Fifty employees of the US State Department signed an internal document, which urged the White house to dramatically change policy in Syria and to launch large-scale military action against Bashar al-Assad. What is happening is a performance, and with it, American diplomacy pursues the dirty goals.
“In peacetime they are harmless, like those eternal students saving elephants in Thailand and bearded young men in the Gaza strip. But in extreme situations, their ranks are closed”
According to diplomats, “targeted military strikes” on Syrian army positions must be applied because of the failure of the agreement on a cease-fire. While criticism subjected the whole American policy in Syria, in particular the rejection of clear support for any of the parties to the conflict. The authors of the document warn that the U.S. is losing potential allies among the Syrian Sunnis, as the Assad regime continues to bomb and starve” is a religious majority. “The inability to halt egregious crimes of Assad only strengthens the ideological appeal of groups such as ISIS*, even when they suffer a tactical defeat on the battlefield,” reads the document. The authors believe that no attack on Assad, the influence of this group in Syria will be strengthened for years to come, even in the case of its military defeat. In parallel, it is proposed to support so-called moderate opposition, which does not trusts created by the US coalition, as it is now “at war with ISIL, not with the government in Damascus.”
This is not the first case of “organized uprisings” among employees of the state Department. But it is noteworthy that the “dissidents” (“signers”) were always those groups of employees who demanded a tightening of U.S. policy in the region – up to open military intervention. So, in the early 90-ies of the American diplomats wrote the report of the thirty-appeal (for English texts is critical a large amount of) criticism of the policies of the Clinton administration in the Balkans, requiring direct military intervention in Yugoslavia erupted in war. Then Secretary of state Warren Christopher was forced to meet with “dissidents” and carefully portrayed indignation, when the fact that such internal discussions became public. About as did other secretaries of state, confronted with alternative points of view among its employees and experts.
And now the official representatives of the state Department (especially John Kirby) did not deny the existence of the letter, but refused to explain the details. There is a gaming setting in the usual style in American politics, and the observer in this sense it is worth considering two points.
What made the army of Syria with the help of Russian troops (infographic)first, this kind of “riots” the state Department has earned a reputation as “the most open to different opinions of the office”. There, they say, gathered intellectuals from intellectuals (previously, this was talking about the CIA), who are not afraid for his career, can go against the opinion of the authorities, and listen to their opinions, and they are right. This “dissident channel” exists since the Vietnam war, when anyone who disagree with the policies of the administration were given the right to officially speak out without fear of being fired. But then it was the prose of life, now theatre.
Secondly, the Secretary of state in the framework of the debate as it fades into the background, with the convenient excuse – “it’s not me, it’s my staff”. In this case it didn’t work out fully because John Kerry managed to speak in favor of the need for Assad’s resignation before the letter of state Department employees made up The New York Times (or, more likely, before a reputable newspaper has agreed on publishing).
All the “signers” (51) – staff of the middle level. Many career diplomats involved in the work on the Syrian issue in the last five years, when at this unexpected front dumped all of to whom have reached, from clerk in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to former Deputy Ambassador in Damascus. Most of the names of these people will not say anything, it is more important to consider their emotional involvement in the problem which they have to deal with on duty. Former Ambassador in Damascus Robert S. Ford said that “many people” who worked on the Syrian track, quickly took a very tough stance against the Assad government. By Robert S. Ford in 2014, resigned just because of the fact that did not agree with the policy of laissez-faire” (hands-off policy, which, from his point of view, was conducted by the Obama administration.
That is, these Lawrence of Arabia in all seriousness take your routine work at his Desk in the Bureau for the Middle East as a civilization mission and start “rooting for the result”. In peacetime, they are harmless, like those eternal students saving elephants in Thailand and bearded young men in the Gaza strip. But in extreme situations, their ranks are closed and they begin to lobby for the bombing of those once considered the enemy of liberal democracy. At the same time in such an emotional atmosphere, they are easy to manage, producing on the field when the coach decides it’s time.
