Thursday, September 29, 2016

Commentaries, Analysis, And Editorials -- September 29, 2016

Daniel Lewis, National Interest: Why the Offensive against ISIS in Mosul Could Be a Disaster

Speaking at a press conference in New York on September 19, President Obama stood at the dais with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, and said that the battle for Mosul was ready “to move forward fairly rapidly” and that “we are prepared to help provide rapid humanitarian assistance.” The President and Prime Minister, I believe, are underestimating the challenges and difficulties that will result from the exodus of hundreds of thousands new refugees once the military operation to clear Mosul begins.

Read more ....

Commentaries, Analysis, And Editorials -- September 29, 2016

Three Questions Facing the Mosul Operation -- Daniel R. DePetris, National Interest

Q&A: Amnesty Suspects Russian War Crimes In Syria, But Lacks Definitive Proof -- RFE

Who is responsible for Iran’s pre-deal nuclear progress? -- Michael Rubin, AEI

Gone is Shimon Peres, but so is his era -- John Bell, Al Jazeera

Israel Wonders What Happens When Its Fathers Are Gone -- Daniel Gordis, Bloomberg

Libya’s Terrorist Descent: Causes and Solutions -- Thomas Joscelyn, Long War Journal

Kashmir’s High Price for Demanding Independence -- Tariq Mir, Boston Review

The West's wishful thinking for Afghanistan must end -- Florian Weigand, DW

How The U.S. Will Stand Up To An Angry Philippine Leader -- Ralph Jennings, Forbes

Duterte Talks Big, But the Philippines Won't Break Ties With the US Any Time Soon -- Richard Javad Heydarian, RCW

At last, the destruction of heritage has been recognised as a weapon of war -- Irina Bokova, The Guardian

U.S. Could Pay a High Price for Suing the Saudis -- Bloomberg editorial

Killing people, breaking things and America’s winless wars: Details of the dismal U.S. military record -- Nick Turse, Salon/

Politicians Leave the Military in the Lurch – Again and Again -- Justin T. Johnson, RCD

For outside world, U.S. election is all about Trump -- Peter Apps, Reuters


RRH said...

This is an excellent interview with Professor Cohen on the developments between the U.S. and Russia over Syria.

James and B.,

Whether you agree or not with the suggestion that there are actors within the U.S. Government who are interested in sabotaging any d├ętente with Russia, who, in your opinions would these people be? I have my own opinions/suspicions regarding what is happening, but I remember one or both of you at various points suggesting "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" when it comes to the U.S. Gov.

Thanks in advance

James said...

All of what I'm about to say is a guess, (which is almost all my commentary anyway)I have no actual proof. As far as the US government being rotten, yeah I do, top to bottom, the smell could gag a shit house maggot.
I'll put it this way after a struggle since at least the 60's the US government (and the EU) is now essentially run by for a better term economic globalists.In fact they are natural enemies of people of the old left (you) and of populist capitalists (me). Russia because of it's evolution as the Soviet Union into what it is today is outside of the economic orbit and power structures of the West. That is why you see Putin essentially laugh when the West threatens Russia. I think that Putin knows his economy can outlast the West's economy. And if he has the nukes and a conventional military just good enough to make it too painful for direct action by the West to back him down, then he can bide his time and see if his theory is right.
So the list of candidates in the West with the motive and the means to sabotage US/Russian relations is very very long and encompasses what would be the two traditional political parties.
Now don't get me too wrong, Russia has some certified bad guys of their own, and their world agenda may or may not be what we would consider "good". I hope that's confusing enough for you, it wore me out.

RRH said...

Thank you James for taking the time to reply.

It's not confusing at all and I concur with a good portion of it.

My own appraisal is definitely born out of my old leftism.

Suffice to say, I see these globalists as today's "western" imperialists with their headquarters in Washington. I see imperialists in Russia too but they want a rules based international capitalist order with defined spheres of influence, respect for national sovereignty within said spheres, and quid pro quo economic relations within a legal framework (e.g. WTO). Russia wants in, but in as an equal, respected member of the club. That is the essence of Putinism -at least it's economic/foreign policy essence- We can see Putin's frustration with the rejection through Russia's recent actions. He's realizing that the only way Russia gets "in" is on her knees and that is in direct contradiction to the domestic essence of Putinism, not to mention Russian patriotism, which is tied up with her imperial history and the Soviet period.

So integration isn't happening. It never has, except during the fleeting fleece period of the Yeltsin years, and it never will. The "west" has never trusted Russia and her revolution/Soviet period did nothing but cement the bad opinion. The Russians are rivals with far too much control for comfort over their economy and natural wealth (as you alluded to) and too damned proud for their own good.

More later

It's past my bed time.

thanks agsin.