Tag: Opposition

The Irrationality Of The Debate

Yes I have written many posts on the Ukraine situation…..let me say here before some troll gets a hard on…..I oppose the invasion and the subsequent conflict that stared earlier this year when Russia invaded Ukraine.

With my posts have come many comments in support for Ukraine/NATO and the massive involvement in the conflict…..to me many of those are irrational because we Americans have given so much treasure in our many many wars and yet there is still some chest thumping……

When asked I usually get some snarky comments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

And the conversation continues with  o actually talking….

A Harvard professor has made some interesting observations on this very subject……

Because war is uncertain and reliable information is sparse, no one knows how the war in Ukraine will play out. Nor can any of us be completely certain what the optimal course of action is. We all have our own theories, hunches, beliefs, and hopes, but nobody’s crystal ball is 100 percent reliable in the middle of a war.
You might think that this situation would encourage observers to approach the whole issue with a certain humility and give alternative perspectives a fair hearing even when they disagree with one’s own. Instead, debates about responsibility for the war and the proper course of action to follow have been unusually nasty and intolerant, even by modern standards of social media vituperation. I’ve been trying to figure out why this is the case.
 
What I find especially striking is how liberal interventionists, unrepentant neoconservatives, and a handful of progressives who are all-in for Ukraine seem to have no doubts whatsoever about the origins of the conflict or the proper course of action to follow today. For them, Russian President Vladimir Putin is solely and totally responsible for the war, and the only mistakes others may have made in the past was to be too nice to Russia and too willing to buy its oil and gas. The only outcome they are willing to entertain is a complete Ukrainian victory, ideally accompanied by regime change in Moscow, the imposition of reparations to finance Ukrainian reconstruction, and war crimes trials for Putin and his associates. Convinced that anything less than this happy result will reward aggression, undermine deterrence, and place the current world order in jeopardy, their mantra is: “Whatever it takes for as long as it takes.”
 
This same group has also been extraordinarily critical of those who believe responsibility for the war is not confined to Russia’s president and who think these war aims might be desirable in the abstract but are unlikely to be achieved at an acceptable cost and risk. If you have the temerity to suggest that NATO enlargement (and the policies related to it) helped pave the road to war, if you believe the most likely outcome is a negotiated settlement and that getting there sooner rather than later would be desirable, and if you favor supporting Ukraine but think this goal should be weighed against other interests, you’re almost certain to be denounced as a pro-Putin stooge, an appeaser, an isolationist, or worse. Case in point: When a handful of progressive congressional representatives released a rather tepid statement calling for greater reliance on diplomacy a few weeks ago, it was buried under a hailstorm of criticism and quickly disavowed by its own sponsors.
 
Prof. Walt sums up my thoughts expertly….
 
What will it take for the tide to turn on this debate?
 
Just wondering.
 
On an unrelated topic…..US is considering  cluster bombs for Ukraine…..
 

According to a report from CNN, the Biden administration is considering a request from Ukraine to provide cluster bombs, munitions that are banned by over 100 countries under an international treaty due to the harm they cause to civilians.

Cluster munitions scatter small bombs over large areas, making them more indiscriminate than other munitions. The small bombs often don’t explode on impact, making them a huge danger to civilians who comes across them, similar to land mines.

The 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions that bans the weapons has 108 signatories, but the US, Russia, and Ukraine are not parties to the treaty. Since Russia launched its invasion in February, both Russian and Ukrainian forces have used cluster munitions, and Kyiv was accused of using the bombs in populated areas of Donestk back in 2014.

The last known time the US used cluster bombs was in Yemen in 2009. Before that, US forces used them in the early days of the Afghanistan war and in Iraq in 2003. The US has supplied cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia, which has used them in its war on Yemen.

The CNN report said that the Biden administration has been fielding a request from Ukraine for cluster munitions for months and has not rejected it outright. The administration hasn’t taken the option off the table if US stockpiles of other munitions become dangerously low.

(antiwar.com)

What happened to all that concern for civilians?

