Interesting article:

US contemplates failure in the Middle East as Russia rises
OCTOBER 20, 20159:58PM

Air strikes carried out by Russia’s air force in the Syrian province of Hama.

Charis Changnews.com.au
RUSSIA’S power play in Syria appears to be paying off with the superpower making inroads against Islamic State and other extremist groups, leaving its American rivals looking ineffective and highlighting US failures in the region.

When Russia decided to involve itself in the war in Syria, American officials accused it of “pouring gasoline on the fire” in Syria and being “unprofessional” for only giving the US an hour’s notice of its intention to launch air strikes.

But just weeks later, Russia’s provocative move seems to be paying off.

Professor Clive Williams of Macquarie University’s Centre for Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism told news.com.au that Russia’s support had helped Syrian armed forces make advances in some contested areas and “clearly it has made a difference for them”.

Russia continues airstrikes in Homs and Damascus after period of ease

Earlier this year, commentators were writing off the Syrian army and suggesting that the government’s days were numbered.

With Russian air support, Syrians have been able to hit back against Islamic State in central and north-western regions, in a war that has stretched out for four years under the US’s watch.

The US is opposed to the Syrian regime headed by brutal President Bashar al-Assad and has so far refused to help its troops, but Prof Williams said it was better for the Assad regime to be in power, than for the likely alternative of jihadist groups Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra to prevail.

“We know what Islamic State is capable of, they are obviously ruthless and clearly have an agenda to dominate other opposition groups,” he said.

He said Russia’s success highlighted the US’s lack of strategy.

“America doesn’t really have a strategy but Russia’s is clear cut,” he said, adding that Russia aimed to support Assad’s regime and its own strategic interests.

While the US’s aim was to support Iraq and counter Islamic State, Prof Williams said what it was doing “was not really making much of a difference on the ground”.

This was partly because the US did not want to put American boots on the ground and was limited in what it could achieve through air strikes.

Iraqi forces backed by the US had corrupt leaders and were poorly motivated, and seemed to be militarily incapable of making advances against Islamic State.

“They rely mainly on the Kurds to do the ground fighting and they are really only interested in establishing their own state,” Prof Williams said.

HAS AMERICA FAILED?

Earlier this month, US President Barack Obama admitted that his efforts to help resolve the Syria crisis had so far failed, but defended his strategy and dismissed assertions that Russian President Vladimir Putin was now the dominant world leader.
But Putin has shown leadership in fight against IS.

“I didn’t say it was going to be done in a year,” Obama said in a US 60 Minutes interview. “Syria has been a difficult problem for the entire world community. What we have not been able to do so far — and I’m the first to acknowledge this — is to change the dynamic inside of Syria.”

But this week former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger argued in The Wall Street Journal that Russia’s military action was the latest symptom of the “disintegration of the American role in stabilising the Middle East order”.

He said the geopolitical alliances in the region were now in “shambles” and that four countries — Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq — had ceased to function.

“American policy has sought to straddle the motivations of all parties and is therefore on the verge of losing the ability to shape events,” Kissinger wrote.

“The US is now opposed to, or at odds in some way or another with, all parties in the region: with Egypt on human rights, with Saudi Arabia over Yemen, with each of the Syrian parties over different objectives.”

He said the US wanted to remove Assad but had been unwilling to generate effective political or military leverage to achieve that aim, or to put forward an alternative political structure to replace him. This had allowed Russia, Iran, Islamic State and other terrorist organisations to move into the vacuum.

When asked whether America had failed, Prof Williams said: “I don’t think its strategy in the Middle East is very effective”. “It has involved itself in the war between Shia and Sunni Islam without understanding the dynamics of the situation.

“In the longer term whatever America does isn’t going to be very effective.”

He said the US needed to rethink its approach more generally in the Middle East, including its relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia, and whether there was a more effective way to counter
Islamic State, by supporting Iranian and Shia militia forces in Iraq, for example.

Overall if you looked at American involvement in the Middle East since the 1990s, Prof Williams said: “it has all been pretty disastrous in terms of long term outcomes”.

Rather than having a clear objective, he said America seemed to “jump in” to conflicts in the Middle East and South Asia before pulling out after a few years.

“I’m not sure whether Western involvement in the Middle East against Islamic State is really the answer,” Prof Williams said.

“The situation in the Middle East is complicated and I think we need to step back and think about what sort of strategic outcomes we want and how best to achieve them.”

He said that America’s best move to combat Islamic State could actually be to withdraw from the conflict and let regional countries sort out what is essentially a regional problem.

“If we weren’t involved, Islamic State would also be less of a problem in Australia. They are attacking us at the moment because we are involved in attacking them,” he said.

“We could pull out and let the Saudis and Iranians get on with it. The Saudis are fighting through proxies and so is Iran. Maybe there’s not much to be gained by us from being involved in that situation.”

IS RUSSIA THE REAL WINNER?

Last month Russia announced an intelligence-sharing agreement with Syria, Iran, and Iraq in their fight against Islamic State, a move The New York Times says caught US officials completely off guard.

“It was another sign,” Michael Gordon wrote, that Russia “was moving ahead with a sharply different tack from that of the Obama administration in battling the Islamic State … by assembling a rival coalition that includes Iran and the Syrian government”.

On Monday, US Secretary of State John Kerry said the US would meet with Russian, Saudi and Turkish leaders to seek an end to the conflict in Syria.

Allowing Syria to become a haven for terrorist operations would not benefit any of the nations, including Russia, which would be concerned that the influence of the extremist groups could reach into Muslim regions along its southern border.

When asked whether Russia would be the winner in Syria, Prof Williams said it was in a much better position to be there in the longer term than the US.

He said Russia had been accessing a naval base in Syria since the 1970s and was there at the invitation of the Syrian regime. The naval facility in Tartus has been in use since 1971, and it was Russia’s only spot in the Mediterranean where warships could stop for repairs and replenishment. This year Russia also established a forward air base nearby, in Latakia.

“It’s not like they suddenly appeared on the scene to make life difficult for the Americans,” Prof Williams said, adding that Russia had an enduring strategic interest in Syria.

“If it wants to be seen as a world player it needs access to foreign bases, access to the port in Syria is very important in that context.”

Ultimately, he said Russia would probably be more effective against Islamic State because it had a clear mission to protect its military assets and support the Assad regime.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

How is that "ours".

Optimistic as ever

I think our policy towards Syria, Iraq and the Middle East generally falls in line with America's.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

I haven't posted anything. Just an article about which I noted it was interesting but didn't add my own opinion. The thread title clearly says "US et al". Don't change the thread title: it's quite clear. If you disagree with it, please debate the issue.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

I assumed by 'us' he meant the West. We have certainly been part of a failed military strategy so it's hardly black and white and nothing to start swearing about or giving the mod more work to do. You've said your piece. If the mod wishes to make changes he will.

Free speech isn't popular in these parts, is it? I mean, you post an article for discussion (the precise point of an Internet forum, I'd have thought) and someone immediately goes pre-menstrual in the most vitriolically personal of ways. The funniest thing is that he refers to the content of the article as "nonsense" as if that means it shouldn't be read. WTF? I didn't even say it wasn't nonsense; merely worth reading and responding to. Your interpretation of my general intent is absolutely correct, but I think most can probably discern that.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.