Nice to see you gave me time to answer your question before answering it for me.

Not sure why I should dignify your childishness with any further responses. Good night.

danivon wrote:Nice to see you gave me time to answer your question before answering it for me.

Not sure why I should dignify your childishness with any further responses. Good night.

Yes, how shameless of me to employ your tactics!

Sleep well.

The issue is having a strategic vision. It's missing all across the troubled region: Egypt, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, how shameless of me to employ your tactics!

No, I gave you time to answer, and saw what you had to say. You had a chance to tell us what you would do, and all you did was to tell us that you would not do what Obama did. Which is not saying anything we didn't already know.

You, on the other hand, did not allow me to answer before concluding I had nothing. The difference in 'tactics' is quite clear.

Sleep well.

Will do.

The issue is having a strategic vision. It's missing all across the troubled region: Egypt, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

So go on, then. What is the strategic vision for that region that we should have?

Or am I wasting my time again?

What tripe.

So, it's up to me?

1. Fire John Kerry. It's not just him, but that would signal a change in direction.

2. Signal he's open to new sanctions on Iran. That might help move them toward genuine change.

3. Engage Iraq and find the means to help them with AQ resurgence.

4. Change ROE in Afghanistan. Permit troops to effectively defend themselves. Tell Karzai he either agrees to SOFA or we leave in 30 days.

5. Announce new policy: the US reserves the right to attack any training camp anywhere without regard to civilian casualties.

6. Put Egypt and Libya on notice: more freedom = more aid; lesser don = no aid.

7. Stop throwing Israel under the bus.

8. Announce we will find resistance fighters to arm in Syria and attack Assad's assets if he continues on current path. Embarrass Putin and others who are propping him up.

6. Put Egypt and Libya on notice: more freedom = more aid; lesser don = no aid.

7. Stop throwing Israel under the bus.

To an extent these two goals appear to be mutually exclusive. Israel's security rests on having a peaceful border with Egypt, which in turn relies to a very large extent on having good relations with the Egyptian army. More freedom in Egypt is likely to mean a return to islamist government, which is bad for Israel.

Everything about engagement with the arab world is messy. There are no simple solutions.

Sassenach wrote:

6. Put Egypt and Libya on notice: more freedom = more aid; lesser don = no aid.

7. Stop throwing Israel under the bus.

To an extent these two goals appear to be mutually exclusive. Israel's security rests on having a peaceful border with Egypt, which in turn relies to a very large extent on having good relations with the Egyptian army. More freedom in Egypt is likely to mean a return to islamist government, which is bad for Israel.

Everything about engagement with the arab world is messy. There are no simple solutions.

Yes, but however we go, it can't be on our current trajectory. The current "policy" has resulted in bedlam.

Now, when I say "freedom," I don't necessarily mean Jeffersonian democracy. I think it might be helpful to have a strong man in Egypt to put down the Islamists. I do know that the current system is resulting in a massacre of Coptic Christians.

In hindsight, would the region not be better off with the corruption of Mubarak? We helped push him out--was that a plus?

I don't know. So far as I can tell nobody knows.

fate

In hindsight, would the region not be better off with the corruption of Mubarak?

fate

6. Put Egypt and Libya on notice: more freedom = more aid; lesser don = no aid

Part of Mubareks' downfall was the pressure to allow more freedom....

The arrogance of foreign powers that believe they should be able to manage the affairs of other nations is astounding. You either believe that people have a right to self determination of you don't.
Apparently Fate, you only believe that democracy and freedom are available to peoples who choose to support an agenda you deem supportive of the US.

Whats going on in Syria today is a calamity for the Syrian people. In comparison it hardly impacts the US. And nothing you've listed will have any significant impact on the course of the violence there...
And some of it is just inane.... Iran has come to the table....

Doctor Fate wrote:What tripe.

So you deny that you asked a question of me, then instantly answered it on my behalf and derided the 'answer'?

So, it's up to me?

No, it's not. but you are the one saying that everything is bad and that the current policy is the worst. So what does 'better' look like? Well, here we are...

1. Fire John Kerry. It's not just him, but that would signal a change in direction.

who he might be replaced with would be as much of a signal. TBH, I'm not sure it would make any real difference.

