2 ms·

> I wanted to learn in which context you've read about that detail (I guess in some articles) as I don't believe you've discovered yourself > That way, I wante

> I wanted to learn in which context you've read about that detail (I guess in some articles) as I don't believe you've discovered yourself > That way, I wanted to get you to say something more, in order to learn more myself. I'm still waiting and hoping to learn how is the discovery of the "backchannel" in e-mails relevant and for what, in your view. Definitely. I heard about the backchannel through international media reporting. You can find plenty of details by searching "Erdogan Assad AKP backchannel." I heard several narratives about the backchannel discovery and subsequent coup attempt. Essentially at that time Turkey was considering (again) a reevaluation of its foreign policy, with an emphasis on Kurdish terrorism in the homeland, sputtering relations with the US, lost energy on regime change as the forces formerly led by Turkish intelligence (the FSA) had dissolved, loss of Turkish admittance into the EU, and a warming relationship between Turkey and Russia - which had earlier been further exasperated by the Turkish downing of Russian planes and the Russian bombing of Syrian Turkmen in the North of the country, and bickering with Saudi Arabia about logistics and outcomes. While this potential pivot in policy was going on, the core of Turkish Military burgeoned to recommit to the alliance to change the Assad regime. The discovery of a backchannel launched what had been building inside the Turkish state in any case, and there was a manifest attempt to remove Erdogan from power and recommit to the alliance. The coup failed with other members of the alliance including the United States failing to condemn it while it was happening. The confluence of interests and actions and partially soured relationships between the administrations led Turkey to blame members of the alliance for any support they may have provided, and at least the United States to spread rumors that the coup was self-initiated. Some hard conversations were had between Turkey and the United States which resulted in a compromise, where the US would abandon much of its support for Kurds in Northern Syria in exchange for continued Turkish activity. With the settlement the Turks invaded Northern Syria splitting what would have been a contiguous autonomous Kurdish zone in two. As part of the settlement the United States would urge that the Kurdish forces would remove themselves from key cities that they had captured from the Islamic State Group. Of course, there's still an 'edge' to the relationship between the rest of the coalition and Turkey, who has not wanted Iraqi Kurdish forces to be supported in the coalition invasion and occupation of Mosul and other Northwestern areas of Iraq (ongoing). It also maintains that, when forces converge on Raqqa, its invading military play a larger role than the Kojave Kurds. Overall, while Turkish commitment to the campaign has wavered over the course of the proxy war, its deal with the United States to look the other way while it ousts its society of critical voices and the US hears in a serious way the long standing US demand that it stop safehousing a political aggravant ("Gulen") has led Turkey to stay its course. At least, that's one narrative. > Also as you consider my "characterization" "not good" I'm interested in your take. It isn't a full whose-who of actors in the region. It doesn't mention other Gulf Countries (Qatar, UAE, Kuwait), it doesn't mention Yemen, it excludes Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. It doesn't include Nusra, any of the splintered opposition groups, the terrorists supported by Israel in Iran, the pipelines being concerned, Russian naval forces - or curiously Russia at all, the United States, Hezbollah and/or Hamas, Iraq and Malaki and AQI and JTJ, etc. Namely looking at Syria as a sectarian war is definitely part of the picture, but you've also got to look at Syria from a Ba'athist historical perspective and US target for regime change, as a Iranian client state, as a key decider in European energy security, as a Russian protectorate, as a victim of European "Ottomanization" (Balkinization). Why does Israel have a stake in the outcome? Why have they supplied ISIL with arms and funding? How about Saudi Arabia? Qatar? The US? Why has Iran supported the regime, send intelligence and military elite and weapons there? Why is Russia supporting the regime, helping it to shape the ground with airpower the Syrian's can't muster? Why did the US ground the Syrian air force? What are the countries at diplomatic meetings trying to barter for themselves, and why isn't Syria invited? Syria is more than a sectarian war, though sectarian tensions are exploited to mobilize people - be those tensions the Druze, Kurds, Shia or Sunni, etc. Here we have a confluence of states with different interests all bidding for different outcomes, and not enough room for compromise for the aggravators, organizers and funders to find terms for a cessation.

