It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Change in Geo political Middle East Policy?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
LINK

I have my doubts about the assertions in this article even though I hope it’s true.

According to this article the PTB who before tried everything to dislodge Assad from Syria, they have turned 180 degrees from this and now want an Assad victory.




First, the crisis of authority that paralyzes the US continues to mobilize the ruling class. After the call from the honorary chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) for President Obama to surround himself with experienced personalities from both sides [1], the New York Times published an editorial [2] devoted to a report published in October by the Rand Corporation




The main think tank dedicated to military matters has made a 180 ° turnaround in one year. According to it, the victory of the Syrian Arab Republic is now "the most desirable option" for the US, while its fall would be "the worst of outcomes." Armed groups have lost support among the urban population, the defections have stopped for over a year and the Syrian army continues its liberation. Moreover, Rand continues, a Syrian victory will not benefit Iran as long as Daesh remains present in Iraq. The institute predicts that states that have so far supplied the jihadists will stop doing so. Indeed, they cannot hope to defeat Syria in this way and now fear that the jihadists will turn against them. Therefore, concluded the Rand, there will be no negotiated solution with the sponsor states, but a clear victory of the "regime" to which the United States should be associated.




One can observe the radical change of position on the part of the military-industrial complex. A year ago, the Rand advocated bombing Syria like Libya, and conducting limited action on the ground by creating protected areas administered by the "revolutionaries". Today, it implicitly admits that there has never been a revolution in Syria and, after a long moment of hesitation on its future, the Sunni majority again supports the secular Republic. www.voltairenet.org...


The reason I have my doubts because if it is true then what the hell is John McCain doing running around like a dam fool still talking about the Free Syrian Army.

Well I may have answered my own question.

He’s doing that because he is a dam fool.

Anyway interesting article



… in Arabia, the new king Salman first tried to sack all former supporters of his predecessor, even going as far as to dismiss Prince Miteb and the Secretary General of the palace two hours after the death of King Abdullah. Then he retracted his decisions after receiving the condolences of his US sovereign. Ultimately, Miteb will be the only survivor of the previous era, while Prince Bandar was fired. But Bandar maintained Daesh with the help of the CIA, in order to put pressure on King Abdullah in the interest of the Saudi clan.


Time will tell whether this article is accurate. Although this alternative site is often over the top this writer has been accurate often.

We have to watch the neocon commentators whether they will stop talking crap about fighting Assad and Isil.




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Agreed, I also have my doubts;



While the jihadists have become a threat to the stability of all states in the Levant, including Israel, Netanyahu could continue to put his aviation and hospitals at their service


I sincerely hope that the above quote is a poor translation.

If this about face story is true it's just another demonstration that the neocons are the enemy. Their belief that they determine reality through erroneous & speculative meddling is demonstrable BS. They can theorise all they like about how they want to see the world, but like economists, they're only good at telling you why things went tits up after the fact.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Personally I feel that such a change is understandable considering that the balance of power in the Middle East, as well as the stability of the region, has changed considerably with the rise of ISIL. It is no secret that the main reason for Middle East intervention is protecting US oil resources. For instance, if Saudi Arabia were invaded by ISIL troops, or any other nation's troops, oil supplies to the US would be harmed, and even stopped in the most severe circumstances. There are strategic choke-points from which the flow of oil from Saudi Arabia could be cut off entirely, although ISIL does not seem capable of such actions at present. They definitely could disrupt this flow through terrorist attacks, considering that all water shipments of oil must pass through the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf, both of which are choke-points considering the narrowness they exhibit before opening into the Arabian Sea. Syria's only waterway connection is to the Mediterranean Sea, and because Saudi Arabia does not share a sea border of any kind with Syria, the threat in that regard is drastically reduced if war were to break out, and land forces would be the main factor. Given the importance of Saudi Arabia to US interests you can expect that any strategic or political/geo-political factors will hinge around that nation. So Saudi Arabia must always be considered when debating US strategy in the Middle East. Although the US is not an ally of Saudi Arabia in the same sense that we are an ally with Britain. There is just a mutual economic relationship there, meaning that the US would help Saudi Arabia, even militarily, if that nation was threatened, considering that a threat to Saudi Arabia is a threat to the US.

