Sistani Orders Turkey Out Of Iraq - Syria Oppo-Conference Fails
After the U.S. invasion of Iraq the U.S vice consul Paul Bremer tried to install a handpicked Iraqi government. The top Shia religious authority in Iraq, Grand Ajatollah Sistani, demanded a democratic vote. The issue was thereby decided. There was no way the U.S could have circumvented Sisitani's edict without a massive revolt by the 65% of Iraqis who are Shia and mostly follow his advice. Bremer had to fold.
Now Ajatollah Sistani takes position against the Turkish invasion of Iraq:
Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, called on the government on Friday to show "no tolerance" of any infringement of the country's sovereignty, after Turkey deployed heavily armed troops to northern Iraq.Sistani's spokesman, Sheikh Abdul Mehdi Karbala'i, did not explicitly name Turkey, but a row over the deployment has badly soured relations between Ankara and Baghdad, which denies having agreed to it.
...
"The Iraqi government is responsible for protecting Iraq's sovereignty and must not tolerate and side that infringes upon on it, whatever the justifications and necessities," Karbalai'i said in a weekly sermon.
The issue is thereby decided. Turkish troops will have to leave or will have to decisively defeat all Shia of Iraq (and Iran). If Erdogan were smart he would now order the Turkish troops stationed near Mosul to leave Iraq.
The Russian President Putin also increased pressure on Turkey:
President Vladimir Putin on Friday ordered Russia's armed forces to act in an "extremely tough way" in Syria to protect Russian forces striking Islamic State targets there."Any targets threatening our (military) group or land infrastructure must be immediately destroyed," Putin said, speaking at a Defence Ministry event.
Note to Erdogan: Beware of funny ideas...
---
There was some Syrian opposition conference yesterday in Saudi Arabia were the Saudis tried to bribe everyone to agree on a common position. But the conference failed. Some 116 delegates took part under "international guidance" of their various sponsors. A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda aligned Ahrar al Sham, which closely cooperates with the al-Qaeda entity Jabhat al Nusra in Syria, also took part. No women were present.
The conference resulted in the decision to hold another conference. The 116 delegates at the conference decided to select 33 delegates for a conference which would decide on 15 delegates to confer and maybe take part in some negotiations with the Syrian government side. The NYT's Ben Hubbard, who was there, tweeted:
Ben Hubbard @NYTBen
...The meeting created yet another new opposition body, a high commission, meant to oversee negotiations.There was debate about how large it should be and what proportion should represent armed groups. Final was 32, changed after meetings to 33.
Those 33 now tasked with choosing a 15 person negotiating team. So, yeah, umbrella groups making a new umbrella.
The political demands the conference agreed upon include non-starters for negotiations like the demand that the Syrian President Assad would leave within 6 weeks of the negotiations start. There was also this illuminating word game:
Islamist delegates objected to using the word “democracy” in the final statement, so the term “democratic mechanism” was used instead, according to a member of one such group who attended the meeting.
The Ahrar al-Sham delegate at the meeting signed the deal while the Ahrar al Sham bigwigs, who took not part, damned the deal and announced they were completely against it. They demand an Islamic State in Syria that would follow their militant Salafi line of believe. Hubbard again:
Ben Hubbard @NYTBen
Re: @Ahrar_Alsham2. It's main delegate did not walk out. Before meeting ended, members not present released statement announcing withdrawal.The session's moderator said Ahrar delegate was not aware of statement by his group until later, but did sign the final communiqué.
Then Ahrar members like @aleesa71 and @a_azraeel complained on Twitter, suggesting a split between military and political leaders.
The Saudi and Qatari Wahhabi rulers want Ahrar al Sham to be part of any future solution in Syria. They hired "western" think tanks like Brookings Doha to propagandize that Ahrar is "moderate". But Ahrar can not be "moderate" when it is fighting together with al-Qaeda and kills civilians because they are "unbelievers". It is now in an uncomfortable position. If it takes part in a peace conference with the Syrian government its Jabhat al-Nusra ally will roast it, if it doesn't take part its Saudi and Qartari financiers will fry it.
Since the start of the war on Syria no unity has been achieved in the opposition of the Syrian government. The U.S., in form of the CIA head John Brennan, teamed up (again) with al-Qaeda while the State Department tried to sponsor more "moderates". The ensuing chaos continues today.
To prevent further blowback from this nonsense strategy will obviously require a change towards a position that supports the Syrian government. It is doubtful that the U.S. is capable of such foresight and flexibility.
Posted by b on December 11, 2015 at 13:18 UTC | Permalink
next page »Thank b for the update.
I was asking the other day, where is Al-Sistani when you need him? The answer didn't take that long. He is a true Iraqi patriot, and his Friday's khutbah, short of a fatwa, are commands for the Shi'ites. Now the Shia militias have been given the order, Turkey out of Iraq. Great news to begin the day.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 11 2015 13:44 utc | 2
What about this hair-raising prospect?
Around 100,000 foreign military, including 90,000 from Arab countries, may be deployed to Iraq to fight against the Islamic State (IS) terrorist organization, Iraq Press Agency quoted politician Hanan Al Faltawi as saying.
A rumour to begin with?
Posted by: persiflo | Dec 11 2015 13:51 utc | 3
Gayane Chichakyan and John Kirby on Turkey in Iraq:
State Dept. [ John Kirby] dodges RT’s question about Turkish troops in Iraq, gets personal
Posted by: erichwwk | Dec 11 2015 13:52 utc | 4
b: "The issue is thereby decided."
No, only Reuters citing some words...
Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 11 2015 13:58 utc | 5
@3 persiflo
Like the British Government these Arab countries welcome UNSCR 2249
welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which determines that Isil constitutes an ‘unprecedented threat to international peace and security’ and calls on states to take ‘all necessary measures’ to prevent terrorist acts by Isil and to ‘eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria
Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 11 2015 14:18 utc | 6
@3 I think Mr. Kirby dealt very eloquently with that question. The US invites various countries into Iraq. It is then up to the Iraqi government to deal with the fallout.
Posted by: dh | Dec 11 2015 14:21 utc | 7
re: erichwwk | Dec 11, 2015 8:52:47 AM | 4
Either that Kirby is a total wanker, or he is very smart and on the RT payroll. RT would pay a lot of rubles for that sort of PR. My guess is he's a wanker, judging from his body language and attitude.
Gayane Chichakyan's beauty is exceeded only by her articulate brilliance. She makes Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Mika Brzezinski, or Meygan Kelly and all the male US pundits look like dullards.
