A Trump administration thaw with Russia is ‘unacceptable,’ McCain says

Pretty good.

I'd point out that Assad is Alawite, religiously close to the Shiites and Iran - not Baath, the Sunni dominated political party of Saddam's Iraq.

Obama's strategy isn't oriented to overthrowing Assad with a local revolutionary force armed by the US. It's more oriented to forcing Assad out through negotiation with Russia and other nations that can as a group apply pressure. Nothing we're doing has any realistic probability of revolutionaries overthrowing Assad, nor is our approach designed to attempt that.

Assad is using his air force to drop barrel bombs on Syrian civilians. I've seen nothing to suggest that air cover for civilians would cause revolutionaries to be able to oust Assad. So far, it seems those who like this direction are simply trying to stop the slaughter of Sunni civilians.

That said, I have always seen Clinton as too ready to use military force. It's one reason I voted for Bernie. But, "slippery slope" applies to Vietnam, not Iraq where the very first approach by Bush was to lobby for total conquest. That's a cliff, not a slope. Also, we managed to make significant progress in the Balkans using force that was short of conquest and didn't involve US troops. So, I don't agree that incremental force is necessarily a bad idea.

There is NO indication that radical terrorism in Syria can be stopped without the people of Syria being committed to their government. We learned that in Iraq (where surge levels of US forces failed to rout AQI until the "awakening"). We saw that in Vietnam. It's true in Afghanistan. It's why the "troubles in Ireland ended with government concessions, not violence. It's why Mandela succeeded with terrorism in South Africa. That is why the Obama strategy is based on the requirement that we achieve regime change through negotiation, getting to a competent stable government that accommodates Sunnis, who are the vast majority and who are experiencing the brunt of Assad's military - and that of Russia.

 

Yes. The Obama strategy has nothing to do with facilitating a successful revolution.

We investigated that direction. During Obama's presidency, McCain went to Syria to talk with the various revolutionary groups to see if there was a kernel of leadership good enough to lead Syria. He really wanted to find that, as his direction was to find that kernel and replace Assad with them. The consensus is that nothing like that was found.

 

bullcrap. You don't have a clue what Trump is doing.

 

Assad is a Baathist.

 

Regime changes are usually not peaceful and that ship has already sailed in Syria. Imagine how much better things would be if we had not meddled into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Egypt to create the chaos caused by those regime changes. Will we ever learn? For the last half century, our foreign policy has been controlled by lackeys for corporate war profiteers and the bank swindlers who are their benefactors. I am in favor of working together with Russia to stabilize the Middle East and tone down the never ending idiotic conflicts directly caused by US and U.K. Intervention in the region which has steadily escalated since the end of WW II.

 

Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are all cases where we simply smashed the existing government.

In Egypt, we supported the existing government even though it was incompetent and repressive - we didn't cause the change.

And, yes, for years our Sec State has worked with Russia (and others) to come to peaceful regime change in Syria for the reasons you state, as well as others, probably.

I see this as evidence that we've learned what you hope we would have learned - or at least progressed in that direction. Obama has held that direction even at political cost.


I don't see a way for you to support a claim that we caused the problem in Syria.

 

OK - I blew that!

However, Assad is Alawite, which is a Shiite derivative (while the majority of Syria is Sunni) and his government is more a party of one (himself) than it is Baath. And, Syria's civil war has been on sectarian lines, not on political party lines.

 

I see you're back after wiping the egg off your face. Like a bad penny..............

 

Mr. liberal WillReadmore ,You want to Sunni (Sunni's leader) would do what Alawite's leader is doing now .
Hit I the nail on the head?
( is my guess correct? )

 

It is one of the odd anomalies of that region. But, believe it or not, the Alawites of Syria are Baathists. A couple of generations ago there was a single Baath Party in Syria and Iraq, but it split in two into an Iraqi Baath Party and a Syrian Baath Party. I know it's strange because the Alawites are a Shiite sect and the Baathists of Iraq are Sunnis.

I'm not sure about that. My opinion is that Assad's forces were losing territory and weakening which is why the Russians stepped up their support. I suspect it is their support that has averted a complete military collapse of the Syrian government. And even if you're right, this is a coldhearted game those geopolitical strategists are playing. "Pressure" is one of those deceiving terms that are applied when we don't want to say what it really is. It is war. It is a war that has killed nearly half a million people now, created millions more homeless refugees, and left cities in ruins. Our geopolitical strategists like to call this "pressure" because it sanitizes this massive human tragedy. We Americans sit across the ocean in the comfort of our safety and wealth, and we have no concept of the human suffering that we are a part of creating by supporting a side in this war. It is amazing to me how we are able to compartmentalize and shut out our own culpability. We see a picture of a little child wounded by a Russian or Syrian bomb, and we hear our leaders and our media pontificate about how barbaric the Russians and Syrians are, as if we are as clean as the driven snow. The truth is, we aren't that clean. We too kill civilians in our bombing attacks. We try not to, but we do it.

