General David Petraeus recently had the opportunity to present his views on the ongoing Syria war, and his remarks were nothing, if not controversial. Here is a fair summary of his take on Syria:
Syria is ruled by a coalition of ill-repute, made up of Bashar Assad, the Iranian Quds Brigade, Hezbollah and Putin. The involvement of Russia has turned the Syrian war into a battle of international consequence. Syria is in the process of breaking up, and there is probably nothing anyone can do at this point to stop that from happening. The vast majority of Sunni Arabs, as well as the Syrian Kurds, will never submit to Damascus rule, so long as Bashar Assad is in power.
The United States, as the indispensable global power, still the sole world superpower in every respect, must take the lead in bringing the Syria war to an end. That means that the United States must support the creation of a safe-zone for refugees to remain inside Syrian territory or in a neighboring state. Turkey has nicely filled this role through its invasion, which will soon spread further south and encompass an area large enough for such a safe zone. But that is not enough. The United States must impose a no-fly zone over Syrian territory. It is costly, but can be done. The United States successfully established two no-fly zones over Iraq from the end of the first Gulf War through to the 2003 invasion. The Kurds in the north and the marsh Arabs in the south were protected. But that, too, is not enough. The Syrian Air Force must be grounded, and that can be accomplished by American sea-launch and air-launch cruise missiles strikes. At minimum, the Syrian Air Force runways can be cratered.
And the Syrian rebels must be armed with shoulder-held anti-tank and some anti-aircraft weapons. Perhaps Arab Special Forces from neighboring countries can manage and supervise these weapons deliveries.
Yes, this is complicated by the presence of the Russian military forces in Syria, but not to worry. Putin always stops, the moment he runs up against any immovable object. The actions proposed show appropriate firmness. They are not provocations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH3WSzPG_-c&feature=youtu.be
Hmmmm...
A bit too late to start WWWIII before tuesday, so what's next?
The most worrying is that that kind of idiot truly believe the "official" propaganda.
Posted by: jld | 05 November 2016 at 02:32 PM
When did Gen Petraeus become a policymaker? Did I miss the election or something?
You really have to wonder what he was thinking about when he made these unfortunate remarks which place him firmly at the extreme end of the foreign policy spectrum.
And wasn't it Petraeus who led the charge with Hillary for that other great military triumph in Libya?
Where, I wonder, are the military leaders who ascribe to a more restrained and rational approach to foreign policy? Have they all retired already or have they been muzzled by the neocon powerbrokers who seem to have infected every part of the decision-making apparatus?
One thing is certain, if Petraeus and his ilk are advising the Queen Mother (Hillary) then we're all goners for sure.
Posted by: plantman | 05 November 2016 at 02:57 PM
It seems that not only will we face a potential WWII by engaging in Syria but apparently some of the neocon Navy brass want to take on Iran at the same time:
http://radio.foxnews.com/2016/10/14/admiral-james-stavridis-ret-a-deadly-confrontation-is-coming-with-iran-if-not-immediately-then-after-the-election/
Posted by: Fred | 05 November 2016 at 03:24 PM
Petraeus first somewhat important job in Iraq was to build the Iraqi policy. He mightily screwed up and everything fell apart afte a few month. It had to be restarted from zero by the folks cleaning up after him. But he has been promoted ever since. Incompetence wins!
He knows nothing about Syria. Just consider this nonsense: "The vast majority of Sunni Arabs ... will never submit to Damascus rule, so long as Bashar Assad is in power."
Fact: The vast majority of Sunni Arabs support Damascus rule, so long as Bashar Assad is in power.
The guy is a lunatic known-nothing.
Posted by: b | 05 November 2016 at 03:35 PM
b
He is a "perfumed prince" in Hackworth's phrase. He is a Byzantine court general. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 05 November 2016 at 03:39 PM
The man is a raving lunatic. He can best serve America by saving the "appropriate firmness" for his mistress.