The Saudis moderating a democracy?? Since they are so well versed on them? Wow, crazy world.
A Kurt Vonnegut novel.
Posted by: shadyl | Dec 11 2015 14:43 utc | 9
The key question,by GC:
"Does the U.S. approve of Turkey’s development of forces in Iraq without the permission of the Iraqi Government?" [@ 41:19 here] Text here leads to this:
Gayane C.
"The Iraqi parliament’s Security and Defense Committee is calling for the review or cancelation of the U.S. security agreement with Iraq. What does the U.S. do to address their concerns?"
John K.:
I haven’t seen those reports, ma’am. "
Posted by: erichwwk | Dec 11 2015 14:46 utc | 10
[...] It is doubtful that the U.S. is capable of such foresight and flexibility.
No doubt b has the foresight to see US shortsightedness when it comes to pursuing the empire's policies. The Babel takfiri gathering, despite all the bribing, coercing and cajoling from the alphabet soup of intel agencies "sponsoring" them, couldn't get further than "umbrella groups making a new umbrella," and as usual in these kind of "negotiations," the military branch fighting on the ground holds different views than the political bureaucrats, most of them CIA/MI6/Mossad/KSA puppets.
Not much will come out of these CIA/MI6/Mossad/KSA agenda-driven "negotiations," their political ground disintegrating with every Russian bombing run, their "petitions" about "Assad must go" in 6 weeks or 6 months, ever more hollow. Soon they will have no power to demand anything, their political puppets will have nothing on the ground in Syria, their surrogate empire agendas broken against the wall of resistance, Russian, Iranian, Iraqi, HA determination to break their backs.
Their collective destiny is the trash bin of history.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 11 2015 15:03 utc | 11
Mr. Erdogan will not be happy until we are all personally nuclear-roasted to the last American.
I want him to know that I am taking this personally. That scumbag needs an ass-kicking bigtime.
Posted by: blues | Dec 11 2015 15:04 utc | 12
Turkish government is perhaps the boldest liar. On the issue of troops in norther Iraq, the latest claim is that they are there on the request of Prime Minister Abadi. Who is sooo friendly that Turkish government issued advise to citizens not to visit Iraq except for the Kurdish region. Iraqi National News inform that Barzani went out to visit Ankara, Abadi also decided that it is a good time for foreign visits and went to Tehran. Another two Russian attack helicopters were delivered (allegedly, more than enough to convert 20 obsolete tanks to metal scrap).
So far, Barzani plays a double game: he claimed "neutrality" and has private deal with Turkey, but I suspect that he will pay the price among his own Kurds. Kurdish Region clearly has to carefully play with the neighbors of which it has: Turkey, YPG/PKK, Iran, Baghdad government and ISIS. Plus, it is a pet ally of NATO -- but so is YPG that is hostile to Turkey. USA cleverly avoids any position.
Closer to OUR home, John Kirby chided RT reporter that his organization never asks hard questions to its own government. Unlike American press! We can compare an oppressive system where the government creates and punishes corporations (Russia, Turkey) with the wide fertile fields of freedom where the government is created by the corporations. So in a free country, when the government strays from corporate line it gets tough questions, but in the case, Obama stays within limits.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 11 2015 15:05 utc | 13
By the way, what will we do when Trump becomes President and bans internet as promised?
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 11 2015 15:06 utc | 14
@14 Piotr Berman
got a link for that 'promise' (which is OT!)
Posted by: crone | Dec 11 2015 15:11 utc | 15
The USA will change its policy only after the current administration will be gone: 2016
Posted by: Virgule | Dec 11 2015 15:14 utc | 16
So Trump "announces" he's gonna ban the internet? This is probably bullmanure. I say there should be cameras and microphones in every room in the White House. After all, they should have nothing to fear if they have nothing to hide.
And forget about how the "master code-breakers" won WW-II. The Russians won that war -- not our stupid nerds in the English code warriors. We don't need secrets anymore. The truth is the only real power, and we need much more of it.
Also -- life behind bars to politicians who lie.
This is the real meaning of Information Equity.
Posted by: blues | Dec 11 2015 15:18 utc | 17
From the Hague@6 You omitted section 5. of UNSC Resolution which say's that any action must be "in compliance with International law,in particular with the UN Charter, as well as International human rights, refugees and humanitarian law. The legitimate government of Syria must give its consent to foreign interference. This research paper from Columbia University Institute for Human Rights on ISIS-Turkey links is a must read..http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke_b_6128950.html
Posted by: harry law | Dec 11 2015 15:19 utc | 18
I hope the Iraqi militias help the Kurds clean house in Iraq. SouthFront:
Analysis & Intelligence has information that, in turn, Russia has started to support the Kurdish national movement in Turkey.The situation in Turkey remains critical. Political and national dissidents amid the deep economical crisis tear the country apart. Moreover, Ankara’s actions against the Kurds which are 30% of the Turkish population have already escalated the situation to an open military conflict inside the country.
If the tendency remains, the partition of Turkey could become possible in the nearest future. The Russian support of the Kurdish movements in Turkey and the Kurdish enclaves in Syria and Iraq which border with Turkey are a strong argument for this possibility.
I think they've made this up ... but things do seem to be tending in this direction. The US has been acting through Turkey just so that they can shrug, hang Turkey out to dry, and walk away if/when Turkey's bluff fails.
Posted by: jfl | Dec 11 2015 15:27 utc | 19
@5
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/12/11/441258/Iraq-foreign-troops-Turkey-Ayatollah-Sistani--
So PressTV reports it too.
Posted by: CarlD | Dec 11 2015 15:33 utc | 20
Boy! So much good stuff in here, b, I hardly know where to start.
But I like...
"There were no women present"
Yep. That's the unmistakable stench of God-botherers.
and...
"The conference resulted in the decision to hold another conference."
These preliminary pre-meeting meetings are really catching on aren't they (not that anyone would dream of suggesting that panic is the Mother of indecision)?
Maybe Time Magazine should declare Dilbert Person Of The Year...
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 11 2015 15:37 utc | 21
So the Russians pushed Erdogan out of Syria -- and the Old Turks then invade Iraq?
And it all seems to be about... oil?
I hope the Old Turks fall on their faces. The Iraqis are battle hardened. And making noises like they've had enough.
(Funny aside -- Benjamin Fulford says the Turkey is cooked! (Good for an odd change!)):
http://benjaminfulford.com/
Posted by: blues | Dec 11 2015 15:39 utc | 22
@Piotr Berman #14
By the way, what will we do when Trump becomes President and bans internet as promised?
