was rather saddened by that. I have always thought him an interesting commenter and had hoped to have someone else to think up a post.
I think I will try to maintain the blog as long as there is interest. It gives me something else to think about besides my rather sucky life at the moment. :)
But Que Sera Sera. Yeah, I know that's old, but I used to watch re-runs of her movies when I was a kid. This just fits.
Gotta run.
"And as for testing their missile capability, if they actually had some
go astray in Iran they have some work to do."
Twenty-two out of twenty-six made it to Syria. Assuming they landed somewhere in the general vicinity of their intended targets (not necessarily a safe assumption), that be a roughly 85% success rate. That'd mean it's fixable.
The Obama administration has quietly killed the program to recruit and train a ‘moderate’ Sunni Arab force to fight ISIS. USNews From here on in they're gonna work on making friends among Sunni and more friends among the Kurdish YPG, and are going to try to identify and train local ‘enablers’ from those groups who can recognize the coördinates and criteria, and who can be trusted to act as spotters for American air strikes. They're gonna allow them to call in air strikes against ISIS.
In point of fact, we've already got some Kurds we've been working with who can do this, and they're gonna try to expand those ranks and find some Arabs they can trust.
In truth, the ‘recruit and train a militia’ program was, from the very beginning, directed more to American domestic politics than it was to winning the war against ISIS. We have too damn many fools who thought we could wish up a cadre of democratically inclined Syrian Sunni Arabs, if we just wished hard enough. They could not be deterred from this magical thinking. It went even beyond the Tinkerbell effect, blossoming into a full-on Greene Lantern mindset.
Descriptions aside, I've always believed that Obama knew better, and that the ‘recruit and train a militia’ program was instituted because those keeping the faith, along with the ‘do something’ contingent could not be shut up any other way than by starting the program out small and letting them watch it progress on its inexorable path into a small failure, which is rather better than the major disaster that a big program might bring us. It did help to shut Hillary up, and, as it was being overseen by the Senate Armed Services Committee, it also helped curb the damn fool noises coming out of John McCain (its foremost Republican backer who just happened to chair that committee).
But, Obama's only got months yet to go, and they've both got other shiny things to focus their attention, so there's not much need to keep them more or less quite by keeping up that program any longer. We can do without it now. I do not think it will be greatly missed, having pretty much served its real purpose.
Lynnette: "If I were someone living in the Middle East I think I would resent being used as some kind of laboratory rat. There are certainly targets that need hitting, but I'm not sure if they are finding them."
Well if they hit targets that they deem need to get hit I think the laboratory part here would extend only to using those missiles rather than flyovers and bombs.
Lynnette: "As for domestic propaganda, from what I saw there is a majority of Russians who do not want Russian troops in Syria."
From what I can tell there's opposition to boots on the ground but not so much against the current air campaign. Then again, I think the Russians are OK with a limited ground precense also as long as it's contained to spotters and advisors (and maybe limited search and destroy units too). I think the reluctance is towards throwing young conscripts into a meat grinder like Afghanistan and Chechnya attempt #1 (under Jeltzin). And I don't think Russia has that in mind. Of course they could be sucked in to a greater degree than planned...
Lynnette: "I honestly don't know how this will improve things. And I am not just saying that because I am anti-Russian or anything. It just seems as if there are too many parties willing to wage war in Syria at the drop of a hat."
I have read stuff recently about Putin being "reckless" and him making war on the fly and such. I don't believe it for a second. I think this is meticously planned out and anchored with Iran, Irak and Syria beforehand. Putin really doesn't strike me as the type who makes war at the drop of a hat.
Lynnette: "And as for testing their missile capability, if they actually had some go astray in Iran they have some work to do."
If that is true then like Lee says the hit rate wasn't abysmal. It's a challenging shot to make over such a long distance. Ya'll could obviously do it better. The Brits? Maybe. No one else could. (well probably the Japs or the Germans but I'm not sure either have the hardware at hand because it's outside their military doctrine to have it).
Lee, what do you think about the prospects for IS (or ISIS) at this stage? Are they toast?
To me it seems they have made enemies out of just about everyone and are now getting hit from all directions. That some of them will melt away and that members will continue to pose a security threat in the region I have no doubt. But that "Caliphate" of theirs, which is important as it's the basis for their "Caliph" to portray himself as such, I think is toast in the near future.