Posted by: OIFVet | 05 November 2016 at 04:13 PM
They must have passed the words the Neocon retired Generals and the israelis:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-israel-idUSKBN12Y1VK
Bad bad Shi'a :( and some journos are even talking about how bad the PMU are in Iraq - yep Shi'a militia trained by those bad Iranians w/o realising that Hashd or PMU consists of Sunnis, Shi'a, Christians, Assyrians and other minorities
Posted by: The Beaver | 05 November 2016 at 04:31 PM
Claim A: Damascus is too weak to reassert control over the country.
Claim B: We must arm the rebels with advanced weaponry and attack the Syrian Army on their behalf, lest Damascus reassert control over the country.
To me, the scariest thing is just how many people do not understand that A and B are contradictory statements.
Posted by: Timothy Hagios | 05 November 2016 at 04:35 PM
And to top it off, he wants to proliferate MANPADs. Does he understand or comprehend what we have been doing the past couple decades in limiting MANPADs? He is either incompetent or nuts. Or both.
Posted by: oofda | 05 November 2016 at 05:05 PM
For TTG
you may be interested : Jack Murphy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5rUBysKQtA
Posted by: The Beaver | 05 November 2016 at 05:11 PM
Petraeus comes across as completely incompetent in this book on the surge in Afghanistan:
http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/little-america-9781408831205/
The author fully dissects the silliness of Petraeus' COIN plan in Helmand and Kandahar.
A good book all around.
Posted by: richard rogers | 05 November 2016 at 05:15 PM
Harper; Thanks.
General (Ret) David Petraeus as much as anyone reflects the thinking and planning that led to the current mini world war ongoing in Syria and Iraq. That he has not slunk into obscurity after his misdemeanor slap on the wrist tells us more than anything what to expect in a Clinton Administration. But, first we must get through election day unscathed. Hopefully the NBC’s report on a Russian cyber-attack was just fearmongering. We shall see if we wake up on the November 9th with electricity, the internet and Donald Trump as President elect.
The Middle East wars will escalate unless the Western elite accepts that Wall Street’s hegemony is over. We live in a multi-polar world. The USA will be very lucky if remains united. The rift between the deplorables and coastal cosmopolitans is about to erupt into violence. In the 2016 election, we are witnessing the dirt that each side throws at the other. To survive this, the restoration of sovereign democracy and the rule of law is required.
Posted by: VietnamVet | 05 November 2016 at 05:20 PM
Yes, but those perfumed generals were also quite destructive to the Byzantine State on many occasions; poor counsel, intrigue etc.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 05 November 2016 at 05:31 PM
The man is certifiable...
Posted by: Jay | 05 November 2016 at 05:31 PM
Babak
yes. I am familiar with the history of the Byzantine Empire. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 05 November 2016 at 05:32 PM
On Bad Shia:
Foreign Country President: We could use US assistance to build a rail road from Ebeyond to Incourt.
US Ambassador: That could be arranged. But could Your Excellency please tell me if there are any Shia Muslims in your country?
Foreign Country President (puzzled): Shia Muslims? Who are they? In fact, we have no Muslims in our country.
US Ambassador: Ah, but that is too bad. Sorry we cannot help you with that road.
Foreign Country President (puzzled even more): But why?
US Ambassador: Well, Your Excellency, if you had Shia Muslims, we could give you money, training, equipment to fight them. We would hire the Chinese to build that railroad under Global War on Terrorism.
Foreign Country President: Why Chinese?
US Ambassador: Well, we exported all of our industries so that we can wage this war - among them, rail-road building.
Foreign Country President: OK, then where do I get some Shia Muslims?
US Ambassador: You have to contact the Iranians; they are all Shia Muslims.
Foreign Country President: Can you please take the trouble of putting me in touch with someone Iranians that could help in this matter?
US Ambassador: Sorry Your Excellency. That request exceeds what my government has authorized me to do.
Foreign Country President: But then we are stuck. We cannot get help if we do not have any Shia Muslims.
US Ambassador: You might contact the Chinese Ambassador, his government has good relations with Iranians and I am certain he could help. Especially once you let it be known that we would be hiring them to build that railroad.
Foreign Country President: I think we will take your advice; thank you very much.
