General Milley on our Enemies with Emphasis on Russia

Posted on October 5, 2016October 5, 2016 by Denise Simon

Primer: For all you pro Russian and pro Putin types out there:

What you Need to Know About the Gerasimov Doctrine’

and

Russian Hybrid Warfare: How to Confront a New Challenge to the West

***

Military: The U.S. Army‘s chief of staff on Tuesday issued a stern warning to potential threats such as Russia and vowed the service will defeat any foe in ground combat.

“The strategic resolve of our nation, the United States, is being challenged and our alliances tested in ways that we haven’t faced in many, many decades,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told an audience at the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

“I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm … the United States military — despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing — we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that.”

Milley’s comments come during an election year in which voters will decide a new president and commander in chief — and a period of increased military activity of near-peer competitors, including Russia and China.

The Army has struggled to rebuild its readiness after more than a decade of extended combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The service has significantly cut the size of its force since the Cold War and decreased its modernization budget in the last decade, Milley said.

“While we focused on the counter-terrorist fight, other countries — Russia, Iran, China, North Korea — went to school on us,” he said. “They studied our doctrine, our tactics, our equipment, our organization, our training, our leadership. And, in turn, they revised their own doctrines, and they are rapidly modernizing their military today to avoid our strengths in hopes of defeating us at some point in the future.”

Milley also quoted a senior Russian official as saying publicly, “The established world order is undergoing a foundational shake-up” and that “Russia can now fight a conventional war in Europe and win.”

The general warned that future warfare with a near-peer adversary will “be highly lethal, unlike anything our Army has experienced at least since World War II.”

“Our formations will likely have to be small; we will have to move constantly,” he said. “On the future battlefield, if you stay in one place for longer than two or three hours, you will be dead.”

Despite the challenges, Milley said the Army will adapt to survive such a dangerous battlefield.

“It’s a tall order for sure — to project power into contested theaters, fight in highly populated urban areas, to survive and win on intensely lethal and distributed battlefields and to create leaders and soldiers who can prevail. Tough? Yes. But impossible? Absolutely not,” Milley said.

“Make no mistake about it, we can now and we will … retain the capability to rapidly deploy,” he said, “and we will destroy any enemy anywhere, any time.”

**** So what is percolating globally and against the United States that has the Pentagon concerned?

Using the same provocations that Iran has used against the United States, Russia is doing the same thing.

Nato jets scrambled as Russian bombers fly south

Two Russian Blackjack bombers were intercepted by fighter jets from four European countries as they flew from the direction of Norway to northern Spain and back, it has emerged. Norway, the UK, France and Spain all scrambled jets as the TU-160 planes skirted the airspace of each country. It comes at a time of heightened tension between the West and Russia. Correspondents say the frequency of Russian bombers being intercepted by Nato planes has increased markedly. Spanish media say it is the furthest south such an operation has had to take place. More here from the BBC.

Given the failed truce or cease fire agreement regarding Syria, it was announced by John Kerry and approved by the White House and National Security Council to walk away fully from Russia and seek other avenues with regard to the deadly civil war in Syria. As noted, last week before the Senate, it was admitted there was no Plan B.

In recent months, Russia has been quite aggressive and militant towards Americans in Moscow and other cities in Russia. Some diplomats have been beaten up, robbed and their homes broken into. The most recent incident involved some Americans being drugged.

“We are outraged,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in a statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry website, adding the claim may have been the work of the US State Department seeking “revenge” for the collapse of talks between the two counties to address the situation in Syria.

Russia’s denial came after a report two days ago by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that the diplomats — a man and a woman who were not senior officials — allegedly had their drinks spiked with a date-rape drug while attending a United Nations convention on corruption last November. The report, attributed to anonymous sources, said the State Department quietly protested the incident to Russian officials.

The story also said one of the diplomats had been treated at a “Western medical clinic” – which Russia said was not true. More here from CNN.

American personnel and diplomats are being evacuated from talks and some ground operations in Syria where and when the bloodshed continues in Aleppo.

Russia had agreed to a cease-fire last month, but that fell apart quickly. Russia argues that the United States has failed in its commitment to separate the moderate rebel groups it supports from more radical factions such as the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda.