"But that ‘Caliphate’ of theirs…I think is toast in the near future."
Not so long as that means the return of dominance by the Shia (whether 7ers or 12ers).
The only way the Caliphate will go down in the near future is if the Ba‘athi stage a coup on the promise to fight on; otherwise you soon get to watch the Sunni Arab states, and maybe Turkey, step up their support for Sunni factions; they will support ISIS if the Syrian rebels fall.
What we're gonna do awaits some further knowledge before decision, not so much knowledge about what Russia's up to, but what's gonna happen in Turkey here right soon.
Lee: "Not so long as that means the return of dominance by the Shia (whether 7ers or 12ers)."
That wasn't what I had in mind.
Lee: "The only way the Caliphate will go down in the near future is if the Ba‘athi stage a coup on the promise to fight on; otherwise you soon get to watch the Sunni Arab states, and maybe Turkey, step up their support for Sunni factions; they will support ISIS if the Syrian rebels fall."
You think so?
Well, what I said was "toast" was that Caliphate of theirs. Not sunni dominion of the region as such. But the Caliphate actually means EVERY sunni muslim on earth is bound to bow down to and take orders from the Caliph Al Baghdadi - that's the Caliphate and that's the reason why they're at war with for instance Al Nusra. And while Erdogan et. al. might want to prop up a sunni insurgent force against Assad I don't think he would want to bow to Al Baghdadi anytime soon.
Of course neither do the Baathists, really, who are using IS as a recruiting tool so you may well have a point there. We'll see I guess.
The Russians have been pounding the Syrian rebels in the northwest from the air; Assad's Syrian troops have been trying to retake ground they lost in the last few weeks, after that pounding of the rebels from the air. Ain't worked. Assad's forces have been generally repelled.
Guess what has worked. Per Reuters
ISIS troops have moved in on the exhausted rebels, and have seized villages and ground around Allepo.
It works like this. Russia bombs the rebels. Assad's troops, even with Iranian support can't take advantage of that, but ISIS can.
Whoda thunk it?
Whoda thunk it?
Chaos theory.
Unless you're a conspiracy buff, then it would be Putin. But even I'm not going to suggest that Putin is in league with ISIL. He can't be that blind.
Only time for one comment tonight.
Major size bomb went off in the Turkish capital of Ankara today. (NBCNews) I have to admit that my first thought was to suspect Erdoğan, who's not been having as much luck with his recent military aggressions drawing in support as he had hoped it'd bring him. I was recalling Putin's good luck in having some bomb attacks occur in Moscow (curiously tied to the FSB which he headed at the time). Those allowed Putin to get aggressive with the Chechens, with wide approval for that action across Russia. There was a rally-round-the-flag effect and Putin was suddenly the front runner in the election to succeed Boris Yeltsin.
Upcoming elections in Turkey, and a bombing in Ankara, and my first thought was Erdoğan's hoping to duplicate Putin's success there.
But, it could easily be the PKK or eve ISIS.
Erdoğan's likely to blame it on the PKK no matter who takes credit for it, assuming somebody takes credit for it.
I saw that. Most speculation seems to be between ISIL or the Kurds. I don't know if Turkey is doing enough to hurt ISIL in Syria to warrant an attack. But if Turkey has cracked down on any transit through its territory that might be a catalyst. My first thought was the Kurds within Turkey.
[Marcus]: I think the reluctance is towards throwing young conscripts into a meat grinder like Afghanistan and Chechnya attempt #1 (under Jeltzin). And I don't think Russia has that in mind. Of course they could be sucked in to a greater degree than planned...
That is the danger for Russia. They have fought a bloody conflict in Chechnya that was never really resolved except by Putin using force. I am sure there is still extreme resentment over that. If Russia pisses off enough people who express their displeasure through violent acts, such as what we have seen in Turkey, you may see an uptick in attacks within Russia itself.
Then of course there is the simple fact that if the Russians prop up Assad they will have to do that forever. Because there are too many people who are intent on his ouster in that region. They will then make themselves a target for anybody local who will wish to hurt their interests.
[Marcus]: I think this is meticously planned out and anchored with Iran, Irak and Syria beforehand.
Interesting thought. It would appear that those countries believe that Russia is a better option than the United States. Perhaps because we are too cautious to suit them? I still think it is like throwing water on a grease fire. It runs the risk of causing even more spreading of the conflict.
