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.
Trump, ISIS, and Russia
I wanted to highlight some comments from the debate that really baffled me:
Trump: I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example. But I don’t know Putin.
Is he unaware that the US has been trying, frantically, to get Russia to “fight ISIS together” — and that this has been the result?
U.S.-Russia relations fell to a new post-Cold War low Monday as the Obama administration abandoned efforts to cooperate with Russia on ending the Syrian civil war and forming a common front against terrorists there, and Moscow suspended a landmark nuclear agreement.
Trump continued:
But I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians are — she doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia. And the reason they blame Russia because they think they’re trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia. I know — I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don’t deal there. I have no businesses there. I have no loans from Russia. …
Russia attacked the United States. Trump was apparently extensively briefed about this. Why would he intimate that this is all made up? Does he really believe that? Do you think he really believes it? If not, why is he saying it?
But if you look at Russia, just take a look at Russia, and look at what they did this week, where I agree, she wasn’t there, but possibly she’s consulted. We sign a peace treaty.
A peace treaty? Does he mean the ceasefire?
Everyone’s all excited. Well, what Russia did with Assad and, by the way, with Iran, who you made very powerful with the dumbest deal perhaps I’ve ever seen in the history of deal-making, the Iran deal, with the $150 billion, with the $1.7 billion in cash, which is enough to fill up this room.
But look at that deal. Iran now and Russia are now against us.
What deal? Does he think the deal caused Russia and Iran to become hostile to the United States? What is he talking about?
So she wants to fight. She wants to fight for rebels. There’s only one problem. You don’t even know who the rebels are. So what’s the purpose?
The only one who doesn’t seem to know who the actors here are is Trump.
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, your two minutes is up.
TRUMP: And one thing I have to say.
RADDATZ: Your two minutes is up.
TRUMP: I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. And Iran is killing ISIS. And those three have now lined up because of our weak foreign policy.
Frankly, we’d be better off with the guy who didn’t know what Aleppo was. Trump either believes something nonsensical, or he knows what he’s saying is rubbish and he’s trying deliberately to mislead the American people about who our adversaries are and the seriousness of the threat. None of these parties is “killing ISIS.” Russia’s campaign has barely dented ISIS. ISIS’s territorial losses have mostly come at the hands of Kurdish militias backed by a US-led coalition. Russia rarely even targets ISIS in Syria. Unless you live in a universe of skepticism so profound that the only sources you believe are Russian propaganda outlets, you’d know this. This paper is one of almost infinitely many reports and analyses from groups across the political spectrum to report that no, Russia’s not killing ISIS:
Initial Russian Defense Ministry combat reports claimed that ISIS was the only target. Yet analysis of open source and social media intelligence (OSSMINT) quickly revealed that the ministry’s claims were deceptive, and that the Russian strikes were not primarily targeting ISIS. Subsequent research also revealed evidence of the use of cluster munitions and bombs that destroyed civilian targets.
OSSMINT analysis further reveals that Putin’s claim that Russia was “able to radically change the situation in fighting international terrorism” does not match the reality on the ground. The almost six months of Russian air strikes caused only peripheral damage to ISIS: Their positions at the end of the campaign were little altered from those at the start. The strikes also had a limited effect on the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, which launched an attack on more moderate forces just days before Putin announced: mission accomplished.
In fact, the main beneficiary of the Russian air strikes was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose forces were able to retake key areas in and around Latakia and Aleppo. The main losers were the more moderate rebels against Assad, including those backed by the West.
The hallmark of the Russian campaign was disinformation. It accompanied the launch of the campaign; it covered the targets chosen and the weapons used to strike them; it masked the real purpose of the campaign, and the strategic effect that it achieved.
In the words of the study’s authors,
Putin’s policy was to distract, deceive, and destroy. The buildup to the Russian air strikes distracted Western and Russian attention from Putin’s Ukrainian operations and the buildup of his forces in Syria. The official campaign reports deceived the world about the mission’s true targets and goals. The operation destroyed the capabilities of the only credible non-jihadist alternative to Assad’s regime, including those elements directly backed by the West. This fits a pattern of behavior already played out in Ukraine. It can be used as a template to predict, examine, and judge his future actions.
