2014 August 30 Saturday
Imagine Obama And Cameron Had A Strategy On Iraq And Syria

Writing in Al Arabiya Raghida Dergham says some people think the British and American governments really do have a strategy in Iraq and Syria. I am in favor of this strategy. But I do not think Barack Obama or David Cameron are up to conceiving, much less executing on this strategy.

The Anglo-American duo is accused of devising a strategy and plans to lure American and British terrorists to Iraq and Syria to keep them away from American cities and bog them down in the battlefield at a cost borne by Syrians and Iraqis, rather than the Americans and the British.

It seems more plausible that Putin supports Assad's government as a way to pull Chechen jihadists to the Middle East.

At the same time, the Russian leadership consents to this approach, because President Vladimir Putin, too, wants to keep Russian, Chechen, and other terrorists from neighboring countries away from his geographical backyard, and is determined to keep them busy fighting in Syria.

Russia's historical circumstances select for ruthless and realistic Russian leaders. American leaders and elites can afford to delude themselves and their citizens and they fully avail themselves of their opportunities for delusion.

But I try to think about the real world and what would make Western countries better. Unfortunately, my ideas are all outside the liberal-patrolled Overton Window. For example, I think we should give free airplane tickets to any Jihadist with citizenships in Western countries who wants to fight in Syria or Iraq. Then put well concealed and highly mobile special forces on the ground to direct air strikes.

Update: The guy who definitely has a strategy: Bashar al-Assad. The fear of death can powerfully concentrate the mind. I've read that for years he concentrated his forces against his more secular opposition while letting ISIS/ISIL/Daash/IS grow in power. Why? Because he took away from the West the sort of opposition they would would delude themselves into thinking would be secular once in power. Now the West is faced with a far clearer enemy in the Islamic Caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the US is considering an air war in Syria against Assad's main opposition. Assad's strategy might work.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2014 August 30 10:25 AM 


Comments
CamelCaseRob said at August 30, 2014 3:16 PM:

Yeah, highly politically incorrect so it can never be mentioned, but I think the Leftist middle-east policy is to destabilize governments and then let the Muslims kill each other (including the ones who come in from Western countries).

WCN said at August 31, 2014 10:44 AM:

I agree that we should send any willing jihadists over (even offer to pay for their tickets) but would only add that they should be required to RENOUNCE THEIR CITIZENSHIP upon arrival of their jihadi wonderland. In fact, while we are at it, we should implement the Steve Sailer plan and pay to send home any other non-jihadist Muslims that want to go to their homes (with same condition of renunciation of citizenship).

Short of doing that, we need to keep the various Muslim factions fighting for as long as possible. For as long as they are killing each other, they are not killing us. We can swoop in with a targeted airstrike here or there to make sure no party gets too strong. Once it is all over (in perhaps 10-15 years), we should - with UN backing - dismember those 2 countries into about 5-6 new nations.

The LAST thing we need is for the so-called "secular" opposition (read: Muslim Brotherhood) that McCain constantly promotes to take over in Syria. We would have Egypt and Morsi all over again.

Unfortunately our ruling elite is so deluded, they will probably go with helping the "secular" opposition.

Dirty Dog said at September 1, 2014 12:07 AM:

Do you really think that a dumb fucking shithead of a useless cunt like Mikhail Gorbachev was selected for ruthlessness and realism? I mean a fucking stuffed teddy beat would have done a better job than that fucking waste of skin.

Dan said at September 1, 2014 7:00 AM:

Gorbachev shut down the Soviet Union and for that he is a saint in my book. He inherited a system that was unworkable and destructive because it was in clear violation of all the laws of reality, held together by the determined reality-denial of his predecessors. He closed down the fetid operation that was Communism. He could have done a smoother job, perhaps, but he saw a country that was a precarious tower of lies that had shed oceans of blood and impoverished a hundred million. He took it out to the woodshed and dispatched it. Modern Russia in my view is 100-fold better than that sad sack he put to sleep. How could he have held together that $hitheap anyway once its history of continuous mass murder got out? Most every sub-nation probably had its own genocide at the hands of the USSR to grapple with.

Yes the satellite countries were 'lost' to Russia. So? They don't even speak the same languages. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. To a reactionary, many smaller, local governments are better than a giant state.

outsider said at September 4, 2014 1:15 PM:

Gorbachev should have pretended he was extending communism while dismantling it, perhaps relabeling entrepreneurship as 'cellular communism'.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright