Thanks for the posts, fellas. I read an article here and there but you two have been over there.
Printable View
Thanks for the posts, fellas. I read an article here and there but you two have been over there.
Your thoughts on the Russians are of note because the political conflicts in the Caucasus are unresolved -you could even argue that whilst the Soviet era put a lid on it, the disputes over Russian 'sovereignty' in that region date back to the 19th century if not before. The other argument would be the disapproval of the Russians at the way in which Qadhafi was overthrown, particularly the intervention which followed the success of the rebels in securing Benghazi. It is of course entirely ironic that a people's revolution is frowned upon in the successor to the USSR, even if it is heavily sponsored from outside. Mind you, the inheritors of 1776 weren't that keen on popular revolutions in Central America in the 1980s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
And yet, there may be a deeper anxiety here: in 1979, relations between Moscow and Baghdad cooled, again because of 'regime change', specifically Saddam Hussein's 'coup' against Hassan al-Bakr and the violent purge of the Ba'ath Party that took place- this alienated the Russians and brought Hafiz al-Asad closer to the USSR, but even more important is the simple fact that the USSR after vacating Azerbaijan province in in Iran in 1947 left behind a network of KGB agents who worked with the Tudeh party to undermine the Shah (particularly after 1954). It is argued that Soviet -then Russian- support for Iran has been retained through the Islamic Revolution as part of an anti-American, pro-Syrian/Iranian axis in the Middle East. Pavel Stroilov has claimed Gorbachev was the only head of state to receive a personal message from the Ayatollah Khomeini, even if it did suggest he give up communism and become a Muslim (!). It may therefore be part of a Russian fear that if it loses Syria, it will only have a delicate relationship with Iran to fall back on, with the assumption that 'losing Syria' weakens Iran, and therefore weakens Russia. In geo-strategic terms, the Russians have had their eye on the Persian Gulf for more than a century, they may still be smarting at the loss of the petroleum concession to the British in 1901.
The Russians are protecting their presence in the Middle East. How would the other powers doing it?
Not really sure about Stroilov but his book (Behind the Desert Storm) is here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B...addafi&f=false
Bill Clinton joins up with John McCain.
http://news.yahoo.com/bill-clinton-u...162055123.html
http://www.indynewsisrael.com/wp-con...ohn-McCain.jpgQuote:
Bill Clinton urges more forceful U.S. response on Syria: report
http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/FZ...b5cec5193.jpegReuters – 1 hr 27 mins ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As the Obama administration considers whether to arm Syrian rebels, former President Bill Clinton increased pressure for a stronger U.S. role in Syria's civil war, short of sending in U.S. troops, according to a report.
"Nobody is asking for American soldiers in Syria," Clinton said, according to the report from the newspaper Politico published late Wednesday.
"The only question is: now that the Russians, the Iranians and the Hezbollah are in there head over heels ... should we try to do something to try to slow their gains and rebalance the power so that these rebel groups have a decent chance, if they're supported by a majority of the people, to prevail?"
Clinton made the remarks at a closed-press event earlier this week with Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, one of the fiercest critics of President Barack Obama's unwillingness so far to provide direct military support to the rebels opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The conflict has left at least 93,000 dead in a two-year fight, the United Nations said on Thursday.
The situation on the ground has changed dramatically in recent weeks, with Assad winning the open support of fighters from Hezbollah, the Shi'ite militia from neighboring Lebanon. Assad also is backed by regional Shi'ite power Iran and Russia, which has used its veto to block U.N. Security Council action against him.
The comments from fellow Democrat Clinton increases pressure on Obama as his administration considers options on Syria at White House talks this week, including whether to arm the rebels.
Clinton said he agreed with McCain that the United States needed to intervene, according to the report by Politico, which said it obtained an audio recording from an attendee at the event for the McCain Institute for International Leadership held on Tuesday in New York.
"Sometimes it's just best to get caught trying, as long as you don't over-commit - like, as long as you don't make an improvident commitment," Clinton said, according to the report.