Or here’s a report from the Institute for the Study of War:
Key Takeaway: Russia’s involvement in Syria is facilitating ISIS’s territorial gains, while also strengthening Assad. Russia is supporting the Syrian regime’s offensives in Latakia, the al-Ghab Plain, and northern Hama. Russia also intensified strikes on rebel-held northwestern Aleppo, likely to set conditions for an imminent Russian-Iranian-Syrian regime offensive in the area. U.S. defense officials and local Syrian activists reported the arrival of hundreds of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-Quds Force fighters and other Iranian proxy forces in Aleppo over the past few days. Russian strikes largely concentrated along the rebel-held supply route leading to the besieged regime enclaves of Nubl and Zahraa northwest of Aleppo City. If the regime can link with these enclaves, they will successfully sever the rebel-held supply route from Aleppo City to the Turkish border. Simultaneous regime offensives in both Hama and Aleppo Provinces will likely fix rebel forces along multiple fronts and prevent them from reinforcing their positions across northwestern Syria, resulting in a loss of terrain for the Syrian opposition.
ISIS is benefiting from Russia’s strikes on the Syrian opposition. On October 9, ISIS advanced 10 kilometers against rebels in northeastern Aleppo, the largest advance by ISIS in the province since August 2015. ISIS continued to conduct probing attacks against rebels northeast of Aleppo City from October 10-14. The Syrian regime and ISIS have historically leveraged one another’s offensives in order to advance against rebel forces in the northern Aleppo countryside. Both ISIS and the regime will likely capitalize on the effects of Russian airstrikes on rebels. Russian airstrikes have thus far failed to deter ISIS from launching new offensives and rather have facilitated ISIS’s seizure of new terrain.
Someone — probably many people — has explained this to Donald Trump. But he’s either chosen not to believe it, or he’s consciously lying about it. Why? If he wins the election, he’ll have to do something about this situation. How is he going to explain that no, we can’t cooperate with Russia to kill ISIS, because Russia doesn’t share our objectives?
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, let me repeat the question. If you were president…
(LAUGHTER)
… what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? And I want to remind you what your running mate said. He said provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength and that if Russia continues to be involved in air strikes along with the Syrian government forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the Assad regime.
TRUMP: OK. He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree. I disagree.
RADDATZ: You disagree with your running mate?
Why does he disagree with his running mate about this very fundamental issue of national security? Does he really believe that Assad is fighting ISIS?
TRUMP: I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. But Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and it’s Iran, who she made strong and Kerry and Obama made into a very powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly, very, very quickly.
Here we have something, maybe, like an argument — that we’re hamstrung and unable to maneuver without assuming apocalyptic risk, given Russia’s involvement in Syria. But if that’s so, how does he propose we “get ISIS?”
I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria. They had a chance. And that was the line. And she didn’t.
RADDATZ: What do you think will happen if Aleppo falls?
TRUMP: I think Aleppo is a disaster, humanitarian-wise.
RADDATZ: What do you think will happen if it falls?
TRUMP: I think that it basically has fallen. OK? It basically has fallen.
Does this sentence make sense to anyone? Is he saying, “It will fall and we can’t do anything about it?”
Is it plausible that Trump is getting his news from Russian disinformation sources? If not, why does he sound like it? Can you put any spin on these comments that isn’t sinister? If he’s saying these things for a crude electoral purpose, why does he think it will help him to sound like Sputnik News?
Published in General
You should be.
When you have a moment, can you please inform us what areas of the world the United States should be engaged? Should we continue to maintain a military presence and deterrent in South Korea? Should we defend Taiwan if attacked by China? How about Japan? Should we care if Russia overruns Ukraine completely? What about the Baltic States? Let those go? How about Poland? Is Israel worth defending and continuing to support with armaments and defense systems? Should we try to blunt Iran’s ambitions in the Middle East? Would it be all right if Russia gains more influence and power throughout the Middle East? Should we never seek to resolve humanitarian crises in the world to stem the tide of mass refugees emigrating to other nations that may not be able to support them? Do we ever lift a finger to try to prevent mass genocide? Or should we just withdraw our forces and disengage in any or all of these theaters?
Take your time. I’m eager to understand your world view.
I am too, and I’d like to ask the same question, in all sincerity — no snark, not a rhetorical question. I’d like to know if people who say, “Russia, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah — not our problem” think nothing that happens beyond our borders is our problem, and if not, what their threshold for thinking, “Our problem” might be. Do they also think we should tolerate incursion on our sovereign territory in the form of cyberattacks and other so-called 4G acts of war?
