In his latest conference in Paris, President Obama once again slammed Russia for not embracing US demands to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad from power, saying it would lead Russia to be bogged down in a “new Afghanistan.
“I think Mr. Putin understands that, with Afghanistan fresh in the memory for him, to simply get bogged down in an inconclusive and paralyzing civil conflict is not the outcome that he’s looking for,” Obama insisted.
Syrian rebel factions have predicted Russia would face an open-ended war akin to its 1979 occupation of Afghanistan, though the US had previously avoided this comparison, what with their own open-ended occupation of Afghanistan still ongoing for over 14 years.
Obama predicted Putin would eventually come to realize that the US was right all along, and remove Assad from power. Secretary of State John Kerry, in a separate statement, predicted ISIS would be destroyed in a matter of months after Assad’s ouster.
Obama actually believes the fantasy of U.S. policy in Syria with respect to removing Assad. This policy will likely continue to fail and Russia will continue to make gains.
Gains? Putin wins the war again today! Just like he did yesterday! And the day before! As long as Assad is in power, Putin is bogged down propping him up. Thus, even if Putin "wins", he loses!
Obama also believes the fantasy/propaganda that the Soviet Union broke up because of the "quagmire" that was Afghanistan. The reason that the Soviet Union failed was because its economic policy didn't work, so it had no other option than to withdraw from Afghanistan. As for whether or not Afghanistan was a quagmire, that is doubtful. For instance, in the nine and a half years the war lasted, the Soviet Union lost about 14,500 dead which was about the same as it lost on average in two days (YES, TWO DAYS) during World War 2. As for who came of worse from the Soviet-Afghan war, it was undoubtedly the Afghans but the United States probably came off second worse. Because it suited the Americans to claim "victory" over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the real foot soldiers of the "victory", the jihadis funded by Suadi Arabia, came away with the mistaken idea that they had defeated the Soviet Union and went for their next enemy, the United States's.
As for continuing to "make gains", Putin is just out to make sure Russia and Europe don't lose out big time by maintaining a cordon sanitaire between the jihadi, salafi, and takfari mad dogs sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Europe/Russia.
Indeed, Putin has stated directly that Russia is protecting itself by killing jihadists in Syria, and that the backbone of ISIL is Chechen.
The Soviet Union broke up because of its ethnic, racial and cultural diversity. OTHERWISE I agree with you.
Perhaps we should get out of Afghanistan first before giving Putin any lectures! Actually, the parallels are similar in Syria and 80's Afghanistan. Both times, our government backed the radical jihadists.
What about the ongoing US experience in Afghanistan? Guess we didn't learn much from that either. Obama's lack of self awareness is astounding.
If you shoot yourself in the foot, saying that someone else shot themselves in the foot in similar circumstances on an earlier occasion doesn't do your foot any good.
Oh sure, turning Syria into the next Libya is so much better. As is pushing "IS" to the border with our beloved friend israel?
wait a minute. Who the hell is in Afghanistan (bombing hospitals)? Drone warrior inc.? the 4th Amendment destroyer?
Obama and his "hands off" …"laissez-Fail" approach. as Politico stated…hmm.
You know, Clinton had a similar "hands off" approach with Rwanda. "Rebel" fighters on killing raids then running back into Uganda for protection. And when the jet was shot down, the genocide came. And the argument US Clinton opposition stated then as now, was, that Clinton was too slow, too hands off, too premature, laissez-fail.
…and what is Clinton blamed for? Not acting surefooted enough, not intervening, not attacking. ..but the larger failure is that nobody in media circles or in criticisms of policy in general, nobody accuses the US (and Western Europe) interfering the entire time leading up to the genocide. That the failure was the goal. and not being blamed? what better strategy? Seriously. Obama can destroy Syria and not be responsible because he's "hands off" whereas, Bush is buried by Iraq because of "boots on ground"…such great media
Former UN Boutros-Ghali literally implies the CIA was behind the downing of the jet and that…"the power of the intelligence services… force people quiet" (counterpunch, Robin Philpot, 2005)
And this methodology repeats now in Syria? And some of the same players are still in the game…just a little of to the side. ..Say, for example, Susan Rice, Big Zbig more indirectly, by way of "talk" shows.
and Obama sounds completely and totally like he's spouting lip-service to a overdrawn, anxious, dulled down American consumer. One might argue it would be ironic to have a mixed race president acting every much the part of a colonialist, a humanitarian Imperialist, as it were….but that seems sooooo passe today
Translation: The US and its allies are fully committed to continuing their sponsorship of terrorism in Syria.
Washington's aggression in Syria is a war of conquest and has nothing to do with national defense. Putting our own puppet in place so as to control Syria is the goal.
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime
Before the world's eyes, and to their everlasting shame, the US and Barack Obama are perpetrating the supreme international crime.
They have no shame and they surely don't give a ratsass what the rest of the world and more specifically the American people think. From that perspective, it all makes sense.
US turned Syrian unhappiness with Assad into a civil war. The 2011 Syria Intervention has failed and the 14mths bombing raid on ISIS has also failed.
If he and the 'coalition of dummies" aren't in Syria to defeat ISIS they should leave. Looks like some ISIS members are already packing bags and heading back to Libya.
