Syria: Its Breakup is a "Fait Accompli"

So says Foreign Policy.

Photographing the Flight From ISIS

Photojournalist John Stanmeyer brings images of some 66,000 Syrian Kurds fleeing from ISIS and flooding into Turkey yesterday.

The Fur Flies in Syrian Jihadist Catfight

You can't make this stuff up.

Quote of the Day: "Unprecedented Disarray"

Hope and change. Well, change, anyway:

If anything, the international situation Obama faced when he assumed the presidency was, in many respects, relatively auspicious. Despite the financial crisis and the recession that followed, never since John F. Kennedy has an American president assumed high office with so much global goodwill. The war in Iraq, which had done so much to bedevil Bush’s presidency, had been won thanks to a military strategy Obama had, as a senator, flatly opposed. For the war in Afghanistan, there was broad bipartisan support for large troop increases. Not even six months into his presidency, Obama was handed a potential strategic game changer when a stolen election in Iran led to a massive popular uprising that, had it succeeded, could have simultaneously ended the Islamic Republic and resolved the nuclear crisis. He was handed another would-be game changer in early 2011, when the initially peaceful uprising in Syria offered an opportunity, at relatively little cost to the U.S., to depose an anti-American dictator and sever the main link between Iran and its terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Gaza.

Incredibly, Obama squandered every single one of these opportunities. 

Squandered or, in some cases, "threw away with both hands."

The Middle East Friendship Chart

Obviously it's reductive and imperfect (where is Jordan?  I didn't see Lebanon either), but this chart is an interesting attempt to begin to think about the complexity of relationships in the Middle East.  I kind of want to add "Frenemies" as another relationship option and "Kurds/Kurdistan" as another player.  Note, though, how ISIS is pretty much hated by everybody.

Quote of the Day on ISIS

No good choices:

It is fine to pit Assad and Maliki plus Iran and Russia against ISIS, except under the following circumstances: Either side wins or, alternatively, there is a draw.

ISIS, the Caliphate, and the War On History

So ISIS (or ISIL or you say tomayto, I say tomahto, you say bloody-minded extremist, I say violent jihadist) has renamed itself IS (Islamic State) and declared a caliphate.  Bold and risky move.  See too the role of history, mangled and otherwise.  While we're on the topic,  don't forget this:

By formally abolishing the Syrian-Iraqi border ISIS doubtless hopes to evoke memories of the Ottoman era before supposedly artificial states were constructed for the convenience of European powers—a time when frontiers were porous and the ways of Islam were universally observed. The fatal flaw in this utopian vision—apart from its obvious historical inaccuracy—is its failure to recognize the division between Sunnism and Shiism that long predated Western interventions in Iraq and Syria. ...

However much the leaders of ISIS seek to draw on the imagery of an international Arab jihad rolling back a century of Western imperialism, the growth of ISIS feeds on these sectarian tensions that have been reanimated across the region. Politically, the jihadists have gained support from the widespread hatred of the Shiite cronyism of the Maliki regime, which replaced the cronyism of Saddam Hussein’s, as well as from the brutality of its counterpart in Damascus. And to the extent that foreign powers are driving the situation, the underlying dynamic flows less from the West than from the rivalry between the Sunni monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf on one side and Shiite Iran on the other. 

Don't Read This Unless You Want To Be Depressed

Obama's top 10 foreign policy disasters.  Number 1 is Syria because:

This is a blunder that arguably sums up every one of Obama’s weaknesses in conducting foreign policy.  ...

Syria has shown us the many faces of Barack Obama.

First we had Obama the deer in the headlights, doing nothing for a year after the revolt against Bashar al-Assad broke out in April 2011 and people started dying—a period when there was a real opportunity to shift the balance of forces in the Middle East.

Then we had Obama the redliner in August 2012, promising swift action if Assad used chemical weapons against the rebels … then doing nothing when they were used.

Then came Obama the unilateralist, deciding he had to take military action so he wouldn’t look like a prevaricating poltroon. This was immediately followed by Obama the devious, leaving ultimate responsibility for the decision to Congress.

By then, of course, half a million people were dead and Al Qaeda was left to take over leadership of the  rebellion against Assad.

Then came Obama, president of the Vladimir Putin fan club, gratefully taking up the Russian leader’s offer to broker the handover of Assad’s chemical weapons stash because it got Obama off the hook for military action. It also taught Putin that if he wanted to start reassembling the broken bits of the old Soviet Union, starting with Ukraine, Obama wouldn’t raise a hand to stop him.

Quote of the Weekend on Iraq

From the Wall Street Journal's blistering editorial:

The possibility that a long civil war in Syria would become an incubator for terrorism and destabilize the region was predictable, and we predicted it. "Now the jihadists have descended by the thousands on Syria," we noted last May. "They are also moving men and weapons to and from Iraq, which is increasingly sinking back into Sunni-Shiite civil war. . . . If Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki feels threatened by al Qaeda and a Sunni rebellion, he will increasingly look to Iran to help him stay in power." 

We don't quote ourselves to boast of prescience but to wonder why the Administration did nothing to avert the clearly looming disaster. 

Best Foreign Policy Analysis In 140 Characters or Fewer

US respnse 2 Syria,Russia,Iraq: 1)Huh? 2)We're watching this closely 3)With concern. 4)Hey, stop- 5)We won't tolerate that! 6)Mmm. Whatever.
— Rosa Brooks (@brooks_rosa) June 13, 2014

Brooks is currently a Georgetown law professor. She worked in the Department of Defense from 2009 to 2011.

Kerry on Syria: "Transparently Futile ... Profoundly Wrong"

The WaPo editorial board rips into the hapless, hopeless Secretary of State.  The guys at the American Interest add a piquant comment of their own:

Future Presidents and Secretaries of State should take note: This is what happens when your foreign policy dies and goes to hell. Later, historians will rake your bones over the coals.