2. Signal he's open to new sanctions on Iran. That might help move them toward genuine change.

So our response to Iran electing a more moderate leader, and coming to an agreement on nuclear is to... threaten sanctions? This is not so much carrot & stick diplomacy as stick & stick diplomacy. I would say that it would be better to have sanctions ready for if they backslide, but offer some rewards for moving in the right direction.

3. Engage Iraq and find the means to help them with AQ resurgence.

This assumes that the Iraqi regime would welcome what we think they need to help them.

4. Change ROE in Afghanistan. Permit troops to effectively defend themselves. Tell Karzai he either agrees to SOFA or we leave in 30 days.

5. Announce new policy: the US reserves the right to attack any training camp anywhere without regard to civilian casualties.

This looks like a bright idea right up until the first mistake that leads to dozens of civilian deaths. And then if it is tied back to an explicit policy shift, I would hardly expect the USA to be awarded any credit at all. Not to mention that this would appear to be illegal under international law (and potentially US law), and so would undermine credibility in terms of telling other governments to stop killing civilians.

6. Put Egypt and Libya on notice: more freedom = more aid; lesser don = no aid.

7. Stop throwing Israel under the bus.

Sass makes a very good point. Up to now, the massive aid (much of it military) to Egypt was established to keep them friendly with Israel. If Egyptians are allowed 'freedom', it seems likely they would vote in another Islamist government. If they don't, then it could be a leftist one. Denying them freedom, which is where we are now unless the new junta does as it is promising to do and relinquishes military power, would appear to be the more stable route - as you suggested, perhaps Mubarak's corruption (which was allowed by the denial of Egyptian freedoms) is more stable. Until, of course, there's an economic crisis and the middle classes rise up demanding freedom, which is what the Egyptian Spring was about.

As for Israel, I think the US and west should be supportive, but not unconditionally so. Far too often the government of Israel, and some of the more zealous fringe movements, take steps that make things worse in Israel. for example, the one Arab group who are least antagonistic towards the state of Israel are the Bedouins of the Negev. who are now under threat of eviction from their towns and have been covered by the same Anti-Arab proposals lodged by the hardliners in government.

And on Syria?

8. Announce we will find resistance fighters to arm in Syria and attack Assad's assets if he continues on current path. Embarrass Putin and others who are propping him up.

Where will we find these resistance fighters who we can trust and who will trust us? We did similar in Afghanistan in 2001/2, and look how that turned out? it is not much different from what we did in Libya, which you opposed and continue to point to as a place where AQ is stronger and more of a threat.

Syria's society has a lot of divisions.

Religious: The vast majority are Sunni. This is a source of much of the opposition, including the extremists aligned with Aq or similar groups. The Assad regime bases it's support on one Shia sect, the Alawi, but there are smaller Shia denominations. There is a fairly large Christian minority (c. 10% of the population), and then there are the Druze, regarded by the Sunni as heretics but who claim to be another branch of Shiism.

Ethnic: Mainly 'Arab', but with a Kurdish minority in the North-East

So what group would our friendly 'resistance fighters' (that we illegally arm and support) come from? Would they be Sunnis who are not too extreme, not likely to be too likely to want to punish the Alawis and other minorities who did well under the Assads, and able to work with Kurds and Circassians and Druzes...

Anyway, my personal preference is that what we should really be doing is a lot more to assist Turkey and other neighbouring countries in dealing with the refugees. Including taking far more people into our countries than we have only recently deigned to do.

If we want to do something to affect the internal situation in Syria more directly (and I am not convinced that is a good idea), we should also enforce a full blockade of the Syrian coast, encourage Iraq and Jordan to assist on their borders, and spend as much influence in Lebanon as we can to stop any new supplies getting in. If Russian ships or planes are stopped/spotted, we make it clear where they are from. We also make it a far clearer point that any violation of Turkey (our NATO ally)'s land, sea or airspace is an act of aggression against NATO.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:What tripe.

So you deny that you asked a question of me, then instantly answered it on my behalf and derided the 'answer'?

So, it's up to me?

No, it's not. but you are the one saying that everything is bad and that the current policy is the worst. So what does 'better' look like? Well, here we are...

It's difficult to find a single place in the world where Obama/Clinton/Kerry improved our standing.