He said several times it would be "lame" to point to opposition in polls or among U.S. lawmakers as a reason not to intervene in a conflict, Politico said.
Obama has been reluctant to arm the rebels out of concern the weapons could fall into the wrong hands, and opinion polls back him, with some surveys showing as few as 10 percent of Americans in favor of intervention.
If the United States decides against arming the rebels, Arab and European states could step in.
Clinton's comments come just months after his wife Hillary left as U.S. secretary of state. The White House had no immediate comment on the Politico report.
(Reporting by Susan Heavey; Additional reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Alistair Bell and Vicki Allen)
The BBC last night broadcast the third and last programme about the Iraq war, which contained some depressing comments from all involved which makes one wonder how informed decision makers are before, as Tony Blair said in the first programme, they decide to 'remake the Middle East'. Curious how the same generation of politicians don't mount ground troops, spies, air power, cyber-power and all the rest of it to 're-make the Korean peninsula' and they seem indifferent to the misery that has been inflicted on the people of the 'Democratic Republic of the Congo' but dealing with all sorts of venal thieves, killers and rapists or 're-making Southern Africa' isn't on the agenda, however much profit is made from diamonds, cobalt and other minerals.
In the same programme last night, Cheney was insistent that there had to be a change in the leadership in Iraq in 2006 because the Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari was considered ineffective and because the USA was determined 'to win' and leave Iraq as 'a stable democracy'. The chilling thing is that Cheney believes his own rhetoric even as the shameless Jack Straw (and Condi Rice) went to Baghdad to tell al-Jaafari he was no longer going to be Prime Minister of Iraq which Straw cheerfully pointed out was an act of colonial intervention! What has anyone won in Iraq? Saddam Hussein is dead, the Kurds are signing oil contracts as if the North is already an independent state, the Shi'a have made it clear that Iraq is now under their control while the Sunna are now as marginalised and ostracised as the Shi'a were under Saddam. When the last elections returned a larger majority for the opposition Iraqiya party, Maliki annulled the elections and arrested the Iraqiya leadership!
As I said in an earlier post, the Ba'ath regime in Syria which used to be and attracted support in Syria as a Secular government, has now become identified as a Shi'a-oriented government, a process that will alienate the country's Christian and secular minorities -who now repesents the interests of these communities? The politics of dictatorship which has reared a generation for whom politics is limited to violence rather then democratic debate, has debased secularism and led the country into a futile war.
Clinton on this issue is a misguided fool playing domestic politics with no regard for the situation in Syria. Why should the USA intervene when it has signed multi-trillion arms contracts with Saudi Arabia over the last 50 years! Saudi Arabia has either spent trillions on weapons it doesn't know how to use, or is terrified that if it puts its own soldiers on the ground in Syria they will get nothing out of it. It is rather like the last days of the Serbian-Bosnian crisis when the military might of the European states sat on its ass and it was the Americans who intervened to end the worst of the violence.
The historical record shows that American intervention has at times been crucial to military success -the First and Second World Wars are obvious examples. With all due respect to Mr Clinton, the USA can't do everything all the time, you are not the world's policeman. The US already has special forces in Jordan, Syria, and probably in Iraq, isn't that enough?
The Middle East is in this turmoil because outsiders won't leave it alone. 100 years of meddling -what is the legacy?
Looks like we're trying to snake our way in there one way or the other.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...6pLid%3D329017
http://rt.com/files/news/1e/69/20/00/17.si.jpgQuote:
Syria's Assad Used Chemical Weapons Against Rebels, U.S. Officials Conclude
Posted: 06/13/2013 5:00 pm EDT | Updated: 06/13/2013 6:31 pm EDT
U.S. officials have concluded that the Syrian regime of president Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against rebel fighters, the New York Times reported on Thursday.
Congressional sources told CNN that investigators concluded that Syria has used chemical weapons multiple times.
In a statement released on Thursday, the White House says U.S. intelligence concluded that the Assad regime used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent Sarin, against rebel fighters in the last year.
