The Times article lists some of Russia's national interests at stake in Syria:

Moscow considers Mr. Assad’s survival crucial to protecting its interests in Syria, which include combating jihadism, preserving intelligence and military assets, and asserting that Russia is a geopolitical player in the Middle East.

Russia, with Salafi Jihadists fighting in Dagestan and up the Volga River into the heart of Russia naturally wants to defeat Saudi Arabia's Salafi Jihadists in Syria. It also wants to protect its naval base in Syria, it's only direct outlet to the Mediterranean Sea.   These are rational national interests.

The article does not mention Iran's and Qatar's mutual and conflicting interests in a pipeline through Syria without which neither can deliver natural gas from the Pfs Natural Gas field, from which each nation could deliver huge amounts of gas to Europe.   

Russia's interest is to prevent Qatar from delivering Pars gas to Europe, undercutting the price of the oil it delivers to Europe, with disastrous effect on the Russian economy.  Russia is less concerned with Iran's delivering gas to Europe, believing it can cut a deal with Iran to protect its price monopoly.  Both Iran and Qatar have proposed gas lines through Syria.  See here.

Russia has vital national interests in Syria.

The United State's only national interest is protecting the Gulf Cooperation Council's oil monopoly from competition from Iran, an interest that has long outlasted its usefulness.

 Aleppo is full of heart-rending tragedy.  Yemen is worse.  The United States can do something about Yemen; doing something about Aleppo will require great diplomatic skill.  Bombast won't cut it. 

 The Times article, below, is rational.  One hopes that our next president, whatever the campaign rhetoric, will recognize it.  I believe Mrs. Clinton does.  Friends fear she is more war-like.

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED 

Don’t Intervene in Syria

By STEVEN SIMON and JONATHAN STEVENSON OCT. 6, 2016

 Credit Anthony Russo

The cease-fire in Syria that the United States and Russia tortuously negotiated has, like the one before it, fallen apart.

The trouble began when an errant American airstrike killed some 60 Syrian government soldiers. Then, Russia resumed its disingenuous grandstanding and the Syrian government, with Russia’s support, went back to indiscriminately bombing rebel-held areas of Aleppo. On Monday, less than a month after the agreement went into effect, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States would break off talks with Russia on trying to revive it.

This failure, accompanied by images of suffering in Aleppo, has inspired renewed calls for a tougher American policy in Syria from liberal hawks and traditional conservatives alike. At the vice-presidential debate on Tuesday, both the Democrat, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, and the Republican, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, advocated more aggressive American action.

But the truth is that it is too late for the United States to wade deeper into the Syrian conflict without risking a major war, or, at best, looking feckless by failing to fully commit to confronting Russia and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and then backing down. The goal now should be reducing harm, saving lives and keeping prospects for a political deal alive. Cease-fire talks between the United States and Russia, tormented though they may be, remain the best way to achieve this.

Although Russia has denied it, it is clear that Moscow considers Mr. Assad’s survival crucial to protecting its interests in Syria, which include combating jihadism, preserving intelligence and military assets, and asserting that Russia is a geopolitical player in the Middle East. Russia has unflinchingly protected the Assad government both militarily and at the United Nations Security Council.

Indeed, Mr. Assad seems to enjoy practically unlimited leverage over Russia. Despite narrowly escaping American punishment for using chemical weapons by surrendering his stockpile of deadly nerve gas and other poisons in 2013, Mr. Assad has felt free to continue using toxic commercial chlorine gas. Even though Russia moved toward political compromise when it provisionally withdrew from Syria in March, Mr. Assad was not inclined to give peace talks a serious chance. In both cases, Russia fell back in line with Mr. Assad’s defiant brutality.

There are probably limits to Moscow’s deference to Mr. Assad’s blood lust, but it is unclear what they are. This is what makes an American escalation in Syria so dangerous.

American supporters of intervention, including the vice-presidential candidates, often say that the United States should create a no-fly zone in Syria to protect civilians from Mr. Assad and Russia’s bombs. But imagine how this might work: An American warplane enforcing a no-fly zone would risk fire from a Russian-made antiaircraft battery or fighter. (Just this week Russia shipped new antiaircraft systems to Syria.)