Good question. Same question back to you, what will we do if either Hillary or Sanders becomes President and continue endless wars. Both are long time Israel supporters and Israel has the right to protect themselves and right to exist.
Posted by: Jack Smith | Dec 11 2015 15:50 utc | 23
@ 18 harry law
I omitted nothing.
Maybe you didn't open the link.
You have to adress your complaints to the British Government.
Or to Russia.
Russia didn't veto the resolution, a very serious blunder.
Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 11 2015 15:57 utc | 24
@Virgule #16
The USA will change its policy only after the current administration will be gone: 2016
Again your question back to you, if we (the voters) votes for the same Dupoly will we get different results?
Posted by: Jack Smith | Dec 11 2015 16:03 utc | 25
...
Soon they will have no power to demand anything, their political puppets will have nothing on the ground in Syria, their surrogate empire agendas broken against the wall of resistance, Russian, Iranian, Iraqi, HA determination to break their backs. Their collective destiny is the trash bin of history.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 11, 2015 10:03:58 AM | 11
Two or 3 days ago China officially reminded Turkey what Iraq Sovereignty means.
Imo this is Round 1 of Yankees Go Home (while you've still got one) and stay there.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 11 2015 16:08 utc | 26
I have no idea if Israel has some “right to exist”. All the Jewish people I know who were less-than-successful moved to Israel. The successful ones stayed in America.
When the U.S. economy crumbles it will get to a point where we won't be sending Israel its $3-billion (really at least $10-billion) a year. Then Israel will have the right to exist as a giant ghetto.
The entire Middle East is an awful soon-to-be disaster area. Their water will run dry when they run out of energy to power desalination. It's an onrushing ecological disaster that nobody talks about.
About the duopoly trap -- Check out:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/11/431050.shtml
Posted by: blues | Dec 11 2015 16:10 utc | 27
@blues # 17
Only politicians-- life behind bars to politicians who lie, or include the president?and who dare to impeach this president?
No offence intended:-)
Posted by: Jack Smith | Dec 11 2015 16:15 utc | 28
From the Hague @24 I did open the link, the UK Government said in that resolution before the cabinet, that the UK had a right to defend itself within the UN Charter, Many legal observers have said that to directly use aggression against another state even if the aggression is from a non state actor within that state, the legitimate government must be either unwilling or unable to stop that threat, clearly the Syrian government with the help of the Russians are willing and are able to eradicate the threat. However I do share your view that the US will inter prate that resolution any way they want, to that extent the Russians should have been more aware, especially after the Libya debacle.
Posted by: harry law | Dec 11 2015 16:18 utc | 29
@ Denis 8
I think I love that lady. What more could you want? Looks, brains, and courage. Perfect :-)
Posted by: Trog51 | Dec 11 2015 16:20 utc | 30
Here is a view from a legal perspective, "In particular, the resolution is worded so as to suggest there is Security Council support for the use of force against IS. However, though the resolution, and the unanimity with which it was adopted, might confer a degree of legitimacy on actions against IS, the resolution does not actually authorize any actions against IS, nor does it provide a legal basis for the use of force against IS either in Syria or in Iraq.http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-constructive-ambiguity-of-the-security-councils-isis-resolution/
Posted by: harry law | Dec 11 2015 16:26 utc | 31
@blues #27
Thank you b. Canada voted "strategically" during the last Federal election and Liberal Party's Justin Trudeau won. My question is Liberal Party's Trudeau any difference from the Dupoly?
Justin Trudeau - Liberal - 184
Stephen Harper - Conservative - 99
Tom Mulcair - New Democratic - 44
Posted by: Jack Smith | Dec 11 2015 16:40 utc | 32
Sputnik reports on the meeting in Saudi, http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151211/1031606250/syria-riyadh-opposition-talks.html
The Kurds also held a conference. Syrian government says Saudi conference carries no legitimacy.
Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 11 2015 16:46 utc | 33
The largest Islamist rebel faction operating in Syria – Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham – has issued a statement following their participation in the Riyadh peace conference.
This statement expressed Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham’s satisfaction with the meeting and its participants; it also thanked the Saudi’s for hosting the conference.
Perhaps the most important part of the statement delivered by the Islamist group was the list of demands that expressed their overall objective in Syria.
According to their statement, Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham has issued a list of demands:
All Iranian and Russian military personnel must leave Syria.
The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) should be disbanded, along with their paramilitary units – they reference the Shabiha.
All of Syria shall be united – no partition.
Syria will become an Islamic state.
No negotiations with the Syrian Government.
Fighting ISIS is secondary because rebels have lost family members because of the war with the Syrian Army.
Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham asserts – once again – that Syria will be an Islamic state.
A secular Syria will only empower ISIS.
Any agreement without Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham will be considered “unsuccessful” and “unofficial”.http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/largest-rebel-group-calls-for-an-islamic-state-in-syria/
Posted by: harry law | Dec 11 2015 16:56 utc | 34
...
However I do share your view that the US will inter prate that resolution any way they want, to that extent the Russians should have been more aware, especially after the Libya debacle.
Posted by: harry law | Dec 11, 2015 11:18:25 AM | 29
What makes you think they weren't sufficiently aware?
Or to put it another way ... what if Putin (and Xi) had already decided that if the R2P Christians demonstrate that they believe too much of their own bullshit, he'll make them eat it?
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 11 2015 17:10 utc | 35
@ Lone Wolf 11
The use of proxy armies has long been a favoured British policy. Less expensive in personnel and treasure, and of course less protest at home. Libya was an opportunity for the Brits (MI6) to show the Yanks how to do it. The whole thing makes me sick. These fuckers just play with peoples lives and don't seem to give a shit.
Posted by: Trog51 | Dec 11 2015 17:26 utc | 36
@19 The same has been reported by Gregory Copley (via John Batchelor Show https://audioboom.com/search?utf8=✓&q=Gregory+Copley), so the report may have merit. If so, Russia has found their own "good terrorists".
If you think about it, the next logical step after Syria is settled would be to decide which empire will control the oil fields and pipeline routes of greater Kurdistan. My bet is that neither east nor west trusts Erdogan at all any longer, so Important borders like those of Turkey and Kurdistan may change regardless of what Turkey wants.