Kirby said the United States will withdraw a team that had been dispatched to open a so-called joint implementation center, in which Russian and American armed forces were going to join efforts to fight Islamic State and other jihadi groups.

Also Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree suspending his country’s participation in a treaty with the U.S. designed to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Putin cited “a threat to strategic stability as a result of USA’s unfriendly acts toward Russia.” This was a reference to a deepening diplomatic spat between the Kremlin and the White House over Syria, as well as tensions and sanctions that followed Russia’s 2014 takeover of Crimea and its support to separatists in eastern Ukraine.

It is the latest action by Russia that serves to unwind the nuclear-cooperation and weapons treaties that have governed the relationship between the U.S. and Russia in the years after the Soviet dissolution.

The U.S. said it would continue to participate in multilateral talks over Syria, aimed at achieving a cessation of hostilities and the delivery of aid, and would communicate with Russia regarding airstrikes to avoid collisions.

Last week, when it first threatened to suspend Syria talks with Russia, Washington said it would consider other options, including additional financial sanctions or even military operations. More here from the LATimes.

Then it appears the National Security Council and the State Department pinged the United Nations for some action….well kinda sorta.

The United States virtually blocked the United Nations Security Council’s statement that condemned the mortaring of Russia’s embassy in Damascus, Russia’s Permanent Mission to the global organization said.

“It was actually blocked by the U.S. delegation, which tried to bring outside elements into a standard text. Brits and Ukrainians clumsily helped Americans,” the mission said.

It said that the behavior of the three countries “testifies to their blatant disrespect for the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”, which demands to protect diplomatic and consular facilities and personnel.

The Russian mission said that “when such crimes were committed earlier, including against the diplomatic missions of Western countries, Russia has always unconditionally supported their condemnation by the Security Council.”

“We have to state that the moral principles of some of our colleagues in the Security Council have seriously teetered,” it said. More here from TASS.

Russia is taking all precautions forecasting future aggressions in Syria as they installed the S-300 anti-aircraft missile defense system at the Russia base of Tartus which is near Latakia, Syria on the Mediterranean Sea.

Further there is the matter of the Baltics and Ukraine. Control and management of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea is at risk.

NATO members must increase the alliance’s military capabilities, position additional forces in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, establish a maritime force in the Black Sea and bolster its presence in the Arctic, all to counter Russia’s growing military strength and increasingly belligerent behavior toward its neighbors, the Atlantic Council said in a new report.

The report, “Restoring the Power and Purpose of the NATO Alliance,” also urges America’s leaders to strengthen U.S. leadership of NATO, work to restore public support for the trans-Atlantic alliance and “counter those who threaten to withdraw U.S. support for NATO.” And it calls on alliance members to maintain their commitment to securing Afghanistan and to increase military assistance and intelligence-sharing with “its Arab partners” in response to the spreading terrorist threat.

The policy paper was crafted by a team led by former veteran diplomatic Nicholas Burns, who was the U.S. ambassador to NATO, and retired Gen. James Jones, a former Marine Corps commandant and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. The report was prepared ahead of next month’s NATO summit in Warsaw. More here.

What about the Arctic?

Russia: Militarizing the Arctic

While the Arctic region remains peaceful, Russia’s recent steps to militarize the Arctic, coupled with its bellicose behavior toward its neighbors, makes the Arctic a security concern. Russia’s Maritime Doctrine of Russian Federation 2020, adopted in July 2015, lists the Arctic as one of two focal points, the other being the Atlantic.[1]

Russia’s Northern Fleet, which is based in the Arctic, now counts for two-thirds of the Russian Navy. A new Arctic command was established in 2015 to coordinate all Russian military activities in the Arctic region.[2] Underwater, Russian submarines are operating at a rate not seen since the end of the Cold War. Indeed, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, commander-in-chief of the Russian navy, stated in 2015 that the navy had ramped up submarine patrols by 50 percent from just 2013.[3]

Over the next few years, two new so-called Arctic brigades will be permanently based in the Arctic region, and Russian special forces have been training in the region. Soviet-era facilities have been re-opened; Russia is expected to have nine operative airfields in the Arctic by 2018.[4] Russia has reportedly also placed radar and S-300 missiles on the Arctic bases at Franz Joseph Land, New Siberian Islands, Novaya Zemlya, and Severnaya Zemlya.[5] Russia’s ultimate goal is to deploy a combined arms force in the Arctic by 2020, and this plan appears to be on track.[6] In early June, the Russian Navy showed off its first new icebreaker in 45 years.[7]

