Today, the Trump administration announced a brilliant, not-so-new plan to recruit a Sunni army to destroy ISIS in Syria (this is the original Wall Street Journal report). At least that’s the theory. In practice, this army will likely ensure Syria is broken into territorial spheres of influence, a strategy known to be favored by Israel.
There would be an Alawite-Shia canton on the west coast, with Sunni cantons in traditionally Sunni regions. The Golani Druze would serve in the southwest as a bulwark against infiltration into Israel. A collateral benefit to this plan is that it would arrest the increasing Iranian and Hezbollah military presence inside Syria.
Or would it? Assad and his allies (including Russia) are seasoned fighters after seven years of war against Sunni Islamists including affiliates of al Qaeda and ISIS. The force the U.S. is recruiting would consist of units of Arab armies from Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar (yes, you read that right!). These armies can’t even put down insurgencies within their own borders, let alone in foreign country hundreds of miles from home.
The not-so-new plan wasn’t devised in Washington. Nor is it new. It was, in fact, proposed to Pres. Obama several years ago by none other than the Saudis. They must’ve pitched it something like this: look, we Sunnis have been funding proxy Islamist groups in Syria for years. It hasn’t been working out. So why not take a load of your (Obama’s) shoulders. We’ll put together an army composed of our own national armies and make a proper war of it. Doing this will show our Shiite enemies that we mean business. And it will let America off the hook in terms of having to step in whenever Assad engages in especially obnoxious behavior like gassing his own citizens.
The plan didn’t go over too well. Obama, being the level-headed individual he was, said: Nuh-uh. Ain’t gonna work. We want no part of it. Trump, being the idiot he is, loves the idea. There you go.
Who would equip and train this new force? The U.S., of course. This is essentially the same strategy we pursued in Iraq and Afghanistan: we withdrew the majority of our troops after it turned into a stalemate, and paid for our local proxies to fight for themselves against their Taliban and ISIS foes. So how’s that working out?
Essentially, this would turn Syria into yet another Middle East quagmire sponsored by the U.S. treasury.
What would the Saudis get for doing us this large favor? Talk is, that we would make them a “major non-NATO member.” This would bring the Wahabi kingdom added cachet in associating with European states as a near-equal–a NATO wannabe. Crown Prince Mohammed ibn Salman can strut around Europe boasting of being admitted to the big boys’ club.
There is one small problem: Trump hasn’t bothered to ask the other NATO member states what they think about his idea. And Trump hasn’t exactly endeared himself to NATO. So why would they want to accord such status to a feudal state whose values have nothing in common with those of western Europe? Betcha Donald didn’t think of that before he cooked up this scheme.
Let’s go back in time to conceive of a historical equivalent. Imagine Richard the Lion-Heart decides something must be done about the Mohammedan heathens polluting the Christian holy places. So he sends his knights to fight on behalf of Christendom. When they arrive, they fight Saladin and his army to a standstill. But the pesky Muslims continue the fight and eventually they wear down Richard’s forces. He decides he wants to bring them home before his subjects become too restive.
So his trusted aide-de-camp suggests a brilliant alternative strategy: find local Muslim tribes in the region who hate Saladin, and pay them to fight on Richard’s behalf. Sounds like a great plan. What could go wrong?
This is in effect a reverse Crusades. We fight the Mohammedan heathen, but without paying any of the costs in the lives of our own. The Mohammedans fight it out amongst themselves. We come out smelling like a rose.
Who thought up this brilliant plan for Trump? None other than John Bolton. It’s fiendishly clever: he never had much use for Muslims anyway. So what could be better than having Muslims killing each other in droves? With us picking up the tab. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Richard.
If you can come up with a better plan, than please share it with us.
‘Richard.
If you can come up with a better plan, than please share it with us.’
At this point?
Let the wookie win. (It’s Star Wars day in my posts). Let Assad reimpose his secular police state. It was pretty repressive, but it wasn’t the sort of sadistic dementia we saw in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
It’s better than what’s going on now, and it’s certainly better than the sheer evil outlined above.
@ Elena: how about, stay the hell out of it? Or else negotiate your way out of it with the Russians, Turks and Iranians.
Why won’t you stay out of Israel business as well than?
