Obama Says US Will Engage Russia Over Arms to Syria

[Purveyor]

Source: Voice of America

VOA News
Last updated on: September 11, 2015 9:32 PM

President Barack Obama said Friday that Russian actions in Syria could prevent the United States and other members of the U.S-led coalition from getting to a political solution in Syria.

Obama said the United States would be engaging Russia about its strategy of providing increased military support to the Assad government in Syria.

"If they are willing to work with us, the 60-nation coalition that we put together, then there is the possibility of a settlement in which [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad] would be transitioned out and a new coalition of moderate secular and inclusive forces could come together and restore order in the country. That’s our goal," he said, adding: "This is going to be a long discussion."

A Pentagon official told VOA on Friday that Russia had sent 200 naval infantrymen to Syria, as well as modular housing for 1,500 troops. So far, the official said, most of what has been sent — howitzers, a short-range guided-missile controller and a dozen armored vehicles — appears to be defensive in nature.

Read more: http://www.voanews.com/content/russia-tells-us-to-avoid-unintended-incidents-near-syria/2960339.html

[msongs]

1. maybe putin is trying jack up the flood of escapees nt

[zeemike]

2. Well we created the crisis not Putin.

We destabilized the entire region with invading Iraq. And it was us that wanted regime change in Syria not Putin. Remember it was Obama that wanted to send in troops and the public stoped it.
I tire of the hypocrisy.

[karynnj]

4. Obama NEVER wanted "to send troops in"

Obama set the use of chemical weapons as a red line. Assad used them. What Obama spoke of doing was a response designed to make it less likely CW would be used again. This eventually led to Kerry/Luvrov negotiating a deal which took 620 tons of CW out of Syria and destroying it.

I don't know what is less helpful. The left arguing Obama wanted to join the civil war or the right arguing that Obama "backed down on the red line".

[Depaysement]

16. Mostly true

We armed more than one faction in the War though.

And the broader point is true. American actions in the region accelerated sectarianism and hastened the toppling of secular regimes. Who benefitted from that?

Obama's actions in Libya fit that trend. And that's surprising because it goes against his nature and worldview.

[karynnj]

23. I will agree with you on Libya.

On Syria, it is more confusing. Obama resisted advise from Clinton and Petraeus to do far more to arm the rebels. If you go back to things like Congressional hearings, there was a huge push from the McCain/Graham faction to try to push the President to do more.

Columnists who agreed with McCain had a pretty annoying habit of using a McCain version in the headline on us intending to do more even when his position was denied by the Defense or State Department. I don't get why reporters, like Josh Rogin, who did this many times and then in many subsequent articles linked to his earlier ones where only the title agreed, still have any credibility.

What does seem clear is that although Obama wanted to use diplomacy in getting Syria to stop facilitating Hezzbolah, soon into his administration, the plug was pulled on that. It is pretty clear the US at minimum encouraged protests. However, the turning point where the US started saying that Assad could not stay in power was when he ordered violent attacks on the unarmed protesters.

Over time, the concerns of Democratic Senators and many in the administration were raised that finding the moderate Syrians who we could support was a tricky endeavor. Not to mention, you could find comments from both Hagel and Kerry saying that the US should not be involved in their Civil War - often these comments were push back to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States who argued we were not doing enough.

The only thing 100 percent clear is that Syria is a tragic mess. The Republican. Sunni states and Clinton argue that part of the fault is that Obama should have been stronger - with a "mmore robust" policy. On the other side, people here say the US did too much. One danger is that many would - by habit - argue that we split the difference between these two positions.

Diplomatically, everyone in the US and Russia has spoken for the need for a diplomatic solution. It does seem the only solution, but both sides have conflicting interests. I don't see the US agreeing to push it's side to accept a government that includes Assad and I don't see Russia/Iran accepting one without him. I hope I am wrong.

[CanadaexPat]

27. I thought the reticence was strategic.

The Syrian war took up Iranian and other resources, so why end it? Let them fight for years, was the attitude. No downside for the U.S.

[karynnj]

28. The downside to the US and the world is obvious

Iraq is not stable, Syria has been a humanitarian disaster for years - and has become far worse this year. The longer this continues, the harder it will be to ever get any semblance of normal life in the entire region.

I think the real answer is the US does not control the world. I think the Obama administration would love to magically find a way to stabilize both countries. It would be a huge accomplishment to really do so. (Politically, even something that is a half measure that papers over the problems would be a political win.)

[zeemike]

30. Well what is worse than both of them is...

The blindness to the futility of meddling in the ME...and the acceptance of it by liberals because we have a D in the white house.

[bemildred]

33. I concur.

He has allowed his minions to do what they want too much, but in the terms in which US foreign policy is framed, he has been a restraint. Just not enough.

[newfie11]

17. +1!

[joshcryer]

19. Bush, an unelected fascist.

Not "we."

[zeemike]

31. Bush has been gone for 7 years now.

Time for "we" to take responsibility for the situation.

[joshcryer]

35. Are you arguing for intervention?

[zeemike]

40. What would give you that idea?

I am arguing for us to git the fuck out of meddling in the ME...and spend that money on things desperately needed right here in the US.