The main threat in the Middle East at present is terrorism, mainly the terrorist group ISIL, and this takes precedence over the possible threats from nations like Iran. This terrorist group is present in Iraq and more heavily in Syria. This means that if the US wants to combat ISIL, which we must do, the country of Syria must play a central role in any strategy that is adopted. And strategy and politics cannot be separated. Strategy is basically just an outlining of objectives done at the highest levels of government, but much of the time these policies do not directly outline what military actions are going to be utilized. This can occur, but it is not always the case. The actual military strategy of deploying military resources in a particular manner to achieve the political and military objectives is left up to the military commanders themselves most of the time. They are given a set of objectives, and then they get to decide the best way to achieve those objectives. Things have changed slightly in my opinion given that the US has taken its focus from a massive ground war in Europe and instead has been focusing on smaller, quick reaction, combined-arms forces that can operate in various environments and against various types of enemies. That is the basic strategy that has replaced the US military doctrine known as Airland Battle.

The current policy objectives of the United States are as follows: Ensure the existence of US allies and friendly nations. Dissuade military competition by other nations. Deter threats and coercion against U.S. interests, but if this deterrence fails, aim to decisively defeat any adversary. Everyone should keep these general objectives in mind when considering US actions in my opinion. While I will not get into the current US military strategies in more depth, I will say that they need a great bit of tweaking, considering that they rely on establishing superiority in EVERY SINGLE PHASE of warfare. From air, land, and sea, to information and cyber-warfare. This is thoroughly unrealistic in my opinion, but I suppose I am getting off track. The US strategy concerning ISIL was basically to defeat ISIL in Iraq, followed by defeating them in Syria. It was soon realized that this would not be feasible, and that Assad being in power would greatly hinder any US effort to defeat ISIL. There are multiple states in the region who wish for the removal of Assad as well, which also will affect the decision made by the US. Syrian refugees flood into neighboring nations, and these nations can see Assad's policies in action. What the Obama administration has made abundantly clear from the emergence of ISIL until now is that US strategy in the region will be tailored as time goes on. Obviously changing strategies for transient reasons would be a horrible mistake, but if one thing is obviously not working then it is best to take a different approach, and to basically salvage the forces and materiel remaining, instead of committing them to a fight in which they cannot hope to make any strategic gains. So with that in mind it is no surprise that the government and military leaders of the US would change their approach. Although I should have mentioned that I have not put much study into a recent policy change by the US, and was not even aware of as much.

In the context of defeating ISIL it makes perfect sense to align the nation with Syria, if only temporarily, to make the destruction of ISIL a coordinated effort. Let's face it: ISIL has a huge presence in Syria, and the majority of their resources are located in this area. If the US were actively working against Syria at present, this would greatly undermine the Syrian resistance effort against ISIL, meaning ISIL will grow in strength and conquer more of Syria than they currently possess. So by focusing on harming Syria the US would be giving ISIL more time and more power. And the US should not start a war with Syria while fighting ISIL, because that would be a major mistake. So while the US probably does want Assad out of power, the present time is a horrible time to destabilize Syria even more than it already is, because this only makes ISIL more powerful. Once ISIL is defeated I think the US will again place some focus on figuring out how to remove Assad from power, thus stabilizing the Middle East a bit more. In my personal opinion, and likely in the opinion of the US military leaders, the Middle East would be much more stable if democracy were instituted throughout countries like Syria, Iran, etc. Stability would not come easily or quickly, and the region probably never will be as stable as Western nations, but things would be better than they are at present.

I want to clarify the conflicting ideas I mentioned earlier. On the one hand the US may think Assad in power harms US efforts to defeat ISIL, while on the other hand pursuing a policy against Assad would destabilize the region even more, harming the US in the long run. So by temporarily aligning with Assad the US could easily forget their prior policies toward Syria until ISIL is no longer an issue, at which point the policies toward Syria can be re-evaluated and possibly altered. That is the way I view the matter at any rate.
edit on 2/9/15 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I appreciate the two thoughtful and informative responses.

My opinion from the very beginning of this Isil problem was that the Syria issue should be settled peacefully, and a temporary alignment with Syria should be done as the US aligned with Russia to defeat Hitler. Not countries throwing gasoline on the fire of the poor civilians in Syria.