Posted by: yellowsnapdragon | Dec 11 2015 17:31 utc | 37
Hoarsewhisperer @35. You are right, Putin knows very well the machinations of the Empire and it is to be hoped that he conveys the same message to it he gave the Turkish Ambassador ..Russian president to Turkish ambassador: "tell your dictator President he can go to hell along with his ISIS terrorists, I will make Syria a 'Big Stalingrad' for him!" http://awdnews.com/top-news/russian-president-to-turkish-ambassador-tell-your-dictator-president-he-can-go-to-hell-along-with-his-isis-terrorists,-i-will-make-syria-a-big-stalingrad-for-him
Posted by: harry law | Dec 11 2015 17:38 utc | 38
I wrote a lot about Sistani while in college. He is a fascinating figure. I am encouraged that he has spoken out again.
Erdogan stated on Dec 10 that Turkey will not withdrawal. Sistani's remark will put pressure on Turkey but it may not be enough to change his mind.
The Shia militia's have not defeated ISIS and if what we believe is true then as ISIS' sponsor Turkey will not back down to a Shia militia movement that can not defeat its creation.
An aspect that I have no way of knowing is if Erdogan is in face saving mode. He appears to have built a public image as a tough strong SUNNI leader. If he backs down to an Shia Ayatollah with out a shot fired then I think he will lose face. Am I wrong?
I have not kept up with this region since right before ISIS rose to power. MoA is a great resource to catch up. Even the trolls are helpful. I do not have to bother watching/reading Corporate media to know the Corporate lies.
Posted by: AnEducatedFool | Dec 11 2015 17:44 utc | 39
this meeting is just another reflection of zatos ongoing meetings to get rid of assad, or worse - create a new country out of syria and iraq.. i wonder what they do with libya after they work this out? they've had much success in getting rid of saddam and gaddafi by replacing them with ISIS, i guess they figure it is worth continuing..
the meeting located in headchopper country is interesting.. they aren't organizing to go after the headchoppers, but to get rid of assad... how would this work if another country held a conference to replace the head of saudi arabia?
but the part i like the best is that usa is good friends with saudi arabia.. nothing like having the blind lead the blind into a much bigger mess then they already have going.. they seemed to have dragged turkey along for the ride too.. maybe erdogan or one of these reject sultans would like to rule the new libya?
it's all so very religious!
Posted by: james | Dec 11 2015 17:55 utc | 40
@ 35 Hoarsewhisperer
That sounds like Putin (and Xi) stab in the back of Assad.
Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 11 2015 17:58 utc | 41
Posted by: harry law | Dec 11, 2015 12:38:28 PM | 38
Good. I'm glad you took that in the spirit it was intended.
And I wanted to say re your #34 (ISIS ultimatum)
from the sublime to the ridiculous ... ISIS talking (alternately) out of the NATO /Bibi /Erdogan side of their mouth?
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 11 2015 18:07 utc | 42
DT? try "Dumb Turd," instead of the given name of the mad casino owner...
Posted by: james k. sayre | Dec 11 2015 18:17 utc | 43
@ 38 harry law
Putin losing his temper..
Illustrating things got out of hand.
Russia started so good with those perfect actions in Syria on request of Syria.
Then allowing US, Britain, France and everybody to come in.
Russia made a mess of it.
Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 11 2015 18:26 utc | 44
Gloves off now.
Trump cancels trip to Israel, and refuses money at Jewish Republican Event.
Netanyahu rejects calls to cancel meeting over Republican presidential frontrunner’s remarks that Muslims should be banned from entering the US
I forget, how many muslims does Bibi allow into Israel yearly?
Posted by: shadyl | Dec 11 2015 18:34 utc | 45
I think Russia thought that by adding a reference to "UN Charter" in the Resolution they were safeguarding Syrian and Iraqi sovereign rights.
I am not an international lawyer but it seems clear that the UNSC 2249 allows for much bad behavior in the name of fighting ISIS. There is no 'aggression' because States fighting ISIS are: a) nominally not trying to topple these governments or take territory from them, and b) Syria and Iraq don't have control over ISIS areas.
UNSC has authorized that ALL NECESSARY MEANS be used against ISIS and that would logically include ground occupation of ISIS-held territory as well as related operations in Iraq and Syrian-held areas (like the Turkish incursion).
One could well imagine that, once such an occupation occurs, the "facts on the ground" would have changed so that theoccuping forces refuse to give the Syrian and Iraqi governments control of the areas after the people in those areas (including any refugees/EU immigrants that are returned/re-settled there) ask to be recognized by the UN as a new State. At that point, UN humanitarian concerns and "right of self-determination" would come into play.
In this layman's opinion, UNSC 2249 does appear to be problematic for the 4+1 Coalition.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
I think that what we are seeing is all prologue to the next round of talks in Vienna next week.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 11 2015 18:46 utc | 46
@3 Persiflo,
I also posted that scarey report by an Iraqi mp that US wd commit 10K troops & Gulf states 90K. I think it was Harry Lw who reminded me that the report actually originated w McCain since he was visiting Iraq at the time.
And of course McCain constantly utters his wishes as if they were incantations. At any rate, any fighters provided by Gulf countries will be just more mercenaries if they can be found, trained & transported-- all of which takes time.
Posted by: Penelope | Dec 11 2015 18:48 utc | 47
From Ukraine to Qatar to Syraq: 2000 Russian-made high-explosive fragmentation bombs.
http://orientalreview.org/2015/12/08/where-will-the-ukrainian-bombs-explode/
Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 11 2015 19:14 utc | 50
@From The Hague@1
So Iraq and Syria are in chaos.
Is this a realization or an information? Wonder if the "partner" who posted this just landed from another planet, or has been in hibernation. Wonder if writing more than one line, or getting OT with his not-so-hidden redundantly Russophobic "the Russians are to blame for UNSC 2249" would cause him a brain implosion. Wonder who he is trolling for.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 11 2015 19:23 utc | 51
@47 By the time McCain's 100,000 troops get set up and ready the jihadis will be long gone. So it's an occupation force.
Posted by: dh | Dec 11 2015 19:26 utc | 52
@james@48
@44 from the hague.. the new wow..
Dear James, Please don't insult my dear Wayoutwaste, he's a genius next to this guy, who was given a one line trolling "UNSC 2249," and hasn't stopped pestering us ever since. WoWaste at least changes topic, and his post look "intelligent" until you check all the bs out. Thanks. Lone Wolf.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 11 2015 19:31 utc | 53
# 51 Mad Wolf
His arguments are very strong: russophobic, brain implosion, trolling
Maybe he only can read one line comments.
So he missed # 83 in:
Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 11 2015 19:34 utc | 54
@Hoarsewhisperer@26
Two or 3 days ago China officially reminded Turkey what Iraq Sovereignty means.
Imo this is Round 1 of Yankees Go Home (while you've still got one) and stay there.
