Tag: Russia
Syria worsens
Alarm bells are ringing loud in Syria:
- Israel has shot down an Iranian drone launched from a Syrian base at which Russians were present;
- Syria has shot down an Israeli F16 with a missile system supplied by Russia, opening what Hizbollah has termed a new phase in the conflict;
- The Israelis responded by trying to destroy a good part of the Syrian air defense system;
- Turkish troops have crossed into a Kurdish-controlled Afrin in western Syria, where they lost a helicopter yesterday, and President Erdogan is threatening to send them also to Manbij farther east, where US troops are still deployed and cooperating with the Kurds;
- US forces and local allies last week defended themselves aggressively against a Syrian/Iranian attack in eastern Syria;*
- Syrian, Iranian, and Russian forces are pushing north through Idlib province, the north of which Turkey controls.
There is now a real risk of Turkish/US clashes, conflict between Israel and Syria, Iran or Russia, as well as between Turkey and its erstwhile Russian and Iranian partners and between the US and Syria or Iran, not to mention Russia. The geopolitical takeover of what we have been thinking of as a civil war seems inevitable, as Mara Karlin suggested in Congress last week it was becoming. This is the kind of multi-sided mess in which miscalculation, miscommunication, escalation, and confusion are far more likely to prevail than reason or self-interest.
The US is in a particularly vulnerable position. It depends on Turkish bases for the air cover it gives its own, Kurdish and allied Arab troops in eastern Syria, but Washington has been unwilling to enforce Vice President Biden’s promise to Turkey that the Kurds would leave Manbij and remain east of the Euphrates. Turkey sees America’s Kurdish allies as a terrorist threat, because they are allied with Kurdish insurgents inside Turkey. While the Turks might like to see Washington stay in Syria and restrain the Kurds, Ankara is not yet satisfied that the Americans are doing that. Damascus, Tehran, and Moscow want the US out. The US has been saying it would stay, mainly to prevent the resurgence of the Islamic State and counter Iranian expansionism in the region, but how its few thousand soldiers can do that isn’t clear, especially as they are losing some Kurds to the fight in Afrin.
What are Washington’s options?
It seems to me there are basically three:
- Sit tight, continuing to cooperate with the Kurds and to repel forcefully any Syria, Iranian, or Russian attacks, with the attendant risks.
- Get out, letting the Turks and Kurds go at it and yielding Syria to uncontested Iranian and/or Russian hegemony, perhaps hoping they will end up at each others’ throats.
- Negotiate deals that would allow the Kurds autonomy within Syria (as in Iraqi Kurdistan) in exchange for restraint in acting against Turkey and require the Russians to push the Iranians (and affiliated militias) away from the Israeli border in exchange for US withdrawal.
None of these options is attractive, but better ones are just not available. It is too late to revive the moderate opposition or push Assad out. The US does not have the kind of vital interests in Syria that would justify expanding its military footprint there, though that may of course happen if we sit tight. Force protection may require it, and mission creep would likely ensue.
I’m inclined towards Option 3, not least because it would restore relations with Turkey and get the Iranians and their proxies away from the Israeli border. But it admittedly involves a high wire act without much of a safety net. The Russians might like the Iranians out of their way, but they may not have the clout to make it happen. US withdrawal could vitiate any promises the Syrian Kurds make to Turkey.
Option 1 risks a disastrous attack on the few thousand US troops in Syria, not only by Iran or Syria but also by Turkey. Option 2 risks Iran taking over Syria and using it to launch attacks against Israel, with or without Russian connivance. Option 3 could of course devolve into 1 or 2, as circumstances dictate, but it keeps those options open in the meanwhile.
Let’s hope someone in a White House rocked wife abuse scandals and national security issues or someone in a State Department shedding its most experienced officers can spare a few moments for Syria as it worsens.