1. Fire John Kerry. It's not just him, but that would signal a change in direction.

who he might be replaced with would be as much of a signal. TBH, I'm not sure it would make any real difference.

If we replace him with someone who understands how the world works, that would be a major step forward. I can name a half dozen Diplomacy players who would instantly improve our ability to communicate with the world. They don't have Kerry's name, but they have 1000x as much common sense. And, they're Democrats.

2. Signal he's open to new sanctions on Iran. That might help move them toward genuine change.

So our response to Iran electing a more moderate leader, and coming to an agreement on nuclear is to... threaten sanctions? This is not so much carrot & stick diplomacy as stick & stick diplomacy. I would say that it would be better to have sanctions ready for if they backslide, but offer some rewards for moving in the right direction.

Not sure you're up to date. Iran is not playing nice.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the man who has the final say on all matters of state in the Islamic Republic, declared again on Monday that talks between Tehran and six world powers "will not lead anywhere.

Hours later a senior U.S. administration official also played down expectations, telling reporters in the Austrian capital that it will be a "complicated, difficult and lengthy process" and "probably as likely that we won't get an agreement as it is that we will.

Their remarks came on the eve of the first round of high-level negotiations since an interim deal was struck on November 24 under which Tehran curbed some nuclear activities for six months in return for limited sanctions relief to allow time for a long-term agreement to be hammered out.

Despite his scepticism about the chances for a lasting deal with the West, Khamenei made clear Tehran was committed to continuing the negotiations between Iran and Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

"What our officials started will continue. We will not renege. I have no opposition," he told a crowd in the northern city of Tabriz on Monday to chants of "Death to America".

Khamenei doesn't seem all that moderate.

3. Engage Iraq and find the means to help them with AQ resurgence.

This assumes that the Iraqi regime would welcome what we think they need to help them.

You assume they won't? If you're right, that's just another black mark on Obama's record. He did this.

5. Announce new policy: the US reserves the right to attack any training camp anywhere without regard to civilian casualties.

This looks like a bright idea right up until the first mistake that leads to dozens of civilian deaths. And then if it is tied back to an explicit policy shift, I would hardly expect the USA to be awarded any credit at all. Not to mention that this would appear to be illegal under international law (and potentially US law), and so would undermine credibility in terms of telling other governments to stop killing civilians.

I know this.

However, as the President of the US, one must decide American lives are less valuable than others or more valuable. If I'm President, I'm going with "more." If civilians don't want to be "collateral damage," they should move away from training camps.

Instead, I'm sure the President will continue to let Americans die--and you won't complain about that. More Americans have died in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush.

6. Put Egypt and Libya on notice: more freedom = more aid; lesser don't = no aid.

7. Stop throwing Israel under the bus.

Sass makes a very good point. Up to now, the massive aid (much of it military) to Egypt was established to keep them friendly with Israel. If Egyptians are allowed 'freedom', it seems likely they would vote in another Islamist government. If they don't, then it could be a leftist one. Denying them freedom, which is where we are now unless the new junta does as it is promising to do and relinquishes military power, would appear to be the more stable route - as you suggested, perhaps Mubarak's corruption (which was allowed by the denial of Egyptian freedoms) is more stable. Until, of course, there's an economic crisis and the middle classes rise up demanding freedom, which is what the Egyptian Spring was about.

And, pushing the Egyptian Spring was a mistake--as some conservatives said beforehand.

As for Israel, I think the US and west should be supportive, but not unconditionally so. Far too often the government of Israel, and some of the more zealous fringe movements, take steps that make things worse in Israel. for example, the one Arab group who are least antagonistic towards the state of Israel are the Bedouins of the Negev. who are now under threat of eviction from their towns and have been covered by the same Anti-Arab proposals lodged by the hardliners in government.

In the big scheme, the situation you describe is small and something we could probably help resolve.

And on Syria?

8. Announce we will find resistance fighters to arm in Syria and attack Assad's assets if he continues on current path. Embarrass Putin and others who are propping him up.

Where will we find these resistance fighters who we can trust and who will trust us? We did similar in Afghanistan in 2001/2, and look how that turned out? it is not much different from what we did in Libya, which you opposed and continue to point to as a place where AQ is stronger and more of a threat.

