超级军网华尔街日报承认：美国在中东的影响力大幅下降
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 11:54:13
华尔街日报是主流的保守派报纸，从来代表的都是大资本家，极端保守势力和超级富豪
我翻译能力不行，那位有时间翻译一下
大体上说美国在中东的影响力巨降，核心的地缘优势一去不复返，俄罗斯一脚踏进来，现在连以色列都在某些关键问题上疏远美国(以色列对俄罗斯在叙利亚的行为保持沉默，对于俄罗斯吞并克里米亚投弃权票等)，主要国家对于美国的安全承诺持怀疑态度，美国老百姓对于美国失去(中东地缘政治的绝对)优势不关心,伊拉克对美国抱怨多多，美国10年前在伊拉克的巨大牺牲换来的是地缘政治的失败 等等等等等等等等等等等等
America’s Fading Footprint in the Middle East
As Russia bombs and Iran plots, the U.S. role is shrinking—and the region’s major players are looking for new ways to advance their own interests
Despised by some, admired by others, the U.S. has been the Middle East’s principal power for decades, providing its allies with guidance and protection.
Now, however, with Russia and Iran thrusting themselves boldly into the region’s affairs, that special role seems to be melting away. As seasoned politicians and diplomats survey the mayhem, they struggle to recall a moment when America counted for so little in the Middle East—and when it was held in such contempt, by friend and foe alike.
“It’s the lowest ebb since World War II for U.S. influence and engagement in the region,” said Ryan Crocker, a career diplomat who served as the Obama administration’s ambassador to Afghanistan and before that as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan.
From shepherding Israel toward peace with its Arab neighbors to rolling back Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait and halting the contagion of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, the U.S. has long been at the core of the Middle East’s security system. Its military might secured critical trade routes and the bulk of the world’s oil supply. Today, the void created by U.S. withdrawal is being filled by the very powers that American policy has long sought to contain.
Related Reading
“If you look at the heart of the Middle East, where the U.S. once was, we are now gone—and in our place, we have Iran, Iran’s Shiite proxies, Islamic State and the Russians,” added Mr. Crocker, now dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. “What had been a time and place of U.S. ascendancy we have ceded to our adversaries.”
Of course, the U.S. retains a formidable presence across the greater Middle East, with some 45,000 troops in the region and deep ties with friendly intelligence services and partners in power from Pakistan to Morocco. Even after U.S. pullbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, America’s military might in the region dwarfs Russia’s recent deployment to Syria of a few dozen warplanes and a few thousand troops. And as the Obama administration has argued, it isn’t these disengagements but the regional overstretch under President George W. Bush that undermined America’s international standing.
Advertisement
Still, ever since the Arab Spring upended the Middle East’s established order in 2011, America’s ability to influence the region has been sapped by a growing conviction that a risk-averse Washington, focused on a foreign-policy pivot to Asia, just doesn’t want to exercise its traditional Middle Eastern leadership role anymore. 华尔街日报是主流的保守派报纸，从来代表的都是大资本家，极端保守势力和超级富豪
我翻译能力不行，那位有时间翻译一下
大体上说美国在中东的影响力巨降，核心的地缘优势一去不复返，俄罗斯一脚踏进来，现在连以色列都在某些关键问题上疏远美国(以色列对俄罗斯在叙利亚的行为保持沉默，对于俄罗斯吞并克里米亚投弃权票等)，主要国家对于美国的安全承诺持怀疑态度，美国老百姓对于美国失去(中东地缘政治的绝对)优势不关心,伊拉克对美国抱怨多多，美国10年前在伊拉克的巨大牺牲换来的是地缘政治的失败 等等等等等等等等等等等等
America’s Fading Footprint in the Middle East
As Russia bombs and Iran plots, the U.S. role is shrinking—and the region’s major players are looking for new ways to advance their own interests
Despised by some, admired by others, the U.S. has been the Middle East’s principal power for decades, providing its allies with guidance and protection.
Now, however, with Russia and Iran thrusting themselves boldly into the region’s affairs, that special role seems to be melting away. As seasoned politicians and diplomats survey the mayhem, they struggle to recall a moment when America counted for so little in the Middle East—and when it was held in such contempt, by friend and foe alike.
