I'm not sure what pattern you're getting at. DU should be banned, but two strikes out of hundreds shows marked restraint compared to the travesty that was the Bush administration.

You're unbelievable transparent in your bias. Accused of using Sarin? Come off it. And Russia has been raining white phosphorous onto areas with heavy civilian populations for months, which is a war crime. Bit rich how they go out on Twitter of all places to attack the US for year-old incidents that weren't against any convention in effect, due in large part to their own interests in using DU!

Don't get me wrong, this should be heavily criticized and condemned, protested and changed. All weaponized uranium must be banned, and it should be a war crime. But not when it's all for some ulterior-purposed political double-speak.

The imperial struggles taking place in Syria, Libya and Iraq are featuring atrocities, or the condonement of atrocities on all sides with very little compunction.

For example Amnesty has just criticised the "liberators" of Mosul, allies of the US and armed by the US, for their widely witnessed use of white phosphorus munitions on the population there.

We need to be so careful with selective reporting of these acts by outlets such as RT, Sputnik, The Intercept (broadly favouring Russia and Assad) or the major US broadsheets (favouring the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia).

I'm looking forward to reading Patrick Cockburn's latest book soon, I find that style of account in the longer form, with more context, far more useful than the day to day propagandist reporting.

For what it's worth, the conclusion of Cockburn's previous book was that the fastest route to peace in Syria and the return of a working economy (GDP is currently down by 75%) and the rule of law was to allow Assad to reclaim power. This is not because Assad or his regime are "good" by any objective standard commensurable with our expectations as citizens of the "democracies" of the western imperial core, but simply because the alternatives are at best no better, unstable jihadist coalitions with an arch-conservative, sectarian social agenda and a marked lack of mass popular support. 

There has been, and continues to be no "democratic rebels" option post Arab Spring with a prospect of becoming a new Syrian state, a truth that has been tacitly admitted by many western leaders at many different times in among the hawkish cheerleading of all the imperial shills.

Assad has been the only real option for some time now, and Obama arming so-called moderate rebels against him was a huge mistake, instigated by constant pressure from Republicans in congress and Hillary herself. I was disappointed with him for that then, and obviously now. I decline to believe it was part of any grand master scheme, but rather pure hubris and a fundamental ignorance of what is actually going on.

Then, another "mistake" was the whole red line nonsense, but at the end of the day he made the right choice and changed tack, going all in with the Iraqi government instead of bombarding Assad. It was categorically the right thing to do, and seeing an American leader shy away from direct violence in that region changed the game, opening the door for the rest of the world to participate and giving more responsibility to local governments.

The best we can hope for his Hillary continues in this vein, letting Russia reveal their own latent imperialist goals for the region. The notion of not being involved is ridiculous, as the US is the continuation of British imperialism in the region and as such cannot simply abandon the place. We need to keep reaching out to those who the Kremlin sees as allies against the US, like Iran and, indeed, Assad.

Really, if it were up to me, I would put all my eggs in the Iran basket. Apologize, bring them 'round, get them involved in the global economy, and hope to all hell that instead of appointing a new Supreme Leader, they instead go for an appointed-for-life Supreme Court-style council instead, spreading power a bit more through their branches of government and watch their people pull the whole nation to the left. The ramifications across the Middle East would be significant.

You're right, jones. I am biased in favor of Obama, because I'm looking at human history and I'm seeing that we've got it pretty fucking good right now, relatively speaking, in terms of the guy at the top. I'm terrified to lose what he's brought to our country both domestically and in the world at large. I want to continue the thaw of our relations with Iran, and I want to slowly freeze up our commitments to our so-called allies in the Israelis and the Saudis. I don't think I could've hoped for much more from a single presidency, considering the political climate.

One note on the white phosphorous is that it is used extensively for tactical reasons. The US loves attacking at night because we've got such superior strategies for lighting enemy positions and concealing our own, white phosphorous being one of them. I say it should be taken off the battlefield altogether, along with DU, but that's the way it is right now.

And in terms of radioactive weapons, it's a travesty to use them at all, no doubt. Tanks or not, armored caravans or not, it's not only bad for the place getting hit, but for the entire world. For perspective, though, we set off over 800 nuclear weapons in Nevada alone. I mean bombs. Big ones. We've fucked ourselves right good as well, with entire populations poisoned for generations. It's bad to use DU ammo, it's bad to use radioactive weapons, it should be banned, it should be a war crime, but it's not exactly indicative of a major conspiracy.

