Debate: Sanders Rejects Intervention While Clinton Slams Iran and Putin and
Supports Syrian Rebels
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/debate_clinton_slams_iran_putin_supports
_syrian_rebels_sanders_20151014/
Posted on Oct 14, 2015
By Juan Cole
This post by Truthdig contributor Juan Cole originally ran on Cole's
website.
Foreign policy came up a bit in the Democratic Party debate.
One form it took was a series of clashes over Hillary Clinton's 2002 vote to
authorize the Bush Iraq War. Lincoln Chafee, then a Republican senator,
opposed that vote and was the only Republican senator to do so. He said he
had done his homework and had concluded that there was no real evidence that
the Saddam Hussein regime had unconventional weapons. He slammed Sec.
Clinton for poor judgment in that vote. Bernie Sanders had also opposed the
Iraq War, but did not seem as eager to make it an issue of character and
judgment as Chafee.
Sec. Clinton did not have much to say in her defense, having already
admitted years ago that it had been a mistake. My guess is that public
passions on Iraq have died down since the issue fed into her defeat in 2008,
and that it wouldn't be the issue that sunk her with the Democratic primary
voters this time around.
Sec. Clinton when asked what enemies she was proud to have made, mentioned
among them "Iran." Since she supported the nuclear deal, it is not clear
why she brought this up, except to please the Israel lobbies and her
billionaire Israeli-American backer, Haim Saban. She once threatened Iran
with being nuked (not a strong argument to that country for
nonproliferation), and seems to have a "thing" about that country or at
least to want her constituents to think she does.
Then Russia in Syria came up. Sec. Clinton said that she'd had some success
dealing with Dmitry Medvedov, Russia's current prime minister, when he was
president. She then added,
There's no doubt that when Putin came back in and said he was going to be
President, that did change the relationship. We have to stand up to his
bullying, and specifically in Syria, it is important - and I applaud the
administration because they are engaged in talks right now with the Russians
to make it clear that they've got to be part of the solution to try to end
that bloody conflict.
And, to - provide safe zones so that people are not going to have to be
flooding out of Syria at the rate they are. And, I think it's important too
that the United States make it very clear to Putin that it's not acceptable
for him to be in Syria creating more chaos, bombing people on behalf of
Assad, and we can't do that if we don't take more of a leadership position,
which is what I'm advocating.
There really is no substance in this set of remarks. It is not clear what
it would mean to "stand up to" Putin's "bullying." President Obama has
already made it clear that he isn't going to try to interfere in Russia's
Syria intervention. So aside from rebuking Mr. Putin, it is not clear what
else Sec. Clinton is proposing.
The second point is to "engage in talks" with Moscow to insist that it be
"part of the solution" in Syria. Again, these phrases have no real
practical meaning.
Then she said that safe zones should be provided for internally displaced
Syrians. But as many military analysts have pointed out, these "safe zones"
would attract rebels who would use them as bases from which to attack the
regime, inviting regime attacks. They would only remain safe zones if some
military force guarded their perimeters. But which military force would
undertake that task? She admitted that no one is talking about putting US
troops in Syria.
So there can't actually be any safe zones.
She wants to take "more of a leadership position" but aside from posturing
made no indication of what that would be. I don't think Vladimir Putin
responds to rebukes.
In the past, she wanted to arm the Syrian rebels, which the CIA is now doing
via the Saudis, though some of those arms are clearly going to Salafi allies
of al-Qaeda in Syria. It is not clear if she still stands behind this
policy or is aware of the importance of al-Qaeda in western Syria or has any
idea of what to do about it.
She came back later to say:
"You know, I - I agree completely. We don't want American troops on the
ground in Syria. I never said that. What I said was we had to put together a
coalition - in fact, something that I worked on before I left the State
Department - to do, and yes, that it should include Arabs, people in the
region.
Because what I worry about is what will happen with ISIS gaining more
territory, having more reach, and, frankly, posing a threat to our friends
and neighbors in the region and far beyond."
The 2011-2012 coalition on the ground, the Free Syrian Army, to which Sec.
Clinton refers here, has long since collapsed, and a Pentagon attempt to
revive it just crashed and burned. So I'm not sure why Sen. Clinton thinks
this is still a policy option. Many FSA units joined Daesh/ ISIL. Others
have been defeated by the Army of Conquest, a hard line Salafi group
spearheaded by al-Qaeda in Syria.
If Sec. Clinton wants to ally with allies of al-Qaeda, we should know that.