“It’s the lowest ebb since World War II for U.S. influence and engagement in the region,” said Ryan Crocker, a career diplomat who served as the Obama administration’s ambassador to Afghanistan and before that as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan.
From shepherding Israel toward peace with its Arab neighbors to rolling back Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait and halting the contagion of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, the U.S. has long been at the core of the Middle East’s security system. Its military might secured critical trade routes and the bulk of the world’s oil supply. Today, the void created by U.S. withdrawal is being filled by the very powers that American policy has long sought to contain.
Related Reading
“If you look at the heart of the Middle East, where the U.S. once was, we are now gone—and in our place, we have Iran, Iran’s Shiite proxies, Islamic State and the Russians,” added Mr. Crocker, now dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. “What had been a time and place of U.S. ascendancy we have ceded to our adversaries.”
Of course, the U.S. retains a formidable presence across the greater Middle East, with some 45,000 troops in the region and deep ties with friendly intelligence services and partners in power from Pakistan to Morocco. Even after U.S. pullbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, America’s military might in the region dwarfs Russia’s recent deployment to Syria of a few dozen warplanes and a few thousand troops. And as the Obama administration has argued, it isn’t these disengagements but the regional overstretch under President George W. Bush that undermined America’s international standing.
Advertisement
Still, ever since the Arab Spring upended the Middle East’s established order in 2011, America’s ability to influence the region has been sapped by a growing conviction that a risk-averse Washington, focused on a foreign-policy pivot to Asia, just doesn’t want to exercise its traditional Middle Eastern leadership role anymore.
我翻译能力不行，那位有时间翻译一下
大体上说美国在中东的影响力巨降，核心的地缘优势一去不复返，俄罗斯一脚踏进来，现在连以色列都在某些关键问题上疏远美国(以色列对俄罗斯在叙利亚的行为保持沉默，对于俄罗斯吞并克里米亚投弃权票等)，主要国家对于美国的安全承诺持怀疑态度，美国老百姓对于美国失去(中东地缘政治的绝对)优势不关心,伊拉克对美国抱怨多多，美国10年前在伊拉克的巨大牺牲换来的是地缘政治的失败 等等等等等等等等等等等等
America’s Fading Footprint in the Middle East
As Russia bombs and Iran plots, the U.S. role is shrinking—and the region’s major players are looking for new ways to advance their own interests
Despised by some, admired by others, the U.S. has been the Middle East’s principal power for decades, providing its allies with guidance and protection.
Now, however, with Russia and Iran thrusting themselves boldly into the region’s affairs, that special role seems to be melting away. As seasoned politicians and diplomats survey the mayhem, they struggle to recall a moment when America counted for so little in the Middle East—and when it was held in such contempt, by friend and foe alike.
“It’s the lowest ebb since World War II for U.S. influence and engagement in the region,” said Ryan Crocker, a career diplomat who served as the Obama administration’s ambassador to Afghanistan and before that as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan.
From shepherding Israel toward peace with its Arab neighbors to rolling back Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait and halting the contagion of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, the U.S. has long been at the core of the Middle East’s security system. Its military might secured critical trade routes and the bulk of the world’s oil supply. Today, the void created by U.S. withdrawal is being filled by the very powers that American policy has long sought to contain.
Related Reading
“If you look at the heart of the Middle East, where the U.S. once was, we are now gone—and in our place, we have Iran, Iran’s Shiite proxies, Islamic State and the Russians,” added Mr. Crocker, now dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. “What had been a time and place of U.S. ascendancy we have ceded to our adversaries.”
Of course, the U.S. retains a formidable presence across the greater Middle East, with some 45,000 troops in the region and deep ties with friendly intelligence services and partners in power from Pakistan to Morocco. Even after U.S. pullbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, America’s military might in the region dwarfs Russia’s recent deployment to Syria of a few dozen warplanes and a few thousand troops. And as the Obama administration has argued, it isn’t these disengagements but the regional overstretch under President George W. Bush that undermined America’s international standing.