[joshcryer]

41. You said we need to take responsibility.

But it seems you simply want us to admit wrongdoing for something an unekected war criminal did and nothing more. I guess that might be "responsible."

In bizarro world.

[zeemike]

42. If you do nothing to change it you are just as responsible

As the one who started it.
This administration is responsible for continuing the policies of Bush...and that is the wrongdoing that we must take responsibility for...and I do me WE...because we did not "hold his feet to the fire'.
Instead we chose to make excuses and tell ourselves that the bad guys would not let him do anything...so he never had to try.

[zeemike]

32. Good information thanks.

And welcome to DU.

[Agschmid]

37. .

[Agschmid]

38. Judicial watch isn't good information.

What do you know about the organization...

[zeemike]

39. Nothing really

But there are a lot of organizations I know nothing about. (and few of us do unless you are in the loop)
So the question is, is the information correct or not?

[Heinz_Golderian]

6. Putin is more pragmatic than that.

The Syrian port of Tartus is the only Med. naval facility than Russia has access to.

When Nuland and her 'F*ck the EU!" crew organized the coup in Ukraine in a bid to strip Russia of access to the only deep water port they had in the Black Sea (Sevastopol) Putin responded with his military.

I would expect him to put in whatever support is necessary (with help from Iran and their proxies in Lebanon) to keep a coastal Syrian rump state in his orbit.

[Truprogressive85]

3. Have we not learn our lessons from Iraq?

if Assad is deposed , Syria falls into the hands of extremists-same old stroy

Are we giving Kurds weapons In Iraq to repell ISIS ? Yet were giving weapons to "moderate factions" in Syria

[Cayenne]

7. And Libya?

[Truprogressive85]

8. What about Libya ?

Libyans have been fleeing ,and been drowning just to get to Europe just as we are seeing with Syrians

[joshcryer]

20. Non-Libyan migrants have been dying.

Using Libya as a corridor.

[Cayenne]

26. Regime Change

Didn't make things better in Iraq, Libya, and it won't make things better in Syria either.

[840high]

15. ....x10+

[Cayenne]

5. Our goal is a gas pipeline through Syria

The UN has not approved war on Syria and the Russians DO have every right to be there. This seems to be going nowhere good.

[ozone_man]

22. +1

I think that is what our involvement is all about.
I also suspect that ISIS was allowed to prosper as a pretext to going in ourselves. Where the truth lies is hard to tell. Most Syrians were happy living in a secular state under Assad, before we got involved and destroyed it.

[flamingdem]

9. Why does it feel like we don't know half

of what's happening behind the scenes.

[TwilightGardener]

10. My hunch is that the administration got caught flat-footed with

Russia's sudden move into Syria, and they don't know how to counter it.

[flamingdem]

11. Sounds about right

Russia wants in on any upcoming real estate changes, as in carving out new countries and such.

[TwilightGardener]

13. That, and Russia and Iran's goal is that the US no longer

operates in Syria with free rein (airstrikes, special ops missions, arming and coordinating with rebel groups, etc.)--they want to force us to have to coordinate and seek permission with them first, under threat of "accidents" and misunderstandings, thus they will ultimately be able to control our activities there or deny us altogether. In terms of the ISIS fight, we rightfully do not trust Russia's intentions. Hard to see how we benefit from this.

[roamer65]

12. I know a great counter to it.

Maybe the administration should sit down, STFU and leave it alone.

Let the Russian and Iranians deal with the mess WE created.

[flamingdem]

14. Not a bad idea

if it weren't for our "allies".

[joshcryer]

21. What's to counter?

Iraq is where ISIS thrives.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Well, for years our mantra was "Assad must go", and we still want him to step down

unless something's officially changed. Russia's propping him up now because he was losing territory pretty badly and they don't want to forever lose their navy base if someone unfavorable to Russia takes over. So they're giving Syria anti aircraft systems that of course aren't for ISIS or the rebels, they're to counter us. We have to decide what we're going to do now, but we don't have any real leverage anymore. I have to dispute that Iraq is the center of ISIS, I thought it was pretty much accepted that western Syria is their HQ.

[bemildred]

18. Good. We have had enough stupid foriegn policy for a while. nt

[Sunlei]

25. What will happen is IS will flood into Russia, they have already 'laid claim' to a corner of russia.

No one will help Russia and Assad.

[Kotya]

34. I don't see IS as a threat to Russia.

Russia will defend her territory mercilessly.

Muslim enclaves within Russia have never been particularly fond of foreign "freedom fighters" either who show up with Korans in hand and try to impose a rigid observance of Islam that they don't prescribe to.

[Oneironaut]

43. No, the US is preventing a political solution in Syria.

The secular rebels will never win. It will be endless chaos until Assad crushes them or ISIS takes over. The US is both encouraging ISIS's victory and allowing the war to continue.

It's possible that we're really that stupid, but doubtful. I think it's a racket. We want the war to continue because they're buying our weapons. If ISIS wins, oh well - the sole purpose of the defense department now is to generate revenue for the MIC.