Potemkin (Olympic) Village

A friend sent this link: Sochi, $50 billion and perhaps the most corrupt Games ever.  You know, for spending $50 billion you'd think Sochi would have doors that worked and bathroom taps with water that isn't toxic when there even is water.  Just sayin'.

Possibly more annoying/distressing: some of my friends are turning into actual Sochi apologists, arguing that we shouldn't judge Sochi facilities by "Western" standards and that we're being nasty for doing so.  Uhhh ... NO.  Excuse you, but if Sochi wanted the Games so badly for a two-week-long Putin-a-Palooza to impress the world, then it's clearly doing it wrong.  If you put yourself out there on purpose on the world stage, then you should bloody well expect people to judge you by pretty high standards.  The Sochi apologists should try staying in one of the wretched hotels for a while themselves.  Then again, some people never miss a chance to parade their own preening moral superiority.

If you're going to use the Sochi Games to put up a 2014 version of a Potemkin village, then perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with just what a Potemkin village is.

OK, OK, so there's also going to be an argument about how Russia is unfairly judged, how journalists can be subject to biases and preconceptions, etc.  Maybe.  But there is plenty of fodder for legitimate complaint without dipping into old-school prejudices that Russia is a cold, backward, vodka-drenched, lawless wasteland populated by people who drive like lunatics or whatever.   We don't even have to go there.  You don't want to judge the facilities and creature comforts?  Fine.  Let's just judge Russia's political leadership, then.  Is that less touchy for you?  All we have to do is look at Putin.  Should we say "Iran"? "Syria"? "P*ssy Riot"?  How about the ugly legal assault on the rights of gay Russians?  Come on.  Come on.  

And NO, the fact that you're hosting the Games doesn't mean that you're immune from criticism.  I lambasted Beijing relentlessly during those Games, and I think in part I did it because I could tell some Western journalists were holding back (fears of being called racist?).  You know, you can tell people are holding back now too.  Screw the apologists.  SCREW 'EM.

2013's Biggest Winners and Losers in Foreign Policy

Winners and losers.  No surprises.

Top 3 winners:

1. Vladimir Putin and Russia
2. Iran
3. Assad

Top 3 losers:

1. The Muslim Brotherhood and democratic Islamism
2. The EU
3. The Obama Administration

The Year In Middle East Foreign Policy: The Biggest Losers

Out of a very crowded field, this piece picks three: the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (an Iranian resistance group), the Syrian rebels, and (of course) Israel. 

The quote of the day comes from the article too:

"The lesson there is, when the United States says it has your back, don't listen."

How damning.  As for "smart power," this feckless Administration makes it look dumber all the time.

Short Version: "Your Foreign Policy Sucks"

You know, when the Saudi ambassador calls you out in the New York Times, that's probably not a good sign, hmmmm?

And yet rather than challenging the Syrian and Iranian governments, some of our Western partners have refused to take much-needed action against them. The West has allowed one regime to survive and the other to continue its program for uranium enrichment, with all the consequent dangers of weaponization.

Quote of the Day: Remembering the Persecuted Christians of the Middle East

OK, I've mocked Prince Charles plenty in the past (and will continue to do so in the future, I'm sure) for some of the silly things he's said. But sometimes he gets it right. Like right now, as he offers up this reminder about the ongoing persecution of Christians in the Middle East, the atrocity that almost nobody in the media ever mentions. Here's a bit of it:

“I have for some time now been deeply troubled by the growing difficulties faced by Christian communities in various parts of the Middle East.  It seems to me that we cannot ignore the fact that Christians in the Middle East are increasingly being deliberately targeted by fundamentalist Islamist militants.”

Syria Analysis: Assad Is "Fortunate In His Enemies"

Hey, with enemies like these, who needs friends?  Ahem:

[Sarkis] Naoum {a Lebanese journalist} says that Assad has been singularly fortunate in his enemies: a fragmented Syrian opposition, divided Arab countries, and a Turkish government whose reach exceeds its grasp. 

"He is fortunate because he has Iran, which is willing to go all the way to support him, while there isn't a single Arab country that has this kind of determination to enter the battlefield on the side of the opposition", Naoum said. 

"He is also fortunate because there is an American president who has no appetite for war and because Russia wants to settle its scores with America (via Syria)".

A Political Cartoon From France

This was apparently in Le Monde.  It pointedly shows Obama and the UN poring over chemical weapons while Assad is off busy slaughtering his countrymen by conventional means.

Nerd Analysis: Syria Fallout

Two professors of national security (backgrounds in history and political science) pen this analysis.  Note: they had diametrically opposed ideas about what should be done about Syria, but they agree that the Putin-Obama deal is a wreck: 

For nearly seven decades, American efforts in the Middle East have been based on a bipartisan consensus—one of the few to be found in U.S. foreign policy—aimed at limiting Moscow’s influence in that region. This is a core interest of American foreign policy: it reflects the strategic importance of the region to us and to our allies, as well as the historical reality Russia has continually sought clients there who would oppose both Western interests and ideals. In less than a week, an unguarded utterance by a U.S. Secretary of State has undone those efforts. Not only is Moscow now Washington’s peer in the Middle East, but the United States has effectively outsourced any further management of security problems in the region to Russian president Vladimir Putin.

UPDATE: OK, how about this negative feedback in the New York Times, no less?  Ouchie.  

Tweet of the Week: "Wheel of Fortune" Meets Foreign Policy

Putin: "I'd like to buy a vowel." Sajak: "Only an O left." Putin: "Never mind. I already own that one."
— Pat Sajak (@patsajak) September 19, 2013

ZING!