Advertisement
Still, ever since the Arab Spring upended the Middle East’s established order in 2011, America’s ability to influence the region has been sapped by a growing conviction that a risk-averse Washington, focused on a foreign-policy pivot to Asia, just doesn’t want to exercise its traditional Middle Eastern leadership role anymore. 华尔街日报是主流的保守派报纸，从来代表的都是大资本家，极端保守势力和超级富豪
我翻译能力不行，那位有时间翻译一下
大体上说美国在中东的影响力巨降，核心的地缘优势一去不复返，俄罗斯一脚踏进来，现在连以色列都在某些关键问题上疏远美国(以色列对俄罗斯在叙利亚的行为保持沉默，对于俄罗斯吞并克里米亚投弃权票等)，主要国家对于美国的安全承诺持怀疑态度，美国老百姓对于美国失去(中东地缘政治的绝对)优势不关心,伊拉克对美国抱怨多多，美国10年前在伊拉克的巨大牺牲换来的是地缘政治的失败 等等等等等等等等等等等等
America’s Fading Footprint in the Middle East
As Russia bombs and Iran plots, the U.S. role is shrinking—and the region’s major players are looking for new ways to advance their own interests
Despised by some, admired by others, the U.S. has been the Middle East’s principal power for decades, providing its allies with guidance and protection.
Now, however, with Russia and Iran thrusting themselves boldly into the region’s affairs, that special role seems to be melting away. As seasoned politicians and diplomats survey the mayhem, they struggle to recall a moment when America counted for so little in the Middle East—and when it was held in such contempt, by friend and foe alike.
“It’s the lowest ebb since World War II for U.S. influence and engagement in the region,” said Ryan Crocker, a career diplomat who served as the Obama administration’s ambassador to Afghanistan and before that as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan.
From shepherding Israel toward peace with its Arab neighbors to rolling back Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait and halting the contagion of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, the U.S. has long been at the core of the Middle East’s security system. Its military might secured critical trade routes and the bulk of the world’s oil supply. Today, the void created by U.S. withdrawal is being filled by the very powers that American policy has long sought to contain.
Related Reading
“If you look at the heart of the Middle East, where the U.S. once was, we are now gone—and in our place, we have Iran, Iran’s Shiite proxies, Islamic State and the Russians,” added Mr. Crocker, now dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. “What had been a time and place of U.S. ascendancy we have ceded to our adversaries.”
Of course, the U.S. retains a formidable presence across the greater Middle East, with some 45,000 troops in the region and deep ties with friendly intelligence services and partners in power from Pakistan to Morocco. Even after U.S. pullbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, America’s military might in the region dwarfs Russia’s recent deployment to Syria of a few dozen warplanes and a few thousand troops. And as the Obama administration has argued, it isn’t these disengagements but the regional overstretch under President George W. Bush that undermined America’s international standing.
Advertisement
Still, ever since the Arab Spring upended the Middle East’s established order in 2011, America’s ability to influence the region has been sapped by a growing conviction that a risk-averse Washington, focused on a foreign-policy pivot to Asia, just doesn’t want to exercise its traditional Middle Eastern leadership role anymore.
小布什上台到奥黑，十五年完全失败的中东政策，影响力不下降才是见鬼了。 伊朗伊拉克叙利亚埃及利比亚， 美国的介入有一个成功的范例吗？
另外一篇报道说奥巴马在叙利亚问题上选择越来越窄 该报的读者大多对奥巴马持强烈的批评态度。
Obama’s Options Narrow in Syria
Pentagon abandons plan to build rebel army as U.S. suggests Assad could remain for a time
WASHINGTON—Ten days into a Russian military campaign that has upended U.S. policy in Syria, President Barack Obama is picking from two bad options for how to respond.
The U.S. is hesitant to become more involved in Syria’s bloody and messy civil war, at the risk of forcing a proxy war with Russia. The president’s goal continues to be resisting any greater U.S. military commitment, aides say.
That leaves one other choice: to accept Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s hold on power, even though U.S. policy calls for his removal, and hope to negotiate his exit when the battlefield is less volatile.
On Friday, the Pentagon said it would abandon its failed, $500-million program to build an army of opposition fighters in Syria in favor of an effort to directly arm favored Syrian rebel commanders to fight Islamic State.
U.S. officials are no longer demanding Mr. Assad must step down immediately. Rather they are advocating a “managed” transition in which Mr. Assad could remain in Syria for some time.
The U.S. also is discussing ideas that require less military intervention and might provide additional humanitarian relief. One effort under discussion is the establishment of local cease fires negotiated with the Assad regime. Ben Rhodes, one of Mr. Obama’s closest foreign-policy advisers, noted Friday this has been tried by the United Nations. But he cautioned that the U.S. would want to ensure that such an effort not aid Mr. Assad at the expense of the opposition.
The deliberations are complicated by a fast-changing situation on the ground, as Russian airstrikes relieve some of the pressure on the Assad regime, Moscow’s longtime ally.
U.S. officials initially expressed optimism that Moscow might help in the fight against Islamic State militants. But since the first Russian airstrikes on Sept. 30, U.S. officials have voiced alarm at what they say is a campaign to strengthen Mr. Assad by targeting any opponent of his regime, including ones backed by the U.S.
Mr. Rhodes said that while the president will continue to refine his strategy, he isn’t considering options that would significantly ramp up U.S. military involvement, such as a no-fly zone.
“We see significant resourcing challenges associated with focusing on the establishment of no-fly zone that could, frankly, take away from other elements” of the campaign against Islamic State, he said.
Meanwhile, Russia on Friday responded to the U.S.’s proposal to coordinate aircraft movements over Syria. Pentagon officials declined to describe the content of the Russian response to the U.S. military’s proposals. They believe a second round of talks between the two militaries could happen as early as Saturday. Concerns over air safety were triggered after Russia began conducting airstrikes.
Mr. Obama’s approach on Syria has been to assemble a coalition to fight Islamic State and at the same time seek a broader political resolution. Those terms have recently shifted as Russia has significantly increased support for its ally.
“We see the Russians’ actions as extraordinarily counterproductive in terms of eroding the space for a political resolution,” said Mr. Rhodes.
The failure of the Pentagon’s train-and-equip program, combined with Russia’s intervention, has renewed criticism of Mr. Obama’s strategy, which opponents and even some Obama allies call too cautious to be effective.
A signature theme of Mr. Obama’s presidency has been his hesitancy to intervene directly in the war—and the power of events on the ground to disrupt that policy.
Some of America’s allies in the Middle East want the president to do more to counter Russia’s aggression, as do some lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Rep. Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he was disappointed the Pentagon’s train-and-equip program ended and called for a new approach.
“As the crisis in Syria enters a new phase, as Russia targets the moderate opposition, and as Iranian ground troops amass on the Syrian border, we need a new strategy in Syria to safeguard our interests and prevent those who are fighting for a free Syria from losing all hope in American leadership,” Mr. Engel said.
The Pentagon’s program to train and equip Syrian rebels faced significant challenges from its inception, in part because many potential recipients balked at the U.S. requirement that the aid be used only to target Islamic State. Washington was concerned that if such overt aid were used against the Assad regime it could be construed as a U.S. act of war. A separate program run by the Central Intelligence Agency directly targets the regime.
Also, under the Pentagon program, U.S. military officers were required to vet fighters one-by-one, a cumbersome process that took two to three weeks per recruit.
The program was aimed at training more than 5,000 rebel fighters each year over three years. It was deemed a flop last month after the disclosure that the first year had only yielded a handful of fighters on the battlefield.
The Obama administration has since been scrambling to find ways to build a new program, an effort that took on urgency after the Russian military intervention. “We have been looking at ways to improve that program,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Friday in London, on the last leg of a European trip.
A senior U.S. official said the Pentagon’s new approach amounted to “train less, arm more,” a reflection of the difficulties the Pentagon encountered
To speed the flow of weapons to moderate rebel groups, officials said the Pentagon will start providing arms and ammunition directly to vetted moderate Syrian commanders, who would then provide the equipment to their fighters.
