On Thursday, June 26, 2014 6:11:23 PM UTC-4, Yama wrote:
Snip
> Kerry has to maintain the company line where Iraq is the stable,
> pluralistic democracy whilst Syria is a dangerous rogue state
> threatening the stability of entire region by violating sovereignity of
> other countries. Such positions can't be instantly dismissed however
> obsolete they become.
It seems to be the case. The inertia here is amazing.
> Of course, Kerry's statement looks even more ridiculous in light of
> al-Maliki's statement immediately afterwards:
>
> -Maliki "welcomes Syrian airstrikes against ISIS"
> -Iraq has ordered Russian Sukhois which should arrive "within 2-3 days"
> (apparently Su-25's from Russia and Belarus).
> -he complains about F-16 deal, saying that they were "deluded to sign it"
>
>
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28042302
Facepalm. It is getting past the point of a couple accidental steps after so much time here.
First Syria is tight with Russia, now both Russia and Syria take the ally spot with Iraq being vacated (Will Kerry threaten Iraq for buying Russian jets?) With the added benefit that Iraq and Syria used to be tight in the Saddam days, not to mention Russia, but now they are all tied in with Iran as well where Saddam and Iran were terrible rivals. This is beyond any botch-up I could have imagined a few years ago.
To think a squadron of planes or a few drones a few months ago, plus a little behind the scenes pressure and realpolitik, could have prevented this, and that Russia has been the one to save Syria's bacon and by default now is back into Iraq. The Administration is effectively making Putin look like a good guy in the Mideast and like the prime mover in Europe. It started with the red line moment and has progressed since. Not to mention the Egypt situation, where the Muslim Brotherhood were rejected by the Egyptians and the Egyptian military also looked to Russia for aid in the event that the US refused to help them against terror attacks in the Sinai and elsewhere by providing equipment.
Not to mention that an alliance of Syria, Iraq and Iran, backed by Russia, is in one heck of a geopolitical spot to cause a lot of people to get the worries. It is proving the theory that if the US diminishes her role, the order that will replace that is not something a lot of folks would like to live with. I have to give credit to Russia though, Jihadists are nasty business and if the Russians want to help in the fight against them, more power to the Russians. The downside is Iran and Syria having a much bigger presence in the region, and Iraq joining them in an alliance after the US put so much into securing one of our own with Iraq. What was won and built on the battlefield is being given away by simple inaction. That some of the steps that could be taken are relatively simple and not hard to figure out makes me wonder what the goals are in this Foreign Policy Team.
I also wonder if the US stopped arming "Syrian Rebels" yet.