Syria's society has a lot of divisions.

Yes it does--and a lot of deaths, which was why (allegedly) we got involved in Libya. All the President has done about Syria is use harsh language.

Religious: The vast majority are Sunni. This is a source of much of the opposition, including the extremists aligned with Aq or similar groups. The Assad regime bases it's support on one Shia sect, the Alawi, but there are smaller Shia denominations. There is a fairly large Christian minority (c. 10% of the population), and then there are the Druze, regarded by the Sunni as heretics but who claim to be another branch of Shiism.

Ethnic: Mainly 'Arab', but with a Kurdish minority in the North-East

So what group would our friendly 'resistance fighters' (that we illegally arm and support) come from? Would they be Sunnis who are not too extreme, not likely to be too likely to want to punish the Alawis and other minorities who did well under the Assads, and able to work with Kurds and Circassians and Druzes...

I'm not the CIA. I"m not the DNI. However, if I were, in 3 weeks I'd have a better plan than anything this group of clowns running the DC circus has put together.

Anyway, my personal preference is that what we should really be doing is a lot more to assist Turkey and other neighbouring countries in dealing with the refugees. Including taking far more people into our countries than we have only recently deigned to do.

I like it, but it won't solve the problem--it just helps with the symptoms.

If we want to do something to affect the internal situation in Syria more directly (and I am not convinced that is a good idea), we should also enforce a full blockade of the Syrian coast, encourage Iraq and Jordan to assist on their borders, and spend as much influence in Lebanon as we can to stop any new supplies getting in. If Russian ships or planes are stopped/spotted, we make it clear where they are from. We also make it a far clearer point that any violation of Turkey (our NATO ally)'s land, sea or airspace is an act of aggression against NATO.

This is good, but our problem will be the Russians. What we have, in effect, is a Russian/Iranian puppet in Assad. Taking him out is not going to be easy.

rickyp wrote:fate

In hindsight, would the region not be better off with the corruption of Mubarak?

fate

6. Put Egypt and Libya on notice: more freedom = more aid; lesser don = no aid

Part of Mubareks' downfall was the pressure to allow more freedom....

Yes, and that was a mistake. However, the situation has changed.

Furthermore, I'm not talking about Jeffersonian democracy. I'm not even calling for elections. I would like to see the "green light" removed from persecuting the Copts.

The arrogance of foreign powers that believe they should be able to manage the affairs of other nations is astounding. You either believe that people have a right to self determination of you don't.
Apparently Fate, you only believe that democracy and freedom are available to peoples who choose to support an agenda you deem supportive of the US.

The stupidity of foreign powers believing that nothing that happens in the Middle East is important is astounding.

Apparently, rickyp, you believe that allowing Islamists to rule the region is in the best interests of the people there. I don't agree.

Whats going on in Syria today is a calamity for the Syrian people. In comparison it hardly impacts the US. And nothing you've listed will have any significant impact on the course of the violence there...
And some of it is just inane.... Iran has come to the table....

Iran has not come to the table. Their President has told us these negotiations are a sham. They have promised nothing that cannot easily be reversed. You are as blind as Kerry.

Syria is a training ground for Al Qaida. Everyone seems to realize that except you.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:fate

In hindsight, would the region not be better off with the corruption of Mubarak?

fate

6. Put Egypt and Libya on notice: more freedom = more aid; lesser don = no aid

Part of Mubareks' downfall was the pressure to allow more freedom....

Yes, and that was a mistake. However, the situation has changed.

Furthermore, I'm not talking about Jeffersonian democracy. I'm not even calling for elections. I would like to see the "green light" removed from persecuting the Copts.

So is it just the Copt freedoms you are talking about then?

You seem to be arguing for freedom under a benevolent dictatorship. Seems ironic somehow - I can't just put my finger on why...

Apparently, rickyp, you believe that allowing Islamists to rule the region is in the best interests of the people there. I don't agree.

No, that's not what he said. The issues is that for a lot of people in the Middle East, that is what they want. They may be wrong, but freedom does not mean denying democratic will just because you disagree with it.

Syria is a training ground for Al Qaida. Everyone seems to realize that except you.