The Pentagon will monitor the commanders on the battlefield to ensure they are using U.S.-supplied equipment against Islamic State, officials said. If a commander is found to have used U.S.-supplied equipment against the Assad regime, then he could be cut off from receiving future U.S. support, officials said.
The commanders could identify Islamic State positions to the U.S. military, which would then decide whether or not to launch an airstrike.
Officials said an initial group of commanders have already been vetted by the U.S. military and have been fighting alongside Syrian Kurdish forces, mostly in areas east of the Euphrates River, which is where most of the supplies will go at first. Additional commanders could be added later, including in areas west of the Euphrates, they said.
Officials said the Pentagon will initially provide only ammunition and light arms to the commanders, whom they described as Sunni Arab leaders. The level of support will expand over time as U.S. confidence in the commanders grows, they added.
Christine Wormuth, undersecretary of defense for policy, said the U.S. had no intention of providing “higher-end types of equipment,” which some commanders want. Rebel groups have specifically asked the U.S. for advanced antiaircraft weapons. But the White House has refused to provide them, citing worries the weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists or spark a wider conflict if they are used in Syria against Russian aircraft.
Officials said the main objective of the revamped program would be to provide support to rebel commanders who are encroaching on the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa in eastern Syria.
“We’ve got people within about 45 kilometers (30 miles) of Raqqa now. We are headed for Raqqa,” a senior administration official said. “We’re probably not going to take it in the near future but we want them to feel some pressure.”
Col. Mohammad Daher, a leader from the first class of recruits, said the initial program was built on a faulty basis. “The program was a failure in everything,” he said.
Because the U.S. was able to recruit and train only a small number of fighters, they couldn’t be an effective force on the battlefield, he said. Mr. Daher is now in Turkey where he fled because he is wanted by the Nusra Front, al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria.
Obama’s Options Narrow in Syria
Pentagon abandons plan to build rebel army as U.S. suggests Assad could remain for a time
WASHINGTON—Ten days into a Russian military campaign that has upended U.S. policy in Syria, President Barack Obama is picking from two bad options for how to respond.
The U.S. is hesitant to become more involved in Syria’s bloody and messy civil war, at the risk of forcing a proxy war with Russia. The president’s goal continues to be resisting any greater U.S. military commitment, aides say.
That leaves one other choice: to accept Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s hold on power, even though U.S. policy calls for his removal, and hope to negotiate his exit when the battlefield is less volatile.
On Friday, the Pentagon said it would abandon its failed, $500-million program to build an army of opposition fighters in Syria in favor of an effort to directly arm favored Syrian rebel commanders to fight Islamic State.
U.S. officials are no longer demanding Mr. Assad must step down immediately. Rather they are advocating a “managed” transition in which Mr. Assad could remain in Syria for some time.
The U.S. also is discussing ideas that require less military intervention and might provide additional humanitarian relief. One effort under discussion is the establishment of local cease fires negotiated with the Assad regime. Ben Rhodes, one of Mr. Obama’s closest foreign-policy advisers, noted Friday this has been tried by the United Nations. But he cautioned that the U.S. would want to ensure that such an effort not aid Mr. Assad at the expense of the opposition.
The deliberations are complicated by a fast-changing situation on the ground, as Russian airstrikes relieve some of the pressure on the Assad regime, Moscow’s longtime ally.
U.S. officials initially expressed optimism that Moscow might help in the fight against Islamic State militants. But since the first Russian airstrikes on Sept. 30, U.S. officials have voiced alarm at what they say is a campaign to strengthen Mr. Assad by targeting any opponent of his regime, including ones backed by the U.S.
Mr. Rhodes said that while the president will continue to refine his strategy, he isn’t considering options that would significantly ramp up U.S. military involvement, such as a no-fly zone.
“We see significant resourcing challenges associated with focusing on the establishment of no-fly zone that could, frankly, take away from other elements” of the campaign against Islamic State, he said.
