Engaging Russia on Syria

[bemildred]

President Obama reportedly is considering accepting Vladimir Putin's proposal for U.S.-Russian discussions on Syria. The dialogue would begin with talks between the two countries' military leaders about recent Russian military activities in that country — in order to avoid what Russia's foreign minister called “unintended incidents” — but could lead to a meeting between Obama and Putin at the United Nations this month.

Given Russia's stalwart support for the brutal President Bashar Assad, it's entirely possible that the talks will go nowhere and instead will elevate Putin, a leader that the U.S. has isolated (with some success) in response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine. But those risks are worth taking if there's a reasonable chance that they'll yield a joint strategy that would contain Islamic State without cementing Assad's hold on power.

Russia has used its veto in the U.N. Security Council to block calls for a political settlement in which Assad would relinquish power. Lately Putin has seized on the rise of Islamic State to suggest that shoring up Assad is the best way to counter “terrorism and extremism.” Obama, who said four years ago that Assad should “step aside,” hardly is going to endorse that proposition.

Still, the administration's actions suggest that regime change in Damascus is third on its list of priorities in Syria. The first is defeating Islamic State. Then comes the humanitarian imperative of ending the fighting that has produced a horrifying hemorrhage of refugees.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-syria-20150918-story.html

[bemildred]

1. Islamic State, Syria and the need for sensible policymaking

Europe faces a significant threat which is increasing. If IS takes Syria and creates, in their view, the Caliph, it will go up to a 10 out of 10 on the danger scale. I think we will continue to see these types of lone wolf attacks against European targets, which could be mass casualty. Pravda.Ru interviews international biowarfare expert Jill Bellamy*.

1. Do you think we are being told the whole truth about the fight against Islamic State?

I don't think it's about the 'truth' or not being told the 'truth' I think it has to do with acknowledging the reality of the situation on the ground and some parties are reluctant to do so because this would mean defining an end-game strategy and there isn't one, as the situation exists today. If you recall, there was great hope placed in the so called 'Arab Spring.' This has become a disaster and humanitarian tragedy of epic proportions, not only for the Middle East but the West. We are watching the creation of a terrorist state. This is unlike say Somalia which dissolved into a terrorist state. Syria was a stable secular state (an important factor in the Middle East today) and President Assad is a rational state actor. IS has an end-game strategy and that is being successfully implemented. While al Zawahiri, the leader of Al Qaeda may disagree with me on this one, IS for all intents and purposes is a state. It's a state that's in the process of swiftly consolidating its power, it has extensive resources, a core leadership, incredibly savvy recruitment program and the time to really make an impact to reverse IS has passed us by about four years ago; when Russia offered to negotiate a peace settlement which would most likely have averted IS taking over strategic points in Syria and Iraq. The focus on removing Bashar al Assad, so over shadowed the real threat to stability and peace (IS) that it obscured strategic planning.

I have spent years assessing Syria's unconventional weapon capabilities, long before Syria was on the radar or at war. I was one of President Assad's ardent critics when it came to his WMD programs. I worked on areas related to UN Treaty Verification under the BTWC. I think the fear now is a political one for those who insisted President Assad be forced out of office. The meteoric rise of IS due in part to oil revenue, their exceptional command structure and operational capabilities caught the West, I would say completely by surprise. They were used to dealing with Al Qaeda who moved at a more predictable pace and whose leadership was well known and could be targeted. As long as the West continues to underestimate IS they will be unable to contribute to any kind of regional stability and will be fighting IS on the streets of Brussels if they don't change track soon.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/18-09-2015/132044-syria_islamic_state-0/

[bemildred]

2. Russia constructs first foreign camp in Syria for internal refugees

The first tent camp for internal refugees, constructed by Russian engineers, has been opened in western Syria, in a location safe from the raging civil war. Over the last four years more than 50 percent of the Syrian population has been displaced.

The camp site is situated on a racetrack, practically in the downtown of the city of Hama (Hamah), some 40km from the nearest warzone. This site is considered to be relatively safe in a country suffering from active military operations since February 2011.

The camp for 500 refugees consists of 25 army tents fully equipped for living, a field kitchen, a canteen, showers, two mobile power generators and a water-storage facility. The dwelling tents are equipped with beds and heating furnaces for cold weather.

In case the number of refugees increases sharply, the camp is ready to accommodate up to 1,000 people.

http://www.rt.com/news/315823-russia-refugee-camp-syria/

[bemildred]

3. Bombing is immoral, stupid and never wins wars. Syria is the latest victim

The British government will shortly ask parliament to approve its sixth war of overseas intervention in just two decades. The victim will be Syria. Such a war is incoherent. The “enemy” appears to be both sides in a civil war – Islamic State and the Syrian regime.

Worse, the war will be limited to the cruellest, most destructive and strategically most useless of weapons, the airborne bomb. Since its invention a century ago the bomb has maintained a mesmeric hold on politicians and soldiers alike. It is now the all-purpose totemic answer to “something must be done”. In Syria it impossible to understand what Britain will be bombing and to what strategic goal.

In each of the wars of intervention – against Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq again and Libya – cities as well as armies were bombed, overtly to terrorise regimes into surrender. In each case, air forces said that the bombing would be “proportionate and measured” and yet in each case forecast it would bring a regime “to its knees”.

Thus three months of bombing of Belgrade in 1999 was supposed to force the Serb leader, Slobodan Milošević, to withdraw his forces from Kosovo. It spread from military to civilian targets, including power stations, Danube bridges and civic and historic buildings. Intelligence leaks to the New York Times admitted this “increased Serb recruits’ willingness to fight”, while merely hastening the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. Serb withdrawal from Kosovo eventually came about only when Nato troops on the border prepared to invade and Russia told Milošević to change tack.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/18/bombing-immoral-stupid-syria-victim-deaths-drones

[KoKo]

12. ...!

Hopefully Parliament will overule him. Given the refugee situation it would be madness to dig in deeper OR bomb causing more "unforseen consequences."

---------
Simon Jenkins:

If ever in the past quarter century there was a clear humanitarian case for intervening to pacify, reorder and restore good governance to a failed state, it must be in Syria. I still regard this as none of Britain’s business, which should be to help refugees. But if parliament were to decide otherwise, there is no other moral course but to insert ground troops. If winning is Cameron’s goal, he should put his army where his mouth is and pledge a massive British presence in a UN intervention force.

This would almost certainly suck Britain into another Helmand. But at least it would be morally and strategically coherent. Dropping bombs is politically cosmetic. It is trying to look good to a domestic audience; a cruel delusion, a pretence of humanity, ostentatious, immoral, stupid.

[bemildred]

13. People who like bombing tend to think it is a solution for any problem.

I tend more to Mr. Jenkins view, "strategic bombing" and all things related to it are not only evil but they tend to cause blowback, and they never compel surrender. They have been trying to bomb people into submission since Guernica, and it hasn't worked once yet.

I thought he expressed the idea more colorfully than I could.

[bemildred]

4. Kremlin Says It Would Consider Sending Troops To Syria

A Kremlin spokesman says Russia would consider sending troops to Syria if Damascus were to make such a request.

Quoted by Russian news agencies on September 18, Dmitry Peskov said that, if such a request is made, it will be "discussed and considered," but he insisted the question is purely hypothetical at this stage.

On September 17, Russia urged the United States and its allies to engage the Syrian government as a "partner" in the fight against the Islamic State extremist group amid concerns over an ongoing Russian military buildup there.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem denied reports on September 17 that Russian combat troops were fighting in Syria but said Syria would not hesitate to ask for Russia's help if needed.

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-troops-syria-islamic-state/27255561.html

[bemildred]

5. Why is Russia sending troops to Syria?

---

Even critics of Russia’s Syria policy must admit it has the virtue of coherence. In Washington, on the other hand, no one knows quite what to do. Obama called for Assad to step down as early as 2011, but has been reluctant to use military power to enforce this, even after the regime used chemical weapons in violation of a U.S.-declared “red line.” The more recent rise and well-publicized atrocities of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) have further complicated U.S. strategy.

In theory, the enemy of one’s enemy is one’s friend, but the U.S. isn’t prepared to formally ally with Assad or his Iranian patrons, who represent the front line against ISIL. The situation is so absurd that former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus recently mulled arming al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, the Nusra Front, a strategy few U.S. politicians would feel comfortable pursuing. Indeed, Syria is so divisive in Washington that former Secretary of State and current presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has publicly criticized Obama, her former boss, for not taking her advice and arming Syrian rebels in 2011.

Because U.S. foreign policy is theoretically guided by a commitment to human rights and democracy, American policymakers have a hard time taking firm sides in a conflict defined by atrocities on all sides. Meanwhile, Russia’s unsentimental approach rests on the uncomfortable premise that a state run by Assad is better than no state at all.

At this point, the U.S. can’t openly work with Assad without losing face. But an internationally brokered cease-fire agreement, with Assad remaining in power in the parts of Syria he still controls, remains the best hope of containing ISIL and stemming the refugee crisis, both of which are higher priorities than regime change.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/9/why-is-russia-sending-troops-to-syria.html

[bemildred]

6. . nt

[leveymg]

7. Thank you for bringing some balance and context to this most unbalanced and blanked-out subject

[bemildred]

8. Aw shucks.

(Scuffs foot in dirt and smiles.)

[KoKo]

11. Article is a very interesting read....Thanks!

[bemildred]

9. U.S. to Begin Military Talks With Russia on Syria

LONDON — Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday that the United States was prepared to engage in military-to-military talks with Russia concerning Syria.

“The president believes that a military-to-military conversation is an important next step,” Mr. Kerry said, “and I think, hopefully, it will take place very shortly.”

The initial purpose of the talks with Russia, Mr. Kerry said, will be to help “define some of the different options that are available to us as we consider next steps in Syria.”

Mr. Kerry said that the Obama administration would not change its basic goals in Syria: The defeat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and a political solution for the conflict there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/world/europe/us-to-begin-military-talks-with-russia-on-syria.html

[Cayenne]

10. So far the Russians have built a tent city for refugess

and they are testing their new military hardware on ISIS.

And that's a problem.