Then the Syria question went to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who said this:
SANDERS: Well, let's understand that when we talk about Syria, you're
talking about a quagmire in a quagmire. You're talking about groups of
people trying to overthrow Assad, other groups of people fighting ISIS.
You're talking about people who are fighting ISIS using their guns to
overthrow Assad, and vice versa.
I'm the former chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, and in that
capacity I learned a very powerful lesson about the cost of war, and I will
do everything that I can to make sure that the United States does not get
involved in another quagmire like we did in Iraq, the worst foreign policy
blunder in the history of this country. We should be putting together a
coalition of Arab countries who should be leading the effort. We should be
supportive, but I do not support American ground troops in Syria.
COOPER: On this issue of foreign policy, I want to go to.
CLINTON: .Well, nobody does. Nobody does, Senator Sanders. "
Actually Lindsey Graham and John McCain do seem to want to.
Sen. Sanders is correct that Syria is extremely complex. As far as I can
understand from his response, his policy toward Syria would be completely
hands off.
But if he is saying that he is just against US troops in Syria, then Sec.
Clinton is correct that this position is shared among all the Democratic
candidates. In any case, Sanders did not actually lay out a policy toward
Syria, just denounced the straw man of US troops going in there, which is
not a serious proposal. Even Putin doesn't want to send in infantry
battalions (he is putting in a few marines to guard a military airport).
Later Sanders came back to slam the idea of a US-backed 'no fly zone' in
Syria.
SANDERS: Let me just respond to something the secretary said. First of all,
she is talking about, as I understand it, a no-fly zone in Syria, which I
think is a very dangerous situation. Could lead to real problems.
He seemed to dismiss Bashar al-Assad as a real threat to the US of any sort,
implying that there was no reason to attempt regime change. Then he spoke
of President Obama's dilemma:
"SANDERS: I think the president is trying very hard to thread a tough needle
here, and that is to support those people who are against Assad, against
ISIS, without getting us on the ground there, and that's the direction I
believe we should have (inaudible)."
So Sanders, like Clinton, seems to support Obama's support for the so-called
"moderate" rebels in Syria.
But as far as I can see, what I would call moderates- people who believe in
a rule of law, rights for religious minorities and women, and democratic
elections, no longer hold any significant territory in Syria. The two big
rebel blocs are Daesh/ ISIL and the Army of Conquest, which is spearheaded
by al-Qaeda and comprises hard line Salafis. I am disappointed with Obama's
pretense that there is a big group of 'moderates' with which the US can
effectively ally, and would be sorry to see Clinton and Sanders adopt this
frankly dishonest discourse.
One problem with Sanders' apparent isolationism on this issue is that
polling shows that the US public is deeply alarmed by Daesh (ISIS, ISIL).
So it isn't clear that a policy of not doing anything about the latter is
politically viable. President Obama's response to this quagmire waiting to
happen is some fairly pro forma bombing raids that have a containment effect
but little more. Sanders had supported those bombing raids as far as Iraq
goes; not sure what he thinks of bombing Raqqa.
So the long and the short of it is that neither of the two leading
candidates in the polls made any concrete or practical proposals for policy
toward Syria. I think that is fine. I myself don't see a lot of policy
options in Syria. It is just that I think they owe it to voters to be more
clear if that is what they are saying.
I was also disappointed that no reporter brought up the central conundrum
for the US in Syria today, which is whether to support a coalition of which
al-Qaeda forms a central part against the al-Assad regime. As far as I can
tell, that is what President Obama is doing behind the scenes, via Saudi
Arabia and Turkey. Sec. Clinton seems to have said she approves of Obama's
policies, so maybe she is all right with this approach. I'm not sure
Sanders understands that this is what is going on; he also seemed
sympathetic to the current Obama approach.
But because the CNN reporters framed Syria mainly with regard to Russia, or
in some vague way, and did not go into such details as al-Qaeda being an
major part of the rebel opposition, we didn't get to hear where the
candidates stand on it.
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
Debate: Sanders Rejects Intervention While Clinton Slams Iran and Putin and
Supports Syrian Rebels
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/debate_clinton_slams_iran_putin_supports
_syrian_rebels_sanders_20151014/
Posted on Oct 14, 2015
By Juan Cole
This post by Truthdig contributor Juan Cole originally ran on Cole's
website.
Foreign policy came up a bit in the Democratic Party debate.
One form it took was a series of clashes over Hillary Clinton's 2002 vote to
authorize the Bush Iraq War. Lincoln Chafee, then a Republican senator,
opposed that vote and was the only Republican senator to do so. He said he
had done his homework and had concluded that there was no real evidence that
the Saddam Hussein regime had unconventional weapons. He slammed Sec.
