Of course neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton founded ISIS but who did? It was Abu Musab al Zarqawi in 2004.*
Though Trump is getting criticized for his language, the more standard Republican reply is more polite but is every bit as faulty as Trump. They ASSUME that leaving maybe 10,000 troops in Iraq would have stiffened the Iraq military, and they wouldn't have been so easily defeated by ISIL as actually happened. Maybe but they DON'T know that. After all more than 10,000 troops were left in Afghanistan, and the Taliban regrouped in Pakistan and came back stronger than ever. Furthermore, the elected Prime Minister if Iraq, Milaki, wanted us to leave and said if any American troops remained they would have been under Sharia Law.** You can imagine the uproar the first time a U.S. soldier raped a Muslim woman and was sentenced to death by stoning. Of course, I suppose we could have just ignored their decision on Sharia Law, but would we then have been occupiers and go in and rescue the soldier? How popular would that make us?
Republicans also ASSUME that everything would have been all right in Syria if we only had inserted a small force early to overthrow Assad without plans for a successor; however, at the same time they bemoan our helping overthrow Qaddafi without plans for a successor. Even now, Obama is unable to find a good plan for a successor to Assad in Syria should he be overthrown. After all G.H.W. Bush resisted pursuing Saddam in Iraq because we didn't know who the successor would be and it might be someone even worse.***
Also when Assad overstepped the Red Line in Syria and used poison gas on his citizens, Obama is widely criticized for not bombing Assad's stronghold as promised. Obama didn't do it because Assad promised to turn over his outlawed poison gases if he was not bombed. These critics ASSUME that Assad was a goner if bombed; however, we really don't know that. I'm sure that we could have destroyed a lot of buildings and probably killed a lot of civilians in the bombing, but it is doubtful if Assad himself would have been killed as he was no doubt secured in some well protected bunker. I could understand people saying that Obama should have gotten more than "just" getting rid of the outlawed poison gases, but I have never heard this argument.
Seems like whatever you do in the Middle East is wrong.
* http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/who-founded-isis-abu-musb-al-zarqawi-started-the-terror-group.html
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/08/iraq-and-afghanistan.html
*** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/07/syria-vs-libya.html
Showing posts with label Assad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Assad. Show all posts
Monday, August 15, 2016
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
RED LINE IN SYRIA
Both Republicans and Democrats seem to think that Obama should have followed through on bombing Assad's center because of the red line drawn if Assad used poison gas. This surprises me. I can understand if people thought Obama didn't get enough for calling off the bombing, that is that Assad's willingness to give up his poison gas store for not bombing was not enough. But I have never heard of this argument being used.
We seem to agree that dying or being injured from poison gas is worse than being blown apart or injured by explosives. So it sounds like the deal reached was pretty good.
I suspect that most people believe that Assad would have been killed or his regime would be fatally injured by the bombing; however, I know of no case where a dictator has been killed by an air attack: not Saddam, not Qaddafi or, for that matter, not Hitler or Mussolini either.
Yes, in bombing we could have destroyed a lot of buildings and killed a lot of people, mostly non-combatants, but almost certainly we would not have killed Assam or stopped the poison gas attacks. In fact, I suspect they would have increased.
We seem to agree that dying or being injured from poison gas is worse than being blown apart or injured by explosives. So it sounds like the deal reached was pretty good.
I suspect that most people believe that Assad would have been killed or his regime would be fatally injured by the bombing; however, I know of no case where a dictator has been killed by an air attack: not Saddam, not Qaddafi or, for that matter, not Hitler or Mussolini either.
Yes, in bombing we could have destroyed a lot of buildings and killed a lot of people, mostly non-combatants, but almost certainly we would not have killed Assam or stopped the poison gas attacks. In fact, I suspect they would have increased.
Monday, September 8, 2014
WHO WILL SUPPLY BOOTS ON THE GROUND?
