President Obama today rejected Russia calls for increased military cooperation against ISIS, insisting America’s tactics in the war would not change, and declaring that Russia’s strategy of backing the Syrian government against ISIS is “doomed to failure.”
Russia has been providing military aid to Syria for decades, and insists its aid during the Syrian Civil War is unchanged, but warned that the US should coordinate with them to avoid “unintended incidents” of conflict in their mutual war against ISIS.
Obama insisted the fact that Russia was still providing aid “proves” that Syrian President Bashar Assad is worried, though he did confirm the US would be in contact with Russia over the matter to prevent any conflicts.
Russia has been trying to get the US-backed rebels and the Syrian government to ally in the fight against ISIS for months, at times with the indication the US was privately warming to the idea. Though Russia is again calling for everyone to unite against ISIS, the most recent indications are that the US is once again averse to this idea, and is back to demanding unconditional regime change in Syria.
Absent from the US calculation on this is that ISIS controls more than half of de jure Syria at this point, and is the faction making the most advances on the Syrian capital in recent weeks. Ultimately, this could indeed lead to a regime change, but one which installs ISIS outright, and further strengthens the group the US insists is their primary enemy in this increasingly complex war.
So this makes a lot of sense: Russia's efforts against ISIS are doomed to failure. Is Obama is saying that ISIS is going to inevitably win this war? If so, what does that say about Obama's own efforts? Are they doomed to failure too?
If his efforts is to have a big bloodbath then mission accomplished. It didn't work so well for the Russians in Afghanistan. Why will Syria be any better?
America shamed and run out of vietnam cock
The Obama maladministration certainly knows about failure and goes out of its way to achieve it.
On 9/11/15 it seems appropriate to remind our President that it was Al Qaeda forces — led by a Saudi in Afghanistan and composed of 19 men including 15 Saudis — who attacked and killed 3,000 Americans in NYC and Washington. Fourteen years later, our President apparently considers that it is less important to attack the official self-designated Al Qaeda affiliate (Al Nusra) in Syria than to overthrow a Syrian government which has never attacked (or threatened to attack) the US and which is doing its best to fight Al Nusra and ISIS (another offshoot of Al Qaeda). How can it possibly be true that it is in our national interest to overthrow a government which has never harmed or threatened to harm us — and which is fighting two Al Qaeda affiliates which are sworn enemies of the US? Clearly that is not in our national interest, so why is our President pretending that it is?
Syria did once attack our 51st state in the Golan Hts, didn't it?
I am not sure if you intend sarcasm here but the Golan heights are Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967.
It simply says that america assisted the zionist in its agression with its sixth fleet to take syrian terrority
Our policies in the Mideast are truly insane. Why are we so insistent on getting rid of Assad? His regime is just about the only one left in the region that isn't ran by religious fanatics. WHAT is our problem with it? Does anyone know? Libya was stable and while Gaddafi was a dictator he was keeping his country together and the true fanatics out. Now, it is a mess! Our goal seems to be the destruction of every stable govt in the region- including Iran- and leave the religious crazies over running the region. How this benefits the US escapes me.
