Joseph Stiglitz and Adam Hersh, criticize the secretive trade treaties TPP, TTIP, TISA [Project Syndicate], via Project Syndicate and Phil Ebersole
Jayati Ghosh, putting the scale of Europe’s so-called refugee crisis in perspective [TripleCrisis], again via NakedCapitalism
Before I knew it was happening, someone deliberately left me a bunch of pieces that I think are supposed to assemble into critically engaged agency. Who knew?
Verbose and just a tad dogmatic but maybe important:
Moscow claims they attacked ISIL and al-Nursa (al-Quaeda affiliate).
Washington claims Russian strikes targeted the Free Syrian Army, FSA, who signed a cooperative non-aggression pact with ISIL and al-Nursa (al-Quaeda offspring), a year ago, so they could help each other overthrow Assad, as well as Tajamu Alezzah (who are they?)
My 2 cents:
This kind of thing is inevitable, considering it is a 3 or 4 way conflict.
I am with those who say that if you want IS/Nursa not to win, you would have to accept that the existing Syrian government would win, at least in those parts of Syria which are the home turf of Assad’s ruling party. Thus even supposedly “moderate” rebels who fight Assad’s government are essentially setting the stage for IS to take over, since IS/Nursa have an undefeated record when going head-to-head vs the “moderates” (except for the Kurds, who have no ambition to take over the entire country). Based on the last 15 years, my confidence in Washington’s ability to manage this type of situation is near zero.
Update, for additional color:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/10/short-and-sharp-which-groups-did-the-russians-target-in-syria-.html [Disclaimer – I don’t necessarily approve of some stuff on SST]
Juan Cole reviews Obama and Putin’s U.N. speeches, vis-a-vis Syria, critiquing the positions of both.
My 2 cents:
As I said elsewhere, the US should not get involved. At all. We may have an obligation to do so, but we have already made enough enemies in the middle east, and the foreign policy organizations within our government still have not passed their “road test” when it comes to helping chaotic places transition into functioning governments. They are most definitely not allowed to drive this type of vehicle yet (i.e., not ready for a leadership role in a peacemaking or nation-building effort).
No disagreement that Assad is an evil leader, but the same argument was made in Iraq and Libya and the result was to make things worse. R2P was a nice idea but that experiment is over for now, and should not be repeated until bodies of international justice become established enough that the both the “R” and the “P” have some meaning. I.e., the enforcers of the rules would have to submit to a set of rules which is impartial. Until then, don’t make things worse.
Let Assad and Iran and Russia do the fighting until IS accepts a cease fire. Accept the possibility of balkanization. Then U.N. peacekeepers to keep ethnic cleansing to a manageable level, make sure it happens non-violently, and reparations are paid to anyone forced to resettle due to new lines drawn on the map on a sectarian or ethnic basis.
U.S. role limited to no-strings-attached financial support for the anti-IS forces at first, and then the U.N. peacekeepers. Do not send US personnel or weapons. Do not allow US intelligence services or diplomats to get involved in managing the situation.