Clinton for poor judgment in that vote. Bernie Sanders had also opposed the
Iraq War, but did not seem as eager to make it an issue of character and
judgment as Chafee.
Sec. Clinton did not have much to say in her defense, having already
admitted years ago that it had been a mistake. My guess is that public
passions on Iraq have died down since the issue fed into her defeat in 2008,
and that it wouldn't be the issue that sunk her with the Democratic primary
voters this time around.
Sec. Clinton when asked what enemies she was proud to have made, mentioned
among them "Iran." Since she supported the nuclear deal, it is not clear why
she brought this up, except to please the Israel lobbies and her billionaire
Israeli-American backer, Haim Saban. She once threatened Iran with being
nuked (not a strong argument to that country for nonproliferation), and
seems to have a "thing" about that country or at least to want her
constituents to think she does.
Then Russia in Syria came up. Sec. Clinton said that she'd had some success
dealing with Dmitry Medvedov, Russia's current prime minister, when he was
president. She then added,
There's no doubt that when Putin came back in and said he was going to be
President, that did change the relationship. We have to stand up to his
bullying, and specifically in Syria, it is important - and I applaud the
administration because they are engaged in talks right now with the Russians
to make it clear that they've got to be part of the solution to try to end
that bloody conflict.
And, to - provide safe zones so that people are not going to have to be
flooding out of Syria at the rate they are. And, I think it's important too
that the United States make it very clear to Putin that it's not acceptable
for him to be in Syria creating more chaos, bombing people on behalf of
Assad, and we can't do that if we don't take more of a leadership position,
which is what I'm advocating.
There really is no substance in this set of remarks. It is not clear what it
would mean to "stand up to" Putin's "bullying." President Obama has already
made it clear that he isn't going to try to interfere in Russia's Syria
intervention. So aside from rebuking Mr. Putin, it is not clear what else
Sec. Clinton is proposing.
The second point is to "engage in talks" with Moscow to insist that it be
"part of the solution" in Syria. Again, these phrases have no real practical
meaning.
Then she said that safe zones should be provided for internally displaced
Syrians. But as many military analysts have pointed out, these "safe zones"
would attract rebels who would use them as bases from which to attack the
regime, inviting regime attacks. They would only remain safe zones if some
military force guarded their perimeters. But which military force would
undertake that task? She admitted that no one is talking about putting US
troops in Syria.
So there can't actually be any safe zones.
She wants to take "more of a leadership position" but aside from posturing
made no indication of what that would be. I don't think Vladimir Putin
responds to rebukes.
In the past, she wanted to arm the Syrian rebels, which the CIA is now doing
via the Saudis, though some of those arms are clearly going to Salafi allies
of al-Qaeda in Syria. It is not clear if she still stands behind this policy
or is aware of the importance of al-Qaeda in western Syria or has any idea
of what to do about it.
She came back later to say:
"You know, I - I agree completely. We don't want American troops on the
ground in Syria. I never said that. What I said was we had to put together a
coalition - in fact, something that I worked on before I left the State
Department - to do, and yes, that it should include Arabs, people in the
region.
Because what I worry about is what will happen with ISIS gaining more
territory, having more reach, and, frankly, posing a threat to our friends
and neighbors in the region and far beyond."
The 2011-2012 coalition on the ground, the Free Syrian Army, to which Sec.
Clinton refers here, has long since collapsed, and a Pentagon attempt to
revive it just crashed and burned. So I'm not sure why Sen. Clinton thinks
this is still a policy option. Many FSA units joined Daesh/ ISIL. Others
have been defeated by the Army of Conquest, a hard line Salafi group
spearheaded by al-Qaeda in Syria.
If Sec. Clinton wants to ally with allies of al-Qaeda, we should know that.
Then the Syria question went to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who said this:
SANDERS: Well, let's understand that when we talk about Syria, you're
talking about a quagmire in a quagmire. You're talking about groups of
people trying to overthrow Assad, other groups of people fighting ISIS.
You're talking about people who are fighting ISIS using their guns to
overthrow Assad, and vice versa.
I'm the former chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, and in that
capacity I learned a very powerful lesson about the cost of war, and I will
do everything that I can to make sure that the United States does not get
involved in another quagmire like we did in Iraq, the worst foreign policy
blunder in the history of this country. We should be putting together a
coalition of Arab countries who should be leading the effort. We should be
supportive, but I do not support American ground troops in Syria.
