White House backs Haley, Tillerson on Syria's Assad

[rooster59]

White House backs Haley, Tillerson on Syria's Assad

 

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer holds the daily press briefing at the White House in Washington, U.S. March 29, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday backed top aides' comments that the United States is not now focussed on making Syrian President Bashar al-Assad leave power, saying the U.S. focus is on defeating Islamic State militants.

 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Thursday drew criticism for playing down a long-standing U.S. goal of persuading Assad to leave power to help end the six-year-long Syrian civil war.

 

Tillerson said Assad's future is up to the Syrian people to decide, while Haley said "our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out."

 

At his daily news briefing, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said that regarding Assad, "there is a political reality that we have to accept in terms of where we are right now."

 

Spicer blamed the inability of Trump's predecessor, Democrat Barack Obama, to persuade Assad to step down.

 

The Obama administration, in its later years, was focussed on reaching a deal with Russia that would eventually see Assad go, though it also shifted its focus to the fight against Islamic State militants, who captured swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria in 2014.

 

"We had an opportunity and we need to focus now on defeating ISIS," Spicer said. "The United States has profound priorities in Syria and Iraq and we've made it clear that counterterrorism, particularly the defeat of ISIS, is foremost among those priorities."

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-01

[geriatrickid]

Spicer also seems so overwhelmed by events  that I expect him to start crying.

[boomerangutang]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't - that's the mantra of being involved in the Middle East.

 

Insisting that Assad leave, is the hard trail to stay on.  Trump and Bannon always take the easier trail - which they're now doing, by indicating they're ok with Assad staying on as Syria's leader.

 

[deepinlaos]

Trump is doing a good job there already.

 

 

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, deepinlaos said:

Trump is doing a good job there already.

 

What has he done? LOL

[IMA_FARANG]

The U.S today faces the necessity of recognizing reailty.

It can not just impose it's will in the word.

In fact no nation can.

The U.S., the EU, the U.K., China, and Russia have to learn this lesson in today's complex world of conflicting choices.

As the old Chinese saying goes, "May you be born into interesting times".

I hope that is not to deep for some of you to understand.

 

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, IMA_FARANG said:

The U.S today faces the necessity of recognizing reailty.

It can not just impose it's will in the word.

In fact no nation can.

The U.S., the EU, the U.K., China, and Russia have to learn this lesson in today's complex world of conflicting choices.

As the old Chinese saying goes, "May you be born into interesting times".

I hope that is not to deep for some of you to understand.

 

If the "will" of the US is to remove a brutal dictator that's killed thousands of his countrymen, then why would any nation oppose that?  Assad would be gone if it wasn't for the support of Russia.  Who's also responsible for killing thousands of Syrians.  Along with Iran. 

 

Russia's blocked every UN resolution regarding arms embargoes there.  Hmmm...wonder why. LOL  They've made a ton of money off that war.

[Trouble]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

If the "will" of the US is to remove a brutal dictator that's killed thousands of his countrymen, then why would any nation oppose that?  Assad would be gone if it wasn't for the support of Russia.  Who's also responsible for killing thousands of Syrians.  Along with Iran. 

 

Russia's blocked every UN resolution regarding arms embargoes there.  Hmmm...wonder why. LOL  They've made a ton of money off that war.

Seems to be that the people responsible for getting 10's of thousands killed are the rebels.  I have never been all that convinced that the various factions of rebels were all that interested in a better democracy.  It has been noted often that none of the rebel factions trust each other, they are all vying for control and there is no doubt that if Assad were to leave the various groups would be at war with each other causing even more casualties.  

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, Trouble said:

Seems to be that the people responsible for getting 10's of thousands killed are the rebels.  I have never been all that convinced that the various factions of rebels were all that interested in a better democracy.  It has been noted often that none of the rebel factions trust each other, they are all vying for control and there is no doubt that if Assad were to leave the various groups would be at war with each other causing even more casualties.  

It's a mess, for sure.  Sadly, Assad and his partners Russia and Iran are responsible for a vast majority of the deaths.  Barrel bombs, chemical attacks, etc.  The rebels have caused deaths also.