Thanks for the info, I missed that piece of news about China warning Turkey, wonder if you remember where you read it, or if you can link me to it, I'd appreciate it.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 11 2015 19:44 utc | 55
And its not just Iraq and Syria. I read (yesterday NYTimes, I believe) that USA is expanding bases in Africa and elsewhere to combat ISIS.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions - like UNSC 2249.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 11 2015 19:57 utc | 56
This is the MSF hospital in Kunduz. I think the two servicemen, whom Rep. Duncan Hunter will not name because they fear retaliation, are very probably the crew of the AC-130, who are now the objects of an investigation.
Posted by: lysias | Dec 11 2015 19:58 utc | 57
In my comment at 31 referring to the UNSC resolution 2249, a comment in my link to http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-constructive-ambiguity-of-the-security-councils-isis-resolution/comment-page-1/#comments made the important observation that section 5 of that resolution has these key words: ‘on the territory under the control of ISIL …’, thus by-passing the need for consent of Syria (or Iraq) and so not requiring Security Council ‘authorisation’? It would not be enforcement action needing to override the will of a member state of the UN. So that any military action against Syrian Government areas would be a illegal.
Posted by: harry law | Dec 11 2015 20:12 utc | 58
Israel likes the chaos.
(Of course, only the mad ones are blind to the chaos)
For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.“This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,” said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. “Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/israel-backs-limited-strike-against-syria.html
Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 11 2015 20:18 utc | 59
@Trog51@36
@ Lone Wolf 11
The use of proxy armies has long been a favoured British policy. Less expensive in personnel and treasure, and of course less protest at home. Libya was an opportunity for the Brits (MI6) to show the Yanks how to do it. The whole thing makes me sick. These fuckers just play with peoples lives and don't seem to give a shit.
I agree. As long as those people are non-whites, or Caucasians not from NATO or ANZUS, they are fair game to be used as cannon fodder, or killed as "collateral damage," whatever comes first in their circumstances and "usefulness" for the empire. The myriad collection of insurgent groups in Syria is a reflection of all their "sponsoring" powers, each with their own agenda, all with the aim of breaking Syria into pieces and take their lion share of the spoils. Fortunately, Syria is getting away from their criminal hands every day the 4+1 kills one more takfiri, and they are dying by the hundreds. What for?
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 11 2015 20:20 utc | 60
@harry law@58
In my comment at 31 referring to the UNSC resolution 2249, a comment in my link to http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-constructive-ambiguity-of-the-security-councils-isis-resolution/comment-page-1/#comments made the important observation that section 5 of that resolution has these key words: ‘on the territory under the control of ISIL …’, thus by-passing the need for consent of Syria (or Iraq) and so not requiring Security Council ‘authorisation’? It would not be enforcement action needing to override the will of a member state of the UN. So that any military action against Syrian Government areas would be a illegal.
I read your clarification, thanks for it, regardless, these "partners" keep on hammering the same point relentlessly, as if Putin, Xi, Lavrov, et al were idiots in foreign affairs and international law, and the UN were such a paragon of virtue and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of WEAKER countries, that a word here or there in a resolution would change the fate of the world or a region.
The West has its agenda for Iraq and Syria, and that will unfold DESPITE UN resolutions and condemnations, and AGAINST them. Putin knows UNSC 2249 is a worthless piece of paper, but useful when doing the theatrics at the UN, so better having a faulty one that than none at all.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 11 2015 20:39 utc | 62
The so-called Islamic State (IS) has made more than $500m (£330m) trading oil, a US treasury official has said.
Its "primary customer" has been the government of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, despite its ongoing battle to overthrow the regime, Adam Szubin told the BBC.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35070204
Adam Szubin
Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
Adam J. Szubin was named the Director of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
Posted by: okie farmer | Dec 11 2015 20:41 utc | 63
@52 Exactly right. The next question is Toward what end might an occupation force be dispatched in Iraq?
Posted by: yellowsnapdragon | Dec 11 2015 20:43 utc | 64
I'm lost: Russia repeatedly invites the creators and supporters of ISIS into Syria to fight against them. Then Russia & China support UN Res 2249 which "calls upon" nations to eradicate ISIS safe havens in Syria & Iraq. (But the Res didn't "authorise", just "called upon")
How in the world was it not predictable that this would happen? Now, Russia & China verbally defend the sovereignty of Syria & Iraq.
How am I, in all reason, to avoid thinking that Res 2249 was passed for the purpose of creating conflict between the Good Guys & the West? An error, a mistake, an accident-- I don't see it.
Show me how it is that EVERYONE who voted for 2249 didn't want the result of more conflict between the major powers.
Posted by: Penelope | Dec 11 2015 20:56 utc | 65
@james and Lone Wolf
I agree with you both vis-a-vis From the Hague: broken record like you read about and always looking to slander Russia.
Posted by: Bruno Marz | Dec 11 2015 20:59 utc | 66
Appears the da*n Qataris are planning FALSE FLAG against Russia.
"Why does the Qatari Minitry of Defense want to buy enormous arsenal of the air bombs, not only unfit for their aircrafts, but at a price 3 times (!) higher than the market one? (normally OFAB 250-270 is sold at US$700-800 per item)
The answer is horrifically simple: to make an OFAB 250-270 explode you do not need to drop it from a jet — it can be done right on the ground. Any Qatar-linked terrorist group can drive it to a highly-populated area in Syria and stage a “merciless strike by the Russian aviation”. No doubt the a number of absolutely independent forensic experts would promptly conclude that this type of bomb is widely used by the Russian AF in Syria.:"
http://www.voltairenet.org/article189607.html
Posted by: Penelope | Dec 11 2015 21:02 utc | 67
Is it conceivable that Russia invited its "partners" into Syria to help fight ISIS because although Russia knew full well who created and supported ISIS, it also knew that the propaganda points it would score by exposing the hypocrisy of the West and NATO would be worth it? They've already said that the operations in Syria are baked into their military budget for 2015 so there's no need to run up huge, off-budget deficits like the US did during the Bush years. Perhaps they wanted to invite as many hypocritical NATO armies as possible into the fray so that when the Russians decide to drop the hammer then can dole out the pain to every crooked actor involved.
I have no idea if that's the thinking here, but to assume Putin and the Russian Federation have made some sort of blunder at this stage is probably premature. They've been two steps ahead of NATO since the beginning of their operations and have so far shown no signs of slowing down or losing momentum. In fact, to all but the most brain-dead among western populations, the Russians are seen as the good guys in this fight and plenty of people are asking very uncomfortable questions about ISIS and who exactly is funding them versus who is very obviously fighting them.
