Proxy War?

[whell]

Looks like we've decided we won't be left behind in Syria or Iraq. Anyone believe that this hasn't evolved, or is gradually evolving, into a proxy war against Russia and maybe Iran?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sec-carter-direct-u-s-action-ground-iraq-syria-n452131

"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground," Carter said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee, using an alternative name for the militant group.

After months of denying that U.S. troops would be in any combat role in Iraq, Carter late last week in a response to a question posed by NBC News, also acknowledged that the situation U.S. soldiers found themselves in during the raid in Hawija was combat.

[Boreas]

Anyone believe that this hasn't evolved, or is gradually evolving, into a proxy war against Russia and maybe Iran?

"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground," Carter said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee, using an alternative name for the militant group.

Why do you rule out the possibility that Russia and Iran might be among the "capable partners" we'd be cooperating with?

The smart strategy is to take care of Daesh, al Nusra, the Khorasan Group, etc. militarily and worry about Assad later, preferably via an orderly political transition. For the most part, the Syrian people are supportive of the Syrian Army, if not Assad himself, because they're all scared shitless of what would happen if Daesh took over. Graham's rather butch statements tend to confirm that at least some elements of this strategy as being the current Administration policy.

[Dondilion]

It looks like the Russian quick, open moves...round the clock bombings and Assad visit to Moscow have given Assad some life. Thus the "Assad must go" has lost steam.

Additionally the massive invasion and destabilization of Europe by migrants/refugees of which Syrians are a large part have given impetus to a solution of the Syrian problem.

The US and its other partners are now more amenable to a solution involving
Russia, Iran and the Assad regime.

I can see one in which Assad is gradually phased out and Syria divided a la Yugoslavia.

[BlueStreak]

I've been thinking the smart move would be to tolerate Russian support of Assad long enough to bring down or at least severely cripple ISIS, then deal with Assad later.

We tolerated Stalin long enough to bring down the Nazis...... Why should it be any different today? History shows that wars go better when Russians and Americans cooperate, (if only temporarily), and crush a common enemy between us.

[Boreas]

It looks like the Russian quick, open moves...round the clock bombings and Assad visit to Moscow have given Assad some life. Thus the "Assad must go" has lost steam.

Additionally the massive invasion and destabilization of Europe by migrants/refugees of which Syrians are a large part have given impetus to a solution of the Syrian problem.

The US and its other partners are now more amenable to a solution involving
Russia, Iran and the Assad regime.

I can see one in which Assad is gradually phased out and Syria divided a la Yugoslavia.

If the partition involved an autonomous or semi-autonomous Kurdish region in the north, Turkey would be a real problem.

[Ike Bana]

It looks like the Russian quick, open moves...round the clock bombings and Assad visit to Moscow have given Assad some life. Thus the "Assad must go" has lost steam.

Additionally the massive invasion and destabilization of Europe by migrants/refugees of which Syrians are a large part have given impetus to a solution of the Syrian problem.

The US and its other partners are now more amenable to a solution involving
Russia, Iran and the Assad regime.

I can see one in which Assad is gradually phased out and Syria divided a la Yugoslavia.

Assad must go was a mistake right out of the gate, no?

[Pio1980]

The lines in the sand minus a tangible "or else" were more than just a mistake.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[JJIII]

The lines in the sand minus a tangible "or else" were more than just a mistake.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Quoted for truth!

[BlueStreak]

Assad must go was a mistake right out of the gate, no?

The lines in the sand minus a tangible "or else" were more than just a mistake.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Not so much a "mistake" as "ill timed", as I see it. Even if the guy is a bastard, you don't take him out until after he has served his purpose.

[Boreas]

The lines in the sand minus a tangible "or else" were more than just a mistake.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

The worst part, IMO, is that there was no plan for what happened next. If Assad had said, "Okay, I'm outa here," there would have been a power vacuum in Syria that would have made post-invasion Iraq look like paradise. Daesh would have strolled into Damascus the very next day and now we'd be threatening them with air strikes instead of Assad.

[Pio1980]

I supported our President both elections, but he has been somewhat a disappointment regarding advisors and some delegations of authority.
Regardless, he was preferable to the 'pub alternatives and so far still would be.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[whell]

Why do you rule out the possibility that Russia and Iran might be among the "capable partners" we'd be cooperating with?

Lack of evidence works for me.

[Boreas]

Lack of evidence works for me.

