U.S. can fight al Qaeda in Iraq without troops: Kerry

Comments (34)
Sonnyjc9 wrote:

All this does is give our enemies an easy access to our arms and money. Might as well let Al Qaeda unload the stuff from the planes as that is where it will end up in their hands anyway.

Jan 05, 2014 1:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
amit_mishra wrote:

absolutely amazing and pretty interesting issue to read,Iraq fight against al-quaeda after US withdraw troops,we agree with secretary Kerry united sates not use force in Iraq to fight against al-quaeda terror group.my amazing honey mentioned some interesting analysis and some fact.

My amazing,most beautiful,expert in foreign policy my honey Margaret brennan CBS news as well as working for department of state,Margaret Brennan mentioned we seen many terror attack after withdrawal of US army,many deadly attack in few months,many Innocent people lost their lives.

Margaret mentioned middle east many countries survive from communal war between Shiite and Sunni,but we see many countries al-uqaeda start to taking advantage to spread terror and fear into the people.

Margaret mentioned we are agree with Iraq that al-quaeda taking strong root in the region,and its real worry for Iraq as well as for united states,we appreciate Iraq took aggressive step fight against al-quaeda.

Margaret also mentioned secretary Kerry said US ready to support Iraq,to provide equipment and intelligence to Iraq,what we seen before,without using army,i think its good idea to fight against terror.

Jan 05, 2014 2:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
amit_mishra wrote:

absolutely amazing and pretty interesting issue to read,Iraq fight against al-quaeda after US withdraw troops,we agree with secretary Kerry united sates not use force in iraq to fight against al-quaeda terror group.my amazing honey mentioned some interesting analysis and some fact.

My amazing,most beautiful,expert in foreign policy my honey Margaret brennan CBS news as well as working for department of state,Margaret Brennan mentioned we seen many terror attack after withdrawal of US army,many deadly attack in few months,many Innocent people lost their lives.

Margaret mentioned middle east many countries survive from communal war between Shiite and sunni,but we see many countries al-uqaeda start to taking advantage to spread terror and fear into the people.

Margaret mentioned we are agree with Iraq that al-quaeda taking strong root in the region,and its real worry for Iraq as well as for united states,we appreciate Iraq took aggressive step fight against al-quaeda.

Margaret also mentioned secretary Kerry said US ready to support iraq,to provide equipment and intelligence to iraq,what we seen before,without using army,i think its good idea to fight against terror.

Jan 05, 2014 2:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
JoeSchmoe123 wrote:

US President Dwight D. Eisenhower said to watch-out for the Military Industrial Complex. And have you noticed, over and over there’s imminent catastrophies looming such as Syria, Iraq, everybody? And once money is granted from Congress, the problem goes away and we never hear about it again?
I no longer believe these enemies are anything but effective marketing by the ones who have “cried wolf”, funded and armed wars for centuries. Nobody knew the war machine like Eisenhower.
How ignorant of me not to notice sooner.

Jan 05, 2014 3:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
JoeSchmoe123 wrote:

US President Dwight D. Eisenhower said to watch-out for the Military Industrial Complex. And have you noticed, over and over there’s imminent catastrophies looming such as Syria, Iraq, everybody? And once money is granted from Congress, the problem goes away and we never hear about it again?
I no longer believe these enemies are anything but effective marketing by the ones who have “cried wolf”, funded and armed wars for centuries. Nobody knew the war machine like Eisenhower.
How ignorant of me not to notice sooner.

Jan 05, 2014 3:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
ajsfca wrote:

The Obama administration and the current Democratic party abandons its allies and partners for their own twisted political expedience.

Jan 05, 2014 5:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
ajsfca wrote:

Vietnam all over again? I suspect the Obama administration and the democrats will float trial balloons or propose cutting funding and material support and try to promote it as a pacifist, anti-war movement once again to give themselves cover to shrug off any responsibility and fight it’s very own citizens legally, politically and in the media, in the U.S.A. instead.

