Rubio, Fiorina Seem Clueless on Syria Too?
original OP-ED written by Net Advisor™
WASHINGTON DC. I listened to and have read the commentary and views of several 2016 candidates that appeared on Fox News, September 29-30, 2015.
This op-ed started out as a Tweet (140 characters). Then I felt that this tweeted message would have become lost in the ‘Twitter-verse.’ So here I am writing a quick political commentary (OP-ED/ opinion) where some 150+ countries, media and other officials may also read this.
I hope you don’t mind that I am going to be very matter-of-fact here (less PC). Those named hereto may have other ideas that I may agree or disagree with, but for this exercise, and because it involves national security, I am limiting this article to one central issue:
Russia, Iran and Syria
I came to the conclusion that both Senator Rubio and Ms. Fiorina seem to have no NO CLUE on Syria-Russia-ISIS strategy.
Sen. Marco Rubio’s Flawed Strategy
- Sen. Rubio said on Fox News (9/30/2015) (paraphrased in short): ‘We have to build a coalition of get Suni’s to fight ISIS.’
If we have not figured out by now that relying on someone else to fight for the U.S. has been a losing battle. Senator Rubio, did we call on Germans in France and the UK to fight Hitler in WWII? Would that have worked?
This is such a deep, and ancient issue over (Sunni–Shiite) religious differences in the Middle-east. Ultimately, if the U.S. thinks they are going to create some fantasy unity in the Middle-East, it’s a losing proposition. One is not going to change religious views, and that is the basis of everything that goes on in the Middle-East.
Carly Fiorina’s Flawed Strategy
- Ms. Fiorina said on Fox News (9/30/2015) (paraphrased in short): ‘We have to create no-fly (and) safe zones in Syria to protect the (anti-Assad) rebels.’
Ms. Fiorina, do you think Russia is going to cooperate? Do you think Assad is going to cooperate and allow no-fly zones or ‘safe (no war) zones’ in his OWN country? Do you think Iran will also cooperate? Good luck with that one.
When Russia challenges the no-fly zone, are you going to order USAF to fire AAM (missiles) at Russian fighter jets? Russia reportedly has an airstrip with fighter jets designed to fight other fighter jets. ISIS has no jets so who do you think those jets are made to deter? Hint: The U.S.
If one doesn’t know the immediate answer to that question, one should not run for POTUS.
Russia reportedly hit non-ISIS targets on 9/30/2015 which were reportedly Syrian ‘rebels:’
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) October 1, 2015
It seems that some have not figured out that relying on someone else to fight for the U.S., has resulted in losing battles (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen).
A Little Too Late Strategy:
In September 2014, I said this:
— NetAdvisor™ (@NetAdvisor) September 16, 2014
Here were are a year later and guess what?
It is too late to send a few hundred+ ground troops in a half-ass war WHILE Russia is bombing Syria, and Iran is reportedly also in Syria or backing Syria. Are you going to attack Russia and Iran too?
Obama created an open door (“vacuum”) for Iran and Russia to enter Syria. Iran is already in Iraq, and Russia will be there soon. Are you going to kick them out? I doubt it. Obama just financed Iran’s war by lifting of #IranDeal sanctions.
Result of these bad foreign policy decisions (indecision) by current (Obama/ Kerry et al) Admin and current thinking will fail – again.
“We cannot enter into alliances until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbors.”
My guess is Russia will take defacto control of Syria, and maybe or maybe not keep Assad. Russia will probably take resources from Syria by pressure or force.
Trump on Syria
Mr. Bill O’Reilly said on 9/29/2015, and I completely concur (I mentioned earlier 9/29/2015), that Russia will likely control Syria (reiterated such). Mr. Trump was especially chastised by Sen. Rubio on Fox News (09/30/2015), After Mr. Trump said, ‘Do you (USA) want to run Syria?’
Mr. Rubio, Is there any place in the Middle-East that the U.S. has been successful at running the government. Iraq? Libya? Yemen?
I’m not fond of Russia or Assad (or ISIS) running Syria either, but the U.S. is not going to confront Russia on a military level, especially when Russia is currently operating live bombing attacks in Syria. Thus, the U.S. has already lost Syria.
“Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted.”
Unless Russia runs a half-ass war like 1980’s Afghanistan, and gives up, then the U.S. may have an opportunity to go and screw up Syria, like Afghanistan too.
Then you have Iraq again for the 3rd time (Priors 1990, 2003). By the time we wait for Obama to leave office (Jan. 2017), Russia will already in high probably (in my estimation) have a modest to strong military presence in Iraq with Iran. The two countries (Russia and Iran) will end up with control on much of Iraq, take resources, and then the U.S. will lose Iraq, save perhaps Baghdad and where EXISTING U.S. troops (security forces) are already there.