I'm sorry if I seem cynical, but I don't believe the people who want this war and who want to get rid of Assad care about civilians. I think they see this all as a chess game. A nice, clean, logical game. I don't think they lose any more sleep over civilian casualty figures than they would over the loss of a pawn in the chess game. And we know that, in chess, sometimes the strategic loss of a pawn can lead to victory. My opinion is that the air cover that has been proposed by Clinton/McCain/Graham is not really for civilians. I think it is to prevent losses to the fighters we support.

I too do not want to step over a cliff in Syria. But the difference in our views is that I think our leaders know that the American people do not want to jump over that cliff, and so they sort of gently, skillfully, gradually, tip us over the cliff little by little, hoping we won't notice what's happening. Sort of pushing us a little closer while saying, "See? You're not falling over the cliff." But later we're told, "Look, we've gone this far, we can't stop now. We mustn't be weak of spirit or resolve. It's time to jump." Another analogy is the one I've used before - the quicksand that doesn't kill you quickly - it just gradually covers your feet, then your ankles, then your shins .....

My other problem with incremental force is that I just don't think it's our business. This goes straight to the debate in this country over whether or not we want our country to act as the world's policeman or not. I do not. I want us to fight only when we absolutely have to in order to defend ourselves or our longstanding allies.

I cannot disagree with you with those statements. I just wish that we were not involved militarily in the civil war in Syria in any way. No arming, no training, etc. We have done those things, and because much of that is secret, it is unknown how much of that we are still doing. I do agree that since the majority of the country is Sunni, they should not be under an Alawite dictator. But I think I know those people. I think Iraq is the example we should learn from. The lesson is that those people will not live in peace with each other. They will not be fair with each other. They will not place nation above tribe and religion. They just will not. So if Assad is ultimately replaced by a Sunni head of state and a majority Sunni government, there is still going to be a lot of ugliness in that country.

Honestly, the U.S. and Russia really ought to consider partitioning the country. Let Assad and the Alawites have Damascus and western Syria. Let the Sunnis have Raqqa and eastern Syria. Perhaps those two areas could be recognized as separate nations. Those people will not live peaceably together as one nation. Perhaps the solution is two separate nations.

Thanks for all the conversation. Cheers!

 

Not at all sure what just happened in post #60 but the quotes from WillReadMore where attributed to me.

I don't have a problem since I happen to agree with what he posted but I want to set the record straight that those are his quotes and not mine.

FTR the link on my name jumps back to Seth's Passerby Shooting thread.

 

Don't be naïve ....... Putin is playing Trump for a fool.

 

McCain is really left in the cold war area and is maybe fighting the USSR in his mind ... and right this guy blamed Russia for large scale bombings. What was he doing again in Vietnam please?

However, as far as I don't like Trump, what this troll blabbers again around shows that there are still many idiots in political establishment and no matter of Republican or Democrat who should better retire form his job.

I have no problems with a better relation of Russia with USA as far as it doe snot go on the costs of their allies and throw away general core values for which the USA stands always.

 

Totally ignorant statement detached from the reality on the ground. You really haven;t got the clue what's going on on the ground. Aleppo. There are only between 40,000-60,000 people left in the part controlled by the jihadists (moderates are non-existent). Only a fool believes that jihadists who trimmed their beards somehow have become moderates overnight. What's more there are around 1.5 million of people in Aleppo under the Syrian government control. The whole narrative about Aleppo in our media is totally false. I'd say criminal. It puts Dr Goebbels to shame.

 

I'm enjoying myself. We shall actually have the equivalent of Sammy Brownback's disastrous Red State Model "experiment" on a national scale.

If the reality tv performer can secure the subservience of a bum-kissing congress, the GOP's dominion can take credit or bear blame.

The Great Flatu takes office with a dismal favorability rating, succeeding an outgoing POTUS with a very good one. Can he rival Obama's?

It'll be fun to watch!

 

Meanwhile al Baghdadi is falling apart. His hygiene has gone to hell and he sleeps with a suicide vest.

 

My bad. It was on my clipboard and I somehow used it by accident.

There. Fixed it.

 

It is one of the odd anomalies of that region. But, believe it or not, the Alawites of Syria are Baathists. A couple of generations ago there was a single Baath Party in Syria and Iraq, but it split in two into an Iraqi Baath Party and a Syrian Baath Party. I know it's strange because the Alawites are a Shiite sect and the Baathists of Iraq are Sunnis.