Jan 05, 2014 6:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
Snowyb wrote:

It’s heartening to read that we Americans are losing some of our hubris and missionary zeal, especially when it involves the use of force. We care for others as much as we ever did; those who profit from misery can be advised to invest in transport,medical supplies,refugee relief,environmental mitigation, and construction materials. Peace begets peace, and arms exacerbate violence by their availability.The world’s arms industry should go the way of the Dodo. Defense, yes-Adventurism and meddling un foreign conflicts–not just no, but Hell No!

Jan 05, 2014 6:56am EST  --  Report as abuse

Iraq is a Shia majority country, with a Shia majority government; many Sunni Iraqis pine for the good old days, when Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, was in charge.

This Sunni rebellion in Iraq was inevitable, mainly because the Iraqis rejected the SOFA deal, which would have allowed the US to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely….the Sunni Islamists in Iraq are taking advantage of the power vacuum in Baghdad and the civil war in neighboring Syria.

Holy Wars Suck.

Jan 05, 2014 7:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jingan wrote:

Will somebody get good wig for him….

Jan 05, 2014 7:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
JamVee wrote:

It concerns me that we will give our support to the Shiites in Iraq.

After all, they have murdered only slightly fewer of our soldiers than the Sunni sect, which supports the “Al Qaeda”.

I don’t know, however, what other real choice we have?

Jan 05, 2014 7:50am EST  --  Report as abuse

Jingan:

They say that Kerry uses so much hair-spray, that an aide is required to stand by, with a fire extinguisher, just in case an errant spark or static electricity sets the volatile coiffure on fire.

Others say that Kerry’s coiffure is actually a hi-tech helmet.

Jan 05, 2014 8:01am EST  --  Report as abuse

Just to clarify things, US policy in the Middle East is crafted by a tripartite consortium of like-minded special interests, it’s not just the “military-industrial complex”.

The terrible trio consists of the Defense, Israel & Energy special interests, (mnemonic acronym: DIE). Their selfish special interests overlap each other, in the ME, like a 3-circle Venne diagram.

Defense provides the muscle, Israel supplies the brains and Energy provides the motivation.

The DIE super-lobby spends millions of dollars purchasing influence in the US federal government. This is done by way of generous financial contributions to the political campaigns of nearly every elected member of the US Congress. US Presidential candidates accept millions from the DIE super-lobby too.

As a result of this legal bribery, we get the best government that money can buy.

Have I clarified things?

Jan 05, 2014 8:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
DLNY wrote:

Kerry is a drivel bleating buffoon with a knack for tiresome blandishments that patronize in the extreme and the Lindsay Lohan of Secretaries of State, an embarrassment that we just can’t help but not to avert our eyes from but want to.

So good god man, do yourself and your nation a favor and put a sock in it. Why do you feel as though you must say something? Is it because your administration is impotent and cannot actually DO anything? Like my neutered cat, you should just sleep on top of the fridge until it is your time to go.

Jan 05, 2014 8:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
BIGEEE1 wrote:

Islam. The cancerous tumor on the lung of humanity. Can you imagine a world without the 10th century animals?

Jan 05, 2014 8:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
BIGEEE1 wrote:

Islam. The cancerous tumor on the lung of humanity. Can you imagine a world without the 10th century animals?

Jan 05, 2014 8:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
winston_2010 wrote:

Beyond sad. Shame on those who lied us into two needless wars, that have only spread death and terror around the globe on an industrial scale. Al Qaeda didnt even exist In Iraq before we got there. What does that tell you?

Jan 05, 2014 10:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
winston_2010 wrote:

Beyond sad. Shame on those who lied us into two needless wars, that have only spread death and terror around the globe on an industrial scale. Al Qaeda didnt even exist In Iraq before we got there. What does that tell you?

Jan 05, 2014 10:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jeep1994 wrote:

Comforting to know Kerry insisted South Vietnam could fight and defend their country without US troops also

Jan 05, 2014 10:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
PopUp wrote:

Let’s stay out of Middle East conflicts. They are tribal conflicts, not of world interest. If the people of those countries can’t get over their tribal affiliates and create peace and stability…they haven’t in thousands of years, then let them continue to suffer of their own doings. It is of no concern to the US taxpayer that foots the bill for all this debt.

