Syria: Obama To Work With Assad?
Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, muses about Obama's speech in West Point. The piece includes this nugget on Syria:
This may well surprise experts, but senior administration officials tell me that Obama has been modifying his objective and is now prepared to work with Assad, to some degree, along with the moderate rebels, against what the White House finally has come to see as the real and major threat—the jihadists. These senior officials further say that they expect support in this new policy from previous opponents, i.e. from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Let us hope that this is true.
Amen.
As is know none of the "moderate rebels" in Syria are actually moderate. That leaves the Syrian government under President Assad as the only party to work with. The rumor Leslie Gelb spreads here rings true because in his speech Obama, despite earlier announcements, did not spell out any additional help for the Syrian opposition. Maybe he recognized that U.S. training is not really necessary to teach the jihadists "how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush."
Posted by b on May 29, 2014 at 8:43 UTC | Permalink
« previous pagePosted by: somebody | May 31, 2014 4:40:02 AM | 99
They are part of the sectarian problem and part of the patronage system.
Who in the hell claimed that Hezbollah solved Lebanon's political problems. I think we all agree that that country is one seriously divided country. What Hezbollah has done is repulsed Israeli aggression and seriously hindered western imperialist control of that country. And they have done this without stoking sectarian divisions inside Lebanon, even if those divisions remain. Give it up somebody, you are losing this one.
Posted by: ToivoS | May 31 2014 9:02 utc | 102
I dont get it either why somebody keeps on.
In sum:
Hezbollah protect the southern Lebanon
Lebanon is sectarian, it has nothing to do with Hezbollah
Hezbollah works/are supported by people from all kind of religions/groups in Lebanon
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31 2014 9:32 utc | 103
Posted by: ToivoS | May 31, 2014 5:02:38 AM | 102
And they have done this without stoking sectarian divisions inside Lebanon, even if those divisions remain
Don't know. Accusing other parties of being proxies for Saudi Arabia, the US or France sure is no conciliatory tone. Especially when accused by other parties of being a proxy for Iran. And especially when Israel and the Project for a New Middle East is thrown into the mix.
Well I have a question: If Israel gained victory in its war against Lebanon in 2006 and in its war against the Gaza Strip in 2008, and if America managed to strike the Iraqi resistance and the Neo Middle East – which you were a part of – was established, was the Arab Spring to be given birth? Or were a fall and a severe winter to set in all Arab countries?
But this is sparring. None of the Lebanese players has an interest to return to another full blown civil war - simply because they have no chance to win against Hezbollah.
Any solution however seems to depend on Saudi - Iranian detente - and we are back to b.'s post that everybody seems to be fighting terrorism, again.
Posted by: somebody | May 31 2014 9:57 utc | 104
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2014 5:32:41 AM | 103
There are a few principles of political sanity. A very basic one is "Do not support a group which does not take you as a member".
How can Hezbollah not be sectarian if you have to be Shiite to join and agree with Wilayat al-Faqih?
Posted by: somebody | May 31 2014 10:08 utc | 105
Interesting Interview: Senator Richard Black About His Letter Thanking Assad
Posted by: PeacefulProsperity | May 31 2014 10:16 utc | 106
@somebody Obviously you are wrong - ever heard about coalitions of parties even forming governments together? Is Merkel insane supporting her coalition partner?
Posted by: PeacefulProsperity | May 31 2014 10:19 utc | 107
somebody
I just said that Lebanon is sectarian it has nothing to do with Hezbollah or how it defines them.
I have no idea what you need to be to join Hezbollah, have you? You should give us a link then.
What I said was though that Hezbollah works/supported by people from all religions/political groups in Lebanon. So your argument that they are hardcore sectarian is wrong.
A sectarian group wouldnt work with anyone but with their own sect. Complete opposite to Hezbollah.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31 2014 10:26 utc | 108
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2014 6:26:42 AM | 108
I posted the link here : somebody | May 31, 2014 1:30:26 AM | 95
Alliance on certain issues does not equal support. It is a matter of framing.
Or a logical fallacy.
Like saying: a) Israel is an imperialist country, b) Hezbollah fights against Israel therefore c) Hezbollah is anti imperialist
or a) Israel is an enemy of Palestinians b) Hezbollah is fighting against Israel c) therefore Hezbollah is a friend of the Palestinians
My bet is that Israel is threatened by peace, not by Hezbollah.
Posted by: somebody | May 31 2014 10:52 utc | 109
somebody
No I asked for a source concering this:
How can Hezbollah not be sectarian if you have to be Shiite to join and agree with Wilayat al-Faqih?
I havent said the word "equal support" I said that people from all religions/political groups support Hezbollah and that is in part due their anti-imperialistic views.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31 2014 10:59 utc | 110
Obama has no choice than to work with Bashar al Assad...
Why Obama has changed his mind on Syria
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-syria-obama-20140601-column.html
....
What's changed? Not the moderate rebels' chances of victory in their fight against both Assad and Al Qaeda. After a series of military setbacks, those rebels are in worse shape on the ground than they were two years ago.Instead, it's the alarming growth and reach of extremist Islamist groups in Syria — some allied with Al Qaeda — that is driving Obama's decisions.
Posted by: Virgile | May 31 2014 11:57 utc | 111
Oh. My. God.
Not a single person agrees with Somebody's position yet he just. Keeps. Talking.
Posted by: Massinissa | May 31 2014 14:47 utc | 112
About:
"Maybe he recognized that U.S. training is not really necessary to teach the jihadists "how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush"
Here's a bit of history. The jihadists had the training already, courtesy of David Petraeus's Sunni 'awakening councils' in Iraq.
http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/05/26/counterfeit-coin/
Somehow I doubt backing off in Syria at this point is going to do much to help
Posted by: Ronald Thomas West | Jun 1 2014 12:38 utc | 113
Leslie Gelb, whoever that is? Is full of beans and the after effects of said beans.
b- you may want to believe that Syria is safe. And in fact you have said as much on many occasions- but that has been and continues to be a mistaken belief for the foreseeable future
The US and co have not backed off one bit on Syria. That much has been obvious- new weapons- new mascots- always rehashing the chemical weapon meme, trying to take Syrian officials to the ICC
Creating ways to get around that-
They will let Assad stay in until they grind that country to nothing and then they will wield the death blows
It's Yugoslavia... again. Where a so called " civil war" with ethnic overtones raged for years
It's the same thing
Beware of the “breaking news” regarding Syria on June 2nd or 3rd:
http://radioyaran.com/2014/06/01/beware-of-the-breaking-news-regarding-syria-on-june-2nd-or-3rd/
Posted by: KerKaraje | Jun 1 2014 18:43 utc | 115
The comments to this entry are closed.
Sorry: here is the link
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/102570/World/Region/US-confirms-American-carried-out-Syria-suicide-bom.aspx
Posted by: Mina | May 31 2014 8:58 utc | 101