Good post Coombs, but I think it's a bit naive to think that the US would seek a rapprochement with Iran in that manner—since the underlying struggle is for control of territory and resources to which both sides want access and over which they want control.

The fear with Clinton is that she really will impose a no-fly zone in Syria, a move that would lead to a huge intensification of ground fighting and would set the stage for a disastrous forced regime change. She has spoken positively about it on many occasions recently. It really would be a bad thing in my opinion, even taking into account the documented atrocities of the Assad regime and the appalling death toll of the civil conflict in Syria.

I continue to think the best hope for the Middle East longer term is probably a decline in the importance of oil to global production and logistics.

How is that the best hope for the Middle East? They don't have anything but oil. OIC countries produce <1% of the world's scientific literature. The only country in the Middle East that can and will survive without selling huge amounts of natural resources is Israel.

Because it will tend to de-escalate the churn of geopolitical struggle that has led to incessant civil and other conflicts, coups and military interventions, entrenched reactionary regimes allied with the west, economic destruction, and more than ten million people displaced in the region.

I don't really understand the premises of your statement about science research output.

i think iran would adapt just fine.

Same applies to countries like Russia, Kazakhstan, etc. Loss of oil revenue = instant economic collapse because there is nothing else. Fuck all to do with intelligence.

Well I checked into it briefly and OIC countries have very low rates of science research funding relative to OECD countries—fraction of 1% relative to 2-3% GDP. And a correspondingly low rate of STEM professionals per capita. Of course OIC countries also have one quarter of the GDP per capita of OECD countries.

Aren't you kind of disproving your own point here? Even if these countries would over time magically transform into developed economies with a strong service sector (which I don't think they will), the immediate consequences of the loss of oil income would be disastrous for the general population.

Burnwinter wrote:

Good post Coombs, but I think it's a bit naive to think that the US would seek a rapprochement with Iran in that manner—since the underlying struggle is for control of territory and resources to which both sides want access and over which they want control.

The fear with Clinton is that she really will impose a no-fly zone in Syria, a move that would lead to a huge intensification of ground fighting and would set the stage for a disastrous forced regime change. She has spoken positively about it on many occasions recently. It really would be a bad thing in my opinion, even taking into account the documented atrocities of the Assad regime and the appalling death toll of the civil conflict in Syria.

I continue to think the best hope for the Middle East longer term is probably a decline in the importance of oil to global production and logistics.

Reducing the middle east's reliance on oil can also result in economic catastrophe. I think the attitude to approach it with needs to be fundamentally positive, i.e. to increase the middle east's reliance on human and intellectual resources. Education is the cornerstone for this. I'd worry that the withdrawal of capital from the region as oil becomes less globally important could result in potentially hundreds of millions of people reduced to seriously abject poverty. There's also the question of who would lead such a withdrawal, and who would move in (i.e. China). 

I'm not holding out much hope for our relations with Iran, but I see it as an area that an ethnically sensitive yet secular left can target as a way forward in the region.  

Probably slightly offtopic, but Everyone talks about education all over everywhere. I find it very overrated.

http://www.tbo.com/ap/politics/rubio-questions-climate-change-83470

things like these make me say that. As Noam Chomsky said recently, the republican party is a literal danger to human survival. Otherwise, yea, the progressive industrialized west is awesome.

I'm inclined to both agree and disagree with you both Coombs and Gurgen—it really depends on what your view of the development of global political economy is.

My underlying view is that economic globalisation is probably going to be lagged by the development of global political structures, accompanied by economic and military crises, in the next several decades. I think nation states will become less relevant during this period.

The natural resources that unevenly enrich Middle Eastern economies are also the main strategic reason for the military conflicts that have been ongoing there.

I think it's reasonable to assert this question is probably beyond my understanding.

Please tell me this is not true.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/A-new-dawn-for-Syria/article16965570.ece?homepage=true

Bold Tone wrote:

Please tell me this is not true.

Al Nusra, Al Queda and ISIS would be the power brokers if Assad ever abdicates/ is defeated, regardless of whether any true moderate resistance force exists or not.

Difficult to imagine scenarios where Assad is overthrown any time in the near future given current geopolitics, however, so it's a moot point