Jan 05, 2014 11:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
Prox wrote:

When the equipment is delivered, what immunity does the crew and personnel delivering them have? This foreign aid will become permanent and relied on by the government of Iraq. I see the same thing taking shape in Afghanistan

Jan 05, 2014 11:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
dixiedog44 wrote:

The “Debate Administration” will beat them all into submission with meaningless rhetoric that will bore them so much that they will sigh a peace treaty in self-defense. By the way, Kerry, I have a bridge over there that I am moving from some Arizona beach front property that you might be interested in.

Jan 05, 2014 11:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
ultimate101 wrote:

Does anyone take what John Kerry has to say seriously. The only one that believes his spew is himself. What another disgraceful example of this administration’s ineptness.

Jan 05, 2014 12:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UScitizentoo wrote:

Keep teaching the kids three completely different religions that say the temple mount is holiest to each of them, then stand back and watch them kill each other over the garbage that’s poisoned their minds. Bury, repeat.

Jan 05, 2014 12:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
elpaso wrote:

Those who have preconceived political agendas are
loitering with their comments. That turns off
thinking rational people. Have a nice day now, ya hear! lol

Jan 05, 2014 1:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZ1811 wrote:

Gee – do you think the “government” forces of Iraq had to worry about “civilian” casualties during their “bombardment.

They insisted we avoid such things but it doesn’t apply to them

HIPOCRITS>

Jan 05, 2014 2:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeBarnett wrote:

Bush and Cheney committed the treason that caused an illegal invasion and cost 4,500 dead and 33,000 wounded, many with arms and legs blown off. Welcome to wars with explosives! Obama tried to keep US troops in, but Iraq refused to grant legal immunity for US crimes by US troops. Extraterritoriality went out with imperialism.

The best idea is to arm the Shia regime that now cooperates with Sunni tribal leaders who oppose al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are Sunnis, the same as the Saudis and most other Arabs. Weapons and munitions don’t bleed US blood if we keep US troops out. Let the Iraqis fight their uncivil war, but we can arm those who fight al Qaeda who committed 9-11 for those US citizens who have forgotten.

Jan 05, 2014 4:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
zhanyeye wrote:

Use contractors.

Jan 05, 2014 6:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Iraq was a “dog with fleas’ when Bush/Cheney lied to the world and attacked that country. It’s in worse shape today than it was before that attack. Have we learned nothing? The entire Middle East is countries with religious factions killing each other. Unless you plan on wiping 1 of those factions off the face of the planet..there is no solution. Perhaps one day they will grow tried of the chaos and violence. Stay out of it. Might as well burn the money we would spend in this region. Same effect.

Jan 05, 2014 9:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

“U.S. can fight al Qaeda in Iraq without troops: Kerry.” Yeah it’s been a money game all along. From putting Bin Laden on CIA payroll to 9/11 to his removal by CIA, from the check handed over to Saddam and the moment he was hung, it was all about money, wasn’t it?
The WMD hunt cost tax payers a fortune but now the same game goes on. What has changed?

Jan 06, 2014 1:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
tonyalfidi wrote:

America doesn’t notice its hereditary military caste. That caste may soon decline to recognize America. http://thirdeyeosint.blogspot.com/2014/01/americas-disinterst-in-its-hereditary.html

Jan 06, 2014 1:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
NMReader wrote:

Not really, bc this is these peoples’ homeland and we cannot overcome that. Period. Israel needs to understand that this is what she is looking at in ALL her neighbors if she does not support the counterbalance that Iran is now,in peace.

Jan 06, 2014 9:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
euro-yank wrote:

All it takes is a run of “I support our drones” bumperstickers and we’re good.

Jan 06, 2014 11:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
SKYDRIFTER wrote:

It’s a mess in waiting! But, exactly, who’s who; in this zoo?

This scenario breaches the ‘normal’ Middle Eastern political simplicity, offered by the philosophy: “The enemy of my enemy; is my friend.” And, it potentially opens a terrible can of worms. This account alludes to a far bigger picture.