What a lot of people don't do is review what has happened in Libya. When we supplied air cover for the the mob there, we had all the ducks in a row. Everyone was lined up, including the Arab League. Well the mob won with our help, and we now see that a mob doesn't necessarily result in a going government. Libya is a mess and as nearly as I can tell the Muslim religious right is gaining ground there.
But ISIS is more complicated than Libya. We want to get rid of ISIS and so does Iran and presumably dictator Assad of Syria. Sounds good doesn't it, except we are not really friendly with Iran because we think they want to get THE BOMB. We also have said that Assad must go. We must proceed without appearing to support either Iran and Assad.
As for Iraq, we have given air support to the Kurds who have long appeared friendly to us and are willing to fight (and we have also given air support to them before.). I am less certain about the Shiites, but some of their forces do seem to respond if we supply the air cover. I assume that a lot of the Sunnis in Iraq are getting fed up with the brutality of ISIS, but their resistance may be half heated unless there is an Iraq government that will share power with them. We did give some air support for Iraq forces in Anbar Province, a Sunni province.
On Morning Joe this morning, Joe Scarborough indicated that the Arab League seems to have come on board with regards to ISIS. Obama has also gotten quite a few other countries lined up so I guess he feels he can now proceed. I had thought that Assad in Syria had seriously depleted the Free Syrian Army that I guess we can support; however, I heard one report of recent Free Syrian Army victories over ISIS. These poor guys are having to fight on two fronts, but Obama indicates they are the ally of choice to supply the boots on the ground in Syria. Perhaps if we help arm them and give them air cover they can do better and increase in size but others need to help in both Iraq and Syria.
But ISIS is more complicated than Libya. We want to get rid of ISIS and so does Iran and presumably dictator Assad of Syria. Sounds good doesn't it, except we are not really friendly with Iran because we think they want to get THE BOMB. We also have said that Assad must go. We must proceed without appearing to support either Iran and Assad.
As for Iraq, we have given air support to the Kurds who have long appeared friendly to us and are willing to fight (and we have also given air support to them before.). I am less certain about the Shiites, but some of their forces do seem to respond if we supply the air cover. I assume that a lot of the Sunnis in Iraq are getting fed up with the brutality of ISIS, but their resistance may be half heated unless there is an Iraq government that will share power with them. We did give some air support for Iraq forces in Anbar Province, a Sunni province.
On Morning Joe this morning, Joe Scarborough indicated that the Arab League seems to have come on board with regards to ISIS. Obama has also gotten quite a few other countries lined up so I guess he feels he can now proceed. I had thought that Assad in Syria had seriously depleted the Free Syrian Army that I guess we can support; however, I heard one report of recent Free Syrian Army victories over ISIS. These poor guys are having to fight on two fronts, but Obama indicates they are the ally of choice to supply the boots on the ground in Syria. Perhaps if we help arm them and give them air cover they can do better and increase in size but others need to help in both Iraq and Syria.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
THE BREADBASKET OF EUROPE IS NOW A BASKET CASE
The title of this piece, that regards Ukraine,* is not original with me, but I couldn't resist using it. But I am getting increasingly upset with certain politicians who insist on undermining our President in foreign relations. Prominent, of course, is senile John McCain who seemingly never saw a war he didn't like; however, when pressed by Charley Rose as to what should be done over the Soviet, I mean Russian, occupation of the Crimea said that the first thing he would do is to freeze the foreign assets and visas of the Russian oligarchs, something that Secretary John Kerry has mentioned as a possibility.
I'm also disappointed in Lindsey Graham, Senator of South Carolina, for his comments making fun of the President in a serious international incident, as, at times, he has shown some statesmanship. Supposedly the reason he is doing this is because of his Tea Party challenge in his reelection bid. Unfortunately, this puts his reelection ahead of his country. He seems to think that we should have bombarded the leader of Syria even after the promise of getting rid of the poisonous gases. Unfortunately, there are no good solutions in Syria as if Assad is overthrown the real civil war will begin with the likelihood that the country will become a conservative Muslim state like Iran. As awful as the situation is in Syria, perhaps the best state is a status quo.