The intervention of outside powers to me was a crime in Syria. By inflaming this phony “Arab Spring” Revolution” all they did was help kill innocent civilians.

IT WAS CLEAR ALL THEY WERE DOING WAS REPEATING THE MISTAKES THEY MADE IN Libya

It's clear many Arab societies may need a strong man. That’s just the way it is.

Let them come to democracy in their own time

I learned or am still learning things here. I had seen the CFR months ago say Obama should abandon his Syrian policy and because of Isil seek to align with Syria. Apparently that hadn't gotten to the politicians.

Then a couple of weeks ago a top foreign policy guru Leslie H. Gelb from the CFR wrote an oped about Obama aligning with Syria. He also wrote that Obama should fire Susan Rice and his foreign policy advisors.
www.thedailybeast.com...

If Obama does that it would be interesting.

Remember this is the group, the CFR, that Hillary Clinton said really ran foreign policy







Anyway its doubtful the US supported these Arab springs out iof any desire for them to have democracies.



edit on 9-2-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
LINK

I have my doubts about the assertions in this article even though I hope it’s true.

According to this article the PTB who before tried everything to dislodge Assad from Syria, they have turned 180 degrees from this and now want an Assad victory.




First, the crisis of authority that paralyzes the US continues to mobilize the ruling class. After the call from the honorary chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) for President Obama to surround himself with experienced personalities from both sides [1], the New York Times published an editorial [2] devoted to a report published in October by the Rand Corporation




The main think tank dedicated to military matters has made a 180 ° turnaround in one year. According to it, the victory of the Syrian Arab Republic is now "the most desirable option" for the US, while its fall would be "the worst of outcomes." Armed groups have lost support among the urban population, the defections have stopped for over a year and the Syrian army continues its liberation. Moreover, Rand continues, a Syrian victory will not benefit Iran as long as Daesh remains present in Iraq. The institute predicts that states that have so far supplied the jihadists will stop doing so. Indeed, they cannot hope to defeat Syria in this way and now fear that the jihadists will turn against them. Therefore, concluded the Rand, there will be no negotiated solution with the sponsor states, but a clear victory of the "regime" to which the United States should be associated.




One can observe the radical change of position on the part of the military-industrial complex. A year ago, the Rand advocated bombing Syria like Libya, and conducting limited action on the ground by creating protected areas administered by the "revolutionaries". Today, it implicitly admits that there has never been a revolution in Syria and, after a long moment of hesitation on its future, the Sunni majority again supports the secular Republic. www.voltairenet.org...


The reason I have my doubts because if it is true then what the hell is John McCain doing running around like a dam fool still talking about the Free Syrian Army.

Well I may have answered my own question.

He’s doing that because he is a dam fool.

Anyway interesting article



… in Arabia, the new king Salman first tried to sack all former supporters of his predecessor, even going as far as to dismiss Prince Miteb and the Secretary General of the palace two hours after the death of King Abdullah. Then he retracted his decisions after receiving the condolences of his US sovereign. Ultimately, Miteb will be the only survivor of the previous era, while Prince Bandar was fired. But Bandar maintained Daesh with the help of the CIA, in order to put pressure on King Abdullah in the interest of the Saudi clan.


Time will tell whether this article is accurate. Although this alternative site is often over the top this writer has been accurate often.

We have to watch the neocon commentators whether they will stop talking crap about fighting Assad and Isil.


More likely, if this was true up to the policy level, the media would in an Orwellian manner magically began lauding Assad and our efforts to help fight those mangy foreign terrorists. Suddenly half of the people I've debated about Syria would be talking about the need to help Assad, etc. LOL.

Or it will just be done covertly.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
I appreciate the two thoughtful and informative responses.

My opinion from the very beginning of this Isil problem was that the Syria issue should be settled peacefully, and a temporary alignment with Syria should be done as the US aligned with Russia to defeat Hitler. Not countries throwing gasoline on the fire of the poor civilians in Syria.

The intervention of outside powers to me was a crime in Syria. By inflaming this phony “Arab Spring” Revolution” all they did was help kill innocent civilians.

IT WAS CLEAR ALL THEY WERE DOING WAS REPEATING THE MISTAKES THEY MADE IN Libya

It's clear many Arab societies may need a strong man. That’s just the way it is.