While it’s insane for the U.S. to favor ANY terrorist/avenger faction, there appears to be a mandate for a choice. Unless the U.S. is prepared to risk the loss of Iraq – and all that Iraq represents in recent U.S. history/politics – then, the obvious choice is to support the Iraqi/Shiite faction. (Granted, this scenario is more fodder for anyone who cares to resurrect the higher-ground notion that it was a sick mistake for the U.S. to have invaded Iraq, in the first place.)

At the moment, however, this terrorist-on-terrorist violence, and associated politics, is also playing out in Syria; the two scenarios are inseparable. Getting past the immediate news media coverage, the entire region is suffering a bizarre political and military insanity. So, disregarding any debate about whether or not the U.S. should get involved in this latest Iraqi scenario; what is to be the “first step” for the United States, in particular?

Money, alone, can’t solve the obvious immediate problems in Iraq. Supplying Iraq with additional weaponry takes time; and invokes the dilemma of Iraqi soldiers killing Iraqis – with inconveniently unpredictable results.

While debatable, the current scenarios of both Iraq and Syria might be the opening for the U.S. to view these political coincidences as a reason/mandate to assemble a formal “drone force;” intended to skew the upcoming skirmishes – as a highly suitable alternative to a squadron of F-16s. What can’t be achieved from the eye-in-the-sky intelligence could very possibly be resolved with precision Hellfire missile strikes. The most dynamic force would be the inducement of fear; far more effective than the physical destruction. (The military philosopher, Sun Tzu, would smile in his grave!) Results aside, the “drone warfare” strategy could also potentially make another major and permanent alteration in the world/history of combat. And, they are cheaper than conventional fighter jets.

Looking uniquely at the “Iraqi” Sunni-Shiite problem, it’s necessary to question whether or not the U.S. can actually facilitate the current and future predominance of the Iraqi Shiites over the Sunnis. The current problem in Iraq isn’t limited to simply smashing the immediate militant Sunni “trouble-makers.” Realistically, how far can the U.S. actually go in Iraq? As Syria (among other “Arab Spring” countries) illustrates, it doesn’t take much to trigger a sectarian civil war. The U.S. is war-weary and broke; with a massive military morale problem. If Maliki is forced to think in terms of the U.S. being too limited in the amount of help available, will he reach out to either Russia and/or Iran? Probably.

To boot, in the Iraqi background, the northern Iraqi Kurds have been making “independence” noises; driven by their rich oil fields. Accordingly, with the right timing, Turkey would probably facilitate the Kurd’s bid for independence. Again, that leaves Russia and Iran as being more likely to ensure Iraq’s stability, than the U.S. (Bummer for the U.S. and Israel!)

In the immediate time frame, however, while the U.S. is apparently prepared to weigh in to the benefit of the Shiite factions in Iraq, by some means, it’s pertinent to acknowledge that Israel is also caught up in this new scenario – noting that the U.S. and Israel favor opposite sides. (Iran and Russia have to be laughing their heads off!) One of Israel’s nightmares is a dynamic “Shiite” political/military/economic relationship between Iran, Iraq and Syria. More locally, Israel fears such a “Shiite” relationship being expanded to Lebanon, via Hezbollah – to the possible horror that Hezbollah could become Lebanon’s ruling power, via democratic elections.

Worse still, for both Israel and the U.S., is the potential for this issue ultimately leading to Russia gaining a permanent and major sphere of influence in the region. In the background of the current Sunni-Shiite complexities, Obama has destroyed the core relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia; add Israel. Thus, the U.S. is in a desperate struggle to NOT lose its footprint in the entire Middle East region. Independently, Obama & the Gang have essentially destroyed the trust of most countries in the U.S.

In the shadow of the U.S. backing down on attacking Syria and the “nuclear deal” with Iran, Kerry is currently asserting a U.S. stand against the expansion of more Israeli settlements into the Palestinian territory; further aggravating and alienating Israel.

Accordingly, it’s necessary to ponder whether Israel will do more than complain about the U.S. backing the Iraqi Shiites, by actively supporting the Sunni factions in either/both Iraq and Syria, in the way of monetary or material support. Also, it’s necessary to ask whether or not Israel will apply its best leverage against the U.S. position on the Iraqi Shiites – and to what effect? However precarious the U.S. relationship with Israel, it remains that Israel still has a major influence in DC.