As an Arctic power, Russia’s military presence in the region is to be expected. However, it should be viewed with some caution in light of recent Russian aggression in its neighborhood. The former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, General Philip Breedlove, described Russian activity in the Arctic as “increasingly troubling,” stating: “Their increase in stationing military forces, building and reopening bases, and creating an Arctic military district—all to counter an imagined threat to their internationally undisputed territories—stands in stark contrast to the conduct of the seven other Arctic nations.”[8]. More here from Heritage.

****

ABC: The Russians are already there in force. Last year, they staged a military exercise in the Arctic as seen in this Russian Ministry of Defense footage.

It involved about 40,000 troops, 15 submarines, 41 warships and multiple aircraft. No one disputes their right to do that on their own territory. It’s just that it wasn’t announced.

Philip Breedlove: We pre-announce ours. No one is surprised by them whereas the exercise that Russia did was a snap exercise which is a bit destabilizing.

Until May of this year, retired four-star General Philip Breedlove was the supreme Allied commander of NATO with responsibility for the Arctic.

What else is destabilizing, he says, is Russia’s military build up along something called the Northern Sea Route skirting the Russian Arctic coastline. The route could become an alternative to the Suez Canal, saving huge amounts of time and money for the commercial shipping industry.

Philip Breedlove: I have heard as much as 28 days decrease in some of the transit from the northern European markets to the Asian markets. That is an incredible economic opportunity. And it could be a very boon— big boon to business around the world.

Lesley Stahl: What would it mean if the Russians did gain control over the Northern Sea route?

Philip Breedlove: If the Russians had the ability to militarily hold that at ransom, that is a big lever over the world economy.

European Union Approved Deportation of Afghanis

Posted on October 3, 2016October 3, 2016 by Denise Simon

Primer: FORT BENNING, Ga. (AP) — Seven Afghan military students in four states have been absent without leave since earlier this month, military officials said.

U.S. Navy Defense Press Operations Cmdr. Patrick L. Evans said in an email Thursday that four students left their posts without leave over the Labor Day weekend, the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reported (http://bit.ly/2dcWkt2 ). Two of the students were at Fort Benning in Georgia, while one was at Fort Lee in Virginia and the other in Little Rock, Arkansas. More here from CNS.

The European Union and Afghanistan reach an arrangement to tackle migration issues

Yesterday, the European Union and Afghanistan reached an important political arrangement, “The EU-Afghanistan Joint Way Forward on Migration issues”, to effectively tackle the challenges in both the European Union and Afghanistan linked to irregular migration. This is the result of a constructive dialogue based on partnership and a willingness to enhance dialogue and bilateral cooperation in this area. A dialogue at the level of senior officials is foreseen to take place on 4 October to begin the implementation process. (For more information: Maja Kocijancic – Tel.: + 32 229 86570; Natasha Bertaud – Tel.: +32 229 67456; Tove Ernst – Tel.: +32 229 86764)

Guardian: The EU has signed an agreement with the Afghan government allowing its member states to deport an unlimited number of the country’s asylum seekers, and obliging the Afghan government to receive them.

The deal has been in the pipeline for months, leading up to a large EU-hosted donor conference in Brussels this week. According to a previously leaked memo, the EU suggested stripping Afghanistan of aid if its government did not cooperate.

The deal, signed on Sunday, has not been made public but a copy seen by the Guardian states that Afghanistan commits to readmitting any Afghan citizen who has not been granted asylum in Europe, and who refuses to return to Afghanistan voluntarily.

It is the latest EU measure to alleviate the weight of the many asylum seekers who have arrived since early 2015. Afghans constituted the second-largest group of asylum seekers in Europe, with 196,170 applying last year.

While the text stipulates a maximum of 50 non-voluntary deportees per chartered flight in the first six months after the agreement, there is no limit to the number of daily deportation flights European governments can charter to Kabul.

With tens of thousands set to be deported, both sides will also consider building a terminal dedicated to deportation flights at Kabul international airport.