Meanwhile, Russia on Friday responded to the U.S.’s proposal to coordinate aircraft movements over Syria. Pentagon officials declined to describe the content of the Russian response to the U.S. military’s proposals. They believe a second round of talks between the two militaries could happen as early as Saturday. Concerns over air safety were triggered after Russia began conducting airstrikes.
Mr. Obama’s approach on Syria has been to assemble a coalition to fight Islamic State and at the same time seek a broader political resolution. Those terms have recently shifted as Russia has significantly increased support for its ally.
“We see the Russians’ actions as extraordinarily counterproductive in terms of eroding the space for a political resolution,” said Mr. Rhodes.
The failure of the Pentagon’s train-and-equip program, combined with Russia’s intervention, has renewed criticism of Mr. Obama’s strategy, which opponents and even some Obama allies call too cautious to be effective.
A signature theme of Mr. Obama’s presidency has been his hesitancy to intervene directly in the war—and the power of events on the ground to disrupt that policy.
Some of America’s allies in the Middle East want the president to do more to counter Russia’s aggression, as do some lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Rep. Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he was disappointed the Pentagon’s train-and-equip program ended and called for a new approach.
“As the crisis in Syria enters a new phase, as Russia targets the moderate opposition, and as Iranian ground troops amass on the Syrian border, we need a new strategy in Syria to safeguard our interests and prevent those who are fighting for a free Syria from losing all hope in American leadership,” Mr. Engel said.
The Pentagon’s program to train and equip Syrian rebels faced significant challenges from its inception, in part because many potential recipients balked at the U.S. requirement that the aid be used only to target Islamic State. Washington was concerned that if such overt aid were used against the Assad regime it could be construed as a U.S. act of war. A separate program run by the Central Intelligence Agency directly targets the regime.
Also, under the Pentagon program, U.S. military officers were required to vet fighters one-by-one, a cumbersome process that took two to three weeks per recruit.
The program was aimed at training more than 5,000 rebel fighters each year over three years. It was deemed a flop last month after the disclosure that the first year had only yielded a handful of fighters on the battlefield.
The Obama administration has since been scrambling to find ways to build a new program, an effort that took on urgency after the Russian military intervention. “We have been looking at ways to improve that program,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Friday in London, on the last leg of a European trip.
A senior U.S. official said the Pentagon’s new approach amounted to “train less, arm more,” a reflection of the difficulties the Pentagon encountered
To speed the flow of weapons to moderate rebel groups, officials said the Pentagon will start providing arms and ammunition directly to vetted moderate Syrian commanders, who would then provide the equipment to their fighters.
The Pentagon will monitor the commanders on the battlefield to ensure they are using U.S.-supplied equipment against Islamic State, officials said. If a commander is found to have used U.S.-supplied equipment against the Assad regime, then he could be cut off from receiving future U.S. support, officials said.
The commanders could identify Islamic State positions to the U.S. military, which would then decide whether or not to launch an airstrike.
Officials said an initial group of commanders have already been vetted by the U.S. military and have been fighting alongside Syrian Kurdish forces, mostly in areas east of the Euphrates River, which is where most of the supplies will go at first. Additional commanders could be added later, including in areas west of the Euphrates, they said.
Officials said the Pentagon will initially provide only ammunition and light arms to the commanders, whom they described as Sunni Arab leaders. The level of support will expand over time as U.S. confidence in the commanders grows, they added.
Christine Wormuth, undersecretary of defense for policy, said the U.S. had no intention of providing “higher-end types of equipment,” which some commanders want. Rebel groups have specifically asked the U.S. for advanced antiaircraft weapons. But the White House has refused to provide them, citing worries the weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists or spark a wider conflict if they are used in Syria against Russian aircraft.
Officials said the main objective of the revamped program would be to provide support to rebel commanders who are encroaching on the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa in eastern Syria.
“We’ve got people within about 45 kilometers (30 miles) of Raqqa now. We are headed for Raqqa,” a senior administration official said. “We’re probably not going to take it in the near future but we want them to feel some pressure.”
Col. Mohammad Daher, a leader from the first class of recruits, said the initial program was built on a faulty basis. “The program was a failure in everything,” he said.
