Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Czar Wars
I don’t mean to ruin anyone’s morale, but I’m going to, anyway. I understand that some of you may be thinking, “Why not let Putin fight ISIS? Better him than us, wouldn’t you say? Especially since all we seem to be able to do is make more of them. Right?”
Well, sure, if that’s what he were doing. But it’s not.
MiG-31 Foxhound interceptor fighter jets, Su-30 fighters, Su-25 attack planes, Su-24 bombers, Su-34 bombers, Su-27 Flanker interceptor fighter jets, an Il-20 spy plane, armored vehicles, and SA-15 and SA-22 surface-to-air missiles? As David Axe puts it (understatedly) that’s “not really optimal for attacking lightly armed insurgent fighters.” And as he further notes, correctly, “Surface-to-air missiles are only good for destroying enemy aircraft, which Syrian rebels do not possess. And the Su-30s are best suited for tangling with other high-tech forces.”
In other words, folks, Putin’s there to wage war on us, not ISIS. Get it?
Or at the very least, he’s there to make sure there won’t be a safe zone along the border from Jarablus to Azaz. Sending interceptor fighter jets to Syria makes no sense unless you’re planning to intercept jets. ISIS, Nusra, and Ahrar al-Sham don’t have jets to intercept. QED.
It gets worse. David Ropkoth is right about this:
When Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, met with journalists in New York last Friday, he took pains to note that Iran and Russia were not joining together in a “coalition” in Syria. They were sharing intelligence. They were discussing strategy. They were in constant communication. But a coalition? No.
Two days later, the Iraqi government announced it too was sharing intelligence with Russia, Iran, and Syria. So perhaps Rouhani was being literal in a different way when he disavowed being in a coalition with Russia — because what he was actually involved in was a coalition with Russia, Iraq, and Syria.
And it gets worse still if you imagine what logically comes next. What if Iran decides to openly sprint for a Bomb? What if they just throw off all pretense of compliance and go for it? And why wouldn’t they, given that Putin’s now declared himself Czar and Protector of the Shia axis? Think even the next president would try to stop that? Direct conflict with Iran and Russia? As Trump might say, “I’m the most militaristic person there is” — but that wouldn’t be militaristic, that would be stupid. And suicidal.
And also by the way, that above-linked DHS report is full of cheering news:
Despite a year of U.S. and allied airstrikes, the group has held most of its territory and continues to replenish its ranks with outside recruits. Military officials estimate airstrikes have killed around 10,000 extremists, but new foreign fighters replace them almost as quickly as they are killed. ISIS has also grown from a single terrorist sanctuary to having a direct presence, affiliates, or groups pledging support in 18 countries. The organization is believed to have inspired or directed nearly 60 terrorist plots or attacks against Western countries, including 15 in the United States. Some of these were masterminded by foreign fighters based in Syria, while others were carried out by returnees themselves or homegrown extremists. … When the strikes began, counterterrorism officials estimated the total number of extremists was around 15,000. .. Today the figure stands at 25,000-plus foreign fighters.
Also, as you’ve probably heard, Kunduz fell to the Taliban. First provincial capital to fall to them since 2001.
And sorry to be just a complete Daisy Downer, but it gets even worse. Because Congress can’t pass a budget. (You had one job.) So the military might have to operate under last year’s spending plan.
According to Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook, “hope remains that lawmakers will strike a deal to fund the government when the fiscal year ends Sept. 30.” He “insisted the situation was not yet dire enough to warn defense employees of the potential fallout.” Well, that’s what he should say, we hardly want him shrieking hysterically for the whole world to hear, but we can read between the lines, I reckon:
… So, Mr. President, kind of looks to me like we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed. … Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks. …
If you think I’m being unduly pessimistic, feel free to correct me. I’d love to feel better about this, but I just can’t see why I should.
Published in Foreign Policy, General, Military
Ready-made heavy-handed fist right on their border. And we’re pulling back US Navy elements?
From what I have heard I can break down the current list of people into three groups. People that leave me hopeful, people who leave me troubled, and people who I haven’t heard from.
Rubio, Carley, Lindsy, and Christie sound serious to me. The following people I don’t recall them saying anything on this issue that I have heard or if I heard it that made me feel either confident or troubled Jeb!, Cruz, Huck, Santorum, Jindal, Pataki, Kasich, or that Virginia guy. Rand, Carson, and Trump have left me seriously troubled by their view’s or their inability to articulate them well.
I have said before and will again that Rubio is my guy. I think he is very thoughtful and correct on foreign policy. He sees what is happening clearly and I think he shares my thinking about what should be done. I trust him to do the right thing and also to be able to explain that in a convincing and correct manner.
I agree with you that much of what Romney said about foreign policy back in 2012 has proven true.
The 80’s called. They want to know if we want a second-hand foreign policy.
Only used once, but it went undefeated.
It’s not hyperventilating; it is recognizing reality. America’s role in the Mid-East is coming to an end.
Maybe it is a good thing, maybe not. But it is ending.
I’m sorry, but your hyperbole simply has no relation to actual facts.
I had always liked Rubio, but maybe because I haven’t heard him in a while, I am losing some enthusiasm. He seems to be falling into the conventional knee-jerk reaction posture to ISIS and stuff, when a subtle mind might see much opportunity here. I don’t want another G.W.Bush-type (much as I liked him personally) who basically is led around by the nose by AQ and other bad actors. On my score card, when Muslims are slaughtering Muslims, we are winning.
Relax already. Russia messing with the Israelis would be like Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. We would engage on Israel’s behalf and then NATO would be poised to back us up if Russia dared retaliate. Not that we would need backup, of course.