But Al Qaeda are opposing Assad, not supporting him. Iran are not likely to want to see Al Qaeda do well. This is why picking a side in Syria is not so simple as you think.

danivon wrote:You seem to be arguing for freedom under a benevolent dictatorship. Seems ironic somehow - I can't just put my finger on why...

I'll help you: it's because you see no difference between the transitions from tyranny (under the Islamic Brotherhood) to benevolent dictatorship (military rule) and from constitutional republic to benevolent dictatorship. I can.

Apparently, rickyp, you believe that allowing Islamists to rule the region is in the best interests of the people there. I don't agree.

No, that's not what he said. The issues is that for a lot of people in the Middle East, that is what they want. They may be wrong, but freedom does not mean denying democratic will just because you disagree with it.

But, it's not clear that it's anything more than the fact that they are more willing to use AK-47s than others. It may be that the Brotherhood would win another election in Egypt, but they might not. Some, I believe, were disillusioned by the anti-democratic moves of the Brotherhood. Much like Americans voting for Obama, they believed what they were told and then learned the truth.

Syria is a training ground for Al Qaida. Everyone seems to realize that except you.

But Al Qaeda are opposing Assad, not supporting him. Iran are not likely to want to see Al Qaeda do well. This is why picking a side in Syria is not so simple as you think.

Ooh, ooh, Mr. KottER!

I never said it was "simple" to pick a side. I did say our current course is dumb. That is demonstrable. In fact, it is worse than dumb. Everything we allegedly feared in Libya is happening in Syria and we have reduced ourselves to whining about Assad trying to win on the battlefield instead of negotiating in good faith.

Kerry and his boss have been incredibly thick-headed.

Syria may very well turn out to be the first act in what will in effect be a civil war in the Islamic world. If you look at how the support breaks down it's almost a direct conflict between the Shias and the Sunnis, with the main Shia power, Iran, supporting the minority Shia administration of Assad and the main Sunni power, Saudi Arabia, doing everything it can to overthrow him and install a friendly Sunni regime in his place. It's spilling over into Lebanon and Iraq where the same battle lines are being drawn. Tbh I'm not sure there's a great deal the West can do at this point, the conflict only tangentially involves us and it's naive to think otherwise. Iran and Saudi Arabia are playing out the same sort of games as America and the Soviets used to do in the cold war, just on a more localised scale.

For understandable historical reasons the West has been drawn into taking a side in this conflict. We seem to be on the side of the Saudis, which means the Sunnis. I'm not sure how wise that will prove to be in the long run, considering that all of the Islamic terrorism we face comes from extremist Sunnis, funded by our biggest ally in the region. Reaching out to Iran may well turn out to be a really good thing. The Iranian people are clearly ready to come in from the cold and establish normal relations with the West, and there's only so long their leaders can hold out against that. I think we have to make the effort because the potential payoff is enormous.

Sassenach wrote:Syria may very well turn out to be the first act in what will in effect be a civil war in the Islamic world. If you look at how the support breaks down it's almost a direct conflict between the Shias and the Sunnis, with the main Shia power, Iran, supporting the minority Shia administration of Assad and the main Sunni power, Saudi Arabia, doing everything it can to overthrow him and install a friendly Sunni regime in his place. It's spilling over into Lebanon and Iraq where the same battle lines are being drawn. Tbh I'm not sure there's a great deal the West can do at this point, the conflict only tangentially involves us and it's naive to think otherwise. Iran and Saudi Arabia are playing out the same sort of games as America and the Soviets used to do in the cold war, just on a more localised scale.

For understandable historical reasons the West has been drawn into taking a side in this conflict. We seem to be on the side of the Saudis, which means the Sunnis. I'm not sure how wise that will prove to be in the long run, considering that all of the Islamic terrorism we face comes from extremist Sunnis, funded by our biggest ally in the region. Reaching out to Iran may well turn out to be a really good thing. The Iranian people are clearly ready to come in from the cold and establish normal relations with the West, and there's only so long their leaders can hold out against that. I think we have to make the effort because the potential payoff is enormous.

I don't disagree with this. The key point you make is "at this point." That's the problem: the US involved itself, made proclamations, backed off, looked weak . . . and pandemonium ensued. This was Obama/Clinton/Kerry-created chaos.