Personally I am sick of the pathetic excuses some Americans for this country pouring much needed cash into this war.

I Read, I Write, You Know
 
“lego ergo scribo”

Outside Chance He Should Stay?

Assad must go!

We all remember those famous words 3 years ago……the problem is Assad stayed!  Obama said he should go……Congress said he should go…..Clinton said he should go……everybody said that Assad was as good as gone……and yet Assad is still the leader of Syria…….Go Figure!

In the early days all my fellow bloggers were in sync with all the calls for Assad;s head…………And since those dark days a couple of years ago not much has been said about Assad other than he is a dick and is mistreating the average Syrian……but as far as he MUST go there has not been much chest thumping in that area of discussion…….could there be an ulterior motive?

While I was reading some news from the Middle East I came across this info in the Jordanian Times………

CIA Director John Brennan said Friday the United States does not want to see a chaotic collapse of the Syrian regime as it could open the way to Islamist extremists taking power.

The spy agency chief said Washington had reason to worry about who might replace President Bashar Al Assad if his government fell, given the rise of the Daesh terror group and other jihadists in Syria.

“I think that’s a legitimate concern,” Brennan said when asked if the US government feared who might succeed Assad.

Washington’s stance is that Assad should have no role in Syria’s future but President Barack Obama’s administration and other governments wanted to see a political solution that would ensure a representative government, he said.

“None of us, Russia, the United States, coalition, and regional states, wants to see a collapse of the government and political institutions in Damascus,” Brennan said.

That info smells like bad monk fish to me……..is there a softening of the “must go position”?

Recently Sec. Kerry had a few choice words about Assad and Syria…….

In an interview with CBS News, Secretary of State John Kerry said his goal is the push the Syrian government until President Bashar Assad is willing to negotiate with him, with an eye on a post-war transition.

That implication is also apparent in recent comments from pro-US opposition factions, with reports over the weekend that they intend to discuss the possibility of leaving Assad in power for at least the next two years as part of the “transition” process.

Kerry’s comments put the US more directly in line with that position, though it isn’t clear if the administration intended that to be the case, with the State Department quickly disavowing Kerry’s comments.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf insists that there was always an intention to negotiate with a “representative” for Assad, but that no US government official would ever be willing to negotiate with Assad himself.

Damn!  That monk fish is getting ripe!

Even the Syrian opposition is starting to think that Assad may not need to go………

Exiled opposition factions from Syria, increasingly resigned to the reality of the situation on the ground and likewise worried about the rise of ISIS, are discussing a proposal for their next big meeting to leave President Bashar Assad in power.

Publicly, the opposition has long insisted that there is no discussion to be had with the Assad government without the understanding that Assad steps down immediately. The new proposal would call for elections in two years.

Sounds like a softening of the rhetoric……at least by the admin spokespeople……will it play with those on the down side of smart?

Right now the Right has a full plate from which to dine….e-mails, immigration, Obamacare, Iran (the all consuming issue for them)…….they have barely noticed the spoiled monk fish next to them……it will return….fear not!

Syria–Some Things Never Change

Inkwell Institute

Middle East Desk

When ever I gave a lecture on the Middle East I would take this map and ask the students to label the countries on the map……you might be surprised at how little people know about the Middle East…..

Meanwhile back in a troubled universe—-I will break with my fellow bloggers and move on from Ted Cruz and go back to what I know….the Middle East which is far more interesting than anything coming out of the circus known as DC.

A little history lesson for my reader….Back at the start of Iraq 2 the US threw its weight behind an Iraqi con man as the leadership after Saddam….Chalabi a man convicted of bank fraud in Jordan.  The problem was that the average Iraqi had NO knowledge of this guy and trusted him not….

Then there was the outbreak of revolution in Egypt….the US threw its considerable weight behind of group of ex-pats….again the people knew of them not and for that reason never trusted anyone that the US would support…..after all they supported Mubarak for 30 years…..why trust us now……and who took control of Egypt?  The Muslim Brotherhood, that’s who.