I'm worried I'm going to run out of popcorn before this is over.
Posted by: Bruno Marz | Dec 11 2015 21:04 utc | 68
If Russia prevented the resolution they would be accused of protecting IS.
Its academic really, the western and gulf powers have proxy armies, airstrikes, drones and even men on the ground in Syria and Iraq. Its not like they needed UN approval any time over the last 4 years.
I could be wrong but I believe Russia were keen on it because it legitimises their airstrikes on the west's "non IS targets". The text states "Al Nusra, and other AQ associated groups" which covers most of the opposition.
Posted by: Bob | Dec 11 2015 21:07 utc | 69
Well, the Republican Party may split in the presidential race next year, the way it did in 1912 (when, because Theodore Roosevelt was denied the party nomination after he had won all the primaries, he ran as a third-party candidate, allowing the Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win).
The Hill: Carson: Brokered convention would 'destroy' GOP:
Ben Carson is threatening to leave the GOP following a report that senior Republican officials met to discuss the party’s strategy in the event of a brokered convention.“If the leaders of the Republican Party want to destroy the party, they should continue to hold meetings like the one described in the Washington Post this morning,” Carson said in a statement released by his campaign.
“If this was the beginning of a plan to subvert the will of the voters and replace it with the will of the political elite, I assure you Donald Trump will not be the only one leaving the party,” he continued.
. . .
“If the powerful try to manipulate it, the Republican National Convention in Cleveland next summer may be the last convention,” he continued. “I am prepared to lose fair and square, as I am sure is Donald. But I will not sit by and watch a theft.”
. . .
Trump has said he is preparing a strategy in the event of a brokered convention.
He has also resurfaced hints of a third-party run.
Posted by: lysias | Dec 11 2015 21:09 utc | 70
Empire of Illusion
Is it 'Chaos' if the disorder/destabilization is intended?
Is it 'blowback' if the people who are hurt are well removed form decision-making and the attacks can be used by TPTB to justify even greater control?
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 11 2015 21:12 utc | 71
Many are posting that Putin erred in allowing the UNSC to issue a toothless resolution that can now be misinterpreted and abused by ZATO. Sure enough, the UNSC decided that the invasion by Turkey of Northern Iraq is a bilateral matter. The USA said to Iraq resolve your differences with Turkey directly. In other words, the USA and UNSC have washed their hands off and things are left for the power brokers to decide what to do next.
There are three Shia clerics that are respected throughout the Shiite crescent: Khamenei, Sistani and Nasrallah. These people don't speak empty threats as they have built a considerable reputation to call the facts before they happen. You all remember when Nasrallah said in July 2006 before the facts that the state-of-the-art Israeli INS Hanit frigate was going to be set on fire which happened soon after.
Moqdata al Sadr is a junior among these but he commands the Badr brigades and thus he maybe a fourth strongman to be reckoned with. These people and not the UNSC decide what goes on and what doesn't in their neighborhood. If Sistani says he doesn't want the Turks in Northern Iraq, He means it otherwise he looses face in a region that isn't forgiving those who speak out of inflated egos.
Some people also see as a big mistake for Putin to have invited ZATO warplanes to coordinate with RuAF air traffic control. I beg to disagree. By having ZATO warplanes flying into air space covered with Russian state-of-the art SAM batteries, Russian is gaining a wealth of ZATO's SIGINT. This is supported by Pentagon experts who have stated that state-of-the art aircraft like the F-22, F-35, and newest and greatest F-16 modifications must not fly into that environment, advising to fly low tech but just as lethal A-10 for ground attack instead.
Posted by: Sun Tzu | Dec 11 2015 21:13 utc | 72
That Syrian opposition conference in Saudi Arabia must be one conference where most of us wish the participants hadn't been required to check their bags with security at the front door.
Posted by: Jen | Dec 11 2015 21:19 utc | 73
The Hague | Dec 11, 2015 1:26:28 PM | 44 Russia started so good with those perfect actions in Syria on request of Syria. Then allowing US, Britain, France and everybody to come in.
Russia made a mess of it.
WTF are you trying to say. Britain and France were meddling in the Levant since at least 1916. The US has been actively meddling in that region since at least 1957. Do you remember the first Gulf War carried out by Bush I. Do you remember the second Gulf War carried out by Bush II. Russia was not involved in any of that. Russia did not allow any of those powers to come in. Right now they are supporting the one country in that region that is attempting to stop British, French, US and now Turkish aggression that has been going on for at least a century. In no way did Russia invite those Western imperial powers into Syria and Iraq.
Posted by: ToivoS | Dec 11 2015 21:29 utc | 74
@64 McCain and Graham want this to be a truly international effort. Real Sunni solidarity backed (or lead) by 20,000 Americans. So far Egypt and Saudi haven't rushed to join. Obama hasn't shown much enthusiasm either but no doubt the usual arm-twisting will come into play if he gets behind it.
Posted by: dh | Dec 11 2015 21:31 utc | 75
@75 http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/29/john-mccain-lindsey-graham-20000-troops-syria-iraq
Posted by: dh | Dec 11 2015 21:32 utc | 76
Dear Mister Hague. I am and was aware of info in your #6 post. It is not relevant to my post. Are you capable of rational thought?
Posted by: ToivoS | Dec 11 2015 22:06 utc | 78
#39
He is very interesting and a far I know has only been interviewed twice by the same western reporter. I wonder what Sadar is doing right now since he follows what Sistani says?
Looks like the game of chicken with Russia isn't working out to well.
Posted by: jo6pac | Dec 11 2015 22:07 utc | 79
The failure of the Riyadh meeting reflects the internal division between Qatar(supported by Turkey) and Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis have become extremely vulnerable with the quagmire of Yemen where Al Qaeda is increasingly threatening 'liberated' Aden. They have been forced by the USA and the EU to pressure the opposition so there is someone to negotiate with the Syrian government as part of the Vienna agreement. The USA has a strong leverage on the Saudis but none on Qatar. To pressure Qatar, the USA is now pressuring Turkey, Qatar's ally. While officially the USA is on Turkey's side, it is in fact quite happy to see Russia squeezing it.I guess the USA and Russia are in full agreement that Turkey and Qatar are the main obstacles to a deal on Syria.
Turkey will be now put under enormous pressures, involving the Kurds, the Iraqis and the EU. Russia want to topple Erdogan, will it succeed?