 

What started this was a brutal dictator cracking down on street protests.  We have those in the US, but they don't turn into massacres like this.  Better government for sure.  Blame lies at the top.  Nowhere else.

 

Hard to say what would happen if Assad left.  It could be better, or could be worse.  But hard to be much worse than it is now.

[jerojero]

Trump is doing a good job there already.
 
 

Yes, by sucking up to Putin who supports Assad.

[tonray]

Recent History has shown that removing a Middle East strongman leads to disaster for the rest of the world. The current terrorism and refugee issues are 99% caused by our removing guys who had control over their population, even if the means were less than desireable by our standards.

 

We only opposed Assad because of his ties to Iran, not because of his behavior. Our arming and funding of the rebellion has only caused the war to last longer than it would have otherwise and caused millions of refugees to flood into the West, the same ones we are worried about keeping out of our country now. If we want a peaceful world we need to stop fomenting revolution.

 

This is one case where I agree with current Trump policy.

[simple1]

9 hours ago, tonray said:

Recent History has shown that removing a Middle East strongman leads to disaster for the rest of the world. The current terrorism and refugee issues are 99% caused by our removing guys who had control over their population, even if the means were less than desireable by our standards.

 

We only opposed Assad because of his ties to Iran, not because of his behavior. Our arming and funding of the rebellion has only caused the war to last longer than it would have otherwise and caused millions of refugees to flood into the West, the same ones we are worried about keeping out of our country now. If we want a peaceful world we need to stop fomenting revolution.

 

This is one case where I agree with current Trump policy.

Strongly suggest you invest in more research regards Assad; some examples...

 

Assad assisted Islamist Sunni terrorists to cross the Syrian border into Iraq to attack US coalition forces.

Assad supports and hosts Islamist terror groups on Syrian soil, to this day still does

Assad supports and funds Syrian militia who commit many war crimes including ethnic cleansing and rape as a tool of war

Assad has funded ISIS by buying oil from them

 

It has been repeated many times on the forum and elsewhere that Assad released Sunni terrorists from his prisons at the beginning of his deadly suppression of the Syrian Arab Spring demonstrations to gain sympathy from the West, thereby support,which seriously backfired on his deeply corrupt & unbelievable cruel dictatorship which includes equally corrupt and cruel self serving Sunni and Christian sycophants in his political power structures and forces of oppression.

 

Assad should be removed, (the political process will eventually identify an acceptable replacement), besides all his other affiliations to acts of evil, solely of the basis of his sponsorship of the torture and murder of thousands of children in his prisons.

Edited April 1, 2017 by simple1

[tonray]

59 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Strongly suggest you invest in more research regards Assad; some examples...

 

Assad assisted Islamist Sunni terrorists to cross the Syrian border into Iraq to attack US coalition forces.

Assad supports and hosts Islamist terror groups on Syrian soil, to this day still does

Assad supports and funds Syrian militia who commit many war crimes including ethnic cleansing and rape as a tool of war

Assad has funded ISIS by buying oil from them

 

It has been repeated many times on the forum and elsewhere that Assad released Sunni terrorists from his prisons at the beginning of his deadly suppression of the Syrian Arab Spring demonstrations to gain sympathy from the West, thereby support,which seriously backfired on his deeply corrupt & unbelievable cruel dictatorship which includes equally corrupt and cruel self serving Sunni and Christian sycophants in his political power structures and forces of oppression.

 

Assad should be removed, (the political process will eventually identify an acceptable replacement), besides all his other affiliations to acts of evil, solely of the basis of his sponsorship of the torture and murder of thousands of children in his prisons.

Sure why not ? let's remove any dictator that doesn't fit our model of friendship....perhaps what the Saudis are doing in Yemen concerns you but my guess is you are OK because the US weapons are being used so carefully there.....give me a break with your self righteousness.

[simple1]

14 minutes ago, tonray said:

Sure why not ? let's remove any dictator that doesn't fit our model of friendship....perhaps what the Saudis are doing in Yemen concerns you but my guess is you are OK because the US weapons are being used so carefully there.....give me a break with your self righteousness.

As you appear to have no concern regards mass murder and torture of innocents so be it. Personal comments are asinine

Edited April 2, 2017 by simple1

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, tonray said:

Recent History has shown that removing a Middle East strongman leads to disaster for the rest of the world. The current terrorism and refugee issues are 99% caused by our removing guys who had control over their population, even if the means were less than desireable by our standards.

