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.
Syria, Russia, and Trump
I’m not sure how much news about Aleppo is filtering through the non-stop election coverage. Although my sense was that Gary Johnson did, indeed, know what Aleppo was (and just flubbed the question through some kind of inattention), that kind of inattention is only possible if the subject just isn’t something you think about all that much.
I don’t know whether he’s typical of American voters. It’s not something the next president will be able to ignore, though, that’s for sure. Aleppo’s now a hellscape reminiscent of the Battle of Stalingrad. Even by the horrifying standards of the Syrian war, the past week’s events Aleppo represent a new level of depravity. Russian and Syrian government airstrikes killed more than 300 people, most of them civilians and many of them children; more than 250,000 civilians are trapped. They’re under attack by the Syrian military and by thousands of foreign militiamen commanded by Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah fighters, and Russian ground troops; and they’re under bombardment by heavy Russian and Syrian air power — the most sustained and intense bombardment since the beginning of the war. A genuine Axis of Evil, if anything ever was, has emerged from this. Most of the civilians are, according to the Violations Documentation Center in Syria, being killed by Russians. I don’t know how reliable they are, so take this with the usual caveats:
Meanwhile, Putin has formally resurrected the KGB itself:
According to the Russian daily Kommersant, a major new reshuffle of Russia’s security agencies is under way that will unite the FSB (the main successor agency to the KGB) with Russia’s foreign intelligence service into a new super-agency called the Ministry of State Security — a report that, significantly, wasn’t denied by the Kremlin or the FSB itself.
The new agency, which revives the name of Stalin’s secret police between 1943 and 1953, will be as large and powerful as the old Soviet KGB, employing as many as 250,000 people.
The creation of the new Ministry of State Security represents a “victory for the party of the Chekists,” said Moscow security analyst Tatyana Stanovaya, referring to the first Bolshevik secret police. The important difference is that, at its core, the reshuffle marks Putin’s asserting his own personal authority over Russia’s security apparatus. …
“On the night of September 18 to 19 … the country went from authoritarian to totalitarian,” wrote former liberal Duma deputy Gennady Gudkov on his Facebook page.
And the Ukrainian military is reporting the heaviest day of fighting since the latest attempt at a ceasefire came into effect on September 15.
Richard Cohen at the Washington Post, not exactly known as a Trump booster, is absolutely scathing about the Administration’s role in this:
This is not Kerry’s failure. It is Obama’s. He takes overweening pride in being the anti-George W. Bush. Obama is the president who did not get us into any nonessential wars of the Iraq variety. The consequences for Syria have been dire — perhaps 500,000 dead, 7 million internal refugees, with millions more surging toward Europe like a tsunami of the desperate.
European politics has been upended — Germany’s Angela Merkel is in trouble, Britain has bolted from the European Union, and Hungary and Poland are embracing their shameful pasts — but there is yet another casualty of this war, the once-universal perception that the United States would never abide the slaughter of innocents on this scale. Yet, we have. Obama has proclaimed doing nothing as doing something — lives saved, a quagmire avoided. But doing nothing is not nothing. It is a policy of its own, in this case allowing the creation of a true axis of evil: a gleeful, high-kicking chorus line of Russia, Iran and Bashar al-Assad’s Syria. They stomp on everything in their path.
Aleppo then is like Guernica, a place of carnage. It’s also a symbol of American weakness. The same Putin who mucks around in Syria has filched U.S. emails and barged into the U.S. election. He has kept Crimea and a hunk of Ukraine and may decide tomorrow that the Baltics, once Soviet, need liberating from liberation. He long ago sized up Obama: all brain, no muscle.
All over the world, U.S. power is dismissed. The Philippine president, a volcanic vulgarian, called the president a “son of a whore” and, instead of doing an update of sending in the fleet, Obama canceled a meeting. China constructs synthetic islands in the Pacific Ocean, claiming shipping lanes that no one should own, and every once in a while a U.S. warship cruises close — but not too close. We pretend to have made a point. The Chinese wave and continue building. The North Koreans are developing a nuclear missile to reach Rodeo Drive, and God only knows what the Iranians are up to deep in their tunnels.
