Posted on 09/29/2015 4:00:51 PM PDT by Kaslin
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) was prophetic at CNN’s GOP presidential debate Sept. 16, predicting that Russia would continue to exploit a vacuum in the Middle East and “prop up” Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to demonstrate to the Middle East it was the most important power broker there.
The Obama administration was admittedly caught by surprise this week when Russia announced an intelligence-sharing agreement with Iran, Syria and Iraq to battle the Islamic State, another example of Vladimir Putin expanding his influence in the region after he deployed warplanes and tanks to help Assad earlier this month. Over the weekend, Russia announced it would step up its military support to prevent the collapse of Assad, which Putin believes would be destabilizing.
This, Rubio said at the time, is Putin’s vision for repositioning Russia “as a geopolitical force.”
“It’s pretty straightforward,” Rubio said at the debate. “[Putin] wants to reposition Russia, once again, as a geopolitical force … He’s trying to destroy NATO. And this is what this is a part of. He is exploiting a vacuum that this administration has left in the Middle East. Here’s what you’re going to see in the next few weeks: the Russians will begin to fly combat missions in that region, not just targeting ISIS, but in order to prop up Assad. He will also, then, turn to other countries in the region and say, ‘America is no longer a reliable ally, Egypt. America is no longer a reliable ally, Saudi Arabia. Begin to rely on us.’
“What he is doing is he is trying to replace us as the single most important power broker in the Middle East, and this president is allowing it.”
Such overtures from Russia on fighting IS and expansion of influence into Syria and Iraq are “exactly what the Arab world hoped to obtain from a foreign power”, the Wall Street Journal reports:
Russia’s influence in the Middle East has grown steadily since the fall of the Soviet Union largely because of its alliance with Iran. As Iran severed ties with the U.S. and reduced alliances with Western countries, it looked toward Russia for economic trade and military assistance. The two nations also shared the common interest of reducing the U.S.’s influence in the region.
Now Iraq and Syria appear to be following Iran’s trend in turning to Russia, as opposed to the U.S., as a new patron. Russia’s swift and forceful foray into Syria and Iraq while voicing clear commitment to fight Islamic State at whatever cost is exactly what the Arab world hoped to obtain from a foreign power.
The Russian leader has been bulking up forces and bases in Syria in moves U.S. officials say are designed to safeguard Mr. Assad and his regime. Over the weekend, Iraq revealed that it had signed an agreement to share intelligence with Russia, Iran and Syria, and an Iraqi defense official said on Monday that the country would welcome Russian surveillance flights over Iraq.
Full exchange:
JAKE TAPPER: Senator Rubio, you’ve taken a very different approach to the – the question of Russia. You’ve called Vladimir Putin a, quote, “gangster.” Why would President Rubio’s approach be more effective than President Trump’s?
MARCO RUBIO: Well, first of all, I have an understanding of exactly what it is Russia and Putin are doing, and it’s pretty straightforward. He wants to reposition Russia, once again, as a geopolitical force. He himself said that the destruction of the Soviet Union – the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, and now he’s trying to reverse that. He’s trying to destroy NATO. And this is what this is a part of. He is exploiting a vacuum that this administration has left in the Middle East.
Here’s what you’re going to see in the next few weeks: the Russians will begin to fly – fly combat missions in that region, not just targeting ISIS, but in order to prop up Assad. He will also, then, turn to other countries in the region and say, “America is no longer a reliable ally, Egypt. America is no longer a reliable ally, Saudi Arabia. Begin to rely on us.” What he is doing is he is trying to replace us as the single most important power broker in the Middle East, and this president is allowing it. That is what is happening in the Middle East. That’s what’s happening with Russia, and–
TAPPER: Thank you, Senator Rubio.
I think this is where Trump shows his lack of depth.
Saying we “shouldn’t be jealous of Russia” in Syria, doesn’t really indicate an understand of the large and dangerous implications.
Yes, but we can hold the other candidates to the same criteria or whether they would be as pathetic as Obama.
Obama is in the process of doing the same in Afghanistan.
If others understand it so well, what would they do about it? I don’t think it is a lack of understanding as much as it is an acceptance of the reality on the ground now. This is not a good turn of events but how do you get Russia out at this point, short of throwing them out?
Yes, he is. has single handedly ruined more countries and made us more unsafe than any other president in history.
yet he still gets 44 percent approval.
i can’t say what i’d like to do to that 44 percent.
if a nuke goes off in NYC, i’m on staten island so i’ll probably live 5 or 10 minutes longer than them and i will relish that so many liberals got what they deserve.
And my dying wish would be to utterly annihilate the middle east with nukes.
But let’s hope this never happens.
Strange how these pro-Rubio pieces are popping up this week. The GOPe is desperate.
Rubio also claims to oppose PP and the Iran deal, yet he didn’t show up to vote against the current support for them.....Kind of like an arsonist showing up at the site of the burnt out hulk and saying - “Look, it burned”.
So I said the same things,why doesn’t he say that Benghazi is tied to Syria and Egypt as well,Putin was involved in Benghazi as well,he won’t blow the whistle on Hillary and Obama because he wants the Pathetic Democrats to stay in charge as he marches on.
What do you think was going on in Benghazi? Hillary and Obama were arming jihadists atnd shipping them to Syria to depose Assad,Putin knew it and put a stop to it.
He could blow them out of the water but he won’t,he’s not an idiot like Rubio and Hillary and Obama.
GO TED CRUZ
This administration has a little more than a year to do more harm, Russia stepping in might slow or realign some of that. Chances are Putin will win victories in the Mideast primarily for propaganda rather than wiping anyone out. Total victory for Putin would be establishing forward bases and a presence that will endure for many years.