The statement continues:Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information. The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete. While the lethality of these attacks make up only a small portion of the catastrophic loss of life in Syria, which now stands at more than 90,000 deaths, the use of chemical weapons violates international norms and crosses clear red lines that have existed within the international community for decades. We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons. We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons.The White House reiterates that President Obama has designated the use of chemical weapons as a red line and that the U.S. will increase its assistance to the opposition.
"Our intelligence community now has a high confidence assessment that chemical weapons have been used on a small scale by the Assad regime in Syria. The President has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has," the statement says.
National Security Council deputy advisor Ben Rhodes said on Thursday that the President Obama reached a decision on what the new support for the Syrian opposition would look like. According to Buzzfeed, Rhodes said: “The president has made a decision ”about what kind of additional support will be provided to the rebels. It will be “direct support to the SMC [Supreme Military Command] that includes military support.” Rhodes added that no decision has been made on the institution of a no-fly zone.
More from the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States has conclusive evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime has used chemical weapons against opposition forces seeking to overthrow the government, crossing what President Barack Obama has called a "red line" that would trigger greater American involvement in the crisis, the White House said Thursday. Officials said Obama was considering both political and military options, but it was unclear how quickly new actions would be taken and what they would involve.
"We've prepared for many contingencies in Syria," said Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser. "We are going to make decisions on further actions on our own timeline."
The White House said the Assad regime had used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale multiple times in the last year. Up to 150 people have been killed in those attacks, the White House said, constituting a small percentage of the 93,000 people killed in Syria over the last two years.
The Obama administration announced in April that it had "varying degrees of confidence" that sarin had been used in Syria. But they said at the time that they had not been able to determine who was responsible for deploying the gas.
The more conclusive findings announced Thursday were aided by evidence sent to the United States by France, which along with Britain, announced it had determined that Assad's government had used chemical weapons in the two-year conflict.
Obama has said repeatedly that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" and constitute a "game changer" for U.S. policy on Syria, which until now has focused entirely on providing the opposition with nonlethal assistance and humanitarian aid.
The White House said Congress has been notified of the new U.S. chemical weapons determination, as have international allies. Obama will discuss the assessments, along with broader problems in Syria, next week during the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland.
Obama is also expected to press Russian President Vladimir Putin, Assad's most powerful backers, to drop his political and military support for the Syrian government.
"We believe that Russia and all members of the international community should be concerned about the use of chemical weapons," Rhodes said.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-step-mil...233546868.html
http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/fS...706700bbb5.jpgQuote:
Obama to step up military support of Syrian rebels
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/oXh...png_162613.pngBy MATTHEW LEE and JULIE PACE | Associated Press – 15 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has authorized sending weapons to Syrian rebels for the first time, U.S. officials said Thursday, after the White House disclosed that the United States has conclusive evidence Syrian President Bashar Assad's government has used chemical weapons against opposition forces trying to overthrow him.
Obama has repeatedly said the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" triggering greater American intervention in the two-year crisis.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the strongest proponents of U.S. military action in Syria, said he was told Thursday that Obama had decided to "arm the rebels", a decision confirmed by three U.S. officials. However, the officials cautioned that no decisions had been made on the specific type of weaponry or when it would reach the Syrian rebels, who are under increasing assault from Assad's forces.
"This is going to be different in both scope and scale in terms of what we are providing," said Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser.
The U.S. has so far provided the Syrian rebel army with rations and medical supplies.
Thursday's announcement followed a series of urgent meetings at the White House this week that revealed deep divisions within the administration over U.S. involvement in Syria's civil war. The proponents of more aggressive action — including Secretary of State John Kerry — appeared to have won out over those wary of sending weapons and ammunition into a war zone where Hezbollah and Iranian fighters are backing Assad's armed forces, and al-Qaida-linked extremists back the rebellion.
Obama still opposes putting American troops on the ground in Syria and the U.S. has made no decision on operating a no-fly zone over Syria, Rhodes said.