Does all this stem from Uncle Sam’s bended knee in Syria? Who knows? But U.S. reluctance to act has almost certainly given others resolve.
A question for those of you who plan to vote for Donald Trump. Your logic (I assume) is that Hillary Clinton is associated with Obama’s disastrous foreign policy, and should pay the price for this at the ballot box. If this were a normal election, who could disagree? But don’t you think that it isn’t a normal election? Unlike hapless Gary Johnson, Donald Trump almost certainly has no idea what Aleppo is, and he’s shown no desire or ability to learn. You saw it: He arrived at the debate as unprepared to discuss foreign policy as he was at the start of his campaign. And to the extent he has any coherent policy, it’s explicitly to make the Obama Administration’s foreign policy look interventionist by comparison.
Vladimir Putin not only supports Trump, but is almost certainly actively interfering with an American election with the aim of ushering him into office. Trump, as we saw in the debate, either doesn’t know this, or denies it, or doesn’t even understand what the relevant words mean:
As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said. We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don’t — maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?
You don’t know who broke in to DNC.
But what did we learn with DNC? We learned that Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of by your people, by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Look what happened to her. But Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of. That’s what we learned.
Now, whether that was Russia, whether that was China, whether it was another country, we don’t know, because the truth is, under President Obama we’ve lost control of things that we used to have control over.
We came in with the Internet, we came up with the Internet, and I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what [the Islamic State] is doing with the Internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS.
So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is — it is a huge problem. I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it’s hardly doable.
Did that garbled speech make Trump-supporters here hesitate at all? “I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers?” We all know elderly, disoriented people who talk like that. In my experience people who talk like that can’t understand these things — it’s not that they don’t want to, it’s that they don’t have the cognitive ability. How could Donald Trump possibly understand what people tell him about Russia and Syria, even if he did surround himself with “the best” advisors?
Do you see any sign that “the best” advisors are helping him to understand what he’d confront from his first minute in office? If so, what sign do you see that I don’t?
Published in General
There is no answer to this question Obama or Clinton can give. Perhaps the Trump ,”let them kill each other” answer has merit.
I find it astounding that the gems are the party of military intervention and Wall St cronyism now and that a bunch of idiot semi-conservatives find her, Her, preferable for them. Good God.
Seeking to save people who won’t save themselves is a recipe for disaster.
In Prince Caspian, I think, one of the factions of Narnians held out because they wanted to know Caspian was serious about fighting before getting involved.
Exporting “Democracy” is excellent propaganda for American Exceptionalism, but every time we’ve done so, the people vote in a new dictator. Even if the ME wanted democracy, this isn’t usually the real reason we get involved.
This is an extraordinary statistic. How did this happen? Have all the adult males enlisted or been impressed to fight for one or another faction? Or are they just counted as combatants and thus don’t figure in the ‘trapped and under seige’ figure? Or did they go Cologne?
Claire Berlinski, Ed. on Trump:
My mom is 85 and her mind is sharp as a tack. Claire’s age bias might be because she does not know a elder person. She also makes unknowable claims and is peddling conspiracy theories. Should this be on main feed? It has one recommendation. It does not present the best of Claire’s work and appears more like a rant than well considered thought.
I joined the party late and have not read the 124 comments, sorry if this was already mentioned.
According to wiki in 2011 almost 40% of the Syrian population was under 14. Another 10% between 15 and 19.
Given their demographics it isn’t that unbelievable.
I’m not sure why you interpret his comments that way: Has he written something else about Poland and Hungary that would lead you to this interpretation? Because the most obvious interpretation is that he’s expressing a widespread (and bipartisan) concern about both countries’ reversion to authoritarianism; specifically, to the crackdown and attacks on domestic opposition and the press in both countries, the harassment of civil society groups, the subvention of the independent judiciaries, and the leaderships’ explicit repudiation of liberal democracy. Yes, like all authoritarians, Orbán responds to criticism by saying it’s a matter of “national sovereignty,” just as China dismisses criticism of its human rights record by complaining that foreigners are interfering in its “domestic politics” — but that doesn’t mean we should take that at face value! Orbán and Erdoğan have been on remarkably similar trajectories over roughly the same time period, and I simply don’t believe them when they say this is a legitimate “assertion of sovereignty.”