At the age of 82, I do remember some things in the lead up to WW-II, and the Russian occupation of the Crimea to "protect" the Ukrainian citizens of Russian heritage reminds me a lot of the Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland** to protect citizens of German heritage at the very beginning of WW-II. I don't recall any news about threats to the Russian speaking peoples anywhere in Ukraine. And Putin does seem to be trying to generate an excuse for more occupation of Ukraine by having some of his soldiers shoot over the heads of some Ukrainian troops:
But not every scene was so calm. Video showed more than 100 unarmed Ukrainian troops trying Tuesday morning to return to Belbek air base north of Sevastopol, only to have Russian forces fire warning shots over their heads.***
As the situation in Ukraine is still in flux, I have little more to say at this time.
History of Ukraine:
Crimea has had a long and complex history but more recently for more than 300 yrs it was a part of Turkey, then in 1783 became a part of Russia, more or less, and then of the Soviet Union. Mysteriously, Kruschov gave the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Speculation is that he was drunk at the time. Crimea has spent little time as an independent nation though it was called the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. It became recognized as a part of Ukraine by Russia in 1997. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea).
Eastern Ukraine has been largely Russian since late in the 17th century. In 1991, 75% of ethnic Russian said they no longer identified themselves as Russian and 55% voted for Ukrainian independence. Many Russian speaking Ukrainians bemoan the fact that Russian is not an accepted official language of Ukraine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine)
Western Ukraine likewise has a complicated history and was a part of Poland most of the time for several hundred years which ended in 1939. After WW-II, Ukraine became the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic with some independence from the Soviet Union. West Ukraine is largely west looking. Though the country is largely of the Eastern Orthodox religion, around 4 million Roman Catholics are present, mainly in western Ukraine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Ukraine; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine)
* http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/bread-basket-europe.html
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia
*** http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions/
I'm also disappointed in Lindsey Graham, Senator of South Carolina, for his comments making fun of the President in a serious international incident, as, at times, he has shown some statesmanship. Supposedly the reason he is doing this is because of his Tea Party challenge in his reelection bid. Unfortunately, this puts his reelection ahead of his country. He seems to think that we should have bombarded the leader of Syria even after the promise of getting rid of the poisonous gases. Unfortunately, there are no good solutions in Syria as if Assad is overthrown the real civil war will begin with the likelihood that the country will become a conservative Muslim state like Iran. As awful as the situation is in Syria, perhaps the best state is a status quo.
At the age of 82, I do remember some things in the lead up to WW-II, and the Russian occupation of the Crimea to "protect" the Ukrainian citizens of Russian heritage reminds me a lot of the Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland** to protect citizens of German heritage at the very beginning of WW-II. I don't recall any news about threats to the Russian speaking peoples anywhere in Ukraine. And Putin does seem to be trying to generate an excuse for more occupation of Ukraine by having some of his soldiers shoot over the heads of some Ukrainian troops:
But not every scene was so calm. Video showed more than 100 unarmed Ukrainian troops trying Tuesday morning to return to Belbek air base north of Sevastopol, only to have Russian forces fire warning shots over their heads.***
As the situation in Ukraine is still in flux, I have little more to say at this time.
History of Ukraine:
Crimea has had a long and complex history but more recently for more than 300 yrs it was a part of Turkey, then in 1783 became a part of Russia, more or less, and then of the Soviet Union. Mysteriously, Kruschov gave the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Speculation is that he was drunk at the time. Crimea has spent little time as an independent nation though it was called the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. It became recognized as a part of Ukraine by Russia in 1997. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea).