Now there is Syria….the hawks in the US keep throwing names around, the Syrian moderates, that we should be in direct support of in the civil war……McCain and his bud, Graham just keep ham,mering the idea of the moderates as our allies in this conflict.

What about those moderates?

But if the so-called “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) is being funded, armed, trained, and otherwise supported with the combined resources of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, NATO-member Turkey, Jordan, Israel, and others, just how exactly is the “Islamic State,” and other extremist factions such as Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, Al Nusra, getting even more cash and weapons?

The answer, as will be explained further in documented detail below, is that there were never, nor are there any “moderates” operating in Syria. The West has intentionally armed and funded Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists since as early as 2007 in preparation for an engineered sectarian bloodbath serving US-Saudi-Israeli interests. This latest bid to portray the terrorists operating along and within Syria’s borders as “divided” along extremists/moderate lines is a ploy to justify the continued flow of Western cash and arms into Syria to perpetuate the conflict, as well as create conditions along Syria’s borders with which Western partners, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, can justify direct military intervention.

There aren’t, nor were there ever “moderates” fighting in Syria.

In an astounding admission, the New York Times confirmed in an April 2013 report that the so-called “Syrian opposition” is entirely run by Al Qaeda and literally states:

 Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

From the beginning, it was clear to geopolitical analysts that the conflict in Syria was not “pro-democracy” protesters rising up, but rather the fruition of a well-documented conspiracy between the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to arm and direct sectarian extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda against the Syrian government.

Well, what about the other coalitions in Syria?

Some of Syria’s most powerful rebel groups have disavowed the Western-backed National Syrian Coalition’s government in exile, in a move that may further complicate efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the country’s civil war. Thirteen groups, spearheaded by the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front, released a statement last night declaring that the newly-formed interim government “does not represent or recognize us” and urging their fellow rebels to make Sharia law “the sole source of legislation.” Three of the signatories control large amounts of territory, CNN reports. The jihadis aren’t the only ones dismissing the opposition government, either. Syria’s deputy foreign minister yesterday dismissed the coalition as having little influence, the New York Times reports. He further dimmed the prospect of peace talks by saying the regime wouldn’t negotiate with anyone who’d taken up arms against it, though it might talk to religious leaders “who have influence on the ground.” Russia, meanwhile, said a peace deal could only be reached if the US stopped calling for Bashar al-Assad’s ouster, Reuters reports.

Once again thge US is looking for people in Syria that will furthewr the interests of Exxon and the like….it is not about democracy or liberty or any other concept that we, as Americans, supposedly stand for through thick or thin……once again we look to ex-pats for leadership…..that will be the undoing of Syria……and the country will start looking like Iraq as soon as Assad is killed or deposed….violence will be the rule of the day for many years….hatred the fuel and weapons the fire.

Arms Come To The Rebels

Inkwell Institute

Middle East Desk

Before I go any further I need to apologize to my readers…..I do get a bit anal when it comes to the Middle East, but that is because part of my university days was spent studying international relations and the Middle East and topped with I use to work in the region I have a deep interest that I feed daily by reading Middle East newspapers and news sources.  I feel I need to help my readers make some sense of the Middle East situation, all of them.  The Syrian situation is not as straight forward as the MSM would like for you to believe……

For instance, months upon months the hawks in Congress have been screaming that we need to arm the rebels to help bring down the Assad regime…….and now they have their heart’s desire……

