U.S. will not directly confront Russia in Syria, Obama says

[Jesus Malverde]

Source: Washington Post

President Obama has decided not to directly confront Russia over its new air offensive in Syria, believing that President Vladi­mir Putin will soon find himself in a Syrian “quagmire,” but he has approved a new escalation of U.S. efforts against the Islamic State.

Obama laid out the U.S. response to Russia’s actions during a meeting with senior aides Thursday evening. Details were firmed up in a meeting Friday morning among national security principals at the White House, senior administration officials said.

At the same time, the president also approved proposals, made prior to this week’s Russian actions, to strengthen the U.S. fight against the militants. Those measures were recommended by Obama’s new Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr.

They include direct U.S. weapons shipments, overland from Iraq, to Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters who in recent months have pushed the Islamic State from a major portion of northern Syria along the Turkish border.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2015/10/02/44c1f7fc-6932-11e5-9223-70cb36460919_story.html

[delrem]

1. Lordy. More weapons for IS.

All for the PNAC wars. All for war profiteering.
What a disgrace.

[840high]

2. ...+1

[pampango]

3. "Far from attacking the Islamic State, as Russia has said it intends, its three days of airstrike

appear to have focused largely on opposition forces, some of them U.S.-backed, that are fighting across western Syria against the army of President Bashar al-
Assad, whose government is backed by Moscow."

They include direct U.S. weapons shipments, overland from Iraq, to Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters who in recent months have pushed the Islamic State from a major portion of northern Syria along the Turkish border.

The Kurds are now expected to begin moving south toward Raqqa, the de facto militant capital, in north-central Syria.

“We’re not going to make Syria into a proxy war between the United States and Russia. That would be a bad strategy on our part,” Obama said. “This is a battle between Russia, Iran and Assad against the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people. Our battle is with ISIL,” he said, referring to the Islamic State.

Glad to see that someone is attacking ISIS rather than propping up the dictator.

[pampango]

6. Ahh. Putin the great Christian savior who will "Shock and Awe" those lousy Muslims

to their senses or to an early grave.

... who is genuinely determined to destroy ISL.

... by attacking the groups that are fighting with ISIS? Got it!

I'm awake. Would you like some coffee?

[pampango]

9. Russia is bombing "weapons shipments to Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters who have pushed ISL back".

So going after stores likely to be used against ISL's enemies is normal prioritization.

True if Russia "going after stores likely to be used against ISL's enemies". Instead they are after going after stores likely to be used against ISL itself. I don't see how that weakens ISL though it does weaken ISL's opponents who are also fighting Assad.

If you are arguing that Russia has the right to do bad things because the US has done bad things in the past, I see where you are coming from. That is different, IMHO, than arguing that Russia is doing a good thing.

... purposefully-committed defender and protector ... Christians in the Middle East

Though I will admit that Putin is having quite the 'bro'-mance with the conservative, homophobic Russian Orthodox Church. I'm sure he enjoys being portrayed as a Christian savior.

I would prefer that liberals condemn both US 'bad things' and Russian 'bad things' but that may just be how is see the liberal way of thinking. Perhaps your view of the liberal world view is that if country A does something bad, country B has every right to do something equally bad, as does countries C, D, E, etc. until the end of time. And none of these countries, other than perhaps country A deserves any criticism for any of their bad actions.

... your post suggests you have an IQ in double figures ...

I suspect you are right - though I, perhaps unrealistically, hope it is in the high "double figures".

Though you might want to work on your spelling of "Molems" before we talk about my IQ. Perhaps you meant "Moslems" (an alternate spelling for muslim. This form is often considered derogative or offensive.)

[bemildred]

7. It's before 5 AM here, I'll wake up when I'm ready. nt

[cheapdate]

10. America! USA! USA! USA!

[bemildred]

4. Good. That's what we should do. Let Putin deal with it. Help the Kurds who well deserve it. nt

[cheapdate]

11. Why in the hell were we ever in the business of intervening in Syria's internal

conflict to begin with? The Syrian people must win or lose on their own.

We intervened in Vietnam and propped up an unpopular faction that ultimately lost. We intervened in Iraq and propped up an unpopular government that is widely seen as illegitimate.

[cheapdate]

16. The U.S. had no business intervening in Syria.

I realize that any and all preexisting international norms or previously agreed upon "just war" theories regarding what constitutes sufficient justification for violating the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation have recently been cast out the window, but moral judgments are unavoidable -- always have been and always will be. And in my judgment U.S. intervention in Syria was unjustifiable. The political future of Syria was for the Syrian people to decide and not for a foreign government to determine.

Because the U.S. already intervened and picked sides in Syria's internal struggle for political control, Russia's intervention now becomes a counter-intervention with a stronger case for justification.

[Joe Chi Minh]

17. Yes. I believe the Russkis went through the 'official channels'.

[cheapdate]

18. No idea whatseover what "official channels"

you might be referring to. There are "official" rules and conventions regarding the conduct of war. There are no such "official" rules governing initiating a war. There is however a body and a history of thought concerning war and the justification for war. And as I said earlier, moral judgments and arguments, formal and informal, always follow in the wake of any conflict.

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. I don't rememeber the title, but I assumed it was something like the UN.

[Lychee2]

14. So he's just going to whine about it?

President Barack Obama sharply criticized Russia's support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime on Friday, saying Moscow's actions could create a "quagmire" in the region.

"What started off as peaceful protests against Assad ... evolved into civil war because Assad met those protests with unimaginable brutality," Obama said. "The reason Assad is still in power is because Russia and Iran have supported him in that process. They have been propping a regime that is rejected by an overwhelming majority of the population."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/president-obama-russian-action-syria-could-create-quagmire-n437816

Actually, I prefer whining to WWIII. But it would be nice not to have either one.