*PS (February 13): It now appears the Americans and allied Kurds killed about one hundred Russian “contractors” fighting with the Assad forces in their attack on the Americans in eastern Syria. While Washington worries about a budget and an infrastructure plan that are going nowhere as well as spousal abuse among White House employees, the war in Syria is definitely worsening.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
One courageous Russian
I don’t usually deal with Russian politics, but this video (all 25 minutes or so) merits watching and marveling. Alexei Anatolievich Navalny is one courageous Russian:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, February 5-11
- Stabilizing Raqqa: Connecting Current Operations to U.S. Policy Objectives | Monday, February 5 | 9:30am – 11:00am | CSIS | Register here |
CSIS invites you to join a panel discussion on local Syrian and Coalition stabilization efforts in Raqqa. Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Coalition forces drove ISIS from its self-proclaimed caliphate capital in Raqqa in 2017. Enduring security in ISIS-cleared areas now depends on local governance and restoration of services. Following a recent visit to Raqqa, Syria by Ambassador Mark Green, Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and General Joseph Votel, Commander of United States Central Command (USCENTCOM), panel speakers will discuss the importance of stabilization efforts in Raqqa and the challenges of connecting current operations with U.S. policy objectives. Featuring Karen Decker (U.S. Department of State), Maria Longi (USAID), Mark Swayne (U.S. Department of Defense), Robert Jenkins (USAID), Melissa Dalton (CSIS), and Erol Yayboke (CSIS).
_____________________________________________________
- Taking Stock of Mexico’s Security Landscape | Monday, February 5 | 8:30am – 1:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
The Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute invites you to attend its fifth annual Mexican security review. The forum will provide a careful examination of security challenges in Mexico. Of particular interest will be a review of 2017 and a discussion of trends in 2018, including establishing new bonds in U.S.-Mexico military-to-military relations and strengthening the rule of law in Mexico. We will also be launching a new book The Missing Reform: Strengthening the Rule of Law in Mexico, which analyzes the concrete obstacles that Mexico faces to implement the rule of law. Featuring presentations from leading policy analysts, including Iñigo Guevara Moyano (Director at Jane’s Aerospace, Defense and Security), David Shirk (University of San Diego), Viridiana Rios (David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University), Matthew Ingram (University of Albany, SUNY), and others.
______________________________________________________
- Russia’s Influence in the Balkans: Methods and Results | Tuesday, February 6 | 12:30pm – 2:00pm | Johns Hopkins University SAIS | Register here |
Moscow is increasingly active politically, militarily and economically in the Balkans. What are its goals and methods? What has it achieved thus far? What will it do in the future? The Center for Transatlantic Relations and the Conflict Management Program at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) will convene a panel of experts to examine these key questions, featuring Reuf Bajrovic (Former Minister of Energy of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Metodija A. Koloski (President, United Macedonian Diaspora), Jelena Milic (Director and Chair of the Board, Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies, Belgrade), Steve Rukavina (President, National Federation of Croatian Americans Cultural Foundation), Sinisa Vukovic (Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins University SAIS). SAIS Director of Conflict Management Daniel Serwer will moderate the conversation.
______________________________________________________
- UNRWA’s Role in Promoting Israeli-Palestinian Stability | Wednesday, February 7 | 2:00pm – 3:15pm | Middle East Institute | Register here |
In the wake of his announcement to relocate the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, President Trump has also vowed to cut funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) by 83 percent, in a stated effort to bring the Palestinian Authority to the negotiating table. International governments and NGOs swiftly condemned these funding cuts by the United States, citing the critical role UNRWA plays in promoting security and stability in the region through health, education, and assistance programs for Palestinian refugees. The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host UNRWA’s West Bank Director, U.S. Army Maj. (ret.) Scott Anderson, and the director of UNRWA’s Representative Office in Washington, Elizabeth Campbell, who will discuss the regional impact of this decision and UNRWA’s global funding push to support its critical work. MEI’s Director for Gulf Studies and Government Relations, Amb. (ret.) Gerald Feierstein, will moderate the discussion.
______________________________________________________
- Threats to Democracy in the Trump Era | Wednesday, February 7 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Brookings Institution | Register here |
From Russia to South Africa, from Turkey to the Philippines, from Venezuela to Hungary, authoritarian leaders have smashed restraints on their power. The freedom of the media and the judiciary have eroded. The right to vote may remain, but the right to have one’s vote counted does not. Until the U.S. presidential election of 2016, the global decline of democracy seemed a concern for other peoples in other lands. However, some see the political rise of Donald Trump as the end to that optimism here at home. In his new book, “Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic,” David Frum outlines how Trump could push America toward illiberalism, what the consequences could be for America and the world, and what we can do to prevent it. On Wednesday, February 7, Frum will join a panel of experts at Brookings to discuss the burgeoning threats to democratic institutions in the Trump era.