acqq 10y ago
Thanks a lot for this longer answer, I fully agree that the sectarian war is far from enough to explain all the interests colliding, I've mentioned other very important players before too. Do you have some specific links or sites that you can recommend for maintaining the balanced view of the events? It's not easy to read between the lines of all the propaganda present.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  I recommend following: - strategy outlets (geostrategy/geopolicy news) like the Strategic Studies Institute, papers out of foreign policy academics, Washington Security Thinktansk. - leaked documents (Wikileaks). When a leaked document or audio clips are mentioned in the news, track them down and listen to the entire thing. Take note of what was said in the article and what was glossed over. - International reporting from other countries. Understand who owns those companies. If you read from al Jazera on Syria recognize that that outlet is controlled by the government of Qatar and that Qatar is at war with Syria. SANA is the name of the Syria news outlet. Check out Der Speigel from Germany, Guardian from UK, RT from Russia, etc. All of it is propaganda, so recognize that when you read and associate the stories that get told with 'who told you'. - Foreign reporting from inside the US (foreign affairs, foreign policy, CNN international, etc). Pull from a lot of sources here. All of it is propaganda, so recognize that when you read and associate the stories that get told with 'who told you'. - Follow press sources. Many news outlets have the same exact information when they report (I won't go here into who controls that information...). So look up press breifings from the State Department and White House and look up the news wire service. It will contain the basic stories without it being 'sexed up' by good looking talking heads and computer generated graphics. - Read history books, particularly military history. Be very careful getting reviews and understanding the reputations of the books and the authors. In general if it's something they could teach a university course with it is probably good. If it's something that is supposed to be 'entertaining' or a quick read it probably isn't. - Read historical documents; like the Downing Street Memos, the 27 pages, the 'raw' version of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the Pentagon Papers. - Learn to read between the lines. Politicians use doublespeak. Things like 'enhanced interrogation' meaning 'torture' or 'communication' and 'information' being terms for propaganda, and 'humanitarian aid' often meaning 'military aid'. This is one of the core skills of politicking. If you don't want to get snared by the wrong impression, you have to be an active and practiced listener. - Read wikipedia! Despite being highly edited for National Security concerns, it still has basic grainy picture of conflicts and events. Traditional encyclopedias are also very good, if not difficult to come by. - Listen to what scholars on a region ("Professor Emeritus of Southeast Asia Studies") have to say about the dynamics of their region of study. - Read the output of strategic thinkers, like Mearsheimer and Brzezinski, and take them seriously. - Be on guard for narratives that are trying to manipulate you. Movies and films and music that makes you want to cry or feel a certain way. Sexy newscasters who state the opinion from their teleprompter but obviously don't have a clue what they are talking about. Sober and somber sounding politicians who talk about a little girl who lost her parents in Conflict Area A. The human interest stuff is great and all, but it's much more useful to understand how to feel than it is to understand what's going on. You don't want to let someone else tell you how to feel. - Remember things! The most insane thing about following modern events is that within single years the story can change and contradict prior versions of itself several times. Most people simply accept this and very readily forget the 'popular consensus' from just a few months back. Keeping notes and comparing them is a decent way to do this. - Insist on consistency. This is a tool to discovering perspective. It's like interrogating a crime scene. You just simply can't talk to one person and make that your report. You NEED to understand how everyone at the scene thinks of it. You need to understand what everyone at the scene has for a motivation. Any individual country is going to condemn the other for bombing a civilian center and justify civilian deaths with "they are being used as human shields!" Insist that every power that makes an accusation/defense like that holds themselves to that criteria (hint, nobody does). This helps to defend against propagandistic exceptionalism from countries who want to motivate you to agree with their perspective and discount others before hearing and understanding them. - I'm sure there's more but I've run out for now.