If US bombing of ISIS has failed, and it certainly has, then Putin's bombing of ISIS will also fail. That's Obama's essential point.
US bombing is to support one bunch of rebels from another bunch of rebels provided it gives them continued access to stolen oil. Under a life long agreement signed between Russia and Syria Putin is there to keep his terms of the agreement. Russia refuses to recognize any difference between the coalition rebels and ISIS and US has no legitimate business being there..
right Michael because Obama probably isn't really bombing them, duh. How else could this clown be bombing them for over a year and ISIS is still able to funnel black market oil to Turkey for them to sell on the market? Obama is fighting a phony war against them and Putin has exposed it.
Thanks for clearing that up, Michael. However, Obama's “essential point” is a non-point, because Obama is too selective in bombing ISIS. Afraid of killing some 'allied' terrorists, Obama's forces will never equal the efficiency of Putin's forces.
Obama is already on the record whining about Russia's extermination of a bunch of al-Qaeda's Nursa front operatives. This is not a good look for the supposed leader of the free world.
Obama must be blind, the US is facing a new Vietnam in the Middle East.
This man is a first class clown.
Clown no, fool, yes.
Nobody dies when a clown performs on a stage to make people laugh. Obama makes America weep as we are dumbfounded how a president can be so incompetent and stupid..
Obama must be hitting the Crack pipe quite regularly. Probably snorting lines with Kerry seeing how kooky the two of them are. Can you believe these lunatics?! They simply don’t get it…. the Russians have shown the world for the back stabbing terrorist enabling fork tongued devils that they are.
But Barry and John boy can't stop making statements like this because it would mean breaking with Isreal and Saudi Arabia but every time time they do smart people in european capitals think more and more if they need DC that much. Frankly at a guess if Assad falls the ISIS/Al Qaeda machine makes a trip home to Riyadh
I'm flattered to see that I'm not the only one to see that Putin is bogged down but I don't think removing Assad will now be of much help to him. Having made war on all comers, including ISIS, in defence of his precious naval base, I doubt if any new Syrian government would let him keep the base. Thus, he is condemned to prop up Assad for as long as possible and as long as he's propping up Assad, he's bogged down. He can't just declare victory and leave since victory, by very definition, means not leaving. ISIS, of course, cannot be defeated and will have to be negotiated with sooner or later, but I would imagine Obama knows that. ISIS was triggered off by Obama's weak reaction to Putin's invasion of Ukraine and inflicting a defeat on Putin is an essential first step to bringing ISIS to the negotiating table. Destroying Assad and driving Putin out of Syria would be a good start.
So, I guess Obama is really bogged down, right?
Wrong again – as usual, Michael. Putin is an ally of Assad and Syria. Perhaps you cannot comprehend what such a relationship entails. Putin is effectively supporting and defending Russia's ally.
Quit whining about the Russian naval base. Russia's last big hit on the terrorists was more than 100 miles away from their naval base. Did Putin hesitate? Did he try to make a deal to put al-Qaeda to work for him? No, he did not. Russian forces, under Putin's direction, killed the al-Qaeda's Nursa front operatives. This is what a war on terror should look like.
You wrote: “He can't just declare victory and leave since victory, by very definition, means not leaving.” Really? Are you asserting / admitting that the bases at Ramstein and Okinawa are evidence of continued occupations? If that's the case, these nations certainly aren't true allies of the US.
You also wrote: “… … inflicting a defeat on Putin is an essential first step to bringing ISIS to the negotiating table.” Wrong again. Putin is the only leader who ISIS fears. They, along with al-Qaeda, know full well that Russia, under Putin's direction, will exterminate them. Whereas, the US, under Obama, can be relied upon to strike up a deal and give these terrorists some work (overthrowing a few sovereign nations) now and then. The coalition sees Russia eliminating its workforce.
You're the one who's bogged down. Your disdain for Putin won't allow you to think rationally.
More embarrassing and ideological than Bush. I swear I didn't think it was possible.
Yeah, is this a threat? What is Obama really saying here?
It most certainly is a threat, that if Putin tries to thwart regime change, the US and crew will continue to back ISIL and all the other insurrectionist groups with even nastier weapons, like SAMs. This fits like a hand into the glove when compared to Kerry's assertion that Assad's ouster will bring about the "defeat" of ISIL almost immediately. These are the kinds of threats issued by gangsters: "It would be a shame if you were to fail to see the wisdom of paying us to protect you, because bad things could happen. However, a firm commitment from you to see things our way will cause your problems to disappear overnight."
December 2nd, 2015 NATO Discussing Ways to Provoke Russia Further
On Tuesday and Wednesday, NATO foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels on the pretext of “work(ing) on further measures to assure Turkey’s security,” and related issues, based on a nonexistent Russian threat
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/20…
Obama is an idiot. If he’s drawing the distinction between the Soviet’s presence in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, perhaps he needs to remember that OUR involvement – supporting the mujahideen as political strategy – is where Bin Laden got started. I cannot believe the things that come out of the mouths of these supposed smart leaders.
I wonder whose side this President is on? Since when did this individual get anointed to determine the outcome of a nations leader? The rhetoric between him and John Kerry is very telling that they are perhaps controlling these proxy Jihadists for their ends.