It is not so insane as it looks. Obama's — well, he is not really in charge of anything in foreign policy — period is characterized by Hillary Clinton architecture of foreign interventions. Instead of occupations, the objective is to destroy a target country, making it uninhabitable. What with chaos, anarchy and the rule of the tribal/crime militias — and what with physical destruction of infrastructure, the disillusioned and by now highly impoverished population must migrate — anywhere. Thus, this will cause massive ethnic cleansing, leaving the land in the end in charge of the group that proves itself the most brutal and most capable to scare the remaining population to accept their ideology, religious perversity, or just plain organized crime structures. US and allies are at times funding many of these competing elements of anarchy, and to the most brutal goes the prize. Once in charge of territory, such groups — vulnerable to funding and armaments, will do ANYTHING we command. And if one commander will slack in his genuflecting, he will be speedily replaced with another. This is the state of Libya today, and although there is the "legitimate' , western installed government, it lost territory to rivals, and is now sitting on the border with Egypt, while others are controlling Tripolli and surrounding regions. But out of nowhere, came ISIS — imported in for the purpose of undermining the less compliant Tripoli overlords. ISIS? How is it possible that the group so conveniently shows up to fight those we do not like in Libyan chaos? Same in Yemen. All of a sudden, ISIS shows up where needed to fight Zaidi natives — whom we scornfully call Houtihs — as if the people whose dynasties ruled over that land for over 1,000 years, are some "rebels" and "newcomers" , while we would like to install unelected stranger to their land as President! And why on earth did ISIS target Mosul? There was no earthy reason why — other then fulfilling predictions that Iraq must be broken up into Kurdish, Sunni and Shia areas. Biden — who can hardly keep a secret, pretty much opined on the "idea". So, ISIS shows up, and breaks up the territory separating Bagdad from Kurdish areas. While Baghdad was told "not to fight sectarian fight", that is, not to use Shia fighters, to avoid "scaring" poor Sunni ISIS. Whoever is planning this — must have REALLY low opinion of American public indeed. Now, having accomplished Iraqi split, it is time to go for Syria. Turkey has been between the two fires — an "independent" Kurdistan — a new Kosovo on its borders, and ISIS threat to radicalize its population. Of course, Turkish story is grotesquely twisted in our media. But now being overwhelmed on its borders and internally, Syria is to fall as a ripe plum into the waiting hands of ISIS. And the final slaughter of civilians will then commence. All Russia can do is defend Damascus and the surrounding areas where most of the fleeing population is now concentrated.
Now, why do we favor ISIS? For the same reason we favored Croatian fascists in the wars of Yugoslavian dissolution. Those in power are easy to control, and indeed, that has been proven right. Same goes with the support of vicious Ukrainian Banderas followers. The most brutal, and most willing to embrace US help.
Once Syria is broken up like today Libya, it will be depopulated, just as already parts of Iraq are. With the periodic bombing of Gaza strip, and the utter destruction of its infrastructure, what do we have? Broad regions on Israel's borders — depopulated, fully destroyed and without any independent governance. In fact, the longer the chaos and misery last — the better. It will be ultimately easier to control what is left. We have — not quite that dramatic situation in our previous experiments — in Bosnia and Kosovo. In both places, Salafism has taken hold and many groups have training compounds — that outsiders cannot go to. Their ruthlessness during last war was unbelievable. but western media simply blamed the victims, and every feeble attempt victims undertook to defend themselves, and every act of revenge — blown out of proportion. Why? To give these groups a lasting cover — to make them sit tight until it is time to spring on their next targeted victims. It is clear as a day that there would be NO SALAFI COMPAUNDS EITHER IN BOSNIA OR KOSOVO — UNLESS US SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS IT AND PROTECTS THEM. There cannot be two ways about it.
ISIS in Syria is protected by US air force. This simply makes it impossible for others to attack ISIS. As of now, US and coalition have not managed to destroy ONE ammunition storage, weapons dump, or one parking lot of their shining white Toyotas. ISIS marched across open terrain to the city of Palmira. To destroy it, just so the media will have something to write about. But the pinpricks against ISIS "commanders' is laughable. I wonder how many cab drivers killed were thereby promoted to deputy commanders.
And if Russia declines to obey Herr O'Bomber?
Assad and his clan are of course going the leave at some point to open the door to a broader solution. The question revolves more around the question of what or who will stay behind to keep the rest of the state, the half-benign structures and relative safety from collapsing, since that would be clearly a bloody power struggle with all the revenge killings and generally chaos.
One way to achieve this would be to strengthen the weakened, unmotivated and poorly equipped military, materially but also in terms of command structure. Yes, to have it as single institution in a country where there's not much else anymore to play that role. This may very well safeguard the complex transition. Russia and Iran appear to be doing the right thing but it leaves them with a lot of cloud and influence over any new government to form. The US does the same with the Kurds (similar to Iraq but there Saddam had no help, resulting in ISIS growing after the bloody disposal, so that recipe should not be followed).