This risk clearly worries advocates for the use of force within the Obama administration. They are said to favor increased air support for the Syrian rebels that would avoid direct confrontation with the Russians. But small-scale, targeted bombing is unlikely to change Syrian behavior, so to be effective the strikes would have to escalate. (Alternatively, ineffective strikes could be ended, but this would make the United States look incompetent.) This would ultimately lead to a violent response, which would compel the United States to retaliate against Russian and Syrian government ground targets.

As conflict spiraled and casualties increased, so would international pressure for another costly, protracted and thankless American-led ground intervention to enforce peace, which domestic opinion in the United States would not support. While Russia’s real appetite for a political solution in the Syria conflict is unclear, it is wiser to test unknown political limits than unknown military ones.

Some of those advocating more intervention in Syria believe that as the so-called indispensable power, the United States has an ethical responsibility to reduce the suffering caused by Syrian and Russian bombing of civilians. Another camp of interventionists criticizes what it sees as President Obama’s weakness, heartlessness and strategic myopia, and wants the United States to stand up to Russia and assert its intention to remain a major geopolitical player in the region.

The liberal interventionists seem to have forgotten that it is no longer the 1990s. Disastrous forays in Iraq and Libya have undermined any American willingness to put values before interests. Meanwhile, the second group of interventionists seem to have forgotten that Syria has been Moscow’s client since early in the Cold War — a situation Washington was willing to live with when the geostrategic stakes were much higher.

The United States does, in fact, have a clear Syria policy: Roll back the Islamic State by way of the air campaign and American-supported Syrian rebel forces, coordinating with Russia to the extent possible; provide extensive humanitarian support; and continue to press for a sustainable cease-fire and a negotiated political transition involving Mr. Assad’s eventual departure. It may be frustrating, but against the alternatives, it is the only sensible course of action.

Certainly, the Syrian government and Russia have manipulated the cease-fires, using them as cover for continuing offensives. Nonetheless, fragile though they have been, these deals ratchet down the overall level of violence and save lives.

The deal struck by Mr. Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov, for the United States and Russia to coordinate counter-jihadist operations and restrain opposition and government military activity was intended to produce a durable cease-fire, promote more effective humanitarian operations and re-energize political talks. Although it has fallen apart, the next step, unsatisfying as it may be, is to try again.

Steven Simon, a professor at Amherst College, was the National Security Council’s senior director for the Middle East and North Africa from 2011 through 2012. Jonathan Stevenson, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a fellow at Cullman Center, was the council’s director for political-military affairs for the Middle East and North Africa from 2011 to 2013

SEP

18

Kurdish participation in the Syrian Peace Talks 

The view from Erbil, capital of Iraqi Kurdistan:

From the article:

Russia stresses importance of including Syrian Kurds in Geneva peace talks - ARA News 

Kurds [who are the most effective fighting force opposing  the Islamic State and who have been excluded from the Geneva please talks] should be included in the intra-Syrian peace talks in Geneva, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov said on Friday.

• • •

“Some   members [of the ISSG] exert strong pressure, because they consider the PYD to be terrorists’ supporters or an unnecessary element, as Kurdish representatives from other political groups [Kurdish National Council] are taking part in the Geneva talks,” he said. 

• • •

Although Russian-Turkish relations have drastically improved after the failed military coup on July 15, Russia did not change its stance towards the Syrian Kurdish forces that have been the most effective element against ISIS. 

According to Akhmetov, there are several reasons Russia is still supporting the Kurds despite of Moscow’s new relations with Turkey. 

“First to not lose their support completely, and secondly to not provoke them to make any reckless steps like announcing secession from Syria,” he said. 

__________

The United States has taken contradictory positions on the YPG's joining the peace talks.  It formally opposes participation, out of deference to Turkey; and it funds YPG's fighters is Syria, over fierce Turkish objection. 

Erdoğan's government does not currently deserve international recognition (see Turkey Formally Arrested 16,000 People In Wake Of Coup Attempt | Huffington Post; Turkey plans to build dozens of new jails after post-coup crackdown - The Washington Post).  Saudi Arabia's dream of a Wahhabi state in Syria is a pipe dream -- to Syrians, it and to most people it is a nightmare. 

The United States should join Russia in supporting the YPG's inclusion in the Geneva peace talks.

