US Diplomats Urge Barack to Obomba Bashar

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

I don't see the purpose in bombing Assad, it seems like it would only strengthen ISIS's hand.

Agreed. Assad's a target for later, why now? Does anyone know these diplomat's reasoning?

[The Ik Ka Ek Akai]

I'm not entirely convinced this would work. The Middle East at the moment is filled with various forms of what is essentially tribalism. There's Semites vs. Iranians (Specifically, Arabs and Kurds), Muslim vs. Christian vs. Jewish, Sunni vs. Shi'ite, etc. A coup across a large region would prove ineffective, as the new government would never achieve the support it needs, nor the tolerance of other groups that is required, until these cultural, ethnic, and religious tensions are resolved. Otherwise, the country is just likely to fall apart again.

This for Erdogan though.

Turkey has some of these issues too. Admittedly, not as much, but it can function as a sort of gateway. There's friction with Syrians and Kurds, for instance. Not to mention the various Christian ethnicities that the Ottomans tried to kill off. Couping Turkey would likely result in a pretty big backlash in the Middle East while suffering from the same problems (albeit not as strong) as if it had been somewhere else.

Don't get me wrong, I have little support for Erdogan and his policies. It's just that coups haven't quite had a good history so far.

[Kubra]

I don't see the purpose in bombing Assad, it seems like it would only strengthen ISIS's hand.

Agreed. Assad's a target for later, why now? Does anyone know these diplomat's reasoning?

Maybe they've gotten a new source of manpower somewhere, or they know the russians are gonna commit troops to a renewed offensive, and these guys in the state department got wind of it. Golden rule is never letting one side get too much stronger than the other. That's wild speculation, of course, but hey we ain't got nothing else to do.

[Risottia]

Dozens of US State Department officials have signed an internal memo protesting against US policy in Syria and calling for targeted military strikes against President Bashar al-Assad's government.

They argue the current approach is working against the Syrian opposition and helping Mr Assad to stay in power.

It was signed by 51 mid-to-high level officials who advise on Syria issues.[/box]

51 mid-to-high level US officials who advise on Syria issues support IS, the Wannabe Sultan and their Saudi overlords. Colour me surprised.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

Dozens of US State Department officials have signed an internal memo protesting against US policy in Syria and calling for targeted military strikes against President Bashar al-Assad's government.

They argue the current approach is working against the Syrian opposition and helping Mr Assad to stay in power.

It was signed by 51 mid-to-high level officials who advise on Syria issues.[/box]

51 mid-to-high level US officials who advise on Syria issues support IS, the Wannabe Sultan and their Saudi overlords. Colour me surprised.

Virtuous misrepresented Russia aren't beside Assad on this either.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syria-civil-war-russia-calls-regime-calm-160524041114914.html

The Kremlin said the attacks "demonstrate yet again how fragile the situation is in Syria and the need to take energetic measures to relaunch peace talks".

[The Union of the West]

How about we don't strengthen the Islamic State's hold on Syria?

[Theodolia]

Assad seems less bad than ISIS at this point, not like thats saying much, but removing him right now seems likely to cause more problems than it solves.

[Southerly Gentleman]

The reasonable approach would have been to support the Assad regime when war first broke out, but Obama isn't the best with foreign policy and he never would have done that. Now, the Syrian government is doomed and is just suffering a slow death, so I'm indifferent as to what form (if any) of intervention the U.S. takes. It's all an interminable fuck-up at this point.

[Geilinor]

The reasonable approach would have been to support the Assad regime when war first broke out, but Obama isn't the best with foreign policy and he never would have done that. Now, the Syrian government is doomed and is just suffering a slow death, so I'm indifferent as to what form (if any) of intervention the U.S. takes. It's all an interminable fuck-up at this point.

No American president would have done that because Assad had always been close to Russia and Iran.

[Southerly Gentleman]

The reasonable approach would have been to support the Assad regime when war first broke out, but Obama isn't the best with foreign policy and he never would have done that. Now, the Syrian government is doomed and is just suffering a slow death, so I'm indifferent as to what form (if any) of intervention the U.S. takes. It's all an interminable fuck-up at this point.

No American president would have done that because Assad had always been close to Russia and Iran.

It could've been tacit support, like not arming and supporting the Islamist rebels.

[Saiwania]

No American president would have done that because Assad had always been close to Russia and Iran.

What about the fact that Syrian air space is defended by Russia's S-300 and S-400 SAMs? Do these diplomats not know that Syria can shoot down any allied aircraft? It is effectively a no go zone for any and all of the USAF's inventory except for the F-22, the B-2 Spirit, and the F-35 if it was operational. All 4th generation fighters would be doomed going in.

In fact, I believe that an F-16 from the IDF got shot down over Syria. The S-300 proved to be too formidable of a defense.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-shoo ... rs/5471009

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

No American president would have done that because Assad had always been close to Russia and Iran.

It could've been tacit support, like not arming and supporting the Islamist rebels.

Nope.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

No American president would have done that because Assad had always been close to Russia and Iran.

What about the fact that Syrian air space is defended by Russia's S-300 and S-400 SAMs? Do these diplomats not know that Syria can shoot down any allied aircraft? It is effectively a no go zone for any and all of the USAF's inventory except for the F-22, the B-2 Spirit, and the F-35 if it was operational. All 4th generation fighters would be doomed going in.

