Turkey and the Saudis are talking about getting involved to oust Assad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/12...12268.html

So long as the 'moderate force' isn't ISIS or Al Qaida, this could be exactly what the USA wants in the region....other countries investing their money and troops.

This isn't a homerun for the USA. There are risks to this policy. But for now, it appears as if the USA might have finally weaned the Middle East groups out of simply demanding we get involved in every quagmire in the region.

Hopefully, this is the start of countries in the region deciding to compete with each other to see how much they can work to support US interests, rather than undermine them. Our alliance is worth something. But many of the actors in that region, from Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, to Bibi, seem to be hellbent on sh*tting all over our interests while making us support their military capabilities and economies.

Right now, if Turkey doesn't act....we will just continue to work with the only tools we effectively can use to fight both Assad and ISIS/Al Qaida - which are the Kurds and the Iranians. So, those opposed to the Kurds and the Iranians now have to remove that problem for us.

A reevaluation of US alliances has been in order for a while. Erdogan and the Kingdom have been too willing to undermine us.

Tom, I generally agree that letting the region sort itself out is a good thing. The problem is that you can't go off running your mouth about red lines in Syria and the like, and than back down and do nothing, without coming off as a weak, bullying a-hole. The solution is to lose the bluster. Speak SOFTLY and carry a big stick. But Obama's ego hasn't let him do that in the past.

Bush let his words trap him into having to act to back them up. Obama has chosen to escape that trap by not backing up his words with actions. We are sending a dangerously mixed message.

Keep the threats on the back channel, and remember that threats have to be backed up to retain credibility. Then you gain some negotiating leverage.

As for Bibi and Erdogan and the Kingdom, the reason they don't always advance our interests is that their job is to advance their interests. The left has this tendency to pick at every failing of our friends, while overlooking much larger transgressions of our enemies. Apply the same standard to Israel and Iran, and we wouldn't be concluding that Israel is the one with the bigger human rights problem.

Turkey has been reluctant to get involved with ISIS in Syria because they wanted a full commitment from the US to depose Assad. The US has backed off of the red-lines in Syria and alternately signaled that they accept Assad, and don't want to let him off the hook, sending mixed messages and being a source of division between Turkey and the US. The possible Saudi-Turkey alliance here represents a lot of frustration with the US by both of those countries, which is what you'd expect with both disengagement in the region and with a pivot by the US towards Iran.

It's notable that Erdogan just returned from Iran. I think Erdogan views himself as the leader of the Islamic world, and intervention in Syria puts him in full conflict with Iran. If Iraq were to succeed in getting ISIS out of Iraq and Iraqi or Syrian troops turned westward into Syria and besieged Raqaa, then you may have a situation where Iranian troops are in direct conflict with Turkish and Arab troops. Which raises concerns that conflict in the Middle East gets resolved the same way it usually does... by someone starting a war with Israel.

Mr. Erdogan Goes to Tehran | Foreign Policy

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/10/is-t...or-at-war/ Wrote:Turkey's president once brought his country closer to Iran. Now, despite hand-holding and smiles, he finds himself facing off against the Islamic Republic in a regional war.

I think the US is softening it's stance on Assad due to lessons learned in Iraq. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't know.

(04-13-2015 06:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, I generally agree that letting the region sort itself out is a good thing. The problem is that you can't go off running your mouth about red lines in Syria and the like, and than back down and do nothing, without coming off as a weak, bullying a-hole. The solution is to lose the bluster. Speak SOFTLY and carry a big stick. But Obama's ego hasn't let him do that in the past.

Bush let his words trap him into having to act to back them up. Obama has chosen to escape that trap by not backing up his words with actions. We are sending a dangerously mixed message.

Keep the threats on the back channel, and remember that threats have to be backed up to retain credibility. Then you gain some negotiating leverage.

As for Bibi and Erdogan and the Kingdom, the reason they don't always advance our interests is that their job is to advance their interests. The left has this tendency to pick at every failing of our friends, while overlooking much larger transgressions of our enemies. Apply the same standard to Israel and Iran, and we wouldn't be concluding that Israel is the one with the bigger human rights problem.

I'm certainly not arguing that Iran has less of a human rights problem than Israel. I'm just saying that Iranian misbehavior does not excuse Israeli misbehavior. We aren't funding the Iranians, we are funding the Israelis.

(04-13-2015 12:57 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Turkey and the Saudis are talking about getting involved to oust Assad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/12...12268.html

So long as the 'moderate force' isn't ISIS or Al Qaida, this could be exactly what the USA wants in the region....other countries investing their money and troops.

This isn't a homerun for the USA. There are risks to this policy. But for now, it appears as if the USA might have finally weaned the Middle East groups out of simply demanding we get involved in every quagmire in the region.

Hopefully, this is the start of countries in the region deciding to compete with each other to see how much they can work to support US interests, rather than undermine them. Our alliance is worth something. But many of the actors in that region, from Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, to Bibi, seem to be hellbent on sh*tting all over our interests while making us support their military capabilities and economies.

Right now, if Turkey doesn't act....we will just continue to work with the only tools we effectively can use to fight both Assad and ISIS/Al Qaida - which are the Kurds and the Iranians. So, those opposed to the Kurds and the Iranians now have to remove that problem for us.

A reevaluation of US alliances has been in order for a while. Erdogan and the Kingdom have been too willing to undermine us.

These countries have to have an standing military beyond the immediate threat for them to have any credibility. Until then I don't think this movement can be characterized as anything more than police action.