Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 26, 2017, 05:08:55 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101805 Posts in 2375 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Middle East: War, Peace, and SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print
Author Topic: The Middle East: War, Peace, and SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR  (Read 150085 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39817


« Reply #900 on: April 13, 2017, 04:52:12 PM »

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-08/former-cia-officer-intelligence-confirms-russian-account-syria
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6910


« Reply #901 on: April 13, 2017, 06:51:30 PM »

In view of CD's post above I post this from a few days ago.

Maybe Assad didn't do it.  Buchanan asks some good questions though  I don't know if I agree with him or not FWIW:

http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-enlisting-war-party-126799

also from Judge Napolitano offers opinions form other intelligence that this was not Assad's doing:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/13/andrew-napolitano-trumps-attack-on-syria-was-both-emotional-and-illegal.html
« Last Edit: April 13, 2017, 07:25:37 PM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39817


« Reply #902 on: April 15, 2017, 09:35:34 AM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/world/middleeast/syria-bashar-al-assad-evidence.html?emc=edit_ta_20170415&nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39817


« Reply #903 on: April 16, 2017, 08:42:04 PM »

http://jordantimes.com/news/local/muslim-youth-take-initiative-guard-churches-easter-celebrated
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39817


« Reply #904 on: April 17, 2017, 06:16:34 AM »

After ISIS, the U.S. Military Could Help Keep Iraq Stable
A limited troop presence would support a strategy aimed at containing Iranian aggression.
By James Jeffrey
April 16, 2017 2:09 p.m. ET


Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has called on the U.S. to deepen cooperation with Baghdad under the 2008 U.S.-Iraqi Strategic Framework Agreement. That makes sense. America has expended incalculable resources in Iraq, intervening militarily four times since 1990. Iraq is worth the effort—the center of the Middle East, with almost two-thirds of the oil and gas reserves of Saudi Arabia, abundant water, an educated population and a functioning democracy. But if the U.S. doesn’t want to intervene again, assistance must be linked to maintaining a small military contingent there.

An American-Iraqi decision on keeping U.S. troops in the country must be taken soon, as the rationale for their current presence—to defeat Islamic State—will fade as it is destroyed. The justification for a longer-term presence would be to train and equip Iraqi forces and assist against ISIS remnants. Strategically, it could also help keep Iraq independent of Iran.

The impending destruction of ISIS as a “caliphate” will rank with the 2003 Iraq war, the Arab Spring, the Iran nuclear agreement and Russian intervention in Syria as a regional game-changer. The first four advanced the Iranian and Russian quest to upset the U.S.-led regional security order. But the defeat of ISIS could help the U.S. reverse this trend.

To do so Washington must view the region differently. Since the Cold War the U.S. has treated Middle East challenges—Iran, Saddam Hussein, Syria, Yemen, terrorism, and more—as discrete problems, not part of a larger endeavor. The U.S. assumed that the region’s core, an American-led regional order, would endure.

Threats to that order from Iran, Russia and Sunni Islamists challenge this assumption. In this environment, Cold War principles—alliance solidarity and U.S. credibility—must be reinvigorated. Anything the U.S. does must support the strategy to contain Iran and combat Sunni extremists. The two are linked: Under Iranian influence, Damascus and Baghdad so oppressed their Sunni Arab populations that they turned to ISIS.

Keeping a troop contingent in Iraq would support such a strategy. The Trump administration appears interested, but success is uncertain given that Iraq did not allow the U.S. to extend forces in Iraq in 2011. Prime Minister Abadi appears supportive, but other political leaders, the public and Iran are more or less opposed. To keep a troop presence, the U.S. will have to proceed on three avenues: “sell” the presence, link it to other assistance, and keep it noncontroversial.

Iraqis must be convinced that an American presence would support the fight against terrorism and ensure the Iraqi army does not implode as it did in Mosul in 2014. They must also be convinced that it would support Iraqi unity, by signaling to skeptical Sunni Arab and Kurdish minorities that the largely Shiite Baghdad government seeks ties to the West. Also important is the perception that the U.S. supports Iraqi sovereignty, by signaling to Iran that Iraq will not become anyone’s vassal state.

The U.S. will have to link economic assistance and diplomatic cooperation—in short, “tough love”—to clarify that in exchange for such help, Iraqi politicians have to be flexible on troops. U.S. support for Iraq beyond security has been remarkable: an IMF-led $15 billion loan, mediation of disputes between Baghdad and Kurdistan, and the facilitation of oil production. The U.S. has a vital interest in preventing Iraq from descending into violence, enabling Iranian regional aggression, or spawning another terrorist movement, and that requires not just political and economic support but continued military ties.

But Iraq must also be reassured that a U.S military presence would be acceptable to Iraqis. Based on the troop-extension talks with Iraq in 2011, the following would be politically acceptable.

First, the troop contingent should be limited and not permanent. The 5,000 troops contemplated in 2011 are likely the maximum politically sustainable. U.S. troops should also be part of an international contingent and stationed on Iraqi bases. The U.S. should not again ask for Parliament-approved legal immunities for U.S. personnel, but rather extend the administrative status under which they now operate.

Second, the formal troop mission should focus on training and equipping Iraqi forces, and specific intelligence, counterterrorism and perhaps air-support functions. Everyone in the region would understand that such a presence would also help contain Iran and promote stability, but diplomacy requires that this not be explicit.

Third, the U.S. should be careful not to suggest that troops in Iraq are a combat force to project power into Syria or Iran against Baghdad’s interests.

None of this guarantees that Iraq will allow such a military presence but it will make the choice easier. Stability in the entire region hangs on Iraq making the right one.

Mr. Jeffrey served as U.S. ambassador to Turkey (2008-10) and Iraq (2010-12).
v
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6910


« Reply #905 on: April 17, 2017, 07:14:22 AM »

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mit-expert-claims-latest-chemical-100819428.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8681


« Reply #906 on: April 17, 2017, 08:43:21 AM »


I don't know the truth but it was reported that Israeli intelligence declared 100% certainty this chemical attack was ordered by Assad.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/society/142007-170406-israelis-urge-gov-t-to-establish-safe-zone-in-southern-syria-after-gas-attack

Must say it would not be wise for Israel to wrongly manipulate Trump this early in his presidency.  A strike on an airfield that they could have done themselves is not much of a gain for the risk of losing their largest ally.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!