US Ambassador: Not at all Your Excellency, America is always ready to help.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 05 November 2016 at 05:43 PM
There is no money in anti-war, anti R2P, "commonsense" FP.
The Borgist NeoCon's on the other hand have no shortage of job opportunities at Lobbying Firms, Think Tanks, PMC's, US Media Conglomerates, and Corporate Board positions, no matter how many wars they have lost.
If being wrong mattered, David Brooks et. Al wouldn't have had jobs for the last 30 years.
Posted by: Brunswick | 05 November 2016 at 06:30 PM
meanwhile, in Eastern Europe the things are getting peachy. The oh-so-sensitive Anti-Defamation League and the Lobby at large see nothing wrong in the celebration of the famous Nazi-collaborator Bandera in the "liberated" Ukraine and the rise of antisemitism there: "The Social-Nationalist party chose as its logo an amended version of the Wolfsangel, a symbol used by many SS divisions on the Eastern front during the war who in 2004 a celebration of the OUN-UPA, stated in 2004, that ‘’they fought against the Muscovite, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state.’’
What the US "deciders" have been thinking while enabling this near the Russian borders?
https://off-guardian.org/2016/11/05/ukraine-fascisms-toe-hold-in-europe/
http://www.channel4.com/news/svoboda-ministers-ukraine-new-government-far-right
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/28/nazi-roots-of-ukraines-conflict/
Posted by: Anna | 05 November 2016 at 06:43 PM
He is ignoring the fact that northern Syria is harboring the largest known concentration of Al Qaeda in the world and that the rebels we are supporting have been joined at the hip with them since their successful conquest of the Idlib province in 2015. This was before the Russian intervention so no one can play the 'Russians forced the rebel's hand' card.
For him or any senior level, policy, wannabe maker to suggest a plan for Syria and not address the Sunni, Jihadist dominated aspect to this rebel faction is inexcusable. I thought we declared war against Al Qaeda, so for anyone to suggest a policy that would give them material aid must be breaking some of the various laws and resolutions associated with that action. Maybe someone, possibly even the Russians, should start suing the State Dept. (the Borg) for these violations. At the very least it would force them to publicly defend the indefensible rather than hide behind a compliant media.
Posted by: Chris Chuba | 05 November 2016 at 07:32 PM
They are well aware that Claim A is untrue.
Claim B derives from what they know to be true: more arms and military support is needed to overthrow the Syrian government, which is supported by the majority of the population.
So the contradiction you identify derives from the lie. They are aware of the lie, but they hope you won't notice, or if you do, they trust your opinion is isolated and irrelevant.
Posted by: Castellio | 05 November 2016 at 08:35 PM
Did the four-star lunatic ask himself one important question? Like "what happens if Russians don't stop and keep flying"? The whole notion of creating no-fly zone in Syria is based on a flimsy presumption that Russians are cowards. What if they are not? Then obviously America will have to back down and will end up looking even more foolish than it is now.
Posted by: F-35 | 05 November 2016 at 08:46 PM
Why would ADL be nervous? Jews own Ukraine. All of the oligarchs, President, Premier-Minister are Jewish. Crosses and swastikas are a redirection - they are there to simply keep peasants preoccupied with a completely inconsequential stuff, while the country is being robbed blind.
Posted by: F-35 | 05 November 2016 at 08:52 PM
Vast majority live under Damascus rule and the people seems to be moving to it. It is a bit to nebulous to say they like it but the same can be said about the US and Clinton or Trump
Posted by: charly | 05 November 2016 at 09:00 PM
After blowing up the Syrian Airforce. That makes no sense.
Posted by: charly | 05 November 2016 at 09:05 PM
This is the guy that invited the Kagans (Fred and his wife Kimberly) to Afghanistan for a year to study the Afghan war and "advise" him. They had access to all information including classified intelligence reports.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/civilian-analysts-gained-petraeuss-ear-while-he-was-commander-in-afghanistan/2012/12/18/290c0b50-446a-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html
Posted by: FND | 05 November 2016 at 09:22 PM