But the insanity! Amidst these latest convoluted politics, Israel is constructively in bed with the Saudis – who are supporting Syria’s Sunni factions; thus both Saudi Arabia and Israel are – to some magnitude – facing off against Iran. But, in the background, it can’t be lost that Saudi Arabia has been the major backer of the Sunni-affiliated terrorist groups, everywhere; dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Purportedly, the Saudis have even furnished shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to the Syrian rebels – a particular nightmare for Israel, given the greater probability that Israel is destined to eventually suffer that armament. Rather like a mongoose and a cobra being locked in a tool shed; both wanting a good night’s sleep.

AND, however bizarre (or durable) this “new” arrangement may be, between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the major ripple (potential tsunami) on this muddied political water is that Saudi Arabia is awaiting the delivery of a (paid for) nuclear warhead from Pakistan, with Israel’s name on it – according to a credible BBC account. At least on the surface; Iran isn’t Israel’s greatest or most imminent threat! Assuming that the BBC account is accurate, Israel’s priority concerns are Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia; over Iran. However, assuming that the warhead is factually operable, the instant question is that if Saudi Arabia has purchased (paid for) a nuclear warhead from Pakistan, what would stop Iran from doing the same – possibly out-bidding Saudi Arabia for the same device; in the interest of time?

Pragmatically, Israel is probably poised to hammer any attempt to deliver – or receive – ANY out-sourced nuclear warhead from Pakistan; or any other potential source. The “mystery” is just how confident Israel is, in that regard; respecting a huge spectrum of current or potential scenarios.

However, the real-time pertinent issue is how the latest Saudi-Israeli politics pan out; particularly with regard to the American-Israeli political dynamics. At a minimum, any assistance to the Sunni militants will come at a cost to the U.S. interests in Iraq. What will Israel’s role be, if any? Potentially, Saudi Arabia could facilitate an Israeli strike on Iran by offering Saudi airspace; and the use of a Saudi airfield for staging either an attack and/or a refueling point during the recovery phase of such an attack. But, if Iran was able to respond, the first call would be from Tel Aviv to DC.

In any case, however, Israel’s most immediate dilemma is the current risk of either of the Sunni anti-Assad extremist/terrorist factions in Syria getting their hands on the Syrian chemical weapons – now in transit; potentially exposed to being captured by the Sunni forces opposing Assad. Given the current Syrian “opposition” in-fighting, there is now an increased desperation for at least rogue elements of the opposition to get their hands on the Chemical weapons. Thus, it’s in Israel’s best interests for the Syrian chemical weapons to be removed at the earliest possible moment.

In general, what’s bad for Assad is good for Israel. However, militarily clearing the required land route to the Syrian Mediterranean sea port requires beating back the Sunni opposition (favored by Israel, over the Shiites). But, opening up two-way land transportation from Damascus also accommodates both the supply of Assad’s forces, from the sea port, eastward; and the transportation of Syrian military materials into Lebanon, for Hezbollah, westward. Chemical weapons aside, however long the land route is open works against Israel.

Separately, Israel is faced with a far greater threat in Syria, as previously alluded to. Currently, Syria’s domestic “good Sunni rebels” are battling the foreign “bad Sunni rebels;” aligned with al Qaeda & associates. (For simplicity, the term “al Qaeda” is used generically, intended to include those rebels who are nor originally Syrian residents.) But, in the periphery, there is the question as to whether or not Assad has the means – or possesses the motive – to essentially come to the aid of the home-grown rebels by uniquely attacking the “al Qaeda” elements; versus being satisfied to let the any and all elements of the “opposition” focus on killing each other. Whatever the in-fighting scenario details might be, it’s necessary to ask: “What would be the outcome, if the Syrian domestic (good Sunni rebels) lose – or are in any manner neutralized?“ At this stage, it’s clear that the al Qaeda forces wouldn’t simply go home.