We have BHO as POTUS and soon will have HRC as POTUS. I can not support any war outside an attack on the mainland under such leadership. Elections have consequences, this is one of them. The world, that numbers 6.7 billion will just have to get along without our United States 330 million people to protect it for a while. They are adults, they can handle it.
So, go ahead and dismantle NATO? Let the Norkos level South Korea and attack Japan? Let China invade Taiwan? Let Iran attack Israel? Let Russia take Ukraine and the Baltic States and maybe Finland…and maybe Poland? Let me know if this accurately characterizes your remarks.
We have tolerating this sort of thing for decades at least.
We have an immigration policy essentially designed by Mexico, to solve Mexico’s problem, with that government rather openly interfering in American politics with the intent to reform the US to make it more amenable to Mexico.
The Russians have been meddling in US politics for even longer, which seemingly never worried the democrats before. Now, all of a sudden, it’s a problem, because they fear they might not be intervening on their side any more.
The Chinese have stolen every bit of technology ever created in the US, including all the knowledge gained about nuclear weapons since 1945, which cost the American people trillions.
None of this has bothered our imbecile rulers the slightest.
The same could be asked of those who say “Russia, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah – our problem”. What to do? Because a little bit of shuttle diplomacy (i.e. John Kerry buying chocolates in Geneva), a little bit of leading from behind, a whole lot of apologising and stiffing allies in Eastern Europe etc. has only emboldened the evil and sacrificed the noble.
What would you do about Russian (somehow vaguely government-related we kinda think maybe but we’re not politicised really) hackers? About nukes in Kaliningrad? About “the fall of Aleppo”? Answers in a debate soundbite, please. But note I’ll be grading you against long-form articles in Foreign Policy.
Your idea that the United States still bestrides the world like a colossus, with the magical ability to save billions of foreigners from themselves and their enemies, is touching.
We cannot.
The United States is an ill-governed mess, with a collapsing society, a bankrupt government, ruled by fools who understand nothing more than how to stuff their pockets at public expense.
In the lengthy list of tasks which you have assigned the American people- which by the way far exceeds that which we agreed to undertake during the Cold War- not even once did you bother to mention anything about defending the actual United States, maintaining political support for your assignments, or how the country would pay for all of it.
Not even once. That’s a big problem for your worldview, I think.
Anyway, I suggest our lengthy list of expensive protectorates defend themselves.
Or not. But their defense is far more their problem than ours, and we should all realize that and plan accordingly.
What do you think was wrong with BHO as POTUS? If your thesis is that US leadership really doesn’t matter to the rest of the world, and by extension to Americans, why don’t you think BHO was a great president?
Kaliningrad is in the Baltic, between Poland and Lithuania. It is a general escalation and the target is the NATO alliance.
Does this colossus thing benefit the US or not? Or more specifically, does it benefit some Americans or not? You all pay for it, but who does it benefit?
I think it does benefit you in a number of ways, but perhaps not equally.
Maybe, seems that if those things come to pass that is between the parties involved more than the US. Look, I am recognizing the truth that BHO and HRC will not take this country to war over the items mentioned above. If forced to war both will do so in half measures, sending insufficient number of troops with unrealistic ROEs that will result in American troops deaths for no good reason and no good result. Benghazi showed that we will not send sufficient troops to do the job and if our troops get in trouble we will not send troops to get them out but will blame shift instead. The Ukraine has shown exactly what the US’s word of protection is worth. All I am suggesting is that we recognize the fact that our US leadership is incompetent and plan accordingly.
You’re absolutely right. My mind was on the Black Sea (for entirely personal reasons related to Turkey) and I typed “Black Sea” when I meant “Baltic Sea.” Talk about the power of the unconscious mind.
I did not say the US leadership did not matter. I am saying that US leadership at the moment is incompetent and will do anything in its power to avoid war and if forced to war will screw it up worse than not going. To send US military into harms way under people with no honor is to spend their lives foolishly. I do not want any of our troops to die only to have HRC arrest YouTube movie makers and lie to their parents. These are the people that have been elected. We need to recognize what our leadership is and plan accordingly. Our allies should do the same. Any country that depends on the US to defend it, is setting itself up for disappointment
Try not to characterize my feelings and attitudes based on little knowledge or put words in my mouth. I asked straight forward questions about specific regions and existing foreign policy positions from successive American presidents.