There's no evidence to support your interpretation either. As they say, "absence of proof isn't proof of absence."

That being said, common sense tends to support my interpretation. Cooperating with Russia and Iran and Syria is the far and away the best way to take care of Daesh and the other Islamist paramilitaries.

We should also be cooperating with the PKK and put pressure on Turkey to do the same.

[Rajoo]

Proxy war is an option now since we have not or cannot win any wars in the Middle East as evident from our experience in Afghanistan, Iraq and now indirectly in Syria. I am certain that we cannot stop ISIS alone or with any Sunni Arab partners.

[Boreas]

Proxy war is an option now since we have not or cannot win any wars in the Middle East as evident from our experience in Afghanistan, Iraq and now indirectly in Syria. I am certain that we cannot stop ISIS alone or with any Sunni Arab partners.

I'm not sure that what's going on in Syria can in any way be characterized as a proxy war. "Charlie Wilson's War" was a proxy war. The US didn't fight against the Soviets. Rather we had the Afghan Mujahideen do it for us.

In Iraq and Syria we have forces committed. So do the Russians. More importantly, our forces and theirs aren't engaging each other and aren't likely to. Instead, they both are taking on ISIL and the other Islamists. As for Assad, we now talk if "sidelining" him instead of taking him out.

The way to take care of the terrorists is for the US, Russia, Iraq, Iran, the Kurdish Peshmerga, the Kurdish YPG and, yes, Assad's forces to at least form an ad hoc alliance and preferably an official one. Let the Saudis screw around in Yemen and let the Turks, Lebanese, Jordanians and Israelis concern themselves with keeping Daesh out of their territory.

It's worth noting that Iran is joining the international talks on Syria this week. The other attendees are the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

[finnbow]

Syria, Iraq and Yemen are all proxy wars, but not the USA against Russia. They're proxy wars between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Nothing about our squirrelly policies in Syria changes that.

[Boreas]

Syria, Iraq and Yemen are all proxy wars, but not the USA against Russia. They're proxy wars between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Nothing about our squirrelly policies in Syria changes that.

Can't argue with any of that except to say that the Saudis' interests and Israel's interests coincide in these conflicts so it's reasonable to assume that there is a level of cooperation between the two governments. It's also fair to say that our interests and those of Israel and Saudi Arabia aren't entirely congruent and our tentative approach to Iran is straining our relations with them.

[finnbow]

Can't argue with any of that except to say that the Saudis' interests and Israel's interests coincide in these conflicts so it's reasonable to assume that there is a level of cooperation between the two governments. It's also fair to say that our interests and those of Israel and Saudi Arabia aren't entirely congruent and our tentative approach to Iran is straining our relations with them.

I have read several reports of the Israelis and Saudis cooperating behind the scenes, be it on Syria or on the Iran nuclear deal.

[Dondilion]

The Syrian confusion.

We are suppose to be fighting ISIS, while at the same time the Saudis are arming and financing ISIS.

Do we know who is facilitating the sale of ISIS oil? If we do. How about sanctions?

WE have dropped tons of equipment to some guys we call the free Syrian
Army. Aren't these the guys whom earlier Al-Nusra fought and took away
their weapons.

BTW Israel is making music with Putin. Nethanyahu wants free trade zone with Eurasian union.

[Dondilion]

A reasonable article by one Emile Simpson. He projects that we should leave the Syrian mess to the Russians since a negotiated solution is extremely difficult to achieve.

However the Russian aim might be modest; just secure the sections close to Assad's strong hold.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-obama-just-let-putin-120043530.html

[Boreas]

However the Russian aim might be modest; just secure the sections close to Assad's strong hold.

You've said that before and I have to say that I find it to be a rather odd idea. How survivable do you think a Syrian island in the midst of a Caliphate sea would be? It would take a rather large and costly Russian presence there to offer any hope of its survival. Russia's not up for that.

In addition to Russia's obvious desire to support Assad, or at least the Syrian Ba'athists, against the Islamists, they also have an interest in crushing Daesh and the a Qaeda affiliated terrorists because of their own large Muslim population. Many of them are now fighting in Syria and Iraq. They want them dead before they can do harm back in Russia.

Russia is in this for the long haul but not as an occupier. They don't want another Afghanistan. Their interests lie in destroying the jihadists' ability to cause trouble for them domestically. Allowing them to occupy large amounts of territory in Iraq and Syria is inconsistent with that goal.