The agreement, Joint Way Forward, also opens up the deportation of women and children, which at the moment almost exclusively happens from Norway: “Special measures will ensure that such vulnerable groups receive adequate protection, assistance and care throughout the whole process.”

If family members in Afghanistan cannot be located, unaccompanied children can be returned only with “adequate reception and care-taking arrangement having been put in place in Afghanistan”, the text says.

The EU has negotiated the agreement with the Afghan government as part of the run-up to this week’s Brussels donor conference, where international donors will pledge aid for Afghanistan for the coming four years. Some Afghan officials seem to have felt strong-armed. The Afghan minister for refugees and repatriation, Sayed Hussain Alemi Balkhi, refused to sign the document, leaving the duty to a deputy.

Still, Afghanistan, whose domestic revenue only constitutes 10.4% of GDP, is so dependent on foreign aid that the government may have had little choice.

Liza Schuster, a Kabul-based migration expert, said the deal was an example of “how developed countries are able to push through their agenda in countries where there simply isn’t the capacity in the ministries to push back”. She added that there had been little transparency in the negotiation process.

“There has been no oversight, no consultation, and hardly any mention of it to any of the migrant organisations or rights organisations [in Europe]. There was no chance to mount resistance against it,” Schuster said.

The large exodus of Afghans last year seemed partly triggered by Angela Merkel opening Germany’s doors to almost a million migrants, but it also coincided with a deteriorating security situation, which has not improved since.

On Sunday, the Taliban mounted a strong assault on the northern city of Kunduz, while attacks have also increased in many other parts of the country.

To prevent a migrant flow of the size experienced last year, the deal commits the EU to help fund public awareness campaigns in Afghanistan warning against the dangers of migrating.

However, not all Afghan asylum seekers arrive to Europe from Afghanistan. An unknown number were born or grew up in Iran or Pakistan. If sent to Afghanistan, many are likely to struggle without the social networks that are often a prerequisite to getting work, even for the well-educated. According to Schuster, who has authored a paper on post-deportation experience, destitute people, who do not choose to leave Afghanistan again immediately after deportation, could be ripe targets for recruitment not only by the Taliban but local strongmen commanding militias. In that sense, deportations could add to instability.

“There is not sufficient protection, the level of generalised violence is too high and Kabul is already bursting at the seams,” Schuster said.

“This particular agreement allows European governments to ride straight through all the argumentation that’s been made over the past 15 years that it’s not safe to return people at the moment.”

Supreme Court Rejects Obama’s Appeal for Re-Hearing

Posted on October 3, 2016October 3, 2016 by Denise Simon

Primer: Donald Verrilli, the Department of Justice Solicitor General who argued these cases before the Supreme Court resigned in June. Verrilli successfully defended President Obama’s healthcare plan before the Supreme Court, is joining the Los Angeles law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson.

Supreme Court declines to hear immigration and Redskins cases

WaPo: The Supreme Court will not reconsider President Obama’s plan to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation and denied the Washington Redskins’ bid to get its trademark case on this term’s docket.

With oral arguments postponed for a day because of the Rosh Hashana Jewish holiday, the first Monday in October that marks the beginning of the new Supreme Court term became a day of rejection. The court issued a thick stack of cases that had accumulated over the summer that the justices decided not to hear.

Among the other losers: the NCAA, which had asked the court to review an appeals court ruling about its policies involving the amateur status of college football and basketball players. The issue remains alive in other court proceedings.

[Deadlocked Supreme Court won’t revive Obama immigration plan]

The administration’s request was a longshot bid to salvage what had been the biggest legal defeat of Obama’s presidency. In June, a deadlocked court failed to revive his stalled plan to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and give them the right to work legally in the United States.

The justices’ votes at the time were not announced, but the court’s liberals and conservatives were split at oral argument last spring. The tie meant that a lower court’s decision that Obama probably exceeded his powers in issuing the executive action kept the plan from being implemented.

The court’s action affected about 4 million illegal immigrants estimated to be covered by Obama’s plan, which would have deferred deportation for those who have been in the country since 2010, have not committed any serious crimes and have family ties to U.S. citizens or others lawfully in the country.

The Supreme Court rarely grants motions for rehearing. But the administration’s lawyers made the request in hopes that by now the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia would be filled.