______________________________________________________
- How to Interpret Nuclear Crises: From Kargil to North Korea | Wednesday, February 7 | 12:15pm – 2:00pm | Stimson Center | Register here |
With tensions mounting between the United States and North Korea, what has been clear is the wide disagreement among scholars about what constitutes a nuclear crisis, how dangerous it is, and what dynamics dictate how it plays out. The Stimson Center is pleased to host Mark Bell, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, to discuss his co-authored paper on the subject in which he and Julia MacDonald, Assistant Professor of International Relations at the University of Denver, argue that nuclear crisis dynamics depend on incentives to use nuclear weapons first and the extent to which escalation can be controlled by leaders involved. Rebecca Hersman, Director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at CSIS, and Austin Long, senior political scientist at RAND, will offer comments. Sameer Lalwani, Co-Director of Stimson’s South Asia Program, will moderate the discussion.
______________________________________________________
- Cyber Mercenaries: States and Hackers | Thursday, February 8 | 4:30pm – 5:30pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Register here |
As cyberspace has emerged as a new frontier for geopolitics, states have become entrepreneurial in their sponsorship, deployment, and exploitation of hackers as proxies to project power. Such modern-day mercenaries and privateers can impose significant harm undermining global security, stability, and human rights. In a new book, Cyber Mercenaries: The State, Hackers, and Power, Tim Maurer examines these state-hacker relationships and the important questions they raise about the control, authority, and use of offensive cyber capabilities. Drawing on case studies in the United States, Iran, Syria, Russia, and China, the book establishes a framework to better understand and manage the impact and risks of cyber proxies on global politics. Maurer will be joined in conversation by Eric Rosenbach (Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School), and Ellen Nakashima (Washington Post) will moderate.
______________________________________________________
- War Powers and Military Force | Thursday, February 8 | 4:00pm – 5:15pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
In an age of unprecedented disruption and escalating inter- and intrastate conflict, we have seen a surge in the need for nations to resort to military force. As one of the most consequential decisions for a nation to undertake—with enormous consequences to a country’s security, prosperity, and global standing—the gravity of such decisions cannot be understated. Please join Nuchhi Currier (former President of Woman’s National Democratic Club), Bruce Fein (former Associate Deputy Attorney General), and John Yoo (University of California, Berkeley), three of the world’s most renowned experts on the issue of war powers, as they dissect this topic of immense geopolitical importance.
______________________________________________________
- Securing a Place for Taiwan in International Organizations | Thursday, February 8 | 10:00am– 11:00am | Heritage Foundation | Register here |
Taiwan increasingly finds its efforts to obtain meaningful participation in international bodies such as the WHO, INTERPOL, and ICAO checked by external forces. Setting aside political issues, there are valid reasons of health, safety, and livelihood for Taiwan to be included, even if only as an observer, in these organizations. Join us as our panel of experts discusses how to increase Taiwan’s role in international organizations and expand its international operating space, while addressing the swift and strong reaction from China that invariably results from such efforts. Featuring Jacques deLisle (Professor of Law & Political Science, Director, Center for East Asian Studies, UPENN), Valérie Niquet (Director, Asia Program, Fondation pour la recherche stratégique (FRS), Paris), and Theodore R. Bromund (Senior Research Fellow in Anglo-American Relations), hosted by Walter Lohman (Director, Asian Studies Center, Heritage Foundation).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ugh
President Trump last night read slowly from a teleprompter and convinced much of America’s media that he could behave soberly and offer an opportunity for bipartisan action on immigration and infrastructure.
Less visibly, the speech was full of indications that danger lies ahead. This is a radical Administration. The President harbors ambitions that could get the country into lots of trouble.
Among these is a commitment to purging the Federal government of his opponents, who admittedly are many. As Slate notes, he called on Congress
…to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.
This is a blatant attack on the Civil Service (and presumably also the Foreign Service), which he wants to replace with loyalists. He is accomplishing just that at the Justice Department already, where he has fired a Deputy Attorney General, an FBI Director, and a Deputy Director. All were well-respected professionals. Less visibly, hundreds and perhaps thousands of professionals are leaving other government departments. Trump will try to replace them with people who share his views on immigration, climate change, abortion, race, and the economy.
The President’s economic braggadocio failed to acknowledge that job growth was marginally faster under his predecessor, that record low unemployment for blacks had already been achieved before he was inaugurated, and that the benefits of his income tax cut go overwhelmingly to the very rich. Nor did he mention the big declines in the stock market yesterday and the day before, claiming credit only for the big run up in stocks since his inauguration. It would be odd indeed if the market had not reacted positively to his massive corporate tax cut, but I won’t be surprised if stocks now correct. Since he has claimed credit for the rise, he deserves blame for any fall.
Turning to foreign policy, the President prioritizes fair trade. So far he has done nothing to achieve it. He abandoned the Trans Pacific Partnership, which would have given the US a leading role in Asian trade. The 11 other countries involved are proceeding without the US, and without the provisions on labor and environmental standards the US championed. His renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement is going slowly, not least because so many American companies benefit from it. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe is moribund. The US trade deficit has increased under Trump.
He also prioritizes immigration, blaming illegal immigrants for murdering two Long Island girls. But crime rates among immigrants are lower than in the general population. He wants an immigration bill that would provide a path to citizenship for people brought to the US illegally as children, but it would also fund his dubious “great wall” and shifts immigration away from family unification and diversity towards more “qualified” white people, even though current immigrants are already more qualified than native-born Americans.
Turning to more conventional foreign policy issues, the President said:
Around the world, we face rogue regimes, terrorist groups, and rivals like China and Russia that challenge our interests, our economy, and our values. In confronting these dangers, we know that weakness is the surest path to conflict, and unmatched power is the surest means of our defense.
Then he promises to boost defense spending in general and nuclear weapons in particular. The latter have little to do with current challenges, and the former is proving inadequate to meet them.
Yes, ISIS as an organized military force that controls territory in Iraq and Syria has been largely defeated, but no one expects its militants to evaporate into thin air. The civilian assistance efforts needed to counter the terrorists as they head underground–building inclusive and effective governance and economies–are nowhere to be seen in this Administration’s plans. Instead, Trump threatens to cut foreign aid to countries that vote against the US in the UN General Assembly, a threat that failed to garner support for the US move of its embassy to Jerusalem. Such heavy-handed conditioning of US assistance on a single issue irrelevant to US interests is guaranteed to reduce American influence abroad.
North Korea is the toughest of this Administration’s foreign policy challenges. Trump offered nothing in response to the threat its missiles and nuclear weapons pose. Instead he waxed eloquent North Korean oppression. This implies an American commitment to regime change, which is precisely the wrong thing to be signaling if you want to somehow limit Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs. Kim Jong-un sees them guarantees of regime continuity and will pursue them as long as thinks the US is out to overthrow him.
What was missing from the speech? Trump failed to mention the rules-based international order the US has painstakingly built since World War II, Russian interference in the US election, and his own Administration’s refusal to follow Congressional instructions to levy additional sanctions on Moscow. Putin is still pulling the strings. Ugh.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
My state of the union
My Fellow Americans,
It has been a year since an unqualified braggart and blowhard bully was elected without a numerical majority to the presidency of the United States. His lies and offensive remarks about women, Mexican Americans, Africans, and Haitians have brought the nation to a new low. American prestige and influence are declining everywhere but Russia and Israel, a massive tax cut is enriching the already rich and has boosted the already high stock market, and the risks of war with Russia and China are increasing. With Trump as their prime mover, racism and anti-immigrant fever have surged worldwide.
American institutions are struggling to contain and neutralize the worst of these enervating impacts. The media are facing unprecedented attacks on their freedom and objectivity. The courts are being packed with unqualified bag carriers while the President makes prejudiced remarks about sitting judges. The Congress is sharply split and unable to conduct a bipartisan investigation of well-documented Russian interference in the American electoral process. Special Counsel Mueller and the FBI are under daily attack by both the Administration and the Congressional majority. Nothing has been done to counter Russian interference in this year’s Congressional poll.
Political tensions are generating social turmoil. Undocumented immigrants and those with temporary protected status are facing forced repatriation, including people who have never lived as adults in the countries from which they immigrated. Poor people risk being deprived of health insurance, food stamps, and other social safety net mainstays. People who live in coastal areas face disaster from global warming and newly allowed offshore drilling for oil and gas. Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Muslims are suffering heightened prejudice and discrimination. Gun violence is increasing, especially at schools, even as crime rates decline. The proportion of national wealth accumulating to the very wealthy is increasing, while the middle and working class get less.
What should be done? The Trump Administration is proposing to build a wall along the Mexican border. This will do nothing to help anyone but the contractors who win the bid. The flow of Mexicans out of the US has for years exceeded the net flow of Mexicans into the country. The promise that Mexico will pay for the wall was audacious foolery. So too was the pledge to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It isn’t going to happen, because too many US producers benefit from it.
