"“The president doesn’t want this group to be what inherits the country if Assad ever does fall,” a senior U.S. official said. “This cannot be the viable Syrian opposition. It’s al-Qaeda.”
Officials said the administration’s hope is that more-moderate rebel factions will be able to gain ground as both the Islamic State and al-Nusra come under increased military pressure.
A growing number of White House and State Department officials, however, have privately voiced doubts about the wisdom of applying U.S. military power, even covertly, to pressure Assad to step aside, particularly since Russia’s military intervention in Syria last year.
U.S. intelligence officials say they aren’t sure what Trump’s approach to U.S.-backed rebel units will be once he gets briefed on the extent of the covert CIA program. Trump has voiced strong skepticism about arming Syrian rebels in the past, suggesting that U.S. intelligence agencies don’t have enough knowledge about rebel intentions to pick reliable allies." Washpost
------------
What is this? Has Obama finally come to his senses in the last months of his presidency? If I read this article correctly Obama overruled the neocon Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, the toadies he brought with him to the JCS and the always power hungry CIA. Rather than continue to accept the Israeli influenced "Assad must Go" policy, Obama apparently has directed the DoD to begin massive attacks against this AQ group in Syria.
Will this lead to cooperation with Russia in these operations? I don't know. I hope it will. Apparently Russian air defenses in Syria have been allowing US drone operations in western Syria for some time.
This change of policy is a radical reversal which indicates that overthrow of the Syrian government is no longer a priority of the Obama Administration. Logically, but merely so, Carter should resign since his policy recommendation has been rejected.
The fight for Mosul looks to me to be something that will last a long, long time. What will Obama do about that in his remaining time?
What will President Trump's policy be in the ME? Only time will tell. pl
What we also know is that when he gets in trouble he declares bankruptcy. I don't really think that there is an equivalence in government. He also had the ability to fire people with his businesses. He is going to find out they every Congressman and Senator also won their own races. They don't work for him. We also know that when he didn't want to pay people, he entangled them in lawsuits. Again, he won't be able to do this in govt. We also know that when he has ventured outside of real estate, he hasn't been that successful. So, while his skills may translate into good leadership in govt, there are a lot of reasons to suspect they won't.
Query- I have tried to think of successful businessmen who have done well in govt. Cant think of many. Romney of course, and many have been named to cabinet positions. Who else?
Steve
Posted by: steve | 13 November 2016 at 08:14 AM
Hoover?
As to Scott Adams wisdom... that's what America needs in the WH - an experimentalist w/o experience (but a short attention span), surrounding himself with similarly well-informed, well-adjusted senior executives.
Posted by: ked | 13 November 2016 at 09:21 AM
Thanks. Bad mistake.
So glad you agree. I meet few who do.
Posted by: English Outsider | 13 November 2016 at 10:11 AM
The fact is none of us know how he'll perform. Maybe he is another Obama that accomplished nothing for his Democrat base even with a Democrat majority in Congress and turned out to be fully bought and paid for by Wall St and coopted by the Borg. Or maybe not. He has the same opportunity as Obama did with a GOP majority in Congress. We'll know the score card in 2 years. I know you'll whine when he and the Republicans enact their agenda which will not comport with your leftist thinking.
I voted for Trump and I'll be very satisfied if all he accomplishes is keep us out of a shooting match with the Russians. OTOH, no matter what he accomplishes guys like you will keep sniping and foaming in the mouth because you detest the man. Your team blew it as millions that supported you guys 4 years ago abandoned your Borg Queen this week. Better to reflect on that.
Posted by: Jack | 13 November 2016 at 12:08 PM
The Hillary campaign blared your exact message from the ramparts. And they had a big megaphone of big media, the pundits, the establishment of both parties and all the big money from Wall St to Hollywood. The voters that supported him and those that abandoned her didn't really care. They're giving the deplorable man a chance.
Posted by: Jack | 13 November 2016 at 12:18 PM
Jack, I've noted among others these days - in personalizing a critique they make gross assumptions about the pov of people they don't know. I consider that a form of generalization that weakens one's argument... even as it discourages dialog (though it is itself sometimes revealing... "sniping & foaming" , "I know you'll whine"). ... It seems common these days. In people whom I do know well, I find that pattern be associated with some other characteristic - typically an insecurity over command of facts combined with the mode of personalizing all kinds of disputes. Since I do not participate on SST in order to make personal points vs other posters, but rather about the affairs and actors of the Nation & its place in the world, you won't find me responsive to personalized assessments such as you have made, linking me to positions or groups that I do not identify with... like those in your post that start "You..." & "Your...", even (especially!) when in error.
Posted by: ked | 13 November 2016 at 03:16 PM
Piotr,
Since we all benefit from the elimination of jihadista terrorists, the elimination of them from Syria is beneficial to us as well as to Russia. So even if we didn't get Russia to "pay us" something for this policy shift, virtue is its own rich reward in this case.
Posted by: different clue | 13 November 2016 at 03:30 PM
ked
"in personalizing a critique they make gross assumptions about the pov of people they don't know"
I have read your posts on SST and the POV thereof. Of course I could be wrong if what you post does not reflect your POV, but some imaginary character.