Instead, Senate Republicans have blocked consideration of Obama’s nominee to the court, appeals court judge Merrick Garland. They say the next president should fill the election-year opening.

This immigration case is the matter where the Judge ordered Department of Justice lawyers to attend an ethics class.

JonathanTurley: United States District Judge Andrew Hanen issued a remarkable opinion yesterday that found that Justice Department lawyers not only lied to him and opposing counsel but “it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct.” What is even more remarkable however is that, after finding such calculated and unethical conduct, Hanen ordered the lawyers to simply take ethics classes rather than refer them to the bar for suspension or disbarment. Many attorneys object that government lawyers routinely escape serious punishment for false or misleading statements. In this case, the judge found that the Justice Department misled him and opposing counsel in a case by Texas and 25 other states that sought to block President Barack Obama’s controversial immigration programs. Hansen blocked the program. Notably, the Justice Department is even opposing ethical classes as a sanction.

The government misled the court on when the government would begin implementing one of the programs. The Justice Department team assured the court the government would not start implementing an expansion of a program called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals until February 18, 2015. The court and opposing counsel relied on that date even though the government implemented a part of the program before February and granted over 100,000 applications. Hansen found that the “Justice Department lawyers knew the true facts and misrepresented those facts.”

Apparently, lawyers, somewhere in the halls of the Justice Department whose identities are unknown to this Court, decided unilaterally that the conduct of the DHS in granting three-year DACA renewals . . . was immaterial and irrelevant to this lawsuit and that the DOJ could therefore just ignore it. Then, for whatever reason, the Justice Department trial lawyers appearing in this Court chose not to tell the truth about this DHS activity. The first decision was certainly unsupportable, but the subsequent decision to hide it from the Court was unethical.

In an effort to convey how unethical the Justice Department acted in the case, Hanen even excerpted a portion of the film “Miracle on 34th Street” when a young Tommy Mara Jr. says “Gosh, everybody knows you shouldn’t tell a lie, especially in court.” Judge Hanen noted “There are certain attorneys in the Justice Department who apparently have not received that message.”

Here is the opinion: Immigration Decision.

Russia v. United States: It is Getting Colder as Russia Destroys Aleppo

Posted on October 3, 2016October 3, 2016 by Denise Simon

John Kerry announces the bi-lateral talks are over.

Russia’s response:

Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 03.10.2016 № 511 “О приостановлении Российской Федерацией действия Соглашения между Правительством Российской Федерации и Правительством Соединенных Штатов Америки об утилизации плутония, заявленного как плутоний, не являющийся более необходимым для целей обороны, обращению с ним и сотрудничеству в этой области и протоколов к этому Соглашению”

Translation: Decree of the President of the Russian Federation from 03.10.2016 # 511 “on the suspension by the Russian Federation Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the United States of America on the disposition of plutonium designated as no longer required for defence purposes, and cooperation in this area and the protocols to this agreement”

If you can read Russian, the document is here.

This was signed in 2010 between Hillary Clinton and Sergei Lavrov.

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday suspended an agreement with the United States for disposal of weapons-grade plutonium because of “unfriendly” acts by Washington, the Kremlin said.

A Kremlin spokesman said Putin had signed a decree suspending the 2010 agreement under which each side committed to destroy tonnes of weapons-grade material because Washington had not been implementing it and because of current tensions in relations.

The two former Cold War adversaries are at loggerheads over a raft of issues including Ukraine, where Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and supports pro-Moscow separatists, and the conflict in Syria.

The deal, signed in 2000 but which did not come into force until 2010, was being suspended due to “the emergence of a threat to strategic stability and as a result of unfriendly actions by the United States of America towards the Russian Federation”, the preamble to the decree said.

It also said that Washington had failed “to ensure the implementation of its obligations to utilize surplus weapons-grade plutonium”.

The 2010 agreement, signed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, called on each side to dispose of 34 tonnes of plutonium by burning in nuclear reactors.

Clinton said at the time that that was enough material to make almost 17,000 nuclear weapons. Both sides then viewed the deal as a sign of increased cooperation between the two former adversaries toward a joint goal of nuclear non-proliferation.

“For quite a long time, Russia had been implementing it (the agreement) unilaterally,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a conference call with journalists on Monday.