Like it or not the United States has standing commitments and treaties to defend certain countries and regions of the globe if attacked. Those agreements and commitments were made to help prevent conflict that could escalate on a global scale that has a nasty habit of killing millions and inhibiting the ability of this country to trade in any secure or coherent fashion. It’s not a quaint notion to assume that some nations are bad actors and seek to expand their territory by seizing other countries. Many do this out of desperation in an old-world calculus to acquire resources. Iran will attack its enemies for more delusional religious/apocalyptic reasons even beyond their immediate region as soon as the have nuclear-tipped ICBMs.
Defense of the United States should be a given and it disturbs me greatly that Obama continues to diminish our defense capability. But defense of the United States also demands that the rest of the world is at peace and bad actors – Russia, China, Iran, North Korea – are at least held in check. Ignoring our standing commitments or retreating from promises to defend allies is a sure fire way to make America vulnerable not only economically but physically and existentially.
I’ll put this as nicely as I can. What you describe is an isolationist attitude mired in the 18th Century when two oceans provided an adequate measure of protection and security for America. Since WWII and the development of long-range missiles, nuclear armaments, germ warfare, and now cyber warfare (hacking and EMP) that attitude no longer applies and clinging to it puts America more at risk because it gives nations like Russia, China and Iran in particular and North Korea by allowing it to wipe out two of America’s leading trading partners (South Korea and Japan) free rein and more opportunities in a variety of ways – even economically – to attack or weaken America — not fewer.
See my comment #75 above as it applies to your argument as well. Further – all we can hope is that when a major conflict or conflagration arises that no matter who is president that they respond in the best interests of the United States – whether that’s currently Obama or next year Clinton or Trump. No argument that any of these geniuses are incompetent. But, despite the horror that is Hillary Clinton, she does seem to understand what would happen if we abandoned our standing global commitments. Donald not so much. It would require that he actually learn something about geopolitics and that might interrupt his extracurricular activities like tweeting about how awful a beauty pageant contestant or Paul Ryan is. And no, I’m not voting for Her Majesty.
Re: Ukraine – it was not a NATO protectorate and had previously shunned NATO protection when offered. Putin took advantage of that. My guess is that he will overrun the remaining Ukrainian territory to put the new American president to the test to see what he can get away with. He already has forces poised on the border. At the moment Trump has signaled he doesn’t much care what Putin does with the Ukraine…which doesn’t exactly make other Eastern European allies feel all that secure.
The Ukraine and Eastern European allies should not feel secure. When the Russian Bear comes knocking the US under BHO and HRC will withdraw and do the least they can politically get away with. I suspect that the other NATO members will do the same.
@Claire Now we are about to find out out the answer to the age old peacenik question, “What if they threw a Baltic Missile Crisis and no one came.”
I think the benefits are no longer exceeding the costs. The United States has come to be ruled by people who don’t even seem to notice that there is an actual nation-state involved in paying for their schemes and dying for their adventures. But the people who pay and die still notice. I note again that the public reaction here was strongly against intervention in Syria.
I also note that the people who do benefit from the present policies of the present regime very often receive some significant tangible benefit, personally. They can move their production elsewhere, benefiting from lower labor costs. They can import workers willing to work for less than Americans. This puts money in their pocket- or wealth in their stock portfolio- directly. The rest of us, it seems to me, get nothing more than lectures about how much we benefit from all of the above, because shut up, isolationist.
Of course, these folks also expect and demand that the American people will continue to accept and support the international agreements that make their personal enrichment possible, while we get lectures- or body bags- or an unemployment slip- and nothing else.
Hence, Trump.
I’ll put this as nicely as I can. You don’t seem to comprehend that the US simply doesn’t have the wealth or the power to do everything you’d like. It doesn’t have the political capital available domestically to maintain support for your endless interventions. It doesn’t have the wealth available to pay for the military required for it. And it hasn’t bothered to do anything to defend the actual spot on the map that pays for it, either.
If South Korea and Japan are so oblivious that the starving hellhole of North Korea can destroy them- well, alas. But I don’t think they are. I think their efforts to defend themselves have actually been held back by the idiot US regime, which is indifferent if our common enemies get nukes, but works hard to prevent our friends from getting them.