Can you find any knowledgeable source on Hungary (who isn’t an Orban mouthpiece or Russia Today) who sees no cause for concern in these events? What about the rise of Jobbik, which calls the Holocaust the “Holoscam” — does that not seem to you reminiscent of darker days? Hungary’s openly pro-Putin foreign policy? Does the stacking of the Constitutional Court in Poland cause you no concern at all? No eyebrows raised at the way they did this in the dead of night? The replacement of the heads of the security services with party loyalists? Polish friends old enough to remember say these scenes are eerily reminiscent of communist days. They’re horrified by it.
As for accounts of the “ever-growing EU bureaucracy that wants to eat individual European nations alive,” both Poland and Hungary voluntarily joined the EU — and it accounts for 95 percent of Hungary’s public investments. As Brexit showed pretty clearly, the EU doesn’t send in troops when a country decides to leave. There’s only one country in Europe that’s busily rearranging borders by force, or “eating countries alive” — and that’s Russia. No one is being melded into a “Great Brussels Collective.” But Vladimir Putin does seem to be trying to reconstitute the Soviet sphere of influence. Hypothesizing a non-existent threat from Brussels when the West really is under attack by Russia, not metaphorically but literally, makes no sense to me.
Wasn’t the court packed by the outgoing party before the incoming (democratically elected) party tried to restack it? This is not
Surely you can find a better article than that one.
I mean, I agree with the author that the FEC (“restrict political advertising”), the FCC (“tightening media oversight”), excess profits taxes and political appointments to the Fed to manipulate monetary policy are incompatible with a pure liberal democracy, but…
Why are Americans so shocked that other cultures prefer authoritarian governments? Do we hope they get a benign dictator? Certainly. But some people prefer the steady security that comes with a dictatorship even if it means less freedom because in the long run, they are content to go along in their everyday life. I mean look at Europe, the land of Kings and Emperors! They took their democratically elected leaders and made them subordinate to the EU (that used to be the Catholic Church placement, fyi).
Eastern Europeans, Libya, Egypt, S. America. We topple one dictatorship and they install a new one. Let them figure their own [coc] out.
I thought the reason we are there is to beat back ISIS – and I thought the original reason the Russians went – but their true purpose was to prop up Assad and they have the help of the Iranians and Hezbollah – talk about an apocalyptic scene! We are there to help the Syrian people and stop the exterminators who have spread evil beyond Syria – Russia is not – they are there for their empire.
And an unsettling one.
Except that millions of its citizens are now without a country and scattered to the 4 corners including US, where stretched resources have to care for them, and from Syria, ISIS began their evil reign of ethnic cleansing, rape, be-headings, burning people alive, and devising diabolical plans that have spread to our country and worldwide in the form of attacks – that’s why Syria matters.
Honestly I think at this point you’re mostly there, to the extent that you are, to stop Russia from getting its own unsinkable battleship on the Med.
But what does it look like in five years?
My guess, if we keep clumsily attempting to “help” the people of Syria, and succeed in ending the Assad regime- in five years we have an Islamist terrorist state, with any Alawites or Christians dead or fled, along with many Muslims as well. We will be blamed- rightly- for that, as well as a great many lesser atrocities, all after expending an enormous amount of wealth- and possibly blood as well- for this bizarre and unpopular project. We have no friends there now, and I expect we will have none once we are finished. We may gain yet another expensive client state, with endless demands for subsidies of all types, and its own immigration quota.
I see no reason to do this.
What’s your guess about the end result?
To the best of my knowledge, combattants in Syria are divided into four groups : Government (Assad plus Putin), Kurds, ISIS and other Sunni anti-Assad rebels.
America needs to make a choice : support ONE side or stay out. Either way, the world must know what choice has been made. NATO also should get involved.