Eastern Ukraine has been largely Russian since late in the 17th century. In 1991, 75% of ethnic Russian said they no longer identified themselves as Russian and 55% voted for Ukrainian independence. Many Russian speaking Ukrainians bemoan the fact that Russian is not an accepted official language of Ukraine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine)
Western Ukraine likewise has a complicated history and was a part of Poland most of the time for several hundred years which ended in 1939. After WW-II, Ukraine became the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic with some independence from the Soviet Union. West Ukraine is largely west looking. Though the country is largely of the Eastern Orthodox religion, around 4 million Roman Catholics are present, mainly in western Ukraine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Ukraine; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine)
* http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/bread-basket-europe.html
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia
*** http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions/
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
NO LEAST BAD CHOICE
I think our president is at a loss as to what to do about the use of poison gas in Syria now that the Brits have backed out from any type of military action. Curiously the news programs don't mention why the President has changed his mind on military action in Syria. The President definitely has backed off on his call for regime change, for now anyway. After the Arab League sounding as it they are on board of some punishment of Assad, they have backed off. The United Nations is not on board. So it seems like it is just the French and now maybe us to do something about Assad's use of poison gas..
So now it appears like our president has cold feet about his "red line" over the use of poison gas and has turned the matter over to Congress. Although Technically, poison gas is outlawed in war by the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (not signed by Syria), as if you can make war humane, it overlooks President Reagan's overlooking the poison gas used by Saddam Hussein on several occasions in the Iraq-Iran War and on his own people as well.* In spite of a stronger prohibition by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (also not signed by Syria), most of the world does not seem to care if poison gas is used.
So what will Congress do? It seems like a limited attack on Syria as punishment may be approved by the Senate, but what about the House? (1) The House seems to oppose anything the President proposes. (2) There seems to be a drift among Republicans back toward isolationism (led by Rand Paul), something missing since the Solid South of the Democratic Party joined the Republican Party as the Southern Strategy. (3) The President's own party is not keen on an attack. Therefore my guess, and it is only that, is that the House will not approve any action against Syria. Time will tell. If this is the case, the prohibitive actions against the use of poison gas against your own people and probably in war in general will be null and void. As C. Northcote Parkinson once said about the League of Nations, "The buildings of the League of Nations were finished in 1938 and so was the League of Nations." (Not an exact quote.)
Although there are non-sectarian forces fighting against Assad, the el Qaeda forces seem to be more effective. I guess the thought is that if there is a regime change, then there will be another war between the non-sectarian forces (Free Syrian Army) and al Qaeda. And what role will Hesbollah play in such a circumstance?
* (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran); http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/01/world/poison-gas-viewed-as-uniquely-horrible/#.UiUT09uF9rw
So now it appears like our president has cold feet about his "red line" over the use of poison gas and has turned the matter over to Congress. Although Technically, poison gas is outlawed in war by the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (not signed by Syria), as if you can make war humane, it overlooks President Reagan's overlooking the poison gas used by Saddam Hussein on several occasions in the Iraq-Iran War and on his own people as well.* In spite of a stronger prohibition by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (also not signed by Syria), most of the world does not seem to care if poison gas is used.
So what will Congress do? It seems like a limited attack on Syria as punishment may be approved by the Senate, but what about the House? (1) The House seems to oppose anything the President proposes. (2) There seems to be a drift among Republicans back toward isolationism (led by Rand Paul), something missing since the Solid South of the Democratic Party joined the Republican Party as the Southern Strategy. (3) The President's own party is not keen on an attack. Therefore my guess, and it is only that, is that the House will not approve any action against Syria. Time will tell. If this is the case, the prohibitive actions against the use of poison gas against your own people and probably in war in general will be null and void. As C. Northcote Parkinson once said about the League of Nations, "The buildings of the League of Nations were finished in 1938 and so was the League of Nations." (Not an exact quote.)
Although there are non-sectarian forces fighting against Assad, the el Qaeda forces seem to be more effective. I guess the thought is that if there is a regime change, then there will be another war between the non-sectarian forces (Free Syrian Army) and al Qaeda. And what role will Hesbollah play in such a circumstance?
* (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran); http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/01/world/poison-gas-viewed-as-uniquely-horrible/#.UiUT09uF9rw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