In mid-June, the US said it would send weapons to the Syrian rebels; after many weeks of delay (much to the recent consternation of Sen. Bob Corker and other lawmakers), we’ve apparently made good on the promise, at least according to US officials and “Syrian figures” who spoke to the Washington Post. The paper reports that weapons began arriving in the country roughly two weeks ago; they’re being sent by the CIA, while the State Department is providing things like vehicles and high-tech communications devices. CNN similarly spoke with an unnamed US official who confirmed the delivery, but it reports that the Syrian National Coalition and the Free Syrian Army say they have gotten no such lethal aid thus far. And while the Post’s report says that aid is being directed toward the rebels fighting under Free Syrian Army Commander Gen. Salim Idriss, NPR’s Steve Inskeep talked to Idriss this morning; he, too, says “no lethal materials” have arrived as of today. But the Post maintains that “light weaponry” is being sent, and spoke to an opposition official who seems to confirm this, describing the weapons they’re receiving—which do not include the antitank and antiaircraft weapons that the rebels really want—as “better than nothing.” The Post reports that the CIA’s shipments are being routed through recently built “clandestine bases” in Turkey and Jordan.

Is this the good news that so many hawks have been waiting for…….once I heard the news I set about identifying the opposition…..now there is a sure way to give yourself a huge long lasting migraine……after scratching my head and getting eye strain I found a post on wikipedia that answered all my questions……the biggest question is ….who are the rebels?

The National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces is a coalition of opposition groups in the Syrian civil war. It formed on 11 November 2012 at a conference of opposition groups held in Doha, Qatar. It includes organisations such as the SNC. Islamic preacher Moaz al-Khatib serves as the president of the coalition, Riad Seif and Suheir Atassi were elected vice presidents. Mustafa Sabbagh is the coalition’s secretary-general.

    • The Syrian National Council, a coalition of Syrian opposition groups based in Istanbul, formed in 2011 during the Syrian civil war.[15][16] Key people include chairman as of 2013 George Sabra, and former chairmen Burhan Ghalioun and Abdulbaset Sieda.
      • Muslim Brotherhood: Islamist party founded in 1930. The brotherhood was behind the Islamic uprising in Syria between 1976 until 1982. The party is banned in Syria and membership became a capital offence in 1980. The régime of Bashar al Assad, and others, have accused the Muslim Brotherhood of being key players in the Syrian uprising that escalated into a civil war. Other sources have described the group as having “risen from the ashes”, “resurrected itself” to be a dominant force in the uprising. Current leader is Ali Sadreddine Al-Bayanouni.
      • Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians: nucleus of a Syrian secular and democratic opposition that appeared during the Syrian civil war. It came about through the union of a dozen Muslim and Christian, Arab and Kurd parties, who called the minorities of Syria to support the fight against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. The Coalition has also called for military intervention in Syria, under the form of a no-fly zone similar to that of Kosovo, with a safe zone and cities. The president of the coalition, who is also a member of the SNC, is Randa Kassis.
      • Damascus Declaration: Opposition bloc from 2005. Twelve members were sentenced to 2.5 years in prison in 2008. Syrian journalist and activist Michel Kilo launched the declaration, after the Syrian writer and thinker Abdulrazak Eid had written its first draft. Riad Seif, another democracy activist, became the first signatory.The “five small opposition groups” signing the declaration were
        • the Arab nationalist National Democratic Rally
        • the Kurdish Democratic Alliance
        • the Committees of Civil Society
        • the Kurdish Democratic Front
        • the Movement of the Future. The Movement for Justice and Development in Syria (MJD) also subscribes to the Damascus Declaration. In a series of splits 2007-2009, most members left the Damascus Declaration, leaving the MJD and SDPP (see below) as the only remaining factions of any consequence, along with a number of independents.
      • Syrian Democratic People’s Party: A socialist party which played a “key role” in the creation of the SNC. The party’s leader George Sabra (a secularist born to a Christian family) is the official spokesman of the SNC, and also ran for chairman.
      • Supreme Council of the Syrian Revolution: Syrian opposition group supporting the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s government. It grants local opposition groups representation in its national organization.
      • Assyrian Democratic Organization: A party representing Assyrians in Syria and long repressed by the Assad regime, it has been a participant in opposition structures since the beginning of the conflict. Abdul-Ahad Astepho is a member of the SNC.
      • Syrian Turkmen Assembly: A recently formed assembly of Syrian Turkmens which constitutes a coalition of Turkmen parties and groups in Syria. It is against the partition of Syria after the collapse of Baath regime. The common decision of Syrian Turkmen Assembly is: “Regardless of any ethnic or religious identity, a future in which everybody can be able to live commonly under the identity of Syrian is targeted in the future of Syria.”
      • Syrian Democratic Turkmen Movement: An opposition party of Syrian Turkmens, which was constituted in Istanbul on 21 March 2012. The leader of Syrian Democratic Turkmen Movement is Ziyad Hasan.
      • Syrian Turkmen National Bloc: An opposition party of Syrian Turkmens, which was founded in February 2012. The chairman of the political party is Yusuf Molla.
    • Local Coordination Committees of Syria: Network of local protest groups that organise and report on protests as part of the Syrian civil war, founded in 2011. As of August 2011, the network supported civil disobedience and opposed local armed resistance and international military intervention as methods of opposing the Syrian government. Key people are activists Razan Zaitouneh and Suhair al-Atassi.