In fact, I believe that an F-16 from the IDF got shot down over Syria. The S-300 proved to be too formidable of a defense.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-shoo ... rs/5471009

Global research is not a source. It's a rag for Putin-boner lefties.

[Valaran]

There's two specific points that I found interesting:

Firstly, they're not directly saying that the US should bomb Assad. The point being made in this document was that Assad has no incentive to actually agree to any peace deal, and so the idea of bombing him would be a suitable threat to bring him to the table. Its in essence a classic example of strategic coercion, as penned by Laurence Freedman.

Of course, the issue with this is that, in order for a threat to be credible, the US must be willing and able to carry it out. Clearly this is not the case, and even if it was willing to do so, Russia's involvement complicates matters considerably.

The Second Point is that this a response to an apparent failure of US policy. This could be read both as an indictment of US current policies in Syria (very valid), and as an appeal for attention on an issue that's been left drift (espcially in light of ISIS), but this has been a long time in the coming - its taken 5 years for such internal dissent to have materialised.

Also, the counter-point would be that a failing current Syria policy does not make this suggestion of threatened military action any more advisable. Nevertheless, it does raise the issue, and one that has been ignored.

Speaking more widely, this suggests interesting things about the State Department, and the foreign policy establishment in the US. One got a sense, espcially after reading the Atlantic's 'Obama Doctrine', that the President in many ways had a break from this establishment concerning Syria (indeed, Obama seemed defiantly proud of this break). However, in many ways this points to wider Strategic drift in the US. This dissent is clearly reacting to a perception that Obama has ignored the issue, but equally, the idea to threaten to bomb Assad also strikes me as strategically bankrupt (its been touted a lot, but has been increasingly untenable). The US doesn't really know its objectives with Syria, and so appeared to be pinning hopes on the peace deal, without ever ensuring that such a deal would be feasible. But even before that, its effectively allowed tactics (bomb Assad/train the rebels/take the chemical weapons/get a peace deal) and policies to inform strategy, and not the other way around. Perhaps its just Syria - the issue (and its context) is understandably tricky, and I don't think anyone has actually found a beneficial solution. But it is not entirely unrelated to other strategic problems the US is currently having, and there is a clear divide between the US' strategic muddling, and Russia's strategic clarity, and the results of both are clear.

The US should really use this internal dissent to get a grip, and understand what it wants to do.

[Traditional Conservative Justice]

Obama will never bomb ISIS because Barack Hussien Obama is commie muslim.

[Geilinor]

No American president would have done that because Assad had always been close to Russia and Iran.

It could've been tacit support, like not arming and supporting the Islamist rebels.

That's not what people generally mean when they talk about support.

[DBJ]

Obamas foreign policy was disastrous, especially in the ME. Doubt hillary will be significantly better, but at least it can't get any worse.

[Rio Cana]

Chances are those 51 so called diplomats were on there way out by January 2017. It is likely the next US leader, no matter of which political party, will toss out those who are not on there way out. Most leaders in order to be seen in control of things cannot have those below them questioning them in public or telling them in public what they should do.

[Traditional Conservative Justice]

Obamas foreign policy was disastrous, especially in the ME. Doubt hillary will be significantly better, but at least it can't get any worse.

Everyone always says "It can't get any worse than Bush foreign policy".

The Bush dynasty and Reagan were the best presidents! Those lefties don't know what they're talking about.

[Arcturus Novus]

God, there really is no good guy in this war, is there? We have a literal Russian-backed dictator trying to keep his country oppressed- but only in the way he sees fit; we have America and one part of the opposition doing... whatever it is the American government is claiming as justification for invading another country in the Middle East; and then we have ISIS, who are basically the stereotyped Muslim terrorists from at least one Call of Duty game.

[Kubra]

Obamas foreign policy was disastrous, especially in the ME. Doubt hillary will be significantly better, but at least it can't get any worse.

Everyone always says "It can't get any worse than Bush foreign policy".

The Bush dynasty and Reagan were the best presidents! Those lefties don't know what they're talking about.

except the bit in bush jr's terms where he bungled the iraq occupation
That was bad

[Southerly Gentleman]

It could've been tacit support, like not arming and supporting the Islamist rebels.

That's not what people generally mean when they talk about support.

There's room for subtlety in foreign policy.

[Socialist Nordia]

Obamas foreign policy was disastrous, especially in the ME. Doubt hillary will be significantly better, but at least it can't get any worse.

Everyone always says "It can't get any worse than Bush foreign policy".

The Bush dynasty and Reagan were the best presidents! Those lefties don't know what they're talking about.

Totally. I for one think that Dubya was a fantastic president. He handled the economy so well. He was such a great, strong leader when he invaded Iraq, even if he did get the wrong Muslims. And his vocabulary was the best part. He was an amazing speaker who had such a way with words.
*intense sarcasm

[The New Sea Territory]

I don't see the purpose in bombing Assad, it seems like it would only strengthen ISIS's hand.

...but Cold War 2.0!!!1! Russia!

[Ethel mermania]

Dozens of US State Department officials have signed an internal memo protesting against US policy in Syria and calling for targeted military strikes against President Bashar al-Assad's government.

They argue the current approach is working against the Syrian opposition and helping Mr Assad to stay in power.

It was signed by 51 mid-to-high level officials who advise on Syria issues.[/box]

51 mid-to-high level US officials who advise on Syria issues support IS, the Wannabe Sultan and their Saudi overlords. Colour me surprised.

What. Color is that, mauve or teal?