 _________

After many months of work and cooperation with many Kurds both inside and outside Syria, YASA, the Kurdish Center for Legal Studies & Consultancy, has created a map of Western Kurdistan.YASA Releases Syrian Kurdistan Map 'Western Kurdistan': First stage

_________

Syrian Kurdish fighters

War is bad -- except when it is fought by an oppressed people against a brutal oppressor. 

Then, whatever the cost, the human spirit sings at Heaven's gate.. . . .  While the joyous high lasts.

Further thoughts on Syria and the contending interests

Some further thoughts on

Syria and the contending interests clearly described; why the outcomes mater, and to whom 

The Great Powers contend for control of Syria because it is the path for transferring natural gas from the Pas field, the world’s largest deposit of natural gas, from the Persian Gulf towrope.  Iran an Qatar are the main contenders because they share the Pars field.

See Migrant Crisis & Syria War Fueled By Competing Gas Pipelines

 Russia wants to prevent Qatar from selling to Europe because that would undercut Russia’s income from the sale of crude to Europe, harming its economy and, more importunately, its people. (Natural gas is cleaner and would sell better in Europe than crude).  Russia is not interested in the Islamic State; it is interested in Syria's having a government opposed to the Persian Gulf dictators, Oman excepted.  

Iran, which has half the Pars field, also wants to sell to Europe.  Russia thinks it can control the price Iran would sell and so would not hurt its market.  

The Saudi want to control Syria because it sees an opportunity to turn at least one country into another Wahhabist state, something it has tried for decades to do with no success because no people want to live to under Wahhabismic rule.

The US and Britain support the Saudi and oppose Iran for historical reasons.  The time for that position is past.  The West should as quickly as possible switch positions and support Iran.  

The switch cannot be quick in the US, because of the millions of dollars the Saudi spend lobbying Congress, but it can be done over time.  Weakening Saudi control over the price of oil would help the US economy.  That is in its national interest.  

The Saudi lobby is linked with the Israeli lobby, making the change even more difficult.  Regime change in Israel should be a prime objective of  Western governments. Now that China is supporting Palestinians, is to past time for us to be on Palestine's side.  Israel, too, needs to be friends with Palestine if it hopes to remain a democratic state instead of a totalitarian one.  It is in American Jews’ interest that Israel be aa democracy.

An immediate step the US and Britain should take is to withdraw all support for Saudi Arabia's genetical bombing o Yemen.  

More predictions of Saudi doom from ISIS

BBC does not think the border between Anbar and Saudi Araabia is vulnerable; and it does think that the Saudi are vulnerable to isis.  BBC's views are worth considering.

---------

Islamic State sets sights on Saudi Arabia

By Frank Gardner

BBC security correspondent

• 14 November 2014

Islamic State rejects the authority of Saudi King Abdullah, pictured centre

The leadership of Islamic State (IS) has no intention of standing still.

In a 17-minute audio message, purportedly from its elusive leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group sets its sights firmly on Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Islam and the world's largest oil producer and exporter.

The speaker does not refer to it as Saudi Arabia, since this is a name derived from the ruling tribe, the al-Saud, whose authority IS does not accept.

Instead he calls it "the land of Haramayn", the land of the two holy places, meaning Mecca and Medina.

Reaching out to IS's growing number of Saudi followers, he sets out a target list for attack, starting with the Shia who make up a minority of Saudi nationals, living mostly in the oil-rich Eastern Province, and whom hardline Salafi radicals view as heretics.

So deep are the sectarian divisions opened up in the Middle East by the insurgency in Iraq that many Saudis view IS not as a marauding band of terrorists but as brave defenders of Sunni Islam against the encroaching forces of Iran and its Shia allies.

Saudi Arabia is home to Mecca, pictured, and Medina, the burial place of the Prophet Muhammad

Saudi officials have long been warning that their country is the primary target of IS.

Having declared itself a caliphate this summer, it was inevitable that sooner or later the group would turn its attention to the largest and most important country in the region.

Saudi Arabia's supreme religious authority, the grand mufti, has branded IS as the "greatest enemy of Islam".

A recent op-ed written in the New York Times by Saudis close to the government said: "Saudi Arabia is the only authority in the region with the power and legitimacy to bring IS down."

Rejecting blame

Yet many blame the Saudi authorities for the rapid rise of IS, accusing them of funding and exporting an intolerant version of Islam that has become a stepping stone towards violent jihad.