And there is the problem…..of all those “rebel” factions….who do we arm and who do we stay away from….and who will make those decisions……..this is just one example of the complexities that are the situations in Syria…..

Once Upon A Time In Syria

Everything we see and hear about Syria is made up……McCain crosses the Turkish border into Syria to hold meetings with opposition commanders (a photo op) and the next day Kerry and others hold a peace conference to help determine the future of Syria…..but….

BEIRUT — Syria’s main Western-backed opposition group said Thursday it will not participate in U.S.-Russian sponsored peace talks on Syria while massacres are underway in the country, dealing a blow to international efforts to end the devastating civil war.

A spokesman for the Syrian National Coalition, Khalid Saleh, also said the group will not support any international peace efforts in light of Iran’s and Hezbollah’s “invasion” of Syria.

Saleh was referring to the increasingly prominent roles Iran and the Lebanese militant Hezbollah group have had in backing President Bashar Assad’s forces on the ground.

If you would like a conspiracy then ask…..did McCain’s visit to the opposition have anything to do with the apparently failure of peace talks?

McCain wants to arm the opposition with heavier armaments, but only the “good” guys who have been vetted…….vetted by whom?  Who will decide the good from the bad?  There is a folly behind the arming of the opposition…….

Nikolas Gvosdev lists the possible consequences of providing arms to insurgents in Syria. He points out that there is no way of knowing how these weapons will be used:

Indeed, America’s 1980s experiences with supplying arms to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan and the contras in Nicaragua highlight some of the problems with weapons transfers. Groups on the ground may want to horde weapons for use in internecine battles with rivals to establish their dominance after the enemy has been defeated. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Afghan commander who received the lion’s share of military aid from the U.S., Pakistan and Saudi Arabia during the fight against the Soviets, was notorious for his attacks against rival mujahedeen groups, especially those led by Ahmad Shah Massoud. Some of the weapons he received from the West were used, not to drive out the Soviets, but to turn parts of Kabul into smoking rubble during the 1990s when he attempted to take power for himself.

One would think that America’s largely uninspiring record of arming insurgencies in the past would eliminate any desire to try again. Something that continues to impress me about interventionist arguments on Syria is how very short-sighted they are. Most Syria hawks are not concerned with who will govern Syria or how in two or five years’ time, but are preoccupied entirely with finding some way to get the U.S. into the conflict regardless of the effects that this could have in and around Syria. If an even worse government came to power through U.S. and Western military aid, or if these weapons helped fuel another decade of civil war, the U.S. would be partly responsible for condemning Syria to even more suffering, and worst of all our government would be doing this for no good reason.

Here is a ‘what if’ for you people, you war hawks, to consider…….say we arm the opposition to the hilt and after a while the situation becomes more calm and reasonable….but then someone shoots down an airliner from Israel full of people with a LAW we provided to the opposition…..who will get the blame for that?  McCain and his war hawk buddies?  Not a chance!  It will be the NEW scandal the morons have to latch onto to keep from repairing an ailing country.