COOPER: On this issue of foreign policy, I want to go to.
CLINTON: .Well, nobody does. Nobody does, Senator Sanders. "
Actually Lindsey Graham and John McCain do seem to want to.
Sen. Sanders is correct that Syria is extremely complex. As far as I can
understand from his response, his policy toward Syria would be completely
hands off.
But if he is saying that he is just against US troops in Syria, then Sec.
Clinton is correct that this position is shared among all the Democratic
candidates. In any case, Sanders did not actually lay out a policy toward
Syria, just denounced the straw man of US troops going in there, which is
not a serious proposal. Even Putin doesn't want to send in infantry
battalions (he is putting in a few marines to guard a military airport).
Later Sanders came back to slam the idea of a US-backed 'no fly zone' in
Syria.
SANDERS: Let me just respond to something the secretary said. First of all,
she is talking about, as I understand it, a no-fly zone in Syria, which I
think is a very dangerous situation. Could lead to real problems.
He seemed to dismiss Bashar al-Assad as a real threat to the US of any sort,
implying that there was no reason to attempt regime change. Then he spoke of
President Obama's dilemma:
"SANDERS: I think the president is trying very hard to thread a tough needle
here, and that is to support those people who are against Assad, against
ISIS, without getting us on the ground there, and that's the direction I
believe we should have (inaudible)."
So Sanders, like Clinton, seems to support Obama's support for the so-called
"moderate" rebels in Syria.
But as far as I can see, what I would call moderates- people who believe in
a rule of law, rights for religious minorities and women, and democratic
elections, no longer hold any significant territory in Syria. The two big
rebel blocs are Daesh/ ISIL and the Army of Conquest, which is spearheaded
by al-Qaeda and comprises hard line Salafis. I am disappointed with Obama's
pretense that there is a big group of 'moderates' with which the US can
effectively ally, and would be sorry to see Clinton and Sanders adopt this
frankly dishonest discourse.
One problem with Sanders' apparent isolationism on this issue is that
polling shows that the US public is deeply alarmed by Daesh (ISIS, ISIL). So
it isn't clear that a policy of not doing anything about the latter is
politically viable. President Obama's response to this quagmire waiting to
happen is some fairly pro forma bombing raids that have a containment effect
but little more. Sanders had supported those bombing raids as far as Iraq
goes; not sure what he thinks of bombing Raqqa.
So the long and the short of it is that neither of the two leading
candidates in the polls made any concrete or practical proposals for policy
toward Syria. I think that is fine. I myself don't see a lot of policy
options in Syria. It is just that I think they owe it to voters to be more
clear if that is what they are saying.
I was also disappointed that no reporter brought up the central conundrum
for the US in Syria today, which is whether to support a coalition of which
al-Qaeda forms a central part against the al-Assad regime. As far as I can
tell, that is what President Obama is doing behind the scenes, via Saudi
Arabia and Turkey. Sec. Clinton seems to have said she approves of Obama's
policies, so maybe she is all right with this approach. I'm not sure Sanders
understands that this is what is going on; he also seemed sympathetic to the
current Obama approach.
But because the CNN reporters framed Syria mainly with regard to Russia, or
in some vague way, and did not go into such details as al-Qaeda being an
major part of the rebel opposition, we didn't get to hear where the
candidates stand on it.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/stabbed_israeli_mistaken_for_arab_denou
nces_attacks_as_hate_crimes_20151015/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/stabbed_israeli_mistaken_for_arab_denou
nces_attacks_as_hate_crimes_20151015/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/stabbed_israeli_mistaken_for_arab_denou
nces_attacks_as_hate_crimes_20151015/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/creating_an_un-intelligence_machine_2015
1015/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/creating_an_un-intelligence_machine_2015
1015/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/creating_an_un-intelligence_machine_2015
1015/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/antarctic_ice_shelf_melting_could_double
_by_2050_20151015/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/antarctic_ice_shelf_melting_could_double
_by_2050_20151015/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/antarctic_ice_shelf_melting_could_double
_by_2050_20151015/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_the_daily_shows_trevor_noah_berni
e_sanders_hillary_clinton_20151015/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_the_daily_shows_trevor_noah_berni
e_sanders_hillary_clinton_20151015/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_the_daily_shows_trevor_noah_berni
e_sanders_hillary_clinton_20151015/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
thdig.com/about/advertising/http://www.truthdig.com/user_agreement/http://ww
w.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.truthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
C 2015 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
