Red Lines, Blurry Lines, No Lines

RED LINES, BLURRY LINES, NO LINES

The RED LINE.

in “Thin Blue Line USA” at https://www.thinbluelineusa.com/products/thin-red-line-flag-with-grommets  

Barack Obama drew an infamous Red Line over the use of chemical weapons by Syria´s government. The Syrians crossed the line and nothing happened. Overwhelmed by fear, outfoxed by Vladimir Putin, struggling with Congress, Obama froze. And nothing happened.

Donald Trump had no Red Lines, or otherwise. No lines. However, the moment the Syrian regime allegedly launched a limited chemical attack in Idlib province, the United States retaliated by launching a 60 Tomahawk cruise missile attack on a Syrian Arab Air Force base.

NO LINES

in “Depositphotos” at http://pt.depositphotos.com/23859543/stock-illustration-black-watercolor-blank-speech-bubble.html

So, one had a clear line and did zilch. The other had no lines and attacked promptly. Where does this leave us? It leaves us with blurry lines, with a grey area of uncertainty, further undermining the credibility and reliability of the United States. This could be good to a certain extent, but, on the other hand, it can also be a conflict-enhancer; in a dubious conflict environment the safest option is to assume the worst, thus increasing the possibilities of the worst happening.

Barack Obama was outmanoeuvred by Putin in 2013, losing the trust of American allies in Europe and the Middle East.

Donald Trump wanted to show he was tough and opened the way to increase the acrimony between Moscow and Washington and to further complicate the already complex and messy Syrian war theatre.

 

BLURRY LINES

in “Airbrush Talk” at http://www.airbrushtalk.com/abtv14n2.htm

Nothing augurs well for Syria and the Blurry Lines will not help.

Ceasefire? Fire!

CEASEFIRE? FIRE!

 

War-ravaged Syria.

in “THE INDEPENDENT” at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-civil-war-isis-how-it-changed-the-world-refugee-crisis-a6928796.html

 The Syrian War ceasefire agreed upon by Russia and the United States lasted for a meagre 10 days and then followed its February predecessor’s fate: the ceasefire unravelled as all sides, groups and factions chose to fire instead of ceasing it.

The ceasefire was ill-fated from the start:

* It took Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry 3 months to negotiate the agreement, proof that it was hard to reach.

* The ceasefire’ signatories were Moscow and Washington. Then they had to press and persuade their allies, proxies and their allies’ proxies to abide by it. Judging from the disparate goals, agendas and priorities of the myriad actors involved, this was a very long shot.

* It was opposed by many rebel groups, because it demanded them to part ways with Jabhat Al Nusra, which is the most effective and the most extremist rebel group aside the Islamic State, and its loss was viewed as a blow to the rebels’ combat capabilities.

* Although Damascus accepted the agreement, it was not happy with the severe limitations imposed on the use of its air force. Besides, it feels it is getting closer to recover the whole of Aleppo, which would not happen if there is an enduring truce.

So, it is no surprise that there was a lull in the fighting, but that the skirmishes never ceased entirely.

Ironically, it was the US who eventually put the final nail in the ceasefire’s coffin when she bombed thrice a Syrian Army position, killing 80 soldiers who were fighting the Islamci state in the Deir El Zour area, in Eastern Syria.

Following the attack, Syria declared the ceasefire terminated and everything went back to normal in Syria. FIRE! FIRE AWAY!!!

 

A Syrian Army T-72 tank fires at rebel positions in Jobar.

in “YOUTUBE” at www.youtube.com