“Now, taking into account this tension (in relations) in general … the Russian side considers it impossible for the current state of things to last any longer.”

Ties between Moscow and Washington plunged to freezing point over Crimea and Russian support for separatists in eastern Ukraine after protests in Kiev toppled pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovich.

Washington led a campaign to impose Western economic sanctions on Russia for its role in the Ukraine crisis.

Relations soured further last year when Russia deployed its warplanes to an air base in Syria to provide support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s troops fighting rebels.

The rift has widened in recent weeks, with Moscow accusing Washington of not delivering on its promise to separate units of moderate Syrian opposition from “terrorists”.

Huge cost overruns have also long been another threat to the project originally estimated at a total of $5.7 billion.

Meanwhile what Russia is doing to Aleppo is beyond the definition of war crimes.

NBCNews: Russian-made cluster bombs — weapons that kill indiscriminately and inflict long-lasting damage — were used in an attack on at least one hospital in the ravaged Syrian city of Aleppo last week, a video obtained by NBC News appears to show.

The video shows two unexploded submunitions amid the rubble at the M10 hospital in rebel-held eastern Aleppo following a morning airstrike on Sept. 28. Several experts and sources independently identified the devices as Russian-made ShOAB 0.5 cluster submunitions, bomblets delivered by an air-delivered scattering device called the RBK-500. Both are known to be used by both the Russian and Syrian air forces.

However, it is difficult, even for specialists in unexploded ordnance disposal, to definitively identify such munitions in the field. The ShOAB 0.5 is visually similar to a U.S.-made series of bomblets.

Medics inspect the damage outside a field hospital after an airstrike in the rebel-held al-Maadi neighbourhood of Aleppo, Syria on Sept. 28, 2016. ABDALRHMAN ISMAIL / Reuters

The use of cluster bombs on the hospital — part of a larger series of strikes that also hit a second hospital and a nearby bakery — underscores the relentless brutality of Syria’s civil war, which lurched back into violence last month after the disintegration of a brief cease-fire. The casualties include hundreds of children killed or injured in Aleppo by a myriad of weapons falling on the city.

The hospitals were among the few facilities that remained to treat the hundreds of thousands of civilians caught up in the brutal new government offensive on eastern Aleppo. It is not clear whether the second hospital, called M2, was hit with cluster bombs.

NBC News visited both hospitals and spoke to medical staff there. Among the patients at M2 was a prematurely born infant struggling to survive: Miriam, born on Sept. 10 when her mother, seven months pregnant, went into labor during the airstrike.

“These kids are innocent, and they came into this world under very difficult circumstances, they came into this world during a war,” said Um Mohammad, the nurse who had been tending the children and infants in the hospital. Um Mohammad is a pseudonym, meaning “mother of Mohammad.”

At M2, the attack started at about 4:00 a.m., according to Dr. Mohammad Abu Rajab, a physician at the hospital who uses a pseudonym to avoid reprisals for his work in opposition-controlled areas.

“This has resulted in the hospital being taken out of service completely and indefinitely,” Abu Rajab said. “This was systematic and direct targeting of this hospital, which was home to pediatric and women’s health specialists.” A must read of the rest of the article here.

Obama Admin Admits No Plan B for Syria

Posted on September 30, 2016September 30, 2016 by Denise Simon

Reuters: The United States called the assault on Aleppo by Syria and Russia “a gift” to Islamic State on Thursday, saying it was sowing doom and would generate more recruits for the militant group.

Moscow vowed to press on with its offensive in Syria, while U.S. officials searched for a tougher response to Russia’s decision to ignore the peace process and seek a military victory on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

United Nations aid chief Stephen O’Brien urged the 15-member U.N. Security Council to stop “tolerating the utter disregard for the most basic provisions of international humanitarian law.”

The sanctions program on Syria began in earnest under the Bush administration yet given the enormous death count and destruction, the last sanctions order by Barack Obama was:

On May 1, 2012, the President issued E.O. 13608 pursuant to, inter alia, IEEPA
and the NEA, finding that efforts by foreign persons to engage in activities
intended to evade U.S. economic and financial sanctions with respect to Syria
and Iran undermine United States efforts to address the national emergencies
declared in E.O. 13338, E.O. 12957, E.O. 12938, and E.O. 13224, and taking
additional steps pursuant to those national emergencies.