Along with Qatar and Kuwait, the Saudi authorities are struggling to prevent donations from private individuals ending up with IS

The Saudi government emphatically rejects any blame for the growth of IS, pointing out that it is a function of the chaos engendered by the Syrian civil war and the discriminatory policies towards Iraqi Sunnis practised by the Shia-led government in Baghdad.

The Saudis also point out that they fought and won a bitter three-year insurgency by al-Qaeda inside their country that cost hundreds of lives.

Today the Saudis find themselves in an extremely uncomfortable position.

Their air force has joined the US-led coalition in conducting numerous air strikes against IS positions in Syria, yet this is deeply unpopular with many Saudis.

A prince who has flown sorties against IS in an F15 jet has reportedly received death threats.

More than 2,000 Saudi nationals are estimated to have joined the ranks of IS, bringing with them an extreme brand of "takfiri" ideology that views large portions of the population with suspicion and intolerance.

An audio message, purportedly from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, sets IS sights on Saudi Arabia

Along with Qatar and Kuwait, the Saudi authorities are struggling to prevent donations from private individuals ending up with IS.

On top of this, security has deteriorated rapidly on the southern border with Yemen, where a number of Saudi extremists have joined al-Qaeda after being released from rehab programmes where they pledged to renounce violence.

Saudi Arabia is unlikely to face a direct military invasion by IS.

It has a well-marked and patrolled northern border with Iraq and a military equipped with billions of dollars' worth of Western weapons.

Instead, it faces a growing threat of isolated violence within its borders, likely to manifest itself as occasional bombings, shootings and kidnappings that will test the resources of its domestic intelligence service.

Drone strikes

THEN


Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes

Spanish Civil War, 1810-1845


Los Desastres de la Guerra

Is Roosevelt a million-killer?

Is Truman a monster?

Pablo Picasso

The bombing of Guernica (April 26, 1937) was an aerial attack on the Basque town of Guernica, Spain, causing widespread destruction and civilian deaths during the Spanish Civil War. The raid by planes of the German Luftwaffe "Condor Legion" and the Italian Fascist Aviazione Legionaria was called Operation Rügen.

Guernica

AND NOW

 Salafi terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- our prospective allies in Syria -- and their handwork.

"A villan may smile and smile and still be a villan."

Salafi, with Saudi and Qatari support, terrorize the Russian homeland.  Russia has a legitimate interest in preventing Salafi domination of Syria.

Iran's access to the oceans to export its natural resources is blocked in the Persian Gulf by the US Fifth Fleet.  Iran has a legitimate interest in a government at least neutral in Syria.  Salafi are bound by religious duty to kill Iranians.

We must stay our of Syria until those legitimate interest are assured.  We are otherwise fools.  For the third time in 10 years..

Young North Americans, brimming with innocent  zest, training for a new Guernica.  Give them a future more suited to their deserts, please.

US to invade Syria? A cautionary tale.

On May 16, 2013, The New York Times published an op-ed article making an apparently sensible argument for US military intervention in (in English, "invasion of") Syria  The article follows a meeting between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey and Brak Hussein Obama of the United States.


The author asserts

Only direct American military engagement will rally the disparate parties that want to act against Mr. Assad into unified action.

The author argues. . .

By presenting Moscow with a counter-incentive, threatening to act alone if Moscow does not use its influence to bring an end to the conflict, the United States could demonstrate that it is serious about engagement. This would also lighten the pressure on Turkey, which is hesitant to take further steps in Syria without at least tacit Russian consent. Russia is Turkey’s historic nemesis and the only country in the region with an economy and military larger than Turkey’s. The Turks fear the Russians and will not confront them alone.

Turkey needs US invasion of Syria, says the author, because the 5000,000 Alawites who live in Turkey's southern Hatay province are destabilizing Turkey, as are the "once dormant Marxist militant groups", who have awakened.

The author recommends  that the US invasion consists of arming rebels, creating a no-fly zone, and "creating a buffer zone in northern Syria along the Turkish border to protect rebel-captured areas", with boots on the ground, to insure that Russia knows we are serious.

The article does not mention any possible Russian response.

I note that Turkey is a member of NATO, so direct military action by Russia against Turkey is unlikely  though destabilization should be within Russia's power.