U.S. officials said the administration could provide the rebels with a range of weapons, including small arms, ammunition, assault rifles and a variety of anti-tank weaponry such as shoulder-fired remote-propelled grenades and other missiles. However, a final decision on the inventory has not been made, the officials said.
Most of those would be weapons the opposition forces could easily use and not require much additional training to operate. Obama's opposition to deploying American troops to Syria makes it difficult to provide much large-scale training. Other smaller- scale training can be done outside Syria's borders.
All of the officials insisted on anonymity in order to discuss internal administration discussions.
Word of the stepped up assistance followed new U.S. intelligence assessments showing that Assad has used chemical weapons, including sarin, on a small scale multiple times in the last year. Up to 150 people have been killed in those attacks, the White House said, constituting a small percentage of the 93,000 people killed in Syria over the last two years.
The White House said it believes Assad's regime still maintains control of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and does not see any evidence that rebel forces have launched attacks using the deadly agents.
The Obama administration announced in April that it had "varying degrees of confidence" that sarin had been used in Syria. But they said at the time that they had not been able to determine who was responsible for deploying the gas.
The more conclusive findings announced Thursday were aided by evidence sent to the United States by France, which, along with Britain, announced it had determined that Assad's government had used chemical weapons in the two-year conflict.
Obama has said repeatedly that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" and constitute a "game changer" for U.S. policy on Syria, which until now has focused entirely on providing the opposition with nonlethal assistance and humanitarian aid.
The White House said it had notified Congress, the United Nations and key international allies about the new U.S. chemical weapons determination. Obama will discuss the assessments, along with broader problems in Syria, next week during the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland.
Among those in attendance will be Russian President Vladimir Putin, Assad's most powerful backers. Obama and Putin will hold a one-on-one meeting on the sidelines of the summit, where the U.S. leader is expected to press his Russian counterpart to drop his political and military support for the Syrian government.
"We believe that Russia and all members of the international community should be concerned about the use of chemical weapons," Rhodes said.
Britain's U.N. Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said his country was "not surprised by the determination made by the U.S. government," given its own assessments, and was in consultation with the Americans about next steps.
The U.S. has so far provided the Syrian rebel army with rations and medical supplies. In April, Kerry announced that the administration had agreed in principle to expand its military support to the opposition to include defensive items like night vision goggles, body armor and armored vehicles.
The Syrian fighters have been clamoring for bolder Western intervention, particularly given the estimated 5,000 Hezbollah guerrillas propping up Assad's forces. Assad's stunning military success last week at Qusair, near the Lebanese border, and preparations for offensives against Homs and Aleppo have made the matter more urgent.
While McCain has pressed for a greater role for the U.S. military, other lawmakers have expressed reservations about American involvement in another conflict and fears that weapons sent to the rebels could fall into the hands of al-Qaida-linked groups.
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, condemned the Assad regime but expressed serious concerns about the United States being pulled into a proxy war.
"There are many actions that the United States can take to increase our humanitarian assistance to refugee populations and opposition groups short of injecting more weapons into the conflict," Murphy said. "I urge the president to exercise restraint and to consult closely with Congress before undertaking any course of action to commit American military resources to Syrian opposition forces."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, also urged the White House to consult with Congress.
"It is long past time to bring the Assad regime's bloodshed in Syria to an end," he said through a spokesman, Brendan Buck. "As President Obama examines his options, it is our hope he will properly consult with Congress before taking any action."
___
Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor, Donna Cassata, Andrew Taylor in Washington and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report.
FILE - In this April 30, 2013, file photo, President Barack Obama answers questions during his new conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room
of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, April 30, 2013. U.S. officials said June 13, 2013, that the Obama administration has concluded that
Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime has used chemical weapons against the opposition seeking to overthrow him, crossing what Obama called a 'red line'.
(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)
It remains to be seen exactly what sort of military aid is supplied to the rebels. And if it is hardware how it gets to the right rebels. John McCain meanwhile continues to bang the drum of even more direct intervention. Dangerous words.
