The problem we have there right now is based on splitting up the Middle East into winners and loses a hundred years ago. Repeating the process isn't going to make anything better. Ideally we just get the f*ck out and let the region sort itself out. It'll be a total mess anyway but it won't be *our* mess. The British are hated in the region even more than we are because what we're staring at is primarily their mess with a big helping hand from us and the other WWI victors.
Well, it's been over 10 days since that report and there's still no proof that those Russian missiles crashed in Iran. It looks like another BS story made up by CNN. Meanwhile, Air strikes on IS convoy in Syria kill 40: monitor
What if the Russians decide to start operating against the Sunni militias in Iraq that aren't directly tied to ISIS but might be? Iran and Iraq are both happy and the US is stuck with bad choices.
Sunni militias? I think there's a better than average chance they're tied to ISIS given the tit-for-tat scenario currently playing out in Iraq: ISIS killing Shias followed by Shia militia (with Iraqi gov't. support) retaliating by carrying out revenge killings and kidnapping/ransom demands of Sunnis. And Russian (air strikes/no boots) involvement imho only ramps up what's already in place, i.e. an escalating back and forth free-for-all. As for whatever 'bad choices' are left on the table for the U.S., Americans are tired of "Iraq" in general and don't have the stomach for more long-term-with-no-end-in-sight engagements. And at this stage of the game, I'm not sure a lame duck prez (even with a hawkish itch) would be prepared to buck that sentiment.
There is precedent for the Sunni militia's being unaligned but also acting in tit-for-tat mode. That describes the situation for many of those militias when Al Qaida was successful in stirring up trouble between Sunni's and Shiites in 2004 and 2005.
The entire definition of "war crime" has been so badly perverted as to be of nearly no use at all. It is a tremendous shame because, believe or not, there are some pretty clear guidelines in warfare and by muddling these definitions people will die. A good example is the shit-fit the world likes to throw when anyone bombs a school/mosque/hospital that has been turned into a military facility. Sorry, but once a building has been militarized it becomes a LEGITMATE and LEGAL military target. Moreover, a war crime is not merely an action that leads to the death of civilians, it has to be an INTENTIONAL action (among other things).
I think you're partly correct, but the part you're missing IMHO is that Syria allows the Russians to both test and display their military hardware. If the Russians want to rebuild their military power they need to amortize the cost of these new systems with international sales. But those sales won't come without proving those systems in a battle environment. This isn't like the days of the Soviet Union when Russian hardware had a better reputation and was heavily subsidized. Nowadays nations are more wary of many Russian military products and the Russians need market rate prices. So their systems must compete and the best way to prove this is showing off said systems in a controlled combat environment where they can cherry pick the when, where, and how they engage. Also, since Russia has developed a lot of new hardware they will need to debug these systems. Again, this is a good way to work out the kinks in a combat system. There a problems that just won't become apparent sometimes until you go into combat, but Syria allows the Russians to control the theater in many ways. All of this also fails to cover doctrinal issues that the Russians will be able to explore in Syria. In short, the Russians are going to use Syria to gain experience and close the experience gap between the current U.S. Armed forces and their own armed forces.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/syria-mission-demonstrates-russias-prowess-103015120.html Sounds like a propaganda article, but Russia is far and away the western worlds biggest threat... then China, Iran, and a "slowly" developing India-Pakistan conflict (they both have nukes). A nuclear Iran will accelerate nuclear conflict. Control the sea, secure borders, thank God our people are strategically oceans away from their reach.
There is a lot of truth to this, but I'm gonna enter the fray here and say that this theory is really over sold. I'll give you a case in point: It is commonly asserted that Europeans--mainly the British and French--intervened solely for political purposes and then rearranged the whole region for their own ends. Except they didn't in many cases. When the war between he Saudis and Hasemites broke out (again) in the '20s the British stayed out because they felt they had no business interfering in what was the local Arab affair in spite of the Hashemites having been allies of theirs. When the Hashemites lost the British felt they owed them and sliced off part of the Mandate of Palestine and turned it into Jordan. But here is a case where the British DID NOT intervene and allowed politics to take its course. The end result was the most extreme sect of Islam rising to power, seizing control of vast amounts of lucrative petroleum, and turning that wealth into changing the very face of Islam. OTOH, had the British intervened the Hashemites would've remained in control of the western half of what we call Saudi Arabia today. Islam's holiest sites would be in the control of moderate Muslims and the House of Sa'ud would not have the legitimacy that controlling Mecca and Medina has conferred on them for nearly a century. The reality is that he problems of the Middle East are too often blamed on the west but that is only telling not part of the story. The west intervening in the Middle East has done things both positive and negative, but the strong anti-colonialist sentiment of the '60-'90s has led us to an intellectually ossified debate about the legacy of what really happened. This is just starting to change, but it will take a long time. Academics are only just now becoming willing to take up the debate again and the pendulum is starting to swing the other way. That will take years. Then it will take more years before a new collective narrative forms and even more years before that leaks down into textbooks and into the classrooms. As an aside, I disagree that the ME isn't our mess. The situation following the First World War was VERY much the result of Woodrow Wilson's policies. He made promises he couldn't keep across many areas. His goal was a genuine, lasting peace, but he was naive. In many ways I think he was in the same group of people like Chamberlain and Obama, although Wilson was by far the most accomplished and together of the three. Still, a great deal of the post-WWI world is sculpted, directly or indirectly, by the USA and in my book that makes it our problem. The reason why Americans ignore this is that we don't view our involvement in the First World War as having been a grand affair with long term repercussions (it was) and because we withdrew from world affairs after the war (which is roughly akin to a turtle withdrawing into its shell... but that doesn't mean the predator isn't still outside).
I've got a headache THIIIIIIIIS big and it's got "Syria" written all over it..... So I read this evening that the Obama admin is inviting the Iranians to sit in on a peace conference for Syria. Well shoot, why stop there? How about we get the Taliban to participate in the Afghani government? Maybe get the fascists back in power in Italy, Germany, and Japan? C'mon Obama, you can do this! You've got a year+ left in office and there is more damage to be done, so don't wuss out now.
U.S. to send dozens of special forces to Syria as first boots on ground http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/30/us-mideast-crisis-syria-iran-idUSKCN0SN2Z620151030
I saw most of the Press Conference. I thought Josh Earnest was clear saying it isn't boots on the ground. Like in terms of US forces activally involved in a sustained combat mission. These guys are advisors and only about 50 of them. They can defend themselves and engage in combat if they are present and a battle breaks out. They might also be involved in giving coordinates for air strikes. Something that critics have been bashing US military strategy on for over a year. The media is (at the presser) jumping all over Earnest and to me just playing a war of semantics.