Posted by: Jack | 13 November 2016 at 04:02 PM
ked, You can sneer at Scott Adams' wisdom all you want. At least he understood what was going on and in the Summer of 2015 predicted that Trump would win the Republican nomination and the presidency and why!
Where was your wisdom??
Posted by: Sam Peralta | 13 November 2016 at 05:13 PM
Dear Host, Deep State is not as sinister as it sounds. All it represents is the apparatus of State which does not change between administrations. Mainly the bureaucracy (military and civilian), plus embedded actors like lobbyists, media barons, financial oligarchs, tenured professors and ruling class actors like Bolton and Wolfowitz. And as you say, yourself and other real-world participants who have an ongoing effect on government policy. In the end, the deepest State is the sovereign will of the People; slow to anger but Earth-shaking when roused.
Posted by: Earthrise | 13 November 2016 at 07:37 PM
He made but one promise: Make America Great Again
The rest is a mishmash
A summary is below
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801
The question I have is whether this obsfuscation is deliberate on Trump's part or does he simply think out loud.
Posted by: Mishkilji | 13 November 2016 at 07:47 PM
Sorry. Edmonds mentions Denny Hastert, Bob Creamer...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7XMoejT3lKs
Posted by: Cee | 14 November 2016 at 08:31 AM
Thats where your cost/efficiency calculator should click in. Is it better to have them as a militia in Syria, or to have them dispersed and on the desperate run across the world?
Posted by: Fnord73 | 14 November 2016 at 08:35 AM
Fnord73
What makes you think they can't do both? The amount of resources needed for international terrorist ops is fairly trivial. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 14 November 2016 at 08:38 AM
My friends in the baltic countries are not so happy. Remember how they contributed in both Af/Pak and IRaq?
Posted by: Fnord73 | 14 November 2016 at 08:39 AM
I think "Lets give the Middle East to Putin" is a pretty smart move. We in the west should be joyous that he goes in. (We should hold training exercises for the russian infantry on how to avoid civilian casualties, though).
Posted by: Fnord73 | 14 November 2016 at 08:42 AM
I will remember those words when the tactical nuke falls on Raqqa.
Posted by: Fnord73 | 14 November 2016 at 08:44 AM
Fnord73
You are new here. SST is a serious place for serious but not solemn people. It is not a place for posting comments that are irresponsible imaginings about "tactical nukes' in Syria, Iraq, or anywhere else. Also, don't get in the habit of send me half a dozen snippets a day. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 14 November 2016 at 08:51 AM
A totaly unqualified boss. It will be interesting, in the chinese sense of that words meaning.
Posted by: Fnord73 | 14 November 2016 at 08:52 AM
Fnord73
Would you say that A. Lincoln was "qualified" to be president? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 14 November 2016 at 08:57 AM
" The consensus of the bien pensants and the politicians alike is that no less a figure than the President-elect of the United States is racist, economically illiterate, vindictive, and a buffoon. Plus just about anything else that can be fished out of the dregs of that American campaign – homophobic, populist (how did that get to be an insult?), misogynistic, anti-Semitic, the lot."
Lets break that down. He is a racist to a certain extent, in the New York sense, he doesnt hate the others but he talks about the blacks. Economicaly illiterate remains to be seen, his plans for "The Wall" is not doable. Vindictive is a proven fact, still hunts enemies. Buffoon? Time will tell.
He is not homophobic, his best friend is the bi swinger ----------------. But the defense of the Baltic states is what is up now. They *contributed*.
Posted by: Fnord73 | 14 November 2016 at 09:02 AM
Fnord73
This is a US site not a Baltic States site. Perhaps the Baltic states made a bad bet in signing up for NATO. Russia is next door. The US is far away. I wouldn't give one American soldier's life for the Baltics. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 14 November 2016 at 09:09 AM
Sort of , yes, he was a lawyer wasnt he? But he made something fine. Donald Trump has Steve BAnnon and Mike Pence as wingmen, they are fascists. This is the new age of hate.
(Does mentioning central players by name break this sites politics?)
Posted by: Fnord73 | 14 November 2016 at 09:18 AM
Fnord73
Are you an American? you don't know that Lincoln was a corporate lawyer who lobbied for the Illinois Central Rairoad in the state legislature. that was his core business. He had one term in congress and was defeated for re-election. The politics of this site? Listen to me you little shit. You do not slander people on my site. I don't care what party they are. you are banned from SST. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 14 November 2016 at 09:39 AM
the term fascist is pretty overused. Most people are complex, they may have some type of basic ideological basis. But beyond that they have to make in their own subjective limited ways sense of a pretty complex context. Thus none of us may be really safe from being called a fascist at one point or the other in their life. I know, since I was called one once. Pretty surprising at the time. The author of the statement, has forgotten it long ago. Not me though. ;)
On the other hand, I did occasionally walk out of cacophonous choirs. Which might well show I have a basic level of distrust in basic democracy? How did I decide it was cacophony. As a rule the people that have the least to say or add are the most outspoken, just like babbling me.
Fnord73, are you new here? Somewhat tracing the Illuminati or other possible suspects? Fnord? Is 73 what it seems to be?
Posted by: LeaNder | 14 November 2016 at 10:17 AM