Just think about Israel as an dictatorship which killed 100 folds less civilians in the last decade than ‘stay the hell out of it’.
If you don’t feel like as a foreigner you have a moral duty to get involved, than apply it equally.
‘Why won’t you stay out of Israel business as well than?
Just think about Israel as an dictatorship which killed 100 folds less civilians in the last decade than ‘stay the hell out of it’…’
Why won’t we stay out of Israel’s business? Because we subsidize Israel and make it possible? Because we defend it from the global boycott it so richly requires? Because it wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t brought it into being?
I dunno. Have I missed anything?
Your argument is precisely as if my son is out stealing cars. Why should I care? Lots of teenagers steal cars. Yes; but if my son is doing it — with my encouragement, no less — I do bear quite a bit of responsibility.
Unfortunately, Israel’s our little axe murderer. We made it, we sustain it, and absent our continuing support, it would last about six months.
If you feel otherwise, can we pull the plug and see?
[Comment deleted: read the comment rules and stay on topic. You’re guilty of “whataboutism.” “If you think Israel is so bad why don’t you denounce X.” Not the way we roll here.]
@Jim: I’m a Jew. Israel’s business is my business.
You’re are a Jew who believes Israel isn’t Jewish anymore but Judean and who support one state solution which means no Jewish state any more.
Nothing wrong with any of that but to simply say ‘Bc I’m a jew’ doesn’t answer the original question.
‘@ Elena: how about, stay the hell out of it? Or else negotiate your way out of it with the Russians, Turks and Iranians.’
The irony there is that it’s a measure of our decline as global hegemon that Russia, Turkey, and Iran — three very different powers — do appear to have negotiated a solution to Problem Syria that satisfies all three of them and are in the process of imposing it.
We’re just noise. Evil and destructive noise — but just noise.
It’s kind of sad, really.
Hello Richard,
Syria is an Arab country. Why not let Arabs police Arabs?
What business is it of Turks, Russians, Iranians and Americans?
‘
Hello Richard,
Syria is an Arab country. Why not let Arabs police Arabs?
What business is it of Turks, Russians, Iranians and Americans?’
Note that historically, Palestine was ordinarily considered a region of ‘Syria.’
I think I’ll endorse your concept. Let the Arabs police Syria.
@Colin
sigh
Here we go again.
“..historically, Palestine was ordinarily considered a region of ‘Syria.’”
The Roman province of Syria-Palestina was created by the Romans when they added their minor province of Judaea, to their major province of Syria. Romans changed the name of Judaea to Palestine to spite the Jews.
The Roman province of Judaea got it’s name from the Kingdom of Judah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina
@Frank: the term “Arab” is pretty close to meaningless in this context and has no bearing on how effective “Arab” states would be in resolving the Syria conflict. It is both a religious and political conflict having little to do with Arabness.
This army will never materialize. Another scenario: part of a saudi-extortion scheme by trump. He will milk them dry with the help of this fool crown Prince.
It is worth noting that the plan as described will almost certainly fulfill a perennial goal of Israeli foreign policy: to reduce her neighbors to either subservience or blood-soaked anarchy. See Lebanon: 1974-2000. See also Jordan, 1970, and for that matter, Egypt, 2012 (or whatever) to now.
…causing misery and death ad infinitem. There’s also the happy effect we’ve already witnessed: the chaos gives rise to international terrorism and floods of refugees, encouraging Islamophobia in the West and perpetuating the cycle.
Emperor Palpatine rubs his hands in glee. It’s one of the reasons I think ‘evil’ does indeed start to become an appropriate term when discussing Zionism. That IS the effect. It’s also the intended effect. Yep: ‘evil’ is the right word. An oldie but a goodie, so to speak…
Aside from everything else, figuring on using a Saudi force to stamp out ISIS is about like applauding Hitler’s invasion of Poland on the grounds that he’ll do something about anti-semitism.
…my guess is that your average mid-level Saudi officer is very likely to think ISIS is a pretty good idea. He’s hardly who you want discouraging a revival.
Of course, who says anyone wants to discourage a revival? ISIS was pretty useful, and could be so again. I mean, Islamophobia in the West is a fine thing, as far as Israel is concerned.