The reason the US appears to be complaining here is the reality that every solution to the conflict and containment of ISIS appears to have as result that they their influence will decrease all over the place. Everyone wants the American aid and weapons but nobody trusts them with helping to govern anything anymore, especially since it divides the people too much in that region.
The Iran-Russian axel could actually work for at least some of the regions. Other regions will remain likely to be supported by the West. Most important things is that the regions dominated by IS will become isolated without much of any viable routes leding in and out anymore.
The "Aghanistafication" of the Caliphate.
The Russians appear to be running the more intelligent policies in the Mideast, while the US appears to flounder and hold to a strategy that defies reason. Hasn't anyone in DC yet noticed that at least half of ISIS are equipped with US supplied weapons and vehicles? Every time we train and supply some one's armed forces over there, half defect to one of the religious armies taking their weapons an training with them. That is why decades after we started training missions over there, we are still at it and it has produced no strategic or economic benefit for the USA.
The blood soaked war criminal Barack Hussein Obama says
Russian aid to Assad is “doomed to failure”.
How does he know unless he’s determined to
make it fail? And how is he going to make it fail
unless it’s by (further) arming his ISIS pets?
ISIS IS ISRAEL & USA CREATED AND FUNDED. THIS IS WHY OBAMA SAID RUSSIA HELP TO DESTROY IT WILL FAIL.
IsUS is now untouchable and unable to be defeated?So its on the table,America and IsUS sitting in the tree,k-i-s-s-i-n-g.Ugh.
Our prognosticators have been serially wrong on everything,so Obombas words are a hollow as his soul,and hopefully Russia will help end this travesty of modern times.
Why not let the Russians do what the US has dismally failed to do?
That is very true, because USG, Saudis Stone Age regime, Israeli fascism, Turkish Islamic falsified Erdogan regime democracy and GCC the Swedish kingdoms and so as English the oil companies and their mafias, the ne liberalism all over Europe been working very very hard to create yet another Stone Age caliphate regime to delay the people's unity and people's democracy all over Middle East. The only obstacle to such politics can only be delivered by the enemy of humanity, the Saudis barbarians and their economical friends, it is time for the world prosecutors to start prosecuting Tony Blair, George W. Bush and his gang if neo fascism, the David Cameron, Sarkozi the head of French mafia, the Italian and all others being involved creating such brutal and inhuman systems for people in Middle East. Europe needs more of people as Jeremy Corbyn then right wing boughten professional politicians as David Cameron or Angela Markell.
All this pussyfooting is about Putin's naval base in Syria, militarily useless and devoid of air cover but part of the little policeman's delusions of imperial glory. Putin seems to fear that any Syrian government without Assad might kick him out of the base. His idea is thus not so much to fight ISIS as to save Assad. The US will hardly accept that, if for no reason other than that the Israelis will hardly accept it.
In all the negative and your falsified comments about anti war, the questions that everyone should be asking you is… What a Fuuuuuuuuccccccccck you are doing here.
The zionists should go to hell. If they suppor(as at the moment) the islamist terrorist organisations (to win against Syrias Assad and destroy completely the country) they will really wish afterwards they had not allowed these insane murderers of ISIS and other radical groups to get near to their border.
The next goal will be the zionist state itself!
Apart from the rather infamous Pearl Harbor case, where the "air cover" was remarkably ineffective, what does "air cover" have to do with a naval base? Navy conflicts are not fought from "ship parking lots". That's kind of the point of having ships….
Putin is a far more intelligent and polished version of Donald Trump. Cronies make money in Russia but there isn't any question about who is really in charge. A lot of Americans wouldn't mind seeing a little scare in the eyes of Sheldon, the Koch brothers etc. Short meeting with Bibi too. In Putin's Russia, the dog wags the tail when it feels like it.
I believe you are on the right track, Michael Kenny. Having failed to muster support to overthrow Assad with the fake chemical weapons excuse, the US pivoted closer to Russia by overthrowing Ukraine. Russia countered with fostering Crimean secession and union with Russia. Now we're back to Syria again and its Russian bases.
"declaring that Russia’s strategy of backing the Syrian government against ISIS is “doomed to failure.”"
That is bold talk from someone whose own policy is a complete failure.
The Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov explained exactly what the new moves by Russia meant: the US must talk with Russia, and settle this with Russia, on terms that account for at least some of what Russia wants, not just a complete defeat of Russia / Iran / Assad.
Lavrov is correct, so much so that even if the US could get what it says it wants, it would in fact get something it does not want — ISIS and al Qaeda running Syria.
So, okay, Russian support for Syria against ISIS is doomed…. so what are WE doing fighting ISIS? Aren't our efforts doomed to failure as well? If someone wants to jump and help take down ISIS, I say let them have a bash at it.
The hypocrisy of the USG foreign policy is staggering.
Ever since US began its blatant GI Joe Diplomacy by invading Balkans the arm chair strategist have constantly been saying US policy is a failure, yet the pipelines flow oil and gas, the minrrals get extracted and the surviving members of the nations they invade pay the foreign investors to come and build, seems like good buisness practices to me.
Who actually misses the hundreds of thousand dead and millions of displaced ME Arabs and Central Asia’s backwards tribal cultures, those pepplr who now have no more identity of nstion and only a brown skin with a looked down upon back ass
words religion.
Well euros may wish they went home they are yhevprimary benefactors of US militaryd love of genocide. They kill tens and hundreds of thouands and lose afew thousand, who in US are even more martyrs than any Islamic could ever wish for.
Europe is being paid billions to pump Irag and Kurdistan oils anf natural gas that they ship out duty free to their home nations, now losers usually do not profit for failure.
Europe and America have always used Islamic religious crazies to put down secular nationalist dictatorships (which actually share more values with the West like universal education, protection of women,) There are no other forces other than the radicals to take out Assad. This looks to be a repeat of past actions. It is like Afghanistan during the Soviet era. The question for the neocons may be not how to destroy ISIS but how to control them and have them act as counter-weights to Iran/Russia.
Once again Putin is ahead of Obama and co.
Using the exact same excuse as "The West" for being in Syria is GENIUS! "we're here to get ISIS too!"… how the hell can OBama make Russia look bad, for doing the SAME thing as the west!
the best part is… While the USA is arming and funding ISIS (with ISrael, Saudi, Qatar) … Russia actually IS fighting ISIS.
A recent article by Robert Parry included this interesting item:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/…
A source familiar with the back channels between the White House and the Kremlin told me that Obama had encouraged Putin to step up Russian aid to the embattled Syrian government as part of the fight against the Islamic State and that the Russians are now bewildered as to why Obama’s State Department is trying to sabotage those efforts.
Obama does not want Russia to aid Syria because Israel wants Syria along with other countries in the ME!I believe this is a plot between the US and Israel! Israel cannot achieve their goal without the aid of thr US.
And of course, Putin would listen to Obama because Obama has been such a flaming success in the Middle East and North Africa. Obama seems to think world leaders are like the American media –he speaks and everyone swoons at how inspirational and wonderful he is. The guy is a choirboy trying to control events in a neighborhood full of gangsters. Obama should mind his own business.
To all those Israel firsters, Assad wasn't a serious threat to attacking Israel, of course ISIS, on the Israeli border, think again! Jerusalem Sixty miles in a straight line, what do you think the FIRST thing that they blow up in Jerusalem, the Neanderthals Wailing Wall probably! So after that little illumination, WHO should the US be helping rid ISIS from Syria!
Mr.Lavrov said in an a very recent interview that USA know exactly where are the positions of ISIS but do not bomb them.It means that ISIS is intended to do the us job with us blessing: to get rid of Assad.
To get rid of Assad means the end of a multiconfessional Syria and mass murder of christians.It is what Obama exactly wants.
Obama knows all about failure doesn't he?