The GOP presidential field's dangerous fantasy on Iraq and Syria

[Brian4Liberty]

The GOP presidential field's dangerous fantasy on Iraq and Syria
By Michael Brendan Dougherty - August 17, 2015

Last week, Jeb Bush told an audience in California, "It is strength, and will, and clarity of purpose that make all the difference." This is the Tinker Bell school of foreign policy that has spread over most of the Republican presidential field. Clap if you believe in a stable Middle East where Syria is rid of ISIS, Al Nusra, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and any Iranian influence. Clap if you believe Iraq will be safe for religious minorities and free of undue Iranian influence, too.

Candidates who want to lead on foreign policy issues — like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham — are offering the American people variations of a very implausible U.S. strategy in the Middle East. And they are underselling the grave costs that even the architects of this policy admit.

In the case of Syria, Bush has argued that "defeating ISIS requires defeating Assad, but we have to make sure that his regime is not replaced by something as bad or worse." Careful readers of this space may remember that this same strategy was enunciated by Rubio, who said, "The reason Obama hasn't put in place a military strategy to defeat ISIS is because he doesn't want to upset Iran," which is Assad's main ally in the region.

At the time I said that Rubio's statement was dumber than a brick in a tumble-dryer, betraying a total misunderstanding of the conflict by failing to grasp that ISIS and Iran are on opposing sides of the conflict. I was wrong; Rubio does, in fact, grasp this basic dynamic. It's just that he — and, it turns out, Bush — believe that the United States can actually defeat Assad and Assad's enemies simultaneously.

In fact, Rubio, Bush, and Graham believe that the only way to defeat one is to defeat the other. Hawkish policy advisers who like the sound of multiple victories at once go back and forth on conspiracy theories as to whether there is some explicit or implicit agreement between Assad's Shiite regime and ISIS's rabidly Sunni forces.

The strategy of defeating ISIS and Assad and Al Nusra all at once originates with Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, who co-authored a white paper on defeating ISIS with Jessica D. Lewis. Even the authors of the paper, normally possessed of supreme confidence in the power of American leadership, seem to admit that it will be a costly and difficult task. And yet, they see no alternative.
...
Because the overriding regional concern of Republican hawks is the de-legitimization of the Iranian regime, policy experts and candidates are already ruling out the most obvious ways of defeating ISIS, such as collaborating with and strengthening Assad's forces and the Iraqi army in their respective territories. Instead, the idea is to defeat everyone at once, at low cost, without ugly alliances, and to the benefit of unnamed good guys.
...
As an electoral strategy, it is absolutely nuts that Republicans would preemptively tell the American people, "Elect me and I'll put American troops back on the ground in Iraq." And then add, "And Syria, too, and with allies TBD, and final victors TBD." This seems like a 2016 death wish. Not just for Republican electoral ambitions, but for American troops, American prestige, and American power.
...
More: http://theweek.com/articles/571880/gop-presidential-fields-dangerous-fantasy-iraq-syria

 

[Rad]

That is a very good article. Someone should present Republican voters with an alternative. I don't think Republicans care as long as Muslims die and the Clean Break strategy continues to be implemented. I wish someone running for the Republican candidacy would explain the dynamic of terrorism donors, Israel, and Iran in a honest way. I don't think they are interested in winning anything. They just want to enrich their war profiteering donors even more. Why end forever war? What good would that do them? I think they think the average Republican voter will hate and believe whatever they say. Its why the terrorist label is thrown around so haphazardly. its useful to get support for foreign adventures just like the communist label. I think if a Republican gets in office it will be because the voters would be punishing the Democrats for some reason not because of who the mealy mouthed Republican is.

 

[Jan2017]

The GOP presidential field's dangerous fantasy on Iraq and Syria
By Michael Brendan Dougherty - August 17, 2015

At the time I said that Rubio's statement was dumber than a brick in a tumble-dryer, betraying a total misunderstanding of the conflict by failing to grasp that ISIS and Iran are on opposing sides of the conflict. I was wrong; Rubio does, in fact, grasp this basic dynamic. It's just that he — and, it turns out, Bush — believe that the United States can actually defeat Assad and Assad's enemies simultaneously.

In fact, Rubio, Bush, and Graham believe that the only way to defeat one is to defeat the other. Hawkish policy advisers who like the sound of multiple victories at once go back and forth on conspiracy theories as to whether there is some explicit or implicit agreement between Assad's Shiite regime and ISIS's rabidly Sunni forces.

The strategy of defeating ISIS and Assad and Al Nusra all at once originates with Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, who co-authored a white paper on defeating ISIS with Jessica D. Lewis. Even the authors of the paper, normally possessed of supreme confidence in the power of American leadership, seem to admit that it will be a costly and difficult task. And yet, they see no alternative.

That is a very good article. . . . I wish someone running for the Republican candidacy would explain
the dynamic of terrorism donors, Israel, and Iran in a honest way. I don't think they are interested in winning anything.
They just want to enrich their war profiteering donors even more. Why end forever war? What good would that do them? . . .

Thanks for posting this - it is a very good article.

And the Bush, and Rubio, and Lindsey Graham foreign policy of multiple war fronts
could never get a question from Fox News like . . . how are you going to pay for that foreign policy - or - that massive military machine ?

 

[Rad]

Thanks for posting this - it is a very good article.

And the Bush, and Rubio, and Lindsey Graham foreign policy of multiple war fronts
could never get a question from Fox News like . . . how are you going to pay for that foreign policy - or - that massive military machine ?

Fox News promotes that it is conservative to spend money on wars. They have to keep the village idiot Christian zionist herd from wandering off. It isn't so much about paying as getting permission to spend. Terrorism, ISIS, Ukraine, Putin, Assad, Israel... are just different brand which to use to enrich the war profiteers. The Neocons get it. That is why they love military spending, wars, and surveillance. Its good for business and it benefits Israel (with weapons and wars). War profiteers have a solution looking for a problem. No one is taking on the war economy this election season. I think if we have to pay tribute (it looks like we do at the moment as I look around at the presidential field) to the war profiteers and give them money. Could we pay them to do something else with it? What would that be?

We know who is backing ISIS. Its the Sunni autocrats. The same ones that fund Al Qaeda. There is space for someone to tell the truth about this and the relationships in the Middle East and show how much the American people have been had on this terrorism scam. It would require educating an ignorant public.

 

[Jan2017]

Fox News promotes that it is conservative to spend money on wars. . . .

Exactly . . . well put.

How can anyone call themselves - or be labelled by Hannity or other Fox talking heads - as fiscally conservative
when they would exponentially grow military or defense spending (?)

Oh, and it is fiscally conservative to have given $20 billion in aid to Israelis -
so that can buy a few F-35s with USA aid money.

What a sham . . . What a shame.



.