Because the U.S. was able to recruit and train only a small number of fighters, they couldn’t be an effective force on the battlefield, he said. Mr. Daher is now in Turkey where he fled because he is wanted by the Nusra Front, al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria.
其实是左派总统玩小清新，搞锤子的亚洲再平衡，中东丢了，石油美元就不保
希望中国再也不要出现消气总理 救美国总理 够了 还是多出几个为人民消气 救人民的总理吧
美帝掂量着办，有人在废他的石油也有人在废他的美元，牛仔终归是牛仔年轻气盛。
我初中没毕业，英语看不懂的
不过，光看楼主的帖子标题意思基本也明确了
我要说的是
表示谨慎乐观
其一
真的下降了？师母衣带
其二
真的下降了，又如何？你能顶得进去？
不过，光看楼主的帖子标题意思基本也明确了
我要说的是
表示谨慎乐观
其一
真的下降了？师母衣带
其二
真的下降了，又如何？你能顶得进去？
归根到底还是利益，不能给小弟好处的大哥不是好大哥
美国没有给中东任何国家带来利益。
美国没有给中东任何国家带来利益。美帝现在是一群猪在管理，心态还停留在91年～
石油美元要完蛋，
其实奥巴马上台的这几年，也是中东绿绿叫的最欢的几年
归根结底是实力下滑了，还想领导世界一百年，结果只能是按下葫芦浮起瓢
中东，最大的问题不再是平息战争，而是如何把战争引到沙特。
美国介入的国家全部陷入战乱，事实最能说明问题
感觉楼主对华尔街日报的定性错误，保守的是华盛顿邮报。
感谢撸主翻译，精通鸟语不容易
史书会把这一段时间（2015-2025）作为世界进入多极化的关键期，美元、石油和经济霸权及全球军事霸权全面陨落
其实奥巴马上台的这几年，也是中东绿绿叫的最欢的几年
很正常!
其实侯赛因.奥巴马上台的这几年，也是中东绿绿叫的最欢的几年
很正常!
其实侯赛因.奥巴马上台的这几年，也是中东绿绿叫的最欢的几年
其实奥巴马上台的这几年，也是中东绿绿叫的最欢的几年
这就是希拉里软实力玩的，没有硬实力做后盾，就是个搅屎棍。
这就是希拉里软实力玩的，没有硬实力做后盾，就是个搅屎棍。
退出中东，那石油美元还能不能保住就未可知啦，这可是美帝霸权的根基啊
希望中国再也不要出现消气总理 救美国总理 够了 还是多出几个为人民消气 救人民的总理吧
嗯，非常同意，紫薯补了
嗯，非常同意，紫薯补了
慢腾腾的牛 发表于 2015-10-11 16:55
这就是希拉里软实力玩的，没有硬实力做后盾，就是个搅屎棍。
希拉里提出的概念叫巧实力，不叫软实力！核心内容是少来点直接战争，多来点阴谋诡计！
这就是希拉里软实力玩的，没有硬实力做后盾，就是个搅屎棍。
希拉里提出的概念叫巧实力，不叫软实力！核心内容是少来点直接战争，多来点阴谋诡计！
希望中国再也不要出现消气总理 救美国总理 够了 还是多出几个为人民消气 救人民的总理吧
有道理，说的正确。有病吧还很自豪的说出那些不要脸的话。看着气人。
有道理，说的正确。有病吧还很自豪的说出那些不要脸的话。看着气人。
耶格尔 发表于 2015-10-11 17:35
希拉里提出的概念叫巧实力，不叫软实力！核心内容是少来点直接战争，多来点阴谋诡计！
巧实力，软实力，都是好东西。但这二者都要建立在硬实力的基础上。
迷信哪一个，无论是硬实力，还是巧实力，还是软实力都不行。
以行使的难度来区分，我认为是巧实力＞软实力＞硬实力。
以重要性和先后顺序来讲，刚好颠倒过来。
现在我们是巩固硬实力的同时，要在软实力上花功夫了，巧实力先让美国把自己玩残吧。
希拉里提出的概念叫巧实力，不叫软实力！核心内容是少来点直接战争，多来点阴谋诡计！
巧实力，软实力，都是好东西。但这二者都要建立在硬实力的基础上。
迷信哪一个，无论是硬实力，还是巧实力，还是软实力都不行。
以行使的难度来区分，我认为是巧实力＞软实力＞硬实力。
以重要性和先后顺序来讲，刚好颠倒过来。
现在我们是巩固硬实力的同时，要在软实力上花功夫了，巧实力先让美国把自己玩残吧。
中东换毛子当警察了！毛子一发狠，欧洲现在连提都不敢提克里米亚这茬了，德国娘子对普金连送秋波：“欧洲离不开俄罗斯“，估计要不了多久就会解除对毛子的制裁，这就叫以战止战！！俄毛的强硬把美帝赶到了亚太，所以美帝在亚太一定会hold住，所以tg将要为以前的软弱付出代价。。。
希拉里提出的概念叫巧实力，不叫软实力！核心内容是少来点直接战争，多来点阴谋诡计！
然后就是在全世界人前展示皇帝的新衣。
然后就是在全世界人前展示皇帝的新衣。
美帝将成为最大输家？这怎么可能？
德国人是狗杂种 发表于 2015-10-11 15:00
美帝现在是一群猪在管理，心态还停留在91年～
91年时候那是真傲气，现在有点死要面子的感觉。
美帝现在是一群猪在管理，心态还停留在91年～
91年时候那是真傲气，现在有点死要面子的感觉。
2003年打的伊拉克战争完全莫名其妙，什叶派的伊拉克政府会亲伊朗这当时就有人说过了，美国难道真的认为一人一票选出来的政府就肯定会亲美？
大林8888 发表于 2015-10-11 19:17
2003年打的伊拉克战争完全莫名其妙，什叶派的伊拉克政府会亲伊朗这当时就有人说过了，美国难道真的认为一人 ...
什叶派伊朗反美，逊尼派国家支持恐怖分子，你让美国人如何选择啊。而且还不敢把精力全放在中东，一个不留神东亚的中国军力国力又噌噌涨了一大截，那叫一个烦心呐。
2003年打的伊拉克战争完全莫名其妙，什叶派的伊拉克政府会亲伊朗这当时就有人说过了，美国难道真的认为一人 ...
什叶派伊朗反美，逊尼派国家支持恐怖分子，你让美国人如何选择啊。而且还不敢把精力全放在中东，一个不留神东亚的中国军力国力又噌噌涨了一大截，那叫一个烦心呐。
埃及也开始疏远米帝了，开始向俄罗斯靠拢。埃及总统在9.3阅兵还特地亲自跑来北京捧场，连晚会都参加。
其实是左派总统玩小清新，搞锤子的亚洲再平衡，中东丢了，石油美元就不保
奥黑左派？民主党是左翼政党？
奥黑左派？民主党是左翼政党？
美国成天想着独霸世界，到处侵蚀他国的利益
地球那么多的国家， 你打得过来么？
这回中东美国就成了笑话
月she故乡明 发表于 2015-10-11 14:47
美帝掂量着办，有人在废他的石油也有人在废他的美元，牛仔终归是牛仔年轻气盛。
牛仔终归也会老的!
美帝掂量着办，有人在废他的石油也有人在废他的美元，牛仔终归是牛仔年轻气盛。
牛仔终归也会老的!
ije1234 发表于 2015-10-11 21:05
牛仔终归也会老的!
好，我们陪他，直到把他送走！
ije1234 发表于 2015-10-11 21:05
牛仔终归也会老的!
好，我们陪他，直到把他送走！
flysharker 发表于 2015-10-11 18:08
中东换毛子当警察了！毛子一发狠，欧洲现在连提都不敢提克里米亚这茬了，德国娘子对普金连送秋波：“欧洲离 ...
兔子现在走丝绸之路，岛链的困局对我们无效了。
中东换毛子当警察了！毛子一发狠，欧洲现在连提都不敢提克里米亚这茬了，德国娘子对普金连送秋波：“欧洲离 ...
兔子现在走丝绸之路，岛链的困局对我们无效了。