Last year we pointed out that the U.S. and its allies must immediately engage at the strategic, diplomatic and tactical military levels in Syria and Iraq.
“The focus for that action should be uncomplicated; defeat ISIL while supporting the Kurds in reshaping our position in Iraq; put the Iran nuclear agreement in the rear view mirror.
There is a clear and present danger of miscalculation, which needs to guide US and our allies to work directly with the Russians in the deconfliction of air space.
We need as well to come to terms with the end of the latest age of unmanned aerial vehicles. Not only are the Russians putting our UAVs in risk, but the information war is being lost to Russia as new documents have been leaked which put the United States into a moral abyss.”
Much to our surprise as two who engaged very strongly to fight the Soviet Union in our professional careers, our Breaking Defense article was picked up by Russia’s Sputnik News:
As Russia’s anti-terror campaign continues in Syria, the West is gradually realizing that Moscow’s strategy is the right strategy.
The United States has criticized Moscow’s airstrikes in Syria ever since they began on September 30. But from the beginning, Russia has acted in accordance with international law, acting on the behest of the legitimate government of President Bashar al-Assad.
Laird and Timperlake also point out Western hypocrisy in reinterpreting ground rules set by the United Nations:
“In the face of Russian strategy in Syria, the lack of clarity in US strategy and the use of the US military to support strategic incoherence is leaving it exposed,” they write. “There are clear limits to relying on UAV technologies except in unique circumstances, namely air dominance and clear strategic purpose.”
“Simply opposing Putin will get the US nowhere. The Obama administration must recognize how the game has already changed and the approach to counter-insurgency which the US has followed for a decade…has been overtaken by events.”
“Putin has clearly put his marker down to be a player and kingmaker in the region.”
Being favorably “mentioned in dispatches” in Mother Russia was a unique event. But the truth is the truth.
It looks like Donald Trump grasped the strategic consequences of a realistic and clear approach.
DONALD TRUMP WOULD CONSIDER ALLIANCE WITH RUSSIA’S VLADIMIR PUTIN AGAINST ISIS
“When you think about it, wouldn’t it be nice if we got along with Russia?” Trump said. “Wouldn’t it be nice if we got together with Russia and knocked the hell out of ISIS?” he added, using another name for Islamic State. REUTERS ON 7/25/16
And it looks like President Obama has now recognized the vacuous nature of the much vaunted “Russian Reset” by his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and successfully channeled Donald Trumps advice.
Russia and the US have agreed to co-ordinate air strikes against Islamist militants in Syria, part of a detailed agreement to reduce the violence there: The plan will begin with a “cessation of hostilities” from sunset on Monday. Syrian forces will end combat missions in specified opposition-held areas. Russia and the US will then establish a joint centre to combat jihadist groups, including so-called Islamic State (IS).
A political campaign is a continuous action-reaction cycle and whatever one side can get away with attacking their opponent they will. Two goals in attempting to build a negative image against ones opponent are simple, make it stick if possible, and if not trigger the rule when you are explaining you are losing.
Another good rule is never repeat a negative so in addressing Secretary Clinton attacking Donald Trump and her recent “Best and Brightest” meeting to highlight her command of Foreign Policy issues this is priceless and must be repeated:
“It’s not a serious presidential campaign.
And it is beyond one’s imagination to have a candidate for president praising a Russian autocrat like Vladimir Putin.”
It seems President Obama and his current Secretary of State did not get her e-mail about how to best deal with President Putin from her personal server.
Since the then Secretary Clinton’s “Russian Reset” to her embracing of “kill Russians,” as stated by former Acting CIA Director Mile Morell, by both her words and deeds she has exhibited very bad and incoherent judgment in dealing with Putin’s Russia. She claimed recently she would be “rock solid” on foreign policy – the only question is which rock and which shoreline?
Her embrace and endorsement by Mike Morell, whose only CIA danger was getting a paper cut in preparing briefings, is openly mocked by his fellow IC professionals both Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern. They capture with their CIA background and knowledge that Morell is a very ambitious yet foolish man, for comments he made about his appearance on Charlie Rose:
Rose: “We make them pay the price by killing Russians?”
Rose: “And killing Iranians?”
Morell: “Yes … You don’t tell the world about it. … But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”
You might ask what excellent adventure earned Morell his latest appearance with Charlie Rose?
It was a highly unusual Aug. 5 New York Times op-ed titled “I ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.”
And now according to BBC, Russia and US are now cutting a very realpolitik deal in how to join together to kill ISIS in Syria.
This event is now a real world validation of Donald Trump’s strategic instinct and positions on reworking the Russian relationship.