The text of their collective treatment replete with high-flown tropes and apocalyptic predictions. For example, there is a reference to the events of three years ago, when the same state Department insisted on a direct military attack on Syria in connection with the use in Syria of chemical weapons. And insisted just in the form of a special report, stating that if I didn’t bomb Syria now, it will include the green light to the further application of the Assad regime’s weapons of mass destruction”. What happened afterwards (i.e. the chemical disarmament of SAR after the personal intervention of Vladimir Putin) suggests that the authors of that report can hardly be trusted with the job of directing traffic at a busy intersection. Otherwise the accident can not be avoided.
There is every reason to believe that the state Department regularly bombards the White house to alarmist reports and “reports”, which requires a transition to active combat operations against the Syrian army. These papers are stuck in the presidential administration, which, it seems, is not going to change your way of thinking under pressure “extreme hawk”. Most likely, the patience of diplomats burst, and the state Department organized this Broadway production with the leak of the Memorandum to the newspaper and the subsequent indignation of the officials. As it is paradoxical, but a role in this could play a massacre in a gay club in Orlando because of the President and government are now demanding “decisive action” against terrorists, whoever they were (attempts to translate this story into the plane of the freedom of gun ownership obviously failed).
In the “dissident note,” presents examples of surprising logic and a very original build system of argumentation. Assad should be bombed, because he oppressed the Sunnis, and the Sunni majority of Syria’s population. Also Sunni – 100% of the personnel of ISIS and 100% of the people living on its territory collaborators. If we start to bomb Assad, the Sunnis will understand that we fight for their rights, and begin to leave EN masse the ranks of ISIS. Assad overthrown, ISIS would dissolve itself, it will be a democracy.
That’s a logical chain on which you can see the mindset of the current American diplomacy. Though laugh, though cry.
By the way, dissidents proudly emphasize that they do not want to be the defenders of “precarious” way (used more pompous and pretentious figure of speech), which “could end in a military confrontation with Russia, but would like to indicate the probable threats that could stop Assad”. Followed by pounds unproven pathos about the fact that government troops are just so busy that disrupt the truce because Assad has vowed to reclaim “every inch of land,” blocking humanitarian convoys and terrorize “the moderate opposition”. So, the task of the United States to stop “every step that leads to misery and death”.
In emotionally stable of analysts, have a tendency to support the White house in connection with this letter arose only two questions. First: and then what? Rather, who will replace the ousted Assad? And it’s not about the prospect of democratic elections that ever will be and who will monitor the West, it is about the first day after the overthrow of Assad. In this issue, skeptics, oddly enough, was supported by the representatives of the “moderate” opposition, which, as it turned out, not eager to enter Damascus is a white “hammer”. They understand that even after Assad’s departure, a significant part of the government army weapons will not lay down, as well as will not stop the resistance and militia from among the Christians, alawites, Druze and Shiites. The chaos can begin like this, remember that Assad will start with a kind word, even those who have good reason to hate him.
Second question – what to do with Russian troops? They are not only on the base Hamim but also in numerous centres for reconciliation. Either you have a “bomb Syria” or “not slide into a military confrontation with Russia,” as it is mutually exclusive clauses.
Answers to these questions the hard-liners no, but they are, in fact, not needed. The bureaucratic system is constructed in such a way that such views still find their way.
Another thing is that there is a compromise point of view according to which it is necessary to change the system talks on Syria, that they were not Russia and the USA and Assad and representatives of the “moderate opposition”. This idea increasingly takes possession of the minds in the White house, but obviously not like the state Department, which, however, realizes that his diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. In fact, American diplomacy admit their inability to change the course of events in Syria, the available methods and calls for assistance to the army, which in the future will be to shift the responsibility for the chaos, and loss, and “confrontation with Russia”.
Re-defining government in Damascus as the main object of military operations, employees of the state Department directly deny the stated purpose of fighting terrorism and Islamic extremism.” But it’s the little things that pales before the idea that diplomacy insists on war with unpredictable consequences, based on logical chains, from which tremble even a sophomore.
* Organization in respect of which the court accepted entered into legal force decision on liquidation or ban the activities on the grounds stipulated by the Federal law “On countering extremist activity”Related posts: