Something to Look Forward To Tomorrow

Tomorrow a British judge will release the report of his findings regarding the radioactive poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko, according to a report on the AP news service.  For my two cents, it should be interesting reading and highly speculative as none of the accused Russians have testified.  So, I look forward to reading the report and will remain skeptical of any conclusions that are reached.

Is the Cold War Back? Did it Ever Go Away?

I read blog posts from my mentors and former professors regularly.  Particularly I still read Dr. Saideman's Blog (Saideman's Semi-Spew) on a routine basis.  Usually some good stuff to think about and much that I find humorous in the presentation.  Yesterday he posted about a presentation he gave at a NATO Association of Canada conference.  Apparently the Russian representatives in the room were not thrilled with Steve's presentation. 

One line caught my attention.  "Anyhow, I realized that the Russians do a fine job of making me take hardline stances--that the cold war is back and we might as well remember the old playbook of tripwires and credible commitments."  So, I asked myself is the Cold War back?  For my two cents, I am not sure, particularly as I have been stressing to students for about 15 years the need to remove ourselves from Cold War mentality in determining security threats, security needs, and strategic planning.  Then I thought about my critique of U.S. foreign policy and strategic decision-making in the last 20+ years and realized that indeed most of the decision makers are Cold War bred.  So I ask now, did the Cold War ever end?

Boots or Sneakers on the Ground in Syria--Does it Change the Game?

The big news of the past few days is that the U.S. will be sending Special Forces troops (U.S. Army contingent in U.S. Special Operations Command) to Syria to work with rebels there who are anti-ISIS, anti-Al-Nusra, anti-Assad.  What does this activity represent? 

I do not believe it represents an intent to escalate U.S. activity in the area.  We will continue to provide air strikes, limited ammunition to some allies, some intelligence support and other logistic support.  I also do not believe that it represents a caving-in to the "we have to do something/we have to do more" crowd.  In fact, I am not really sure that this action has any immediate impact on Assad, Al-Nusra, or ISIS.

For my two cents, it is a means of sending a message to the Russians.  By embedding U.S. Special Forces with some anti-Assad rebels, we make it difficult for the Russians to continue air strikes and support for Syrian Government ground attacks.  While the Russians are willing to negotiate (as long as Assad remains in power (for now) and Iran is involved) they had not backed down from their activities which were designed to carve out a coastal zone of control for the Assad government.  Now the Russians have to slow down and determine if the "terrorists" they are attacking on behalf of the Syrian government are "good terrorists" or "bad terrorists".  After all, according to the Russians all Syrian rebels are terrorists and all terrorists are bad terrorists.  Laissez les bon temps rouler