If the “opposition” infighting continues, there are some interesting questions:

1. Is the “Syrian” opposition capable of defeating the al Qaeda forces?

2. What are the chances of the two “opposition” factions quickly settling their differences with any kind of “truce” – then re-focusing on battling Assad? And, what is the possibility of any such truce among the “opposition” forces lasting? If a truce is formed today, will al Qaeda formulate an agenda which ultimately excludes the “Syrian” rebels, in a post Assad world? In any case, will the al Qaeda elements “wisely” posture for another “cooperation” breakdown, in the future? Alternately, can the “Syrian” forces (with more limited means) adequately posture against another breakdown? And, if Assad’s forces were to lose; what are the chances of the “Syrian” elements becoming the de facto government of the “new” Syria; versus the al Qaeda elements essentially pulling a “Taliban” takeover?

3. Is Assad truly capable of defeating the entire “opposition,” regardless of this infighting? In concert, could this “opposition” in-fighting trigger a jihad, in support of al Qaeda’s cause in Syria – expressed by the influx of more al Qaeda loyalists; and associated logistics?

4. Is the in-fighting serious enough for the each of the opposing sides of the “rebel” forces to regroup, against each other; leaving previous anti-Assad units/emplacements weakened, to Assad’s advantage?

5. Does/will the in-fighting cost the al Qaeda groups indigenous support: with the Syrian fighters having a unique ability to continue getting purely local support? If so, can the al Qaeda groups adequately adapt to such ‘isolation,’ without resorting to force against the Syrian civilians?

6. If the in-fighting continues, will Assad remain locked onto attacking specific strategic targets, regardless of which side of the opposition happens to oppose him? Or will he take advantage of the in-fighting, so as to maximize his military operations against one side of the rebel forces; as opposed to posing a common threat to both sides of the opposition, risking the chance of forcing a truce between the battling elements of the opposition?

7. Will Assad focus his attacks on al Qaeda, estimating the al Qaeda groups as ultimately being more dangerous than the Syrian opposition elements? Or, will Assad reason that the “Syrian” rebels have the greatest reason/passion to keep fighting; as opposed to the more “nomadic” al Qaeda fighters? Or, conversely, will Assad reason that the Syrian rebels are the softer of the two groups; wanting/hoping to be re-united with their families; whereas the al Qaeda fighters only want to meet Allah – preferably at the latest time possible?

8. If the Syrian rebel elements asked Assad for any kind of assistance to fight the al Qaeda groups, would Assad distinguish between the two “opposition” sides? Or, is there a potential for the Syrian rebels to now conclude that their dream of overthrowing Assad is finished; and ask for a peace agreement with Assad? Obviously, Assad would be a fool not to agree to such a deal; with the obvious caveat that the Syrian rebels would have to earn their deal, by fighting the al Qaeda elements, for however long that might take.

9. Given the history, to date, what is the current realistic expectation of the Syrian opposition, uniquely, getting any effective help from anyone? Conversely, are the al Qaeda groups superior, in terms of the influx of more fighters, weapons and other logistics?

10. Syria is a regional political and military “… ball in play.” Assuming, again, that the “opposition” in-fighting continues, how much time is available for “outside interests” to evaluate the immediate potential outcome, with a focus on determining who is preferred to win – and what can be done to achieve that goal; within the estimated available time? More specifically, if the “Syrian” rebels are favored to win, what can be done to ensure their victory – or just their survival – over just al Qaeda? Alternately, what can be done to insure that al Qaeda doesn’t succeed in a Taliban-style takeover of Syria? Finally, is anyone “interested” seriously thinking in terms of Assad’s defeat, with Syria ultimately becoming a reasonably defensible “terrorist homeland – independently of this in-fighting?”

A defeat of the Syrian rebels, by the al Qaeda groups would immediately leave the surviving Islamic militant (Sunni) “terrorist groups” in mortal battle with Assad – who couldn’t then (at least theoretically) be allowed (by anyone) to lose; in fear of Syria almost instantly becoming a major terrorist country (oblivious to “formal recognition”).

It’s insane to think that those such as al Qaeda would be satisfied to defeat Assad, then be so kind as to declare “Mission Accomplished;” and immediately depart Syria. The demise of Assad’s regime, at the hands of those such as al Qaeda, would leave Syria as a variant of the Taliban’s Afghanistan – on steroids and meth.