And if the defense of the US demands that the rest of world is at peace, then the US can expect only endless war as we attempt to impose peace upon billions of restless foreigners. Or are we expected to send them endless tribute to bribe them into peace? Or admit them all here so their problems can be solved by access to the American welfare state?
Or just what, exactly?
Wait, I know. We’ll make promises to them, that everyone knows we will not keep.
Yeah, that’s it.
The world has remained relatively at peace without major transcontinental war precisely because of the treaties and agreements we have in place since WWII, the Korean Conflict and the establishment of NATO. So, your understanding of the geopolitical balance of power and foreign policy is lacking.
Your isolationist remarks could easily have been lifted right out of an America Firster speech circa 1938 or 1939 when America was in the throes of a seemingly endless economic depression – a helluva lot worse than where America is economically today even despite our massive national debt. So, that dog doesn’t hunt.
Zafar,
You aren’t giving Obama the credit his ZERO foreign policy deserves. Ben Rhodes told you how they passed the Iran Deal. They lied! They are the lowest of the low. Do not try to make them just part of the gang. They have a special responsibility for the genocide in Syria and ISIS. Not to mention opening the door and leaving it open for Russian & Chinese aggression.
Regards,
Jim
Claire,
Trump says lots of things. Actions and full-scale policy commitments speak much louder. Why does nobody mention this?
The real question right now is, if Putin does a panzer assault on the Ukraine what will we do? I think Obama-Clinton-Kerry make Putin think we’ll do nothing and he might just be right. If Trump was President that’s a wild card for Putin to think about. He’d think twice no matter what you say Trump has said. Trump will give the best generals their head. Putin will feel the heat no matter what the rhetoric.
A Hard Rain Is Going to Fall
Regards,
Jim
The $64 trillion dollar question is whether the recent Russian 4 day civil defense drill and the recent recall of Russian citizens studying abroad are primarily propaganda moves designed by Putin to prepare the Russian population for war and secondarily to alarm leaders in the West, or do they reflect a rational Russian response to a US presidential candidate who is 10 points up in the polls and promising war with Russia – in which she has bipartisan support?
But wait, there’s more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE4Wb9KHK8s
Which concludes:
Yes, eerily so. Is that conscious on your part? Do you feel the American First Committee was basically right, but that for unique reasons it wasn’t the right foreign policy for the late 1930s? (Or do you think they were even right about the Second World War, and that we should have stayed out of it?) Or do you think that the foreign policy is only sometimes right? If the latter, what criteria do you use to justify what does and doesn’t warrant American intervention? Do you support military action against, e.g., al Qaeda and other terrorist groups? How do you propose winding down our alliances — would you declare them null and void? Or would you say nothing on the grounds that saying, “They’re null and void” amounts to an invitation for them to be attacked? I don’t see us ever being able to build an alliance again, for any reason — no matter how dire — if we precipitously pull out of our alliances and announce it, too. I think that would be grossly unwise.
And your remarks could be lifted right out of 1948, before NATO and the Korean War.
Your problem is that this is not 1948, as I’ve attempted to explain to you on multiple occasions.
We live in a rather different world.
Again: The United States lacks the power, the wealth, and the will to do as you’d like.
Please notice. It matters.
That’s not a good comparison. I’m not sure whether to call it a category error or invoke Godwin’s Law. Times have changed. A lot. In WWII, the British had an empire, the USSR and the various other fascisms* wanted empires – with their nation states engulfing and digesting other nation-states and their colonies. They would expand their rule by subversion, bribe, threat and conquest.
The war was in part over what behavior was a permissible way for a nation-state to aggrandize itself. America First’s arguments were framed within that context.
Today, there are many forces at work to destroy (not necessarily by explicit agenda – though it is true for some – but by pursuing their own interests) the sovereignty of the nation-state and the Westphalia system. These forces include jihadis, international corporations, NGOs of various kinds and international criminal organizations as well as more conventional organizations like the UN and the EU and the various metastases of Communism that inhabit the Left.
The open borders movement (bipartisan in most Western democracies) is another manifestation.
*In the USA it may have been Lucky Strike Green that went to war, in the USSR, International Socialism became nationalist for the duration (provided the nation was the USSR or Communist, otherwise it was nationalism = fascism. That meme still pollutes political thinking.