 

We only opposed Assad because of his ties to Iran, not because of his behavior. Our arming and funding of the rebellion has only caused the war to last longer than it would have otherwise and caused millions of refugees to flood into the West, the same ones we are worried about keeping out of our country now. If we want a peaceful world we need to stop fomenting revolution.

 

This is one case where I agree with current Trump policy.

No country is more of a humanitarian disaster than Syria.  A vast majority of refugees are from Syria.  You need to do some research before posting.

 

We opposed Assad due to his use of chemical weapons against his own people.  Along with the brutal massacres and barrel bombings.  It had nothing to do with his ties to Iran.

 

The was only lasted this long due to support by Russia, and partly by Iran.  Hope you understand that.  If we want a peaceful world, we need to figure out how to deal with the brutal dictators that cause these problems.  Can't blame the West for everything bad that happens around the world.  Though many try....

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, tonray said:

Sure why not ? let's remove any dictator that doesn't fit our model of friendship....perhaps what the Saudis are doing in Yemen concerns you but my guess is you are OK because the US weapons are being used so carefully there.....give me a break with your self righteousness.

What's your model of friendship look like?  Can't argue about Saudi Arabia, but they've got oil.  Every country in the world treats them differently.  Sadly.  Luckily, the US is pushing back on Yemen.  Though not strongly enough.

 

Be nice to Simple1.  He deserves more respect than that.

[boomerangutang]

                   Troubles in the Middle East range from bad to horrible.  It's hard to say whether US/UK/coalition interference makes things better or worse.  Similar to Russian involvement, though it's easier to dislike what Russia is doing, because they seem to back the wrong team most of the time. 

 

                 Interesting that China doesn't interfere.  It's supposed to be the 2nd or 3rd strongest power in the world, after US and Russia.  Methinks it's because China doesn't care much about mass human suffering, but instead is looking for biz deals.   So China sits on the sidelines until it views openings to go in sign biz contracts, when the smoke starts to clear.

 

          Another enigma is the Saudis.  They're the richest country in that region, and they're Islamists.  Yet they also sit on the sidelines (except with Yemen) and they won't take refugees.  Their response to refugee crises is to say they employ some Syrians.

[sirineou]

16 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                   Troubles in the Middle East range from bad to horrible.  It's hard to say whether US/UK/coalition interference makes things better or worse.  Similar to Russian involvement, though it's easier to dislike what Russia is doing, because they seem to back the wrong team most of the time. 

 

                 Interesting that China doesn't interfere.  It's supposed to be the 2nd or 3rd strongest power in the world, after US and Russia.  Methinks it's because China doesn't care much about mass human suffering, but instead is looking for biz deals.   So China sits on the sidelines until it views openings to go in sign biz contracts, when the smoke starts to clear.

 

          Another enigma is the Saudis.  They're the richest country in that region, and they're Islamists.  Yet they also sit on the sidelines (except with Yemen) and they won't take refugees.  Their response to refugee crises is to say they employ some Syrians.

It is simply a regional balance of power problem.

Any power strong enough to challenge US interests will be taken down a notch. Remember how all of this started. Assad allegedly gassed some of his opposition. When Saddam gassed the Kurdish opposition we run a  blind eye , until he became a problem. If Assad was our boy we would have run cover for him and the incident would have being just an other historical foot note, but by now Iraq was destabilized ,and Syria was becoming influential in the area . So Bye Bye Syria. Who is there to oppose Israel now?      every Arab country from Algeria  to  Iran is destabilized except for those who will play ball.  The Saudis know which side of their bread is battered they play ball, and are left along.

No one reading this forum will live long enough to see this situation resolved, only their tax money squandered 

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, sirineou said:

It is simply a regional balance of power problem.

Any power strong enough to challenge US interests will be taken down a notch. Remember how all of this started. Assad allegedly gassed some of his opposition. When Saddam gassed the Kurdish opposition we run a  blind eye , until he became a problem. If Assad was our boy we would have run cover for him and the incident would have being just an other historical foot note, but by now Iraq was destabilized ,and Syria was becoming influential in the area . So Bye Bye Syria. Who is there to oppose Israel now?      every Arab country from Algeria  to  Iran is destabilized except for those who will play ball.  The Saudis know which side of their bread is battered they play ball, and are left along.

No one reading this forum will live long enough to see this situation resolved, only their tax money squandered 

Syria wasn't about the US challenging a strong nation challenging US interests.  The US doesn't have any there! LOL

 

What started this were protests that turned violent and Assad cracked down....brutally.  What got the US more involved was the gassing of innocent civilians.  Many times.  But you are right, the US did turn a blind eye when Iraq gassed Iran's soldiers.  Tough call, but Iran was and is a hostile country towards the US.  In Syria, innocent civilians were gassed.  A bit of a difference as I'm sure you understand. 

 

Your analysis seems to be a bit off.  This is about the Saudia Arabia/Iran conflict.  Not the US.  Not Europe.  Worth a read if you have the time:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/4/10708682/sunni-shia-iran-saudi-arabia-war

 

Quote

 

The cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran that's tearing apart the Middle East, explained

The supposedly ancient Sunni-Shia divide is in fact very modern — and it's not really about religion.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35221569

Quote

Iran and Saudi Arabia's great rivalry explained

 

 

[Ramen087]

Craig... are you referring to the 'line in the sand' moment' regarding the Assad d regime and the use if chemical weapons as a tipping point?  or at least a major milestone in this extended conflict?

[ilostmypassword]

On 4/2/2017 at 5:47 AM, simple1 said:

Strongly suggest you invest in more research regards Assad; some examples...

 

Assad assisted Islamist Sunni terrorists to cross the Syrian border into Iraq to attack US coalition forces.

Assad supports and hosts Islamist terror groups on Syrian soil, to this day still does

Assad supports and funds Syrian militia who commit many war crimes including ethnic cleansing and rape as a tool of war

Assad has funded ISIS by buying oil from them

 

It has been repeated many times on the forum and elsewhere that Assad released Sunni terrorists from his prisons at the beginning of his deadly suppression of the Syrian Arab Spring demonstrations to gain sympathy from the West, thereby support,which seriously backfired on his deeply corrupt & unbelievable cruel dictatorship which includes equally corrupt and cruel self serving Sunni and Christian sycophants in his political power structures and forces of oppression.

 

Assad should be removed, (the political process will eventually identify an acceptable replacement), besides all his other affiliations to acts of evil, solely of the basis of his sponsorship of the torture and murder of thousands of children in his prisons.

I've also read allegation that Iran has occasionally assisted Al-Qaeda. The fact is that the overwhelmingly Assad has opposed Isis and other fanatical Sunni militias who are now trying to depose him. And if they do,  he will be replaced by fanatical Sunni jihadists who unlike Assad, want to rule over the entire muslim middle east.  They are much more of a threat than Assad will ever be.

[simple1]

55 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I've also read allegation that Iran has occasionally assisted Al-Qaeda. The fact is that the overwhelmingly Assad has opposed Isis and other fanatical Sunni militias who are now trying to depose him. And if they do,  he will be replaced by fanatical Sunni jihadists who unlike Assad, want to rule over the entire muslim middle east.  They are much more of a threat than Assad will ever be.

Just my opinion the various Sunni Islamist terror groups have no chance to actually gain and retain governance of a country in the M.E.. Countries with strategic interests in the region will not permit such an event. Getting back to Assad, again just my amateurs opinion, I do believe he will eventually be replaced as a component of a political peace process.

 

A guy whose views and analysis I have grown to respect, David Kilcullen, suggests the next major Islamist threat to the region, superseding ISIS, will be the renamed al Nusra; al-Sham. Those interested can look up his recent article...

 

"Something worse may be in store after Islamic State’s ‘caliphate’

 

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

Craig... are you referring to the 'line in the sand' moment' regarding the Assad d regime and the use if chemical weapons as a tipping point?  or at least a major milestone in this extended conflict?

It was one tipping point.  Sadly, there were many atrocities committed by the Assad regime against innocent civilians.  As has been widely documented and published.  The main tipping point was the initial and brutal crackdown on protesters.  That's what started the mess.

 

IMHO, Obama handled it badly.  The "red line" turned out to be just bluster.  An embarrassment for the Obama administration.

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I've also read allegation that Iran has occasionally assisted Al-Qaeda. The fact is that the overwhelmingly Assad has opposed Isis and other fanatical Sunni militias who are now trying to depose him. And if they do,  he will be replaced by fanatical Sunni jihadists who unlike Assad, want to rule over the entire muslim middle east.  They are much more of a threat than Assad will ever be.

Iran for sure supported al Qaeda.  And Assad at one time even supported ISIS.  Bought oil from them also.  The ME is a mess. LOL

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/8/al-qaedas-iran-connection/

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-selling-oil-to-biggest-enemy-2015-11

 

Worth a read:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n07/peter-neumann/suspects-into-collaborators

Quote

In the years that preceded the uprising, Assad and his intelligence services took the view that jihad could be nurtured and manipulated to serve the Syrian government’s aims. It was then that foreign jihadists first entered the country and helped to build the structures and supply lines that are now being used to fight the government. To that extent Assad is fighting an enemy he helped to create.

 

[Ramen087]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

It was one tipping point.  Sadly, there were many atrocities committed by the Assad regime against innocent civilians.  As has been widely documented and published.  The main tipping point was the initial and brutal crackdown on protesters.  That's what started the mess.

 

IMHO, Obama handled it badly.  The "red line" turned out to be just bluster.  An embarrassment for the Obama administration.

Hindsight is always 20/20.  But history is not likely to view those choices favorably.  

[simple1]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

<snip>

 

IMHO, Obama handled it badly.  The "red line" turned out to be just bluster.  An embarrassment for the Obama administration.

Don't know if you're aware of the following which does sound creditable as a reason to reevaluate the commitment. More detail at the URL below.

 

“When the president announced his plans to attack [the Assad regime] and then pulled back, it was exactly the period in time when American negotiators were meeting with Iranian negotiators secretly in Oman to get the nuclear agreement,” 
 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/obama-red-line-syria-iran-2016-8?r=US&IR=T

[Morch]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Don't know if you're aware of the following which does sound creditable as a reason to reevaluate the commitment. More detail at the URL below.

 

“When the president announced his plans to attack [the Assad regime] and then pulled back, it was exactly the period in time when American negotiators were meeting with Iranian negotiators secretly in Oman to get the nuclear agreement,” 
 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/obama-red-line-syria-iran-2016-8?r=US&IR=T

 

It highlights that if one chooses to go on about "red lines", better think things through beforehand. Not like he was unaware of the negotiations with Iran when he made the statement, and from the link it wasn't even coordinated with others in the administration.

 

Not one of his finest foreign policy moments.

[craigt3365]

Seems chemical weapons were used again.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/04/middleeast/idlib-syria-attack/index.html

 

Quote

 

Suspected gas attack in Syria reportedly kills dozens

 

World leaders expressed shock and outrage Wednesday by reports of a suspected chemical attack in northwestern Syria that killed scores of civilians, with one UK official suggesting the incident amounted to a war crime.

 

Activists said the Syrian regime was responsible for the killings of at least 70 people -- 10 children among the dead -- leading the United Nations to replace a scheduled Security Council session for Wednesday morning with an emergency meeting.

 

 

[simple1]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Seems chemical weapons were used again.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/04/middleeast/idlib-syria-attack/index.html

 

 

Yep, at this stage believed to have been delivered by the Syrian air force, with a follow up attack on a local hospital - pure evil when looking at news video of the suffering. Trump has pointed the finger at Obama, to my mind an act of political spite underlining Trump's unsuitability for the Office of President.

[craigt3365]

19 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Yep, at this stage believed to have been delivered by the Syrian air force, with a follow up attack on a local hospital - pure evil when looking at news video of the suffering. Trump has pointed the finger at Obama, to my mind an act of political spite underlining Trump's unsuitability for the Office of President.

 

There are no easy answers here. Obama may be partially to blame. The UN. Russia. Iran. Turkey.  Saudi Arabia.  Etc.etc.etc. A complete failure on the part of the international community. 

 

Trump has a chance here to make things better.  NO easy task.