Such would be instantly intolerable to Israel, in particular. As an interesting question, in the interim, if it appeared as though al Qaeda stood a reasonable chance of defeating the Syrian rebels, and potentially Assad’s forces; would Israel – if they could – get involved at any early point, as opposed to waiting for the last dust of the Assad regime to settle, betting that the UN would then sanction a “coalition,” aimed at driving al Qaeda out of Syria?

From Israel’s perspective, time is of the essence. With the Iranian “nuclear” issue in play, Israel may not have the luxury of letting Syria turn into even a distraction; let alone a military/terrorist next-door threat. The problem with “making peace” in Syria is the volume of experienced fighters – and their firepower. To date, Israel has managed to let the rest of the world take on Afghanistan and Iraq; and effect the “Arab Spring.” Would Israel – for any reason, including such as UN delays – be left to attend to “Syria,” on their own, or could Israel quickly entice another UN sponsored “Coalition” to rout the “terrorist” elements from Syria?

Whether Israel, uniquely, or the usual “interested parties,” even an “al Qaeda” victory in Syria would face a maddening “international” problem. Currently, the populations of the usual “coalition” players are loath to consider any more “crusades.” Save for fear of a Sarajevo-style World War breakout, would anyone, except Israel, see a post Assad (al Qaeda) Syria worth “saving?” In concert, would Saudi Arabia, in particular, immediately resort to viewing an “al Qaeda” Syria as being the convenient enemy of Israel; thus a Saudi “friend” – worthy of Saudi support?

But, Israel’s concerns aside, from the perspective of certain international “interested parties,” being wise to fear a uniquely “al Qaeda” victory, there is a comparable concern. But, can the “Western” mindset conclude that Assad must be saved; so as to guarantee that al Qaeda doesn’t prevail in Syria?
Given just Assad’s current obstacles to defeating the collective existing militant opposition, what could/can any pro-Assad “interventionist” force/interests do to successfully aid the current “Syrian” rebels and/or – alternately – Assad (or, “defeat the al Qaeda elements;” if one prefers)? Given the stakes, another international “waiting game” for Syria should be out of the question. Logically, any “intervention” would need to be asserted prior to any “final” battle between the “opposition” good-guys; and bad-guys – the sooner, the better.

If “preventative intervention” should become mandated (to the “Western” way of thinking), what format would that take? Arms and equipment? Troops to supplement/save the Syrian rebels, uniquely – or, only Assad’s forces? Where would such assistance come from – the UN? The U.S.? And, under whose command-and-control? Would Assad allow any significantly increased external assistance to the “Syrian” rebels, in particular?

Alternately, would the “interested parties” be satisfied to allow Assad to continue fighting his own battles – “they” being wisely terrified of the possibility that Assad’s troops might somehow lose; and the probable consequences of an “al Qaeda” victory in Syria?

Or, in a more conservative response, would any such assistance to Assad be left to an up-scaled magnitude of “rogue state” contributions – and, from whom? Would Russia and/or Iran be “quietly” permitted to render “… boots on the ground,” if necessary; to guarantee that al Qaeda & Associates wouldn’t gain an independent and permanent “home?”

Independently, would Russia – and Iran, by implication – conclude that their long-term self-interests warranted major intervention from their unique military/political/economic resources – to the exclusion of any other “interested parties;” including the UN, or such countries as the U.S., France and Britain – acting independently of the U.N.?

In the political periphery, it’s necessary to observe that the traditional international constraints, such as the Geneva Conventions – and even the UN Charter – haven’t hindered the post W.W. II “major powers,” to any appreciable degree. As the “Coalition” invasion/occupation of Iraq, in particular, attests – not even the U.S. Constitution can serve as a barrier to U.S. military “power projection.” Consequently, the current norm for “military adventures” is almost uniquely a function of a given power’s best estimate of “…. what they can get away with.” In concert, any outcomes/consequences become a story unto their own, i.e., the current Sunni-Shiite clash in Iraq.

