In mid-July, US Secretary of State John Kerry flew to Moscow to meet Russian President Vladimir I. Putin and proposed an extensive military cooperation agreement that would, for the first time, coordinate American and Russian air attacks on Islamic State and al-Qaeda fighters in Syria. Nusra Front is the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria.
News reported from Moscow by American news agency Associated Press (AP) and the New York Times (NYT) on the same day (July 15) slightly varied in content. For example, the NYT story (reported by correspondents Gardiner Harris and Anne Bernard) quoting President Putin said: "I hope after today's consultations you will be able to advise him (President Obama) of the progress made and possible headway for us to make." Kerry responded: "Hopefully, we'll be able to make some genuine progress that is measurable and implementable and that can make a difference in the course of events in Syria." AP carried only part of Putin's comment.
Obviously, both were guarded in their statements because they knew that there is a big trust deficit between them and genuinely doubted if the proposal could finally be consented to by all concerned in Washington. They were aware about the complexity of the task ahead of Kerry to convince all segments of the divided policy-making bodies in Washington to finalise the accord.
The eight-page proposal Kerry submitted - as published in the Washington Post website - shows the US offered intelligence and target sharing and even joint bombing operations. In fact, Moscow all along wanted such an accord and in reality, it means a reversal of US policy in Syria. If agreed to, it would create a joint command near Amman to coordinate an intensifying bombing campaign against the two militant groups. In that event, US would appear to support Russia's policy to prevent overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by the rebels or a so-called regime change in Syria.
Sceptics, however, say: "It is too good to be true" because deep division within the US administration is most unlikely to allow it to be implemented. Critics complained, Russia would get what it wanted since intervening in Syria on Assad's behalf in September 2015.
DISSENTION BECAME PUBLIC SINCE THE MOSCOW MOOT: Less than a week later, John Kerry and US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter were enmeshed for two days in Washington with about of 40 of their counterparts in the coalition fighting the Islamic State group to agree on a plan to outmanoeuvre the jihadists in their own bastions in Syria and Iraq. Both Kerry and Carter initially met separately with their respective counterparts for briefing and making them up-to-date.
Carter told newsmen outside Washington at an airbase on July 21: "Today, we made the plans and commitments that will help us deliver ISIL the lasting defeat that it deserves" and without revealing anything, added: "Let me be clear, they culminate in the collapse of ISIL's control over the cities of Mosul and Raqa." Likewise, Kerry, too, said he discussed with coalition foreign ministers broader political and humanitarian plan.
There was no mention of Kerry's proposal made to Putin in Moscow for mutual cooperation in Syrian war at the Washington meeting for good reasons. It is no secret that a large number of policymakers in Washington is wary about working too closely with Russia and it was manifested only weeks ago (in late June) when 51 State Department officials signed a dissent cable showing a sizable section of the US diplomatic establishment was critical of Obama's Syria policy and believed in Washington's military action against Assad's forces was necessary.
US officials in Washington have openly commented that the latest plan (working along with Russia in Syria) is opposed by a section of the State Department, the Pentagon and the US intelligence agencies. Apparently, the State Department officials' dissenting cable was orchestrated to forestall the Kerry visit to Moscow and his proposal.
Interestingly, while Kerry was busy talking in Moscow, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told media: "We've always made clear that we would welcome a military contribution from Russia, as long as they were focused on ISIL and al Qaeda's presence in Syria…. There is a clear contradiction in Russia's approach to this situation…. Unfortunately, we've seen them devoted too much attention to using their military might to prop up the Assad regime."
The fallacy of Earnest's argument is quite clear as the Russian had declared that they were intervening in Syria against the rebel forces and in support of the Assad regime. So there is no ambiguity in Moscow's intent and actual doing in Syria. Besides, Russia's stated position is that it is not confined to President Assad personally but does not want to see any head of state's removal engineered by the West. It says that such removals as happened in Iraq and Libya created more problems than they were able to solve.
Defence Secretary Ashton Carter's spokesman Peter Cook said: "We are not conducting or coordinating any military operations with Russia at the moment …. And it is not clear that we will ever to do so."
THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT RAISED ALARMS: The proposal may lead to the US to agree to or even participate in striking against the group fighting the Assad regime and they are genuinely alarmed. A NYT report says: "One of the great complications of the Syrian civil war is figuring out which group should be considered rebels focused on ousting the Assad government - a goal of the United States supports - and which are aligned with al-Qaeda or the Islamic State organisations that Washington has designated as terrorist and has vowed to defeat."
The NYT report also reveals that the Nusra Front (an al-Qaeda affiliate) is one of the most effective anti-Assad forces and the US-backed rebels often coordinate their activities with its (Nusra Front) units. Russia has argued that it meant Washington was effectively supporting Nusra and that the American-backed groups were legitimate targets. NYT adds that the opponents clearly believe that "a joint campaign against Nusra would not only concede (to) Russia's point but could also bring American firepower to bear against the strongest anti-Assad military force and sometime partner of Washington allies."
It further reported that till now, the US has not carried out any systematic strikes against the Nusra Front whose members are Syrians, including many who had left the less extremist rebel groups, because "Nusra was better armed and financed." This lopsided reasoning for the US action simply defies logic, if anything.
This also clearly makes what the veteran Middle East correspondent of London daily The Independent Patrick Cockburn reported in December 2015 is acceptable and factually correct. Cockburn said: "The (US-led) coalition has conducted 59,015 sorties in Iraq and Syria starting in August 2014 of which only 8,573 have resulted in air strikes, indicating that the great majority of planes returned to their bases without having used their weapons."
Quoting the highly informed Turkish military analyst Metin Gurcan's Al Monitor website, he wrote: "It is extraordinary that there is not a single (ISIS) control facility that has been hit by allied air strikes." Cockburn then adds: "This… shows that talk of destroying ISIS command and control centres in Raqqa (in Syria) is wishful thinking, given that 2,934 American air strikes in Syria have failed to do so over the last 14 months."
The Cockburn and the NYT stories are not only revealing but also positively argue that the US forces always suffer from utter confusion and a debilitating dilemma in their judgment and actions. This has also clearly exposed Washington's duplicity about its intentions of extricating the ISIL operations from Iraq and Syria. It would, therefore, not be out of place to surmise that the deep division within the US administration is most unlikely to implement any deal between the US and Russia and wipe out the ISIL menace out of the Middle East and bring peace.
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