The Administration’s incoherence reaches epic dimensions in foreign policy. It has declared Israel good and Palestinians bad, thus ending any hope for a US role in bringing about a peace settlement. It has extended the US presence in Syria, only to find US-allied Kurds at war with NATO ally Turkey. A one-off cruise missile attack has done nothing to prevent President Assad from continuing to use chemical weapons. The Administration has failed in its intention to block Iranian development of ballistic missiles and North Korean development of both missiles and nuclear weapons. The ruling figures of Venezuela, the Philippines, and Burma have thumbed their noses at Washington, which has failed to respond effectively. Withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Change agreements has vitiated years of successful US diplomacy and enabled China and others to step into the breach.
Russia and China are exploiting American incompetence to extend their influence in the Middle East, Africa, Europe (both the Balkans and Ukraine), and the Pacific. War with other great powers, unthinkable since 1989, has become more likely due ineffective American diplomacy. The State Department is degenerating, the intelligence community is demoralized, and the military is overstretched to the point of breaking. The National Security Council is struggling to provide a minimum of coherence while the President gleefully upsets the apple cart with ill-considered tweets alternately complimenting and criticizing foreign leaders, with the notable exception of Vladimir Putin. Russian financing for Trump real estate projects guarantees him special treatment, including the Administration’s decision yesterday not to impose new sanctions Congress authorized.
Declining American influence after World War II, as other countries recovered, was inevitable. The main job of American diplomacy was to slow the process during the Cold War and help the country outlast the Soviet Union. The unipolar moment that followed was only a temporary respite from relative decline, which started again with the mistake of invading Iraq. Now the decline has become precipitous. American incoherence, as colleague Mike Haltzel notes, is becoming dangerous: Trump defends national sovereignty over universal norms for the US, but not for our enemies like North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. The post-World War II international order is under attack, not by America’s enemies by America’s own president.
President Trump is putting the US into a tailspin. Recovery is unlikely. We are going down at a faster pace than ever before. Brace for the crash.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria strategy
Secretary of State Tillerson today in a speech at the Hoover Institution outlined US goals in Syria. Tobias Schneider summarized them succinctly on Twitter:
- Enduring defeat of ISIS & AQ in Syria
- Political resolution to Syria conflict (w/o Assad)
- Diminishing Iranian influence
- Create conditions for safe refugee return
- Syria free from WMD
Those sound in principle desirable to me, though they leave out an important one: preventing instability in Syria’s neighbors, including Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan (all more or less US friends if not allies).
The problem lies one step further on in defining a strategy: the ways and means. Tobias and others on Twitter see this set of goals as a license for an unending US commitment to remain in Syria and to “stabilize” it. Hidden under that rock, which Tillerson was careful to say was not a synonym for nationbuilding, lies a commitment to guess what? Nationbuilding.
But let’s deal first with the the ways and means issue. As I see it, this is all we’ve got going for us in Syria:
- US military presence and capability, including control through proxies of major oil-producing wells and maybe a proxy presence along the borders with Israel and Jordan.
- A UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution (2254) that outlines a political process to prepare a constitution, hold elections, and begin a transition to a democratic system.
- The US veto in the UNSC over any successor resolution that approves and advances the political process.
- US aid to parts of Syria outside Assad’s control, US clout in the IMF and World Bank, and influence over European and Gulf aid.
Is this enough to deliver the five goals? I doubt it. Take just refugee return: it requires that people not be forced back but that they return of their own volition. The trickle (50,000 Tillerson said) who have returned in the last year are truly a drop in the bucket. Most refugees (upwards of 5.5 million if I remember correctly) won’t return until Assad and his security forces are gone, or at least blocked from acting in parts of Syria. Likewise the political resolution, diminishing Iranian influence, and getting rid of WMD also depend on getting rid of Assad, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Even the enduring defeat of ISIS and Al Qaeda likely require Assad to be pushed aside, as he has consistently used his forces preferentially against the moderate opposition rather than the extremists, with whom his regime had an excellent cooperative relationship when US forces were in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. Assad will want to keep some of them around even now, as they help to justify his brutal repression of the Syrian population.
But getting rid of Assad means, let’s face it, rebuilding the Syrian state, which is unlikely to survive in a form able to deliver on the above goals once he is gone. He has made sure of that by waging war against his own population for six long years.
Remember too: he has Russian and Iranian backing to remain in power.
Without better means, it looks to me as if the US is in Syria for a long time and will ultimately fail. That’s not an attractive proposition. The question is whether it would be better to leave now, or soon. Do we have to stay to do nationbuilding? How can it be done best? How long will it take? How much will it cost? More on that in a future post.
RSS - Posts