By the way, my own UK seems to be the only country pouring funds INTO Syria to create safe havens for Syrians in their own land.
Otherwise. excellent article as usual from CB.
This post is keeping me up at night. The average American has no clue or care about dangers gathering strength in Europe and Russia, just like prior to WWII. Claire’s statements about Poland and Hungary are news to me because I don’t see headlines talking about it. Claire, has your gut ever been wrong? Because as much as I don’t like Hillary, I don’t want all hell to break loose. I see it breaking loose in Syria, with the Iran deal, growth of antisemitism, destabilizing of Europe (much deliberately by Russia fueling Syria, supporting Iran and other foes, and inching further into Eastern Europe), civil unrest and disrespect for the law, gender confusion, false economic numbers – there are many indicators that hell is breaking loose. Does Trump have the intelligence to restrain evil, because this is where we are. Would Hillary? Or would it be back to dovish Obama policy and Clinton distractions? As long as she has been in public office, I don’t think she has the intelligence either, or grasps the hell breaking loose scenario. What to do besides stock the bunker and buy extra cat food and Rolaids?
Isn’t that the whole premise for her next book?
I see your point – in five years – I think the world will be in tough shape no matter what.
Meaning?
It has, certainly. On many things. I had no sense at all of the gathering 2008 financial crisis, for example. If you’d asked me, I would have said there was no way anyone would try to stage a coup in Turkey in 2016. I thought no way in a million years would Trump be the GOP candidate; I figured he was just a flash in the media pan.
When I look at my predictive record, I think it’s better than random, but I do get a lot wrong.
Meaning that exploring this question is the premise for her next book – you can donate, too!
I repeat, Syria is not a problem for the United States. Those Syrian citizens do have a country- Syria. It is not our task to feed and care for them, period. Nor is it our task to build them a better country, or admit them to ours, so their lives will be better.
About ISIS, I would like that vile group exterminated down the last fetus. This requires that we destroy ISIS, not that we rebuild Syria or care for its inhabitants. I suggest we target our policy towards that end, not towards ending the Assad regime. Thus, I suggest we end our insane policy of arming Al-Qaeda in Syria, or any other Islamist group, and arm the Kurds. Then, we help them, using their boots on the ground, erase ISIS, with US air power as needed, to the extent possible. We help the Iraqi government do the same, and encourage Assad likewise. I admit some of this is already occurring, although with the Obama regime’s characteristic incompetence.
Then, we let Syria- and Iraq- find a brighter future on their own. Or not.
I donated twice – it’s going to be a doozy!
But but but… this requires an alliance with the RUSSIANS!! How dare you suggest we be friends with The Evil Putin! Why don’t you marry him if you love him so much?
Thank you, Genferei!
Thank you, FSC! I suddenly felt incredibly guilty that I’m wasting time chatting on Ricochet instead of working on the book. I’ll get back to work now. (I have some really interesting interviews lined up next month with people who have a lot of inside insight into the French security services. There will definitely be good stuff in this book.)
For those interested in the impact of the Syrian war, you might want to tune into Blinken’s testimony on CSPAN now …
Libya has generally been my sense of the cheaply available outcome in Syria. Democracy, the eventual expulsion of ISIS (obviously, if this had been an early intervention, the non-existence of ISIS in its current form). No catastrophic consequences for Europe or the global economy, massively less death. It seems plausible that a government like those in Tunisia or Iraq might have been attainable, but even something substantially less functional (Lebanon, perhaps) would have been fine.
A client state would be expensive and a dictator unstable. In the interim, an interim government that is able to take control of the country, with a constitutional convention in the Summer and elections in the Fall or Winter.
Indeed. In 2010, Syrian population was over 23 million and the median age was about 22. Of the refugees outside of Syria, I think the ones in the camps in Jordan, Turkey and other neighboring countries have the typical refugee profile of mostly women, children and the elderly. Males of military age are heavily overrepresented in the migrants to Europe. So, though not a majority a significant plurality of the Syrian males in that demographic are in Cologne (etc.)