No one else could. (well probably the Japs or the Germans but I'm not sure either have the hardware at hand because it's outside their military doctrine to have it).
Now there's an interesting tangent to run off on. The Japanese. I have read where some are intent on rebuilding their military capability as a result of China's build up. Don't know where that will lead.
2 bombs, 86 dead and 186 hurt. Last numbers in the Turkey bombing, via CNN.
Happened during a peace protest. Hmmm...maybe Lee has a point about Erdogan. Although they say it was suicide bombers. How many people would die for Erdogan?
Well, what I said was "toast" was that Caliphate of theirs. Not sunni dominion of the region as such. But the Caliphate actually means EVERY sunni muslim on earth is bound to bow down to and take orders from the Caliph Al Baghdadi - that's the Caliphate and that's the reason why they're at war with for instance Al Nusra.
The region under ISIL control may eventually fall. But it remains to be seen whether or not the virtual Caliphate will be defeated. The danger is that there will always be someone out there intent on causing violence within various countries in its pursuit. What needs to be made clear is that the kind of caliphate that ISIL desires to create is a false caliphate. That they are the ones who are the apostates. Until the majority of people come to understand that, there will always be a risk.
"How many people would die for Erdogan?"
Erdoğan's secret police just gotta find a wannabe jihadi and give him the necessary equipment. Wouldn't necessarily tell him the truth about who they were really working for.
I've been wandering through the op-ed pieces for a while now, and it's come up a time or two that the Obama administration's new plan for engagement in Syria doesn't do any better of a job of making sure that the people we arm up, specifically the Sunni Arabs we arm up, go after ISIS rather than fighting with Assad, no better than the old paradigm, probably worse when it comes to that.
I begin to wonder why some of these clowns are allowed to write op-ed pieces in nationally known magazines.
Russia's intervention (and Iran upscaling its intervention right along with them) has altered the playing field. It's no longer Obama's intention to arm up some friendlies, but only against ISIS. He's expecting the guys we arm to take on Assad too, and the Russians along with him, and the Iranians. The other side raised the stakes; Obama's just matching the raise. That means we cut our favored factions loose to shoot up Assad and his backers now. It's not just ISIS we're gunnin’ for anymore.
Lee: "Major size bomb went off in the Turkish capital of Ankara today. (NBCNews) I have to admit that my first thought was to suspect Erdoğan(...)But, it could easily be the PKK or eve ISIS."
I don't believe it's Erdogan. He's in charge and unless he'd sanction false flag operation he has little to gain.
I am almost certain it's not the kurds, even the PKK. They have never stuck against civvies before. A PKK or YUP attack has always been at police or military targets.
Th most likely culprits are jihadists IMO. ISIS or Nusra or affiliated groups. Best guess.
"I don't believe it's Erdogan."
You probably also believe Putin's innocent of the Moscow apartment bombings back in 2002.
No, wait, they went down in 1999 (should have checked that before I just spouted it off the top of my head).
It's no longer Obama's intention to arm up some friendlies, but only against ISIS. He's expecting the guys we arm to take on Assad too, and the Russians along with him, and the Iranians.
Well that sounds like the Russians accomplished what the Turks have been wanting for some time now. That is, the United States working to remove Assad, as well as ISIL, militarily.
"[T]he United States working to remove Assad…militarily."
That may be overstating the case a bit. I think they're looking to drive the Assad/Russian/Iranian coalition to negotiate a settlement. But, the Russians and Iranians have upped the ante.
The PKK has unilaterally declared a temporary cease-fire. This may have been partly in response to the recent bombing, hoping to get a little credit from a shocked Turkish populace. Its stated rationale is to enable the elections scheduled for 1 November to be carried out under decent conditions. (Which suggests to me that they think they'll defeat Erdoğan's Islamists once again.
"Which suggests to me that they think they'll defeat Erdoğan's Islamists
once again."
Or, perhaps the Kurds are merely afraid that any extraordinary security measures will be deployed mostly to suppress voter turnout in high Kurdish population areas. It occurred to me later that this was an equally plausible theory.
The PKK has unilaterally declared a temporary cease-fire. This may have been partly in response to the recent bombing, hoping to get a little credit from a shocked Turkish populace.
It could be their way of saying, "hey, we didn't do this".
It looks like Erdoğan is most certainly not gaining any support for the crackdown against the Kurds from this event. Wapo CNN
Post a Comment