And, of course, GOP’s prospects in 2016 just went up by ~20%.
PS. If Obama, (I know, not likely, eh) needed to send a message to the Russians, he could fast track Israel’s membership in NATO. That would be fun.
CT,
I am not up on all the proper nomenclature, however, I think I get the tactics. I want ship to ship missiles. As the Eastern Mediterranean and off the coast of Israel isn’t that big a space I’m quite sure this will hold them back. Of course, it would require a commander in chief who was a commander in chief not a camp counselor.
Regards,
Jim
Every country other than Canada would blackball.
You have the greatest attitude. :)
I hope you’re right.
Maybe. But they really don’t count. NATO only exists because we will it so. The day we lose interest (and that day may be coming if we gain energy independence in 5 years with fracking), it withers and dies.
Here’s a possible scenario. After Putin forces Obama to the role of observer in the Middle East, he opens a second front in the Ukraine. At that point will Obama even object? How many months until Russian tanks are on the western border of Ukraine?
This has been my take since I first heard about it.
This site:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d4d41cc-615c-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3nFkVcrOY
says that the anti-air assets are deployed to defend the airfield up North in Syria. If so, doubtful Israeli’s would have any problem with them, as they could underfly easily, especially if SA allows overflight to Iran – as some ‘suggest’ might be arranged.
Obama will write a letter expressing “serious concern” and then put it in Russia’s permanent record.
If it ever got to a point where Russia would say that they might mess with Israel or deter Israel (and you can define those things a lot of different ways) then the strategic battle is probably over.
That may be true at this point in time, although deployable assets can be adjusted on short notice. What Dan and I are getting at is that having these sorts of forces in the region for an extended time may complicate or interfere with Israel’s ability to respond to Iran’s nuclear program.
Another thought–as a power-broker in the Middle East, Russia can choose who it wants to support. By all indications, right now it’s siding with Iran. If Israel feels truly threatened by Iran, Israel might be willing to make concessions to Russia to allow it to strike the Iranian nuclear sites. I don’t necessarily think that this is possible, but the fact that Bibi just went to Moscow means that nothing is off the table.
So, in actuality, the Israelis might have far higher concern that the US would shut down an Israeli raid on Iran than Russians. In fact, there is a provision in the Iran Nuclear “treaty” under review, maybe one of the secret codicils, that requires US to ‘defend’ Iran from hostile actions, of which this might easily be interpreted as one such.
From the Free Beacon:
Following Russian Air Strikes, Israeli Defense Minister Says Israel Will Defend Its Interests in Syria
Says country does not need permission from Russia
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/following-russian-air-strikes-israeli-defense-minister-says-israel-will-defend-its-interests-in-syria/
That is Mona Charen.
Not billy.
The hyperbolic, unhinged, talk radio-crazed Mona Charen, who is always going off on Putin and the Middle East.
I like Mona, but she’s just wrong.
Let me know when the US goes a month without dropping bombs in the Middle East, then we can talk about America’s role in the Middle East coming to an end.
Does any American action in the Mid-East have consequence?
I’m not sure I get your question.
Great power doesn’t mean omnipotence.
A bit dated, but indicative:
Between Bush and Obama we have destabilized the entire region. Iraq has become a stooge of Iran and won’t be returning to our orbit any time soon. The guys we have backed don’t have any will to fight and our weapons end up with ISIS. All those migrating young men just want to go to Europe and make mayhem. They don’t want any part of fighting for a homeland. Some think it is a great idea that the West takes these people in. Our young men should not have to fight over on their turf again and we shouldn’t take a one of them unless they are Christian. In Afghanistan, we are done as well. The allies of Pakistan will win the day and the fraud of democracy in the Muslim world will be exposed one more time. In the end we have been sustaining pederasts in abusing their young charges and nothing more. It is important to remember that some really bright people with the best of credentials came up with this unsustainable strategy in the Middle East. The appropriate feeling for this mess is despondence. We smashed a balance of power with nothing rational to put in its place. To our dismay we are watching a new balance being forged. Our real choice ISIS or Iran and Russia? The Baath party is looking pretty good about now.
Maybe it just means that Putin is in charge of the refugee spigot. If Europe doesn’t cooperate, he does things in Syria that sends floods of them. Greece (and Italy) has been threatening since the spring to let in floods of migrants and send them on to Germany (in particular) if the EU doesn’t stop talking austerity. I wonder if they’re coordinating with Putin.
Well, yes, I’ve been wallowing in a touch of the ole’ despond myself, but look, that’s not going to solve a single problem. One thing the world does not need is Americans going into heavy-duty despair mode.
I don’t really disagree with any of the particulars, Claire. But I suspect Russia’s heavy military hardware is more a threat aimed at Turkish intervention in the north rather than say American. If this has the double effect of making Obama cower even more, well then all the better for Putin.
Also, “lightly armed” insurgents is a bit murky of a description. ISIS does after all have hundreds of tanks and heavily armored vehicles.
The Assyrian Diaspora seems mostly warm to Russian intervention as do the Kurds. The only worries from Christians there seems to be that ISIS will renew offensives against Assyrian lands for being friends to the Russian “crusaders.” But not that Putin is necessarily in the wrong.
I suspect LTC Ralph Peters is correct in his assessment that Putin would prefer annihilating the FSA and Syrian opposition first leaving the next president with the fair accompli of choosing between Assad and ISIS (which seems to be the grim choice already).
That could be right.
Wait until they learn what it’s like to be invaded by Russians. Historically, no one has positive memories of this. Whenever people suggest to me that the US and the Soviet invasions of Afghanistan were similar things, I ask them how they explain this:
30.55 million