Posted by: virgile | Dec 11 2015 22:16 utc | 80
Virgile
Some here gleefully thought that Turkey was castigated by USA after it shot down the Russian airliner. Turkey had gone too far, they reasoned, and had to be put into a 'box'. US/NATO would put an end to Turkish adventurism/provocations.
OMG! A few weeks later, Turkey sends troops and tanks into Iraq with and has put the US/West's tenuous relationship with Iraq in jeopardy. No protest from the US/West?!
Pressuring Turkey? LMFAO. The 'madman in Ankara' is as useful to the 'Assad must go! Coalition as the Hollywood-inspired terr0r!sts.
The pressure is on RUSSIA to sign-on to an acceptable political solution (or else).
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 11 2015 22:54 utc | 81
From PCR's latest: I think he's over-reacting a little.
"As George Abert notes, the American, French, and British aircraft that have been deployed are jet fighters whose purpose is air-to-air combat, not ground attack. The jet fighters are not deployed to attack ISIS on the ground, but to threaten the Russian fighter-bombers that are attacking ISIS ground targets.
"There is no doubt that Washington is driving the world toward Armageddon, and Europe is the enabler. Washington’s bought-and-paid-for-puppets in Germany, France, and UK are either stupid, unconcerned, or powerless to escape from Washington’s grip. Unless Russia can wake up Europe, war is inevitable.
"Have the totally evil, dumbshit neocon warmongers who control the US government taught Putin that war is inevitable? " http://www.4thmedia.org/2015/12/war-is-on-the-horizon-is-it-too-late-to-stop-it/
Posted by: Penelope | Dec 11 2015 22:55 utc | 82
On the subject of why Russia and China didn't veto the UN resolution, when they saw what happened in Libya: could this be evidence for the fake East-West dialectic conflict scenario? Perhaps the objective for China and Russia is to look good (to appear legitimate and as defenders of the UN system), rather than to win?
Posted by: Victori-ana | Dec 11 2015 22:57 utc | 83
wrt: Jack Smith | Dec 11, 2015 11:40:37 AM | 32
Simple score voting with no machines doesn't come with a money-back guarantee.
I assume the elections happen about once every four years up there? Should make it once a year.
It will also cure foot fungus!
Posted by: blues | Dec 11 2015 22:58 utc | 84
wrt: Penelope | Dec 11, 2015 5:55:12 PM | 82
The reason the stupid Europeans are sending air-to-air combat jets to Syria is probably that they don't have anything else.
They can still be shot down so yeah it's stupid. You see they cannot let the U.S. have a monopoly on stupid. Anything else is okay, but no monopoly on stupid!
Posted by: blues | Dec 11 2015 23:07 utc | 85
spell check needed!
'There was some Syrian opposition conference yesterday in Saudi Arabia were the Saudis tried to bribe everyone to agree on a common position;
should read:
'There was some Syrian opposition conference yesterday in Saudi Arabia WHERE the Saudis tried to bribe everyone to agree on a common position
Posted by: brian | Dec 11 2015 23:35 utc | 86
@Victori-ana@83
On the subject of why Russia and China didn't veto the UN resolution, when they saw what happened in Libya: could this be evidence for the fake East-West dialectic conflict scenario? Perhaps the objective for China and Russia is to look good (to appear legitimate and as defenders of the UN system), rather than to win?
Bingo!! We have finally solved the conundrum! The culprit was not Putin, Xi, Lavrov, Russia, China, as "From The Hague" et al have been repeating ad nauseam, the culprit was "the fake East-West dialectic conflict scenario"! Now, can the UNSC 2249 party line crowd just STFU for good?
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 11 2015 23:54 utc | 87
@Sun Tzu@72
Excellent post, kudos. Very accurate description of the "Shiite crescent" personalities, worth repeating,
[...] There are three Shia clerics that are respected throughout the Shiite crescent: Khamenei, Sistani and Nasrallah. These people don't speak empty threats as they have built a considerable reputation to call the facts before they happen [...]
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 12 2015 0:26 utc | 88
@blues # 84
Foremost, I have utmost respect for you and your assessments and hang around here with many everyday. Here are three videos from The Real News Networks regarding strategically
Should Canadians Vote Strategically to Defeat Harper?
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14847
Amara Possian of Leadnow and Dimitri Lascaris of the Green Party, London-West, debate the consequences of strategic voting in the Canadian October 19th federal elections - October 8, 2015
Canadian Elections: How Strategic is Strategic Voting?
http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14919
Jamie Biggar of Leadnow.ca and David Bush of RankandFile.ca debate whether such a strategy is useful or effective - October 18, 2015
http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14936
Rejecting Hard Right, Canadians Dump Harper
As Harper resigns as leader of the Conservative Party, how should progressive Canadians respond to the neo-liberal Liberal majority government? With Leo Panitch, Dimitri Lascaris and Nora Loreto and Paul Jay - October 20, 2015
Posted by: Jack Smith | Dec 12 2015 0:55 utc | 89
Sun Tzu
"Moqdata al Sadr is a junior among these but he commands the Badr brigades..... "
Mahdi Army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Companies
Posted by: truthbetold | Dec 12 2015 1:03 utc | 90
President of Russia
Expanded meeting of Defence Ministry Board
Vladimir Putin took part in the annual expanded meeting of the Russian Federation Defence Ministry Board.
December 11, 2015 14:00 MoscowPresident of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, comrades.
I would like to begin today’s annual expanded meeting of the Defence Ministry Board with an issue that is at the focus of the entire world, our society, and of course, our Armed Forces. I’ll start with the events in Syria.
You know what prompted our decision to provide military assistance to the Syrian Arab Republic and begin active efforts in that country against international terrorism. Militants, including citizens of Russia and CIS countries, gained a strong foothold in Syria. Their plans were clear: to consolidate their position and expand into new regions.
The actions of our Armed Forces were synchronised with the efforts of our law enforcement agencies and special services operating in Russia. You have seen that the FSB bodies have been uncovering virtually throughout the country secret cells of various terrorist organisations, including the notorious ISIS. Russian nationals, and not only from the North Caucasus, but also from other regions, representatives of various ethnic groups, not only actively take part in open combat, but also flaunt their participation in punitive actions. All this is a direct threat to Russia, and our troops in Syria are first and foremost defending their country.
Our actions were not dictated by some incomprehensible abstract geopolitical interests, by the desire to test new weapons systems, which in itself is also important. But that is beside the point. The main objective is to prevent a threat to the Russian Federation itself.
To be continued.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 12 2015 1:04 utc | 91
@ Lone Wolf #88 Thanks for kudos. The thing that scares ZATO about these three clerics is that they can't be bought off like most politicians.