Whatever the case in Syria, it’s ultimately necessary to ponder the future of Syria, with an eye to the possibility of Assad’s forces being victorious. In concert – Syrian recovery adaptations aside – it’s prudent for the “interested parties” to worry about Assad’s (and/or the surviving Syrian populace) ultimate resolve. Assad will, of course, embrace Russia and Iran. But, from there, Assad can be expected to “rank the demons,” with respect to the other countries who weighed in during the early – and terminal days of his civil war. Given the viable political option, Assad can’t be expected to think in terms of political forgiveness or mercy.

However whorish Obama & the Gang have been, so far in the “Syrian” matter – now intertwined in this “Iraqi” matter – it’s now necessary for the U.S. to take an inconvenient and unanticipated stand in just this Iraqi Sunni-Shiite clash; with the mandate to be incredibly accurate in any estimate of an unenviable range of outcomes/consequences – with a keen eye to the potential bleed-over dynamics into the Syrian arena. Obama & the Gang should pray that the solutions to this Iraqi Sunni-Shiite clash are simple, quick and cheap.

Again, Iraq could easily turn into another American disaster and/or miserable failure (as Afghanistan will probably be). In parallel to Iraq, Syria could easily be the same – or worse. As a high priority, the U.S. politicians and the American public, in particular, need to be thinking in terms of Jihadi consequences. While the American public has been successfully “conditioned” to think in terms of Islamic militant “terrorism;” the more accurate perception is “revenge.”

Amazingly, in concert, the U.S. public has reliably and predictably managed to tune out the corporate “war” profiteering, which has been the primary drive behind the U.S. “military adventures;” dating to at least the Viet Nam War. Is the American public now sufficiently so war-weary as to spontaneously both wake up and stand up against any further major U.S. military efforts; whether “just,” or otherwise? While the recent proposed military strike on Syria was thwarted by an outcry from the American public; can that be successfully repeated? It shouldn’t be lost that the proverbial powers-that-be have a steep learning curve; with a remarkable record of controlling and/or thwarting the otherwise spontaneous American mindset.

In the American political periphery, American public is seriously war-weary. For all intents & purposes, the U.S. is broke. The expatriation of American industry – via foreign ownership of previously “American” companies; add the generic out-sourcing of traditional “American” labor services – leaves the potential for increased American tax revenues highly questionable. The U.S. military morale is incredibly low – with the older and younger veteran’s plight/attitudes aggravating that morale (add the associated impact on the veteran family and friends). And the “Obama scandals” have alienated the American public to an extreme – eroding any significant domestic trust in the American government, thus the comparable potential for ‘spontaneous’ or ‘manufactured’ American patriotism.

Thus, relative to just the immediate concerns/responses to this Iraqi Sunni-Shiite clash, the American public – should they be, to any degree, adequately informed on the pertinent and current Middle East politics – needs to immediately and intelligently question any significant pertinent presentations and/or decisions in DC. Particularly in the shadow of the apparently “… never to be resolved” Obama scandals (including “Obamacare); the American public may/should tie the hands of the DC politicians in this matter.

However, if the Iraq and/or Syrian political/military scenario(s) radically deteriorate to the extreme of leaving Obama & the Gang convinced that the U.S. (Military-Industrial Complex) needs to mount another military “crusade;” contrary to the will of the American public – then what?

With respect to harsh American political realities, it must be acknowledged that both the Bush Jr. Administration and Obama’s Administration have incrementally dissolved much of the U.S. Constitution; with Obama (indirectly supported by the yet-unnoticed silence of the entire U.S. Congress) assuming and exercising nearly tyrannical authority over many U.S. political and/or military scenarios. Thus, it must responsibly be asked whether or not Obama & the Gang could successfully impose, essentially, a totalitarian regime over the American public.

Using just the American War Crime invasion and occupation of Iraq as an example of presumably “impossible” American politics; it must be appreciated that in light of the continuum of “impossible” politics since 9/11, starting with the so-called “Patriot Act,” in particular, it’s blatantly stupid to think that anything is “impossible” inside the DC Beltway – however “insane” such might be.

History abides.

Jan 07, 2014 1:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.