Given the violations, espionage aggressions and proven hacking by Russia, the Obama administration has not signed new sanctions on Russia. The most recent were those imposed during the Russia/Ukraine hostilities. So it stands to reason, there is no Plan B as noted below.

An Obama administration official painfully struggled to explain the ‘Plan B’ for Syria

A senior Obama administration official stumbled Thursday when pressed on the US plan to deal with the crisis in Syria, appearing unable to provide details about what comes next after a failed ceasefire.

BusinessInsider: Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee and the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, repeatedly pressed Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken during a committee hearing.

The US has been searching for a way to help resolve a five-year civil war between the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and rebel groups that has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and led to the proliferation of extremist groups like ISIS inside the country. But a ceasefire deal brokered with Russia earlier this month fell apart.

“I’d like to understand what Plan B is,” Corker said. “The mysterious Plan B that has been referred to since February, the mysterious Plan B that was supposed to be leverage to get Russia to quit killing innocent people, to get Assad to quit killing innocent people. Just explain to us the elements of Plan B.”

Blinken seemed unsure of the specifics of the so-called Plan B.

“In the first instance, Plan B is the consequence of the failure as a result of Russia’s actions of Plan A,” he said. “In that, what is likely to happen now is if the agreement cannot be followed through on and Russia reneges totally on its commitments, which it appears to have done, is this is going, of course, to be bad for everyone, but it’s going to be bad first and foremost…”

Corker cut him off, asking for more specifics.

“I want to hear about Plan B,” Corker said. “I understand all the context here.”

Blinken pressed on.

“I think, sir, this is important because Russia has a profound incentive in trying to make this work,” Blinken said. “It can’t win in Syria. It can only prevent Assad from losing. If this now gets to the point where the civil war actually accelerates, all of the outside patrons are going to throw in more and more weaponry against Russia. Russia will be left propping up Assad in an ever-smaller piece of Syria under constant assault…”

Corker cut in again.

“I understand that,” he said. “What is Plan B? Give me the elements of Plan B.”

Blinken tried again, but was still vague on details.

“Again, the consequences I think to Russia as well as to the regime will begin to be felt as a result of Plan A not being implemented because of Russia’s actions,” Blinken said. “Second, as I indicated, the president has asked all of the agencies to put forward options, some familiar, some new, that we are very actively reviewing. When we are able to work through these in the days ahead, we will have an opportunity to come back and talk about them in detail.”

Corker didn’t seem satisfied.

“OK, so let me just say what we already know,” he said. “There is no Plan B.”

This is a familiar criticism of the Obama administration’s Syria policy.

Mutasem Alsyofi of the Syrian Civil Society Declaration Initiative said in a statement last week that Secretary of State John Kerry wasn’t able to articulate a coherent plan for Syria when he met with a Syrian delegation in New York City.

“Kerry’s plan is to do more of the same — despite the repeated failure of US attempts to strike a deal with Russia,” Alsyofi said. “Syrians need a clear guarantee that the continued killing of civilians will be met with action to protect civilians. We do not need further failed agreements with Russia.”

The US recently worked with Russia to implement a ceasefire between the Assad regime and rebels in Syria, excluding extremist groups. But the deal — referred to as “Plan A” during Blinken’s testimony — fell apart before it was seen through to completion.

The Wall Street Journal reported on the administration’s “Plan B” for Syria earlier this year, citing unnamed US officials who described a covert operation to provide moderate rebels with more powerful weapons. Blinken did not mention such a program during his testimony.

Syrian opposition alliance enlists former Rep. Kingston

Sept. 30, 2016

An alliance of moderate Syrian political and military groups has enlisted Squire Patton Boggs lobbyists, including former Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), for advocacy support, according to a new lobbying disclosure.

The High Negotiations Committee of the Syrian Opposition, which released a new transition plan for the country earlier this month, is supported by numerous Western and Middle Eastern countries, including Turkey. The HNC reportedly excludes Syrian Kurds, who have exchanged blows with Turkey in recent years.

In addition to the end of the Assad regime, the coalition is reportedly working toward democratic elections, free press and a new constitution, among other issues.