I'm not sure about that. My opinion is that Assad's forces were losing territory and weakening which is why the Russians stepped up their support. I suspect it is their support that has averted a complete military collapse of the Syrian government. And even if you're right, this is a coldhearted game those geopolitical strategists are playing. "Pressure" is one of those deceiving terms that are applied when we don't want to say what it really is. It is war. It is a war that has killed nearly half a million people now, created millions more homeless refugees, and left cities in ruins. Our geopolitical strategists like to call this "pressure" because it sanitizes this massive human tragedy. We Americans sit across the ocean in the comfort of our safety and wealth, and we have no concept of the human suffering that we are a part of creating by supporting a side in this war. It is amazing to me how we are able to compartmentalize and shut out our own culpability. We see a picture of a little child wounded by a Russian or Syrian bomb, and we hear our leaders and our media pontificate about how barbaric the Russians and Syrians are, as if we are as clean as the driven snow. The truth is, we aren't that clean. We too kill civilians in our bombing attacks. We try not to, but we do it.

I'm sorry if I seem cynical, but I don't believe the people who want this war and who want to get rid of Assad care about civilians. I think they see this all as a chess game. A nice, clean, logical game. I don't think they lose any more sleep over civilian casualty figures than they would over the loss of a pawn in the chess game. And we know that, in chess, sometimes the strategic loss of a pawn can lead to victory. My opinion is that the air cover that has been proposed by Clinton/McCain/Graham is not really for civilians. I think it is to prevent losses to the fighters we support.

I too do not want to step over a cliff in Syria. But the difference in our views is that I think our leaders know that the American people do not want to jump over that cliff, and so they sort of gently, skillfully, gradually, tip us over the cliff little by little, hoping we won't notice what's happening. Sort of pushing us a little closer while saying, "See? You're not falling over the cliff." But later we're told, "Look, we've gone this far, we can't stop now. We mustn't be weak of spirit or resolve. It's time to jump." Another analogy is the one I've used before - the quicksand that doesn't kill you quickly - it just gradually covers your feet, then your ankles, then your shins .....

My other problem with incremental force is that I just don't think it's our business. This goes straight to the debate in this country over whether or not we want our country to act as the world's policeman or not. I do not. I want us to fight only when we absolutely have to in order to defend ourselves or our longstanding allies.

I cannot disagree with you with those statements. I just wish that we were not involved militarily in the civil war in Syria in any way. No arming, no training, etc. We have done those things, and because much of that is secret, it is unknown how much of that we are still doing. I do agree that since the majority of the country is Sunni, they should not be under an Alawite dictator. But I think I know those people. I think Iraq is the example we should learn from. The lesson is that those people will not live in peace with each other. They will not be fair with each other. They will not place nation above tribe and religion. They just will not. So if Assad is ultimately replaced by a Sunni head of state and a majority Sunni government, there is still going to be a lot of ugliness in that country.

Honestly, the U.S. and Russia really ought to consider partitioning the country. Let Assad and the Alawites have Damascus and western Syria. Let the Sunnis have Raqqa and eastern Syria. Perhaps those two areas could be recognized as separate nations. Those people will not live peaceably together as one nation. Perhaps the solution is two separate nations.

Thanks for all the conversation. Cheers!

 

So, you elect Obama and his weakness of apology tours and peace prizes for nothing screws up half the world, and you want us to repeat after you:

“Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.”
http://www.nationalcenter.org/ChargeoftheLightBrigade.html

 

That is a great point! From past scenarios one would think toppling one dictator only leads to another. Or massive militant regimes that fight over the power (another void/ISIS). What is truly going on within the middle east. I mean those who live there can absolutely say WW3 has started! They would not be incorrect.

 

I want a leader in Syria that can lead all Syrians.

There are far more Sunni citizens, so that leader might be Sunni. But, that is very definitely not the point.

Terrorism will continue until the people have a government the people accept.

 

Why would anyone care what that terrorist supporting scumbag McCain has to say? He's irrelevant and should go sit in the corner like the dunce he's become...

 

true. I had not noticed that. But, I'm not convinced that party has much to do with Assad's decisions as an autocrat. He suspended the party a few years back. I don't know if the party has even been "unsuspended".

 

OK, you disagree with some or all of what I've said, but it's not clear to me what that disagreement actually is.

I don't remember saying anything about Aleppo, fof example.

 

The party was never suspended. The have in 2016, 200 out of 250 seats in Parliament. The highest ratio they have EVER had.