Russia and Iran become richer and have greater control and influence in the Middle-East. Before Russia enters Iraq, this is my current prediction for Iraq with Iran influencing the country.
I’m not for war, and prefer not to go that route, however one should be aware that there are some people and some countries that only understand economic pressures or military force.
Drawing artificial lines in the sand, declaring Russia to keep out of no-fly zones is really a ludicrous idea at this point.
What to do?
Even if we want to fantasize about some Cumbia agreement with a no-fly and protective zones so no one will attack either the ‘rebels’ or local non-fighting citizens would surely result in ISIS etc., integrating in these “safe” (gun free zones?). Then ISIS etc, will launch attacks from these safe zones.
The ONLY viable strategy that the U.S. COULD have taken, would have been to use overwhelming forces like the U.S. did in the Gulf War (1990); where the U.S. had some 500,000 troops and easily won that war to liberate Kuwait from hostile unwarranted Iraqi invasion.
Any new effort will require massive tactical air, sea and satellite support, including helicopter gun ships (Apaches are nice), stealth bombers, and fighter jets to create an overwhelming presence. This is a full time commitment to enter Iraq, and then sweep the country by taking and even temporarily controlling land. This of course upsets all the religious zealots in the region. The U.S. should AVOID inserting itself on the ground in Syria.
The U.S. can align the Syrian border will massive troops to defend of border-crossers on the Iraqi side. Please try this at home. Yes, we have to play hard ball (firm policy, unwavering) and sorry for any inconvenience refugees.
- Frontline: Losing Iraq. How did we get here? (PBS Video Documentary)(Air Date: July 29, 2014).
- Former defense secretary blames Obama for ignoring his advice in Iraq (CNN, Oct. 3, 2014).
IF – the U.S. got involved in a committed full-scale effort it would be full-time 24-7, and support by both Houses of Congress and the President. It would be costly, but not a half-ass war. The U.S. should clear the country in a year or less. The U.S. will have to decide in advance whether it will have a Status Forces Agreement or occupy the country much like the U.S. has permanent troops stationed such as in Germany, South Korea, Italy, and Japan. The U.S. must have superior forces to control events.
Drawback to U.S. War
If not fully committed, if one ran a (politically correct) PC war (concerned about hurt feelings, bad press, public reactions, missed targets, accidentally hit a hospital, or propaganda made public to think that), then like Vietnam, one will lose that war too. One also needs the right commanders in the field, and at home who are not politicians and allow them to have lawful discretion to ‘win’ the war. Government attorneys are not allowed on the battle-field.
“…By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom…
…through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers.”
There will be causalities, and some of it will be ugly, but if you want to achieve that goal there will need to be a massive commitment. War is not pretty. It is ugly. People die. It can be and often is brutal. If one is not prepared to deal with the harsh realities then one should never put a single solder in such conflict.
“He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened…
…other chieftains (Russia?) will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue…
In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.”
Obama Admin ALL Clueless
The Obama Administration is completely CLUELESS when it comes to policy after policy, after policy. If not this military or severe economic sanction options explored, then do nothing; or do a half-ass option and lose. That will allow Iran to over-run Iraq with Russia and possibly Syria’s help. Then the U.S. will then lose Syria, Iraq and lost its influence in this region.
— NetAdvisor™ (@NetAdvisor) October 1, 2015
The lack of leadership, clarity of reality as to whom are the enemy, whom are our allies, and really understanding what is this going to take, makes one wonder whose side is the Administration on? I’ll discuss that in another report. Thanks for reading.
About the author:
Among other work, studied U.S. Intelligence agencies and related history as a senior project at USC. Analyzed and interpreted speeches, reports, studied behavioral patterns of terrorists, their belief systems and from other players. Wrote extensive reports including one titled, “Challenges of International Terrorism to the U.S. Intelligence Agencies.” Report was inspired by William Casey, a former Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). Prior to this, developed military strategy games from elementary school to adult. Watched father’s career that included over 30 years U.S. military service, retired BG. (These last two notes not in NetAdvisor’s regular bio.) Currently published nearly 400 articles and reports at netadvisor.org.
Header image may be copyright by their respective owners where known. Sources include Wikipedia. Pres. Obama, Sec. Kerry, Amb. Power image via vox.com. Videos via The Washington Post, Fox News: O’Feilly Factor. Tweets from Twitter accounts shown hereto.
Original content, Copyright © 2015 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.