Does anyone remember Afghanistan in the 80’s?  It was awash in American arms…and they have been used against us…….Or how about Libya?  Same scenario.  And now our boy McCain is trying to repeat history…….Syria is just nothing but a quicksand bog waiting for us to step into it….and if McCain and his buddies have anything to do with it we will be up to our necks in blood ………..something that needs to be considered and stoop using the Syrian people as a political prop……..consider the dire consequences of our actions….there are plenty of examples of our poor judgement.

I Have Some Libyan Questions

Inkwell Institute

Middle East Desk

We know that NATO is bombing the crap out of Qadafi’s force to prevent them from retaliating against the rebels in the East……with that given I have some questions that I would like answered and so far I have heard nothing on them……

What happens if the rebels take Sirte, the hometown of Qadafi that is full of supporters?  Will the rebels retaliate against the supporters?  If so, then what will NATO do to prevent the mass killings of people in the town, if there is a possibility?  Does it them become yet another perception of a genocide?

In his recent speech on Libya, Pres. Obama said that when this situation in the country is finished that the US would help the Libyans stabilize their country….just what the Hell does that mean?  Just what will be needed for this promised stabilization?  Could it have anything to do with a recent report issued by BP…..

According to the 2008 BP Statistical Energy Survey, Africa had proven oil reserves of 117,481 billion barrels at the end of 2007, or 9.49 percent of the world’s reserves. Five countries dominate Africa’s oil production, accounting for 85 percent of the total—Nigeria, Libya, Algeria, Egypt and Angola. But Gabon, Congo, Cameroon, Tunisia, Equatorial Guinea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ivory Coast also produce oil, and exploration is ongoing in Chad, Sudan, Namibia, South Africa and Madagascar.

Africa’s oil is of a high quality and easy to mine, often from offshore rigs, and is distributed through existing sea lanes. The continent is the location of more than a third of the world’s new discoveries since 2000 and could be the site of far greater reserves than now thought.

Since democracy does not seem to be a driving force behind the insurrection of the Eastern half of the country….just what will we help stabilize?  Maybe it will be their economy?  That would send the fat cats jerking off in the corner!

The stabilization thing is a non-specific spin which means whatever we do we can say it is stabilizing a ravished country and people.  Personally, I detest generalizations…..,I WANT specifics and the people of Libya should be demanding the same thing.

In their rush to eliminate Qadafi they could well be giving away their future for a few bullets……

Employee Free Choice Act

Business and labor groups are intensifying their battle over a measure that would make it easier to organize unions, offering a preview of what is certain to be one of the earliest and hardest-fought legislative battles in the new Congress.

The Employee Free Choice Act, which would be the most significant overhaul of federal labor law in six decades, would give workers who want a union two options: a card check or an election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.

Unlike current law, employers would not be able to demand that workers cast secret ballots. The legislation also would require employers and unions to submit to binding arbitration if they are unable to reach a contract agreement within 120 days.

Democratic congressional leaders have said they plan to move on the bill quickly once Congress convenes in January. Labor leaders and other supporters said the measure would help restore bargaining power to workers whose wages have fallen behind inflation in recent years.

Labor organizers said current rules allow companies to pressure workers through campaigns that often include closed-door meetings. They also said that the arbitration rule is necessary to prod employers to bargain in good faith. Currently, roughly one-third of new unions fail to reach agreements on contracts with their employers, said Kate Bronfenbrenner, a Cornell University researcher.

Passage of the legislation would mean “that the 60-plus percent of people in the country who have expressed the opinion that, if given a fair choice, they would be in a union job, would actually get to be in a union job,” Freiboth said. “This is about allowing workers the fair opportunity to form or join a union and to restore the promise of the National Labor Relations Act passed in the ’30s that has been undermined.”

Greg Denier, spokesman for the labor coalition Change to Win, framed the issue as an economic-recovery package. “Workers’ wages are what drive consumption,” he said. “If [workers’] wages are stagnant, you are undermining the foundation of economic growth.”