Kerry Scours Mideast for Aid in ISIS Fight
Source: NY Times
CAIRO — Secretary of State John Kerry received broad assurances but no public commitments from Egypt on Saturday as he continued his tour of the Middle East to try to assemble a coalition behind an American campaign against the extremist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
In Baghdad, meanwhile, the new prime minister took a small step toward alleviating the deep alienation that has made some in the Sunni Muslim minority receptive to ISIS: He said Saturday that he had ordered the Iraqi security forces to stop “the indiscriminate shelling” of civilian communities under the control of the militants.
Together, the professions of good intentions in Baghdad and Cairo underscored the long road ahead for the Obama administration as it tries to assemble a regional coalition to roll back and dismantle ISIS.
After meeting with Mr. Kerry in Cairo, Sameh Shoukry, Egypt’s foreign minister, declared at a joint news conference that “Egypt believes it is very important for the world to continue their efforts strongly to fight this extremism.”
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/world/middleeast/kerry-visits-egypt-seeking-aid-in-isis-fight.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Getting up behind that podium and announcing that Syria has no right to sovereignty, that we will be bombing Syria, and striving to overthrow Syria's government... Might have not done a lot to help build a mideast coalition.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)but I also think this is the Iraqis' fight. It's their land and their culture on the line, they don't need to be inundated by more foreigners.
All this business of building coalitions to fight wars is getting old hat. It's just trying to act out this whole meme about America being the 'indispensable' nation. People are getting tired of it.
...
Final thought...What if they gave a war and nobody came?
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)
karynnj
(59,498 posts)In fact, it is something that would have been great to have done 3 or 4 years ago - before Syria went into major civil war and ISIS surfaced and won land. (surfaced is used because it very likely was there since the Iraq war - as disgruntled Sunnis, then AQ in Iraq and now, mixed with others, ISIS)
What seems clear is that he is working hard to get the countries to dry up funds for terrorists ( including in some cases - their own), to add their voices and voices they control and influence to speak against the terrorists - rather than glamorizing them or being used by them. It may be that it took those countries themselves being themselves threatened and concerned by ISIS as it grew and took over land - and spoke of taking more.
This might be why Kerry spoke of it being a long, counter terrorism effort rather than a war - which did follow the original WH language. I understand why the WH caved to avoid a fight based on semantics. Those words really are important, it is almost always not worth fighting over them though it would have been better had the Obama team agreed on wording with the intent to stick with whatever they choose. (They had to know not saying "war" would anger both the antiwar left and the right.)
It is interesting that the NYT put the Iraq PM's call to stop the Iraqi shelling of Sunni cities in context. They can't simultaneously work to win the Sunnis over to their side and shell their communities. What seems clear is that even in Iraq, we are near the end of the the "easy" victories where the US bombs and the iraqis/Kurds advance into what was THEIR land.
I think the UN sessions chaired by Kerry and especially the later one chaired by Obama will be very interesting. I hope that we will see something much different than we saw in 2002 under Bush -- and remember Bush, Blair and the PM of Spain opted NOT to return to the UN as they were supposed to before attacking Iraq. They met in the Canary Islands and spoke of their coalition that would move ahead. Note that on MTP, Obama spoke of his West Point Speech. It is probably well worth looking at that as a means to understand Obama's thinking on this issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/us/politics/transcript-of-president-obamas-commencement-address-at-west-point.html?_r=0
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And have been attempting to do so since the apparently now forgotten Arab Spring.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)from all over the world.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)More often than once every seven years and with more than one candidate running for president.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)And since when is it okay to start a war just because we don't like the internal political system?
Plus when did Assad ever threaten us?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Being fought between the government of Syria, and a handful of rebel groups and fanatics, armed and encouraged by foreign powers striving to overthrow Syria's government for their own interests.
Also, the US has a funny habit of helping crush popular uprisings, like in Bahrain. Are we being run by schizophrenics or something?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)There is no national leader in the Middle East (or much of anywhere else) who didn't feel a chill run down his spine when he heard the American President declare our country will decide unilaterally if foreign governments deserve sovereign rights.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)forming groups against the Western invaders even as they are promising help.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Now I suppose I'm going to have a bunch of proponents of Democratic Infallibility coming after me, but...
where the fuck do we get off, going to Fattah al-Sissi over this? No, really, here's a guy who executed a violent, bloody coup that killed twelve hundred Egyptians. After the coup, he murdered another four thousand for protesting the coup. After thus securing his position, he sentenced fifteen hundred people to death for belonging to a rival political party, then was 'elected" with 90% of the vote, after outlawing most of the opposition - and having made it clear that voting for anyone else was a death sentence. He put the guy he overthrew on trial for treason with charges of killing the Egyptians killed by the military led by al-Sissi during that coup.
But there's John Kerry, glad-handing this asshole, legitimatizing his seizure of power, forgiving his butchery and terror, and asking him for a handout, begging for help... to stop someone else from killing civilians?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Any suggestions?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Haven't we have done enough to them already?
Lets leave the poor bastards alone for a couple decades.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)We should bring those murderers to justice in some way, shouldn't we?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)It was only after we started bombing and killing IS people that our people were murdered.
Maybe we might try something other than bombing to achieve our international goals for a change? We sure aren't having universal success with our current methods. Right?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Regardless of whether or not there is "serious harm".
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I am, however, questioning the efficacy (not to mention legality) of our efforts to reach that goal.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Rouhani. Erdogan. Assad.
No, they're not saints - especially not Assad. But if we're going to send Kerry to court loathsome individuals, they might as well be people with an actual interest and commitment to the problem at hand.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Not the Sunni monarchies that ginned this all up in the first place.
And not NATO ally Turkey, which bears major responsibility for the disaster in Syria and which continues to stick a finger in our eye.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Also not sure how eager they would be to work with us.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)11:33AM BST 13 Jun 2014
Shia Muslim Iran is so alarmed by Sunni insurgent gains in Iraq that it may be willing to cooperate with Washington in helping Baghdad fight back, a senior Iranian official told Reuters.
The idea is being discussed internally among the Islamic Republic's leadership, the senior Iranian official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official had no word on whether the idea had been raised with any other party.
Officials say Iran will send its neighbour advisers and weaponry, although probably not troops, to help its ally Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki check what Tehran sees as a profound threat to regional stability, officials and analysts say.
Islamist militants have captured swathes of territory including the country's second biggest city Mosul.
Tehran is open to the possibility of working with the United States to support Baghdad, the senior official said.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)How do you think this will play out? Do you believe the US and Iran will cooperate here?
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)without seeing it turn out in Kerry bashing statements? ???
karynnj
(59,498 posts)even after the Kerry team had shown them to be liars on other things. In addition, when Kerry himself disputed the SVT at a Firefighter's convention - where the media was told he would give his response - the media gave it almost no media coverage. Yet they gave the liars hours of free time.
The media ignored that what was challenged was the NAVY record, not Kerry's account of anything. (He has always been reticent to speak or write in any detail of his personal experiences - rather he has spoken of lessons learned.) Without asking for any proof from the liars, they demanded Kerry prove that the liars were lying.
His team did give the media a long (I think 65 pages) report identifying things that were clearly not true - including people the fact that many who made claims were NEVER in the same place at the same time as Kerry. As Kerry asked in 2004, how many times did they have to be caught in lies before the media would call them what they were - liars, led by Bush/Cheney financial backers. Instead, every time a set of charges was challenged successfully, the other side simply replied yeah, but (and then they spoke of several other charges.) The book written by the man Nixon sicced on Kerry in 1971 and Corsi, who went on to be the lead Obama smearer was a clusterbomb of thousands of allegation that were not even internally consistent.
Kerry also had every single person on his boats when he got any medals (still alive in 2004) strongly behind him. They were STILL 100% with him when they surprised him in Boston when there was a celebration of his having served 25 years in the Senate. Several of us from the JK group attended that public party at Boston Symphony Hall and heard the comments of a few of the guys. The respect and love they had for Kerry was impossible not to see. This after they were personally attacked as liars by the RW smearsters.
Not to mention, Kerry's vain VP, was said to have promised repeatedly that he would blast the liars -- and then failed to do so. To add injury to insult, he told the media that Kerry did not want to use him to do that because he had better uses than being an attack dog. Later, he dishonestly had the chutzpah to even say he argued with the Kerry team that they had to attack the SBVT.
Baclava
(12,047 posts)good luck with that
Chemisse
(30,803 posts)If the middle-eastern countries aren't worried enough to commit to a fight - why are we?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The fact that many of the countries in the region are ruled by un-elected despots (including several of our so-called allies) definitely complicates things.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You are right.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)If ISIS needs to be taken out, let the Saudis do it. They created the problem.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Please, Cruel Dictator Man, pretty please lift your pinky to help us save your butt.
If the people of the region don't want to fight ISIS, why are we so eager?