Colin. I scarcely know where to begin. Let’s start with this gem,”..a perennial goal of Israeli foreign policy: to reduce her neighbors to either subservience or blood-soaked anarchy.”
Israel needs her neighbours to have stable governments. Israel never wanted the Assad regime to fall. The Golan was one of Israel’s quieter border regions,. For over forty years, quiet.
Israel wants continued friendly relations with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Israel had nothing to do with the 1970 Black September revolt of Palestinians living in Jordan.
The civil war in Lebanon began in 1975 when Lebanese Maronites and Palestinians began to fight. Israel didn’t invade Southern Lebanon until 1982, and when she did, it was to fight Palestinians, not Lebanese Sunnis or Shi’ia or Christians.
Israel had nothing to do with the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, and had nothing to do with the problems that gave way to it. Israel has done very little to exacerbate the Syrian conflict. Her limited goals in Syria include protecting her border with Syria and protecting Syrian Druze who have brothers living in Israel.
Emperor Palpatine rubbing his hands in glee? Gimme a break.
How would we accomplish giving Syria back to Assad? Now, even with his Russian and Iranian allies, his government only controls a fraction of the territory. Many Syrian Sunnis, including Kurds who have been fighting ISIS, are now armed. Who should they turn over their weapons to?
Just as important, who is going to bankroll the reconstruction of Assad’s ‘New Syria’? The Saudis? No. The United States? No.
Colin. Really.
Elena: I stand by what I said. For example: just how did the Palestinians wind up in Jordan in the first place? Decided they had a yen for desert living?
I also love ‘Israel has done very little to exacerbate the Syrian conflict.’ We can start with Hillary Clinton’s emails there.
As you say, one hardly knows where to begin.
@Colin
If you stand by what you said, than defend your stance by rebutting my claims. Don’t distract with references to how the Palestinians came to arrive in Jordan.
Hillary Clinton’s emails?
sigh
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-clinton-say-syria-israel-leaked-e-mail/
Colin. Like my Welsh grandmum used to say, ‘Don’t bullshit a bullshitter’.
I did rebutt them — a couple anyway. Arguing with Israel advocates is exactly like arguing with Holocaust Deniers. You can shoot down their bullshit arguments — they just come up with another.
At least Holocaust deniers are thoroughly marginalized — and the Third Reich really isn’t around any more.
So French and British officers drew some lines in the sand exactly 100 years ago without taking into account local communities and their differences.
This model is falling apart all over the Middle East and Africa.
It has been a fertile ground for dictators for the last 100 years.
In my opinion, the solution is either larger country that will include more Arab countries in the USA states model, or separation that will actually take into account the different groups.
‘…But if you pretend to have a moral stand, you can’t be completely oblivious in the much more deadly Syrian war and be so feisty about Israel and the Palestinians.’
This remark only makes sense if Iassume you missed the point of my post entirely.
I stated it reasonably clearly the first time around. I can’t see what more I could say.
I was discussing the traditional meaning of ‘Syria.’ Frank essayed to ‘correct’ me. Happily for me — if not for Frank — that compendium of all traditional meanings is online: to wit, the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. Here’s what IT says ‘Syria’ is:
‘SYRIA, the name given generally to the land lying between the easternmost shore of the Levantine Gulf and a natural inland boundary formed in part by the Middle Euphrates and in part by the western edge of the Hamad or desert steppe. The northern limit is the Tauric system of mountains, and the southern limit the edge of the Sinaitic desert…’
Hopefully, I don’t need to explain that this clearly encompasses Palestine.
Right. After Rome merged Judea with Syria, the region was named Syria Palestine, which than came to be known as Syria, and which encompassed Palestine, nee Judaea.
Wow. Colin. Enough.
Frank — 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. Frank — 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Which one to go with? Oh this is a poser…
Do you even read the posts? It’s as if you’re a bot or something.
@Colin Wright: Snooze guys. Knock it off.
@Frank: If I’d wanted a discourse on the names of ancient Israel I would’ve written a post. I didn’t. You’re off topic. Do not post again in this thread. And stay on topic if you post in other threads.
Have anyone here read the old testament? Cuz I did read some of it and “the Philistines” appear a lot there in the same place that is now called Palestine or “Philistine” in its native tongue.
As much as I understood, those Philistines were called so long before the Romans annexed the Levant.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.