acqq 10y ago

Thanks a lot for this longer answer, I fully agree that the sectarian war is far from enough to explain all the interests colliding, I've mentioned other very important players before too. Do you have some specific links or sites that you can recommend for maintaining the balanced view of the events? It's not easy to read between the lines of all the propaganda present.

jwtadvice 10y ago
I recommend following: - strategy outlets (geostrategy/geopolicy news) like the Strategic Studies Institute, papers out of foreign policy academics, Washington Security Thinktansk. - leaked documents (Wikileaks). When a leaked document or audio clips are mentioned in the news, track them down and listen to the entire thing. Take note of what was said in the article and what was glossed over. - International reporting from other countries. Understand who owns those companies. If you read from al Jazera on Syria recognize that that outlet is controlled by the government of Qatar and that Qatar is at war with Syria. SANA is the name of the Syria news outlet. Check out Der Speigel from Germany, Guardian from UK, RT from Russia, etc. All of it is propaganda, so recognize that when you read and associate the stories that get told with 'who told you'. - Foreign reporting from inside the US (foreign affairs, foreign policy, CNN international, etc). Pull from a lot of sources here. All of it is propaganda, so recognize that when you read and associate the stories that get told with 'who told you'. - Follow press sources. Many news outlets have the same exact information when they report (I won't go here into who controls that information...). So look up press breifings from the State Department and White House and look up the news wire service. It will contain the basic stories without it being 'sexed up' by good looking talking heads and computer generated graphics. - Read history books, particularly military history. Be very careful getting reviews and understanding the reputations of the books and the authors. In general if it's something they could teach a university course with it is probably good. If it's something that is supposed to be 'entertaining' or a quick read it probably isn't. - Read historical documents; like the Downing Street Memos, the 27 pages, the 'raw' version of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the Pentagon Papers. - Learn to read between the lines. Politicians use doublespeak. Things like 'enhanced interrogation' meaning 'torture' or 'communication' and 'information' being terms for propaganda, and 'humanitarian aid' often meaning 'military aid'. This is one of the core skills of politicking. If you don't want to get snared by the wrong impression, you have to be an active and practiced listener. - Read wikipedia! Despite being highly edited for National Security concerns, it still has basic grainy picture of conflicts and events. Traditional encyclopedias are also very good, if not difficult to come by. - Listen to what scholars on a region ("Professor Emeritus of Southeast Asia Studies") have to say about the dynamics of their region of study. - Read the output of strategic thinkers, like Mearsheimer and Brzezinski, and take them seriously. - Be on guard for narratives that are trying to manipulate you. Movies and films and music that makes you want to cry or feel a certain way. Sexy newscasters who state the opinion from their teleprompter but obviously don't have a clue what they are talking about. Sober and somber sounding politicians who talk about a little girl who lost her parents in Conflict Area A. The human interest stuff is great and all, but it's much more useful to understand how to feel than it is to understand what's going on. You don't want to let someone else tell you how to feel. - Remember things! The most insane thing about following modern events is that within single years the story can change and contradict prior versions of itself several times. Most people simply accept this and very readily forget the 'popular consensus' from just a few months back. Keeping notes and comparing them is a decent way to do this. - Insist on consistency. This is a tool to discovering perspective. It's like interrogating a crime scene. You just simply can't talk to one person and make that your report. You NEED to understand how everyone at the scene thinks of it. You need to understand what everyone at the scene has for a motivation. Any individual country is going to condemn the other for bombing a civilian center and justify civilian deaths with "they are being used as human shields!" Insist that every power that makes an accusation/defense like that holds themselves to that criteria (hint, nobody does). This helps to defend against propagandistic exceptionalism from countries who want to motivate you to agree with their perspective and discount others before hearing and understanding them. - I'm sure there's more but I've run out for now.