The region is now teetering on the brink of what could become a major conflagration. If the US does arm the rebels or outs its own forces into play in some manner and Russia responds b, at the very least strengthing it's support for Assad, what might Israel do? What prospect for the conflict not really spilling over into Lebanon... and Jordan perhaps. What about Turkey? And of course Iran borders wealthy Sunni controlled Gulf states - mere miles from the UAE (with whom they are already in dispute over some islands - even though they are otherwise strong trading partners) Iran is already involved in covert supprt for the Shias in Bahrain and are likely to focus its ire (or worse) on Qatar which is the main funder of the rebels and have long been locked in a devil's embrace with Saudi Arabia. The picture looks ugly indeed. Today I read that Jihadists are moving towards the region from Pakistan and North Africa - together with Shia fighters. Does Obama really want to put US lives into the middle of this - and will Cameron and the UK Government get involved. It is entirely possible this could be a far wider conflict than the mere Middle East.
As we've discussed here before what on earth would victory be anyway. A nation in ruins. Millions dead. An al-queda aligned rebel victory. grim for the region and wider world.
I agree with most of what you say Prospero, except that I think that, as in Iraq, the long-term influence of 'al-Qaeda' in Syria is precarious, as the Salafist groups are as divided as the rest of the Syrian opposition and I doubt that the Syrian Sunna would tolerate the kind of behaviour that al-Qaeda in Iraq got up to -although it was touched on the Iraq War programme in fact they did not go deeper into the Awakening movement and the wide-ranging revolt amongst Sunni in Iraq against al-Qaeda. The programme prefered to use 'the surge' as the key to defeating the extremists. Just this last week Ayman al-Zawahri rejected the merger of the Jabhat al-Nusra with al-Qaeda in Iraq.
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/06/09/a...qaeda-in-iraq/
Earlier this week a report from Channel 4 suggested Qatar might be having second thoughts about its involvement in Syria, support it gave because of the 'clean break' with Qadhafi in Libya, which hasn't emerged in Syria. The concern is that if Qatar continues to support the rebels, it might be vulnerable to some action from Iran, as you also point out this could make Bahrain vulnerable too.
Not sure about Israel -it has already directly attacked targets in Syria, but I doubt Asad would retaliate without working out the further consequences, whereas some action by Hezbollah might make more strategic sense, but these would be skirmishes rather than extended warfare. I don't know if the new President in Iran, who will be selected rather than elected over the next 48 hours or so will change policy.
If Israel has used phosphorous bombs in the Gaza District, isn't this the illegal use of chemical weapons? Israel says it used them to illuminate areas at night and that this use is not illegal in international law, but there s evidence of the bombs injuring civilians...
http://electronicintifada.net/conten...over-gaza/7965
What doesn't seem to be happening is a significant push for negotiations, unless these commitments to arms are part of the bargaining process.
But Israel are always given the benefit of the doubt, aren't they.... re: the phosphorous
A well-argued piece in today's Independent on Sunday by Patrick Cockburn: if the 'red line' for the Obama administration was Syria's use of chemicals weapons, for which little evidence has been supplied, what is the position if the Rebels have access to the same weapons -where the evidence is clear from the 2kg cylinder of Sarin gas which members of the al-Nusra front had when arrested in Turkey...and as Cockburn argues, why would Asad or someone in the military use Sarin knowing that it is the 'red line' that would provoke US intervention? As he argues, the problems is the incoherent and poorly organised rebel opposition, and a bedrock of support for Asad, suggesting that external forces are needed to achieve what ground forces from Syria cannot -force Asad to leave or open talks on a transition. I note nobody, not even Cockburn suggests the armed forces of other Arab states take the initiative, his observations of Afghanistan suggest most of the time the Mujahideen are not very effective. But if an all-out war is the only solution, is it a solution that will actually work? With other reports today that Iran is/may be sending 4,000 ground troops into Syria is this going to make ground force action against Asad's government more or less likely? His final call for diplomacy to replace force rings true, but are the 'movers and shakers' listening?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...t-8660482.html