Posted by: Sun Tzu | Dec 12 2015 1:09 utc | 92
@ truthbetold # 90 You are correct! I conflated Badr Corps with Mahdi army but they have been historic rivals. The former are wealthier class from Baghdad and respond to Iranian clerics while latter are underclass and respond to Iraqi cleric al Sadr. Thanks!
Posted by: Sun Tzu | Dec 12 2015 1:27 utc | 93
Sistani ordering Turkey to withdraw its forces from Mosul or otherwise face the consequences (i.e. fight all shiites) ??
Sure, and I was born yesterday !!! I like to read this blog but here "B"'s opinion simply shows what one "B" is thinking or hoping what should happen.
Those troops stationed near Mosul are meant to support ISIS against the shiites, the Kurds & any possible Syrian or russian attacks. And with the blessing/tacit approval of the saudis ??
In response to this development, I think we could see (military) cooperation between the Kurds & the shiites/Iran/Syria/Russia versus Turkey & the saudis.
And when we include the entire "energy picture" in that part of the world then it gets VERY interesting. Iran + Russia + Iraqi Kurdistan export energy to Turkey. Will those countries cut off those energy supplies to Turkey ?
Turkey wants to control the oilfileds in Kurdistan and control the Kurds.
The next step is to control the rest of (former) Iraq. Remember the pipeline project that is supposed to run from the Persian Gulf through trough Turkey and then to Europe ??
No, Turkey is holding a number of good cards in its hands. But Turkey is vulnerable as well with its large foreign debt.
Posted by: Willy2 | Dec 12 2015 2:07 utc | 94
Each US and European puppet Airstrike in Syria is an opening for more airstrikes and more Western occupation.
Do the Russian leadership agree with the Syrian leadership with invitation for western airstrikes in Syria ? Of course not. The Syrian leadership get the threat of Western criminal occupation far more than the Russians it seems.
What's the point of Russia shaming the western leaders when they don't have shame, they don't control the western media for long-term pressure to change their behaviour , and RT is such a pathetic counter-empire news outlet.
Posted by: tom | Dec 12 2015 2:21 utc | 95
My take on Putin's strategy was that he realised (by about 2002-2004, 2008 at the very latest) that war with the west was inevitable. Since then the Russian stategy has been to:
(a) Buy as much time as possible.
(b) Build alliances, especially with the also threatened China.
(c) Rebuild their military, especially their nuclear forces.
(d) Try to split Europe from the US.
(e) Try to build suppprt in the western countries populations.
Posted by: Lisa | Dec 12 2015 2:30 utc | 96
Quote from Trump:
In a speech at the U.S.S. Yorktown in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, on Monday, Trump referenced the use by ISIS of social media as a recruitment tool. He recommended a discussion with Bill Gates to shut off parts of the Internet.
"We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet," Trump said. "We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people."
Unlike Rubio who glibly stated that to fight ISIS he will "do whatever it takes", Trump has a concrete, effective plan. By cutting off American from foreign information he will be able to declare a victory over whoever, and advance American military to the Moon, Mars and beyond. We will have to take his word that everything is fine.
======
Concerning al-Mahdi Army and Badr Corps. Twelver Shiah have a system of "marja", a believer chooses a cleric as his marjah, his example to follow. Usually with a rank of Grand Ayatollah. Sistani is a Grand Ayatollah, al Sadr is not and his marjah is an Iranian Grand Ayatollah, I guess Yazdi (not Khamenei). Yazdi is more "populist" than Khamenei or Sistani, and more vituperative about Israel, but I did not see a big difference. Maraji (plural of marja) are typically not issuing specific instructions, but they give advise. Of course, Khamenei is not an ordinary Grand Ayatollah but a Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic. Even so, as befits his high clerical position, he does not run mundane affairs on daily basis.
Finding a marja who would be accomodative to brazen volture posture of a vehement Shia hater Erdogan is probably hopeless, so Sistani kind of stated the obvious. Given that, Abadi would have to resist American pressure to give up on the issue, but in the near future, nothing will happen. However, probably there will be another protest and so on, and once a sufficient fire power will be in place, Turks will get a convincing ultimatum to go home. At this point, my guess is that USA will leave Erdogan to his own devices.
====
Northern Latakia where the Erdogan's beloved Turkomans live is a rugged country, and war proceeds slowly from one rocky crag to another. It seems that in the aftermath of the grand day of Turkish Air Force, Syrian government started to pick up the territory a bit faster. Perhaps by the next year, they will round around the corner of Hatay province that was defended so bravely by Turkey (unprecedented 10 warnings issued within five minutes of 17 second violation of the territory, which must be explained by relativity theory: Erdogan took a ultra-quick trip to the outer reaches of Solar system, so in his frame of reference there were five minutes, while we Earthlings observed only 17).
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 12 2015 2:32 utc | 97
@Hoarsewhisperer@26
Two or 3 days ago China officially reminded Turkey what Iraq Sovereignty means.
Imo this is Round 1 of Yankees Go Home (while you've still got one) and stay there.
Thanks for the info, I missed that piece of news about China warning Turkey, wonder if you remember where you read it, or if you can link me to it, I'd appreciate it.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 11, 2015 2:44:22 PM | 55
The info comes from the daily, 5-00 am, 30min CCTV News Desk broadcast into Oz, on Dec 10. The snippet says, in the context of Barzarni's visit to Ankara to talk about Turkey's Iraq games...
"Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman called for better coordination and dialogue between Turkey and Iraq adding that China is watching the situation closely."
That's the gist - not verbatim. She also mentioned 'respect' and 'sovereignty'.
P.S. I've never been able to find anything I was looking for on CCTV's website, so if you find it, please post a link on this thread.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 12 2015 3:13 utc | 98
P.P.S. re #98 to Lone Wolf.
I omitted to say the program is CCTV English in my description.
The relevant quote is circa 5 to 6 minutes from the beginning.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 12 2015 3:24 utc | 99
@Lisa #96
My take on Putin's strategy was that he realised (by about 2002-2004, 2008 at the very latest) that war with the west was inevitable.
Me too has the same feeling. WW3 is imminent regardless who in the WH. Where we differ - Russian Federation battled tests each and every weapon in its arsenal now and strategically placed to cause most damages for first strike capability.
I'll be hoarding popcorn for once-in-a-lifetime show. And it’s FREE!. Cheer :-)
Posted by: Jack Smith | Dec 12 2015 3:35 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
So Iraq and Syria are in chaos.
Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 11 2015 13:30 utc | 1