A new President will be faced with dealing with Russia in all things Middle East, adding to the complications of Israel, friendly Arab states, radical Islam, energy markets and so on.
In some ways I think Obama has done us a favor however unintentionally. Future Presidents must assume any red-line warning will be ignored until someone truly regrets stepping over it. Inflicting shame, ruin, humiliation and destruction on violators in full world public view is....
Un-American?
-——A new President will be faced with——
That is in my view the salient point
Remember “Bushes Fault” mantra? Obama wants to leave the new President a terrible mess. He knows it will be a Republican and is vindictive
Except I don’t think Obama meant for Putting to get into Syria. I believe it genuinely surprised the narcissistic pansy that Putin would dare to do this. I think pretty much everybody but the “smartest President ever” saw it coming. I think Obama truly is think as a brick.
As you no doubt realize, it's not a problem that came up overnight and not one that can be fixed quickly. It goes back far, at least as far as Carter; and the last seven years have been a disaster for the Middle East, in large part due to Obama and Hillary.
Fixing it will take time, leadership, will and skill.
If others understand it so well
Some understand it better than others. I'd put Paul, Carson and Trump near the bottom of the list.
“Fixing it will take time, leadership, will and skill”
That is kind of my point, there is really nothing we can do about it right now. Recognizing that is a good thing in my view. I would not rate any candidates high on a list of knowing what it do about the way Obama has screwed us worldwide. Who would you put at the top of your list? I can’t think of one that’s said or done anything to impress me with their foreign policy acumen. It is going to come down to somebody hiring very good people to come up with plans for dealing with the Russian and the messes Obama has made everywhere in the world and it is also going to take a tough negotiator that our allies and enemies can believe.
I'm with you there. Obviously, again, they have to understand the basics, have good judgement and pick and manage good advisors.
To me, it's easier to rule out than to rule in at this point, and on the above criteria, I rule out Paul, Carson and Trump.
It's early. In my ideal world the debates would allow a serious and in-depth discussion/argument on foreign policy particularly as it relates to Islam/Middle East.
I hope some of that happens but realistically I'm prepared for not much.
Thanks for your reply.
Why Paul, Carson and Trump? I do not think they are any worse than any other candidate in this area and Trump may understand more than most people. Do you think sitting in the Senate for less than a term or being a Governor conveys automatic foreign policy expertise on people? Trump is the only candidate I have heard publicly pointing out that the “Syrian refugees” appear to be mostly military age males and that Mexico has been pushing us their problems for years. Both statements are undeniably true and I have heard no other candidate speak to them. I think he has a better grasp on those aspects than anyone else. I would also suggest that because they have both run multi-national businesses, Trump and Fiorina have more real experience dealing with foreign concerns than anybody else running as a republican.
As for Trump, first, understanding the basics. This comment of his indicates to me, he doesn't understand the basic power structure and what's at stake:
"Maybe let Russia do it. Let them get rid of ISIS. What the hell do we care?"He doesn't get what Russia's presence in Syria means now, what's really going on.
So, that's one example of why he gets my thumb down as far as understanding the basics.
The second criteria is choosing the right advisers/team. Trump thought Hillary would be a good choice to negotiate with Iran.
Strike one.
Strike two is his judgement of Obama's advisers one year in to his term:
He has also surrounded himself with very competent people, and that’s the mark of a strong leader. I have confidence he will do his best, and we have someone who is serious about resolving the problems we have and will be facing in the future.So, on the understanding the basics and judgement and picking the right advisors.. I rule Trump out.And I'm not sure that I'd rate his multi-national business experience as highly as others. I do think this is a plus for Fiorina, but I'm not sure Trump's experience is up to this level??
- Donald Trump "Think Like A Champion" 2009
And, I'm guessing we agree about Paul. :)
Do you think sitting in the Senate for less than a term or being a Governor conveys automatic foreign policy expertise on people?
I'd have to say Senator more than governor (though governor is better in terms of executive experience.)
We're kinda looking in the weeds here, but these are Cruz's subcommittes:
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee on Seapower
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
As regards national defense, that's gotta be worth more than experience in governorship or real estate/television.
Fiorina was on the Defense Business Board, and led the Central Intelligence Agency's External Advisory Board. I really don't know what that's worth; but, in terms of learning something related to national defense it has to be better than surgeon. :)
Not a Fiorina supporter on other issues. Just trying to compare with you the candidates experience as it relates to foreign policy and national defense.
“Maybe let Russia do it. Let them get rid of ISIS. What the hell do we care?”
I think he probably gets it but knows there is not much we can do about it. I do not see accepting reality on the ground as a bad thing but it gets back to the original question, what to do about it short of fighting Russia? I have not heard a lot of ideas from any of the candidates so far.
Lots of people said nice things about Obama when he first got elected. Obviously many people at that time agreed with what Trump said as I seem to recall that Obama had very high approval for the first couple of years or so of his Presidency. I think that is one of the reasons the DC Republicans are still afraid to go after him. It is what people started saying once he showed himself to be a disaster that matters. McConnell, Boner and other DC republicans are still bending over backwards to work with Obama. The only one running who has really tried to stop him is Cruz. What have any of the other candidates in a position to stop Obama done?
Graham and McCain have sat on more committees for decades longer. Do you trust them on National defense? I don’t think it has helped them much. Trump had the Speaker of the Indonesian congress with him at one of his speeches. Knowing and talking to people like that counts more to me than sitting on a committee. I do like Ted Cruz but that is because he is Ted Cruz, not because he sat on some do nothing committee.
I like Cruz. Carly is a no-go in my book.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.