During a meeting of the House of Representative's Foreign Affairs Committee, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs were asked many questions about Russia's role in Syria, ISIS, and the region at-large. Many of the questions, from both Democratic and Republican representatives were what would traditionally be expected; "How does the US counter Russia?", "How can the US overthrow Assad?", "Why isn't the US doing more in the Middle East?", and "Are we abandoning our allies in the Gulf?". While it is expected that US Congressmen may not fully grasp historical context, geo-politics, and associated nuances impacting the modern world, it has been understood the that State Department suffered much less from those deficiencies (many reading this would argue that Hilary Clinton's State Department was even more capable). However, as these two Assistant Secretaries demonstrated, that isn't necessarily the case.
The Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs is Anne W. Patterson. She was first brought to prominence as the Ambassador to El Salvador, having been nominated by President Clinton. She would serve under every president since. Prior, she had served in lower ranking roles starting under President Nixon as a regular Foreign Service Officer.
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs is none-other-than Victoria Nuland. If this name rings a bell, it is likely due to her leaked phone conversation where she was secretly strategizing the removal of Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych, which opposition figure should replace him, and telling the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine to "F*ck the EU!". Such plotting was used by the pro-Russian parties within Ukraine to justify annexation of the Crimea and partitioning of the eastern territories to Russian backed separatists. Prior to gaining prominance as the U.S. Ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush, she was Vice President Dick Cheney's principal deputy foreign policy adviser and President Clinton's chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott.
So, what could this team say that would prove to be beneath their levels of professionalism and what could a Republican representative say that is not related to Benghazi or Hilary Clinton's emails? The following is what:
DR: The Russians are a power with interests just as the US is. The double standard we judge Russia with is overwhelming. How horrible that Russia wants to keep Assad, yet we support Saudi Arabia's dictatorship that would murder thousands of people to stay in power? What about other Gulf states that would kill their people to stay in power? Assad may even be better, as the Gulf's form of Islam putts them at odds with Shiites and Sunnis killing each other. This double standard has caused great hardships. Putin tried to work out a compromise a few years ago that would have created a semblance of stability in Syria, and now Syria has gone to hell and we still can't look at Putin as a partner in cooperation to make things better. This hostility has prevented us creating a policy which will create stability in the middle east. We made an agreement with Putin about DR: Khadafy, what happened? What happened? We got rid of Khadafy and the "alternative" didn't make it better. Half of Libya now wants to attack the US. Had we worked with the Russians, the situation would be different and better, stable. There were also monstrous charges against the US forces in Iraq; how horrible it was that the US was murdering people by the thousands! These reports were lies by people wanting to see through a political end claiming we were killing thousands in Iraqies. Is it possible that the reports on Assad may also be exaggerated to achieve certain political ends? I think so. here is the question:
DR: If Assad is removed and we get this "alternative" why won't it be different than Lybia with radical Islamists? And why won't they come in and replace the "alternative" and be to be our worse nightmare? Why won't that happen in Syria?
AP: With respect, Assad is not comparable with the Gulf rulers. Those countries are not in our image, but there is no way that they oppress their citizens or kill their citizens as Assad has.
DR: Are you saying they would not do that if their citizens decided to rise up?
AP: That is what I'm saying. I know Saudi Arabia well. That is not what they'd do. That is not how things work there. The international community says the government would remain in place in Syria. The goal is only to remove Assad and his advisors. In Libya, there were no institutions.
DR: Why is it in the US interests to make that decision in Syria? Why does the US have to step into a far off land and perfect it? We know the Islamists are standing on the sideline waiting for a weak government.
AP: Because our national security is at stake in the region, including our allies in the Persian Gulf, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey is affected by what happens in Syria.
DR: OUR POLICIRES ARE MAKING THE SITUATION WORSE. Dealing with Putin could make it more stable. Our friends would be better off. Current policy of getting rid of Putin and Assad isn't working.
Additional conversation between AP and Rep. Joaquin Castro (D) and Rep. Randy Weber (R) help to further describe the thinking of the State Department leadership.
JQ: Why aren't the Gulf countries taking refugees?
AP: Our Gulf partners have been generous with funding, giving hundreds of millions. The Gulf countries do not take in refugees. They only take guest workers.
RW: Why won't they take refugees?
AP: They have different types of societies. They have close ties with the US for military and intelligence.
RW: They could put up temporary camps, right? Wouldn't the Gulf have an easier time feeding and sheltering these people?
AP: The Europeans have an easier time feeding and taking care of these people due to better social services and infrastructure than the Gulf.
So, what have we learned from this exchange?
1. The US State Department does not believe the Gulf monarchies would use deadly force to keep their citizens from rising up against them. Yet it is exactly that fear which has led to Saud Arabia establishing a special "National Guard" whose sole purpose is to protect against internal uprisings. It is that fear which led KSA to invade Bahrain in 2011 to suppress an uprising by the Shiite, democratic, and secular majorities against the Sunni monarchy.
2. The Gulf monarchies (especially KSA) cannot be compared to Assad because Assad kills his own people. This is in light of the fact that Assad believes he is suppressing an uprising hostile to his regime, not unlike the KSA assault of the Houthi rebels in Yemen (which has killed thousands) and the aforementioned invasion of Bahrain. Further, this completely omits the fact that Syria had a secular society with equal rights for women and minorities, whereas converting to Christianity and blogging are punishable by death in KSA, women cannot drive on their own, women are considered property, and execution by head chopping is still practiced (not to mention KSA is explicitly a dictatorship of the Saudi Royal Family, compared to a de-jure parliamentary republic which is a de-facto dictatorship but still maintain civil law).
3. The State Department's stance is that the Gulf nations, which share a religion, language, and thousands of years of history have less in common with Syria than do European nations which haven't had a major cultural exchange with Syrian since the Crusades (notwithstanding French mandate post WWI). Considering that Syrian practiced secularism and rights for minorities and women, the state very well may have had more in common with Europe (however, I doubt this is what was meant).
4. European nations such as Greece, Hungary, and Croatia have better social services and infrastructure than Gulf states. Whereas, according to the CIA Fact Book, Greece has a GDP/capita of $26,000, with a national GDP of 285B. KSA has a GDP/capita of $53,000 and a national GDP of 1.7T. Greece also happens to be a bit farther away than KSA. It seems obvious that the resources of the Gulf are far greater than those of the EU (which has been fighting off national defaults, low growth, and energy shortages for years).
5. The security of Turkey, Israel, and the Gulf nations is our security. Yet all of these nations are either directly or indirectly supporting ISIS, which has been declared enemy number 1 by the USA. Not to mention Turkey's campaign against the Kurds, the same Kurds who President Obama just sent 50 Special Forces operators to train and equip.
6. The State Department believes that it can remove Assad, while still leaving a government in place. This seems disconnected since the State Department also believes that Assad is all powerful and controls everything. It also seems to go against all of the historical evidence of Libya and Iraq (both cases were also supposed to allow an easy transition). Furthermore, Libya and Iraq didn't have four years of brutal civil war prior to their dictators being overthrown and have immense oil wealth, yet both have slid into failed state status.
It is mind boggling how President Obama and Secretaries Clinton and Kerry would keep such powerful, yet completely wrong, people on staff. To be called out by a republican congressmen no-less, and yet still completely dismissive of the facts presented. It is dumbfounding.
See the whole interview here:
http://www.c-span.org/...