Let them come to democracy in their own time

I learned or am still learning things here. I had seen the CFR months ago say Obama should abandon his Syrian policy and because of Isil seek to align with Syria. Apparently that hadn't gotten to the politicians.

Then a couple of weeks ago a top foreign policy guru Leslie H. Gelb from the CFR wrote an oped about Obama aligning with Syria. He also wrote that Obama should fire Susan Rice and his foreign policy advisors.
www.thedailybeast.com...

If Obama does that it would be interesting.

Remember this is the group, the CFR, that Hillary Clinton said really ran foreign policy







Anyway its doubtful the US supported these Arab springs out iof any desire for them to have democracies.



I agree with most of it excepting most Arab countries needing a strong man.
Just like Central and South America, a lot of countries had previously installed western backed dictators over often "gerrymandered" country boundaries (see Iraq's formation) that placed incongruent and even warring social groups together. Then, when you take that off, such as removing Saddam, it unveils the problems that were created by neo-colonialism and empire in the first place, such as the Kurds being forced to live in "Iraq."



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Willtell
I appreciate the two thoughtful and informative responses.

My opinion from the very beginning of this Isil problem was that the Syria issue should be settled peacefully, and a temporary alignment with Syria should be done as the US aligned with Russia to defeat Hitler. Not countries throwing gasoline on the fire of the poor civilians in Syria.

The intervention of outside powers to me was a crime in Syria. By inflaming this phony “Arab Spring” Revolution” all they did was help kill innocent civilians.

IT WAS CLEAR ALL THEY WERE DOING WAS REPEATING THE MISTAKES THEY MADE IN Libya

It's clear many Arab societies may need a strong man. That’s just the way it is.

Let them come to democracy in their own time

I learned or am still learning things here. I had seen the CFR months ago say Obama should abandon his Syrian policy and because of Isil seek to align with Syria. Apparently that hadn't gotten to the politicians.

Then a couple of weeks ago a top foreign policy guru Leslie H. Gelb from the CFR wrote an oped about Obama aligning with Syria. He also wrote that Obama should fire Susan Rice and his foreign policy advisors.
www.thedailybeast.com...

If Obama does that it would be interesting.

Remember this is the group, the CFR, that Hillary Clinton said really ran foreign policy







Anyway its doubtful the US supported these Arab springs out iof any desire for them to have democracies.



I agree with most of it excepting most Arab countries needing a strong man.
Just like Central and South America, a lot of countries had previously installed western backed dictators over often "gerrymandered" country boundaries (see Iraq's formation) that placed incongruent and even warring social groups together. Then, when you take that off, such as removing Saddam, it unveils the problems that were created by neo-colonialism and empire in the first place, such as the Kurds being forced to live in "Iraq."


I might be wrong but people should change according to their own level of development.

I explained this to an oped columnist once who was griping that the Arabs need to adapt democracy asap.

I wrote the guy and said to him this.

The Arabs don’t have a long history of democratic institutions nor a tardiiton even giving lip service to the democratic paradigm.

Therefore it may be dangerous to try to graft democracy on those societies.

This well known columnist actually emailed me back and guess what

He agreed with me and conceded his error in thinking

Once the Arabs get some institutional understanding of democracy through exposure to such ideas then they may be more inclined to it.

Also when they get over this Islamic jihad mess



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Here’s How Obama and Assad Team Up Against ISIS


Looks like the article may have merit. The above daily beast oped seems to confirm the oped in Voltaire
www.voltairenet.org...




Washington and Damascus are not coordinating their battle plans against the so-called Islamic State at any official level, but a de facto deal between them is increasingly obvious. The Assad regime is conducting follow-up bombing raids in the wake of sorties by the U.S.-led coalition, and it has launched a land offensive in eastern Syria that is helping the coalition and the Kurds shut down the jihadist supply lines to Mosul in northern Iraq. This evident, if indirect coordination, is feeding Sunni Muslim suspicions in the region that Syrian President Bashar Assad and U.S. President Barack Obama have decided to work together.


Maybe Obama was obeying the CFR elites all the time.

Lets see if he also fires Susan Rice and those other advisers
edit on 10-2-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join