Here's the Turkish province of Hatay, home to 500,0o00 Alawites, said to be destabilizing Turkey:

I could not find images of militancy  nor could I find text or images of the "once dormant Marxist groups said to be destabilizing Turkey.  I did find a recent one from madison, Wisconsin:

Al Monitor, whose provenance is uncertain, has a cautionary tale. After first noting that Erdoğan is more assertive at home than he was in Washington . . .

Erdogan was not as firm as he has been when addressing this issue in Turkey. At the White House, for example, he did not accuse the Syrian regime of using chemical weapons, nor did he express his belief that the US-Russian efforts to hold talks with the Syrian opposition and the regime are futile. To the contrary, Erdogan sounded like he had softened his pessimism about the Geneva talks.

. . . Al Monitor reports:

More importantly, Turkey’s strong support for the Syrian opposition continues to raise eyebrows, even domestically. A former prominent Justice and Development Party member told Al-Monitor, “We have been on the wrong side of the opposition in Syria, and have been unfortunately in a position of inciting sectarian fighting.” Sharing insider knowledge about the radical and extremist elements in Syria, this former prominent AKP deputy said, “There are those radicals, who after freeing a territory from the Syrian regime’s military, ask whether the women that are left behind could be granted to them as a trophy based on the Shariah law. And we support those groups with the  Qataries.  Even the Saudis are reluctant to do so, and they support more secular groups. And Americans are therefore very cautious toward Turkey’s involvement in Syria.” [Emphasis added.]

I note that the "former  prominent Justice and Development Party member" is not named, and if accurate, the Qataries [Qatari] finance Al Gore's Al Jazeera, and that is, indeed, worrisome.

No report of the meeting of the two leaders appears in Today's Zaman, Turkey's primer English language newspaper in Google News, which is curious.  APA, an authoritative newspaper out of Azerbaijan, carried this report. . . 

[ 17 May 2013 00:13 ]
Baku-APA. US President Barack Obama said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad needs to leave power for a political solution in Syria after meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, APA reports quoting Todays Zaman.

. . . which doesn't ad much.


I can find no news from an Egyptian source on US militarty involvment in Syria, also curious.

China Weekly, quoting Gorge Freemen's Startfor, supposes US invasion would be aln exercise in futility:

News Analysis: U.S. military intervention in Syria no easy task
English.news.cn   2013-05-01 06:43:00            
by Matthew Rusling 

WASHINGTON, April 30 (Xinhua) -- Reports of the use of chemical weapons in Syria have sparked talk of U.S. military intervention, but experts said stopping the bloodshed in the war-torn country could prove a gargantuan task. 

U.S. President Barack Obama has repeatedly said any use of chemical weapons would constitute a "red line" that could spur U. S. military involvement at some level, but Obama urged caution Tuesday, suggesting in a White House press briefing that more proof was needed. 

Some experts said U.S. military invention could prove a long, slogging operation -- a far-cry from the relatively clean, in-and- out 2011 Western-led operation in Libya, and others argued any U.S. intervention is destined to fail.

Global intelligence company Stratfor CEO George Friedman, writing Tuesday on his company's website, contended U.S. intervention would simply amount to another force entering the fray, and would not stop the bloodshed in embattled Syria.
"The United States, with its European allies, does not have the force needed to end Syria's bloodshed," Friedman argued. "If it tried, it would merely be held responsible for the bloodshed without achieving any strategic goal." 

Indeed, the U.S. found through two grueling wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that while destroying a government was relatively easy, imposing Western-style democracy was much harder, if not impossible, he said. 

"Many things are beyond the military power of the United States," Friedman said. "Creating constitutional democracies by invasion is one of those things." 

Halting civil war in Syria would mean the use of "overwhelming power," which also leads to overwhelming casualties, he said. " You cannot transform the political culture of a country from the outside unless you are prepared to devastate it as was done with Germany and Japan."
Nevertheless, the Obama administration is eying the country sharply, prompting talk of a U.S.-backed no-fly zone similar to the one established in Libya before the ouster of strongman Muammar Gaddafi. Options might also include air attacks against chemical weapons storage facilities or strikes against Syrian combat aircraft or heavy artillery positions. 

But Middle East Institute scholar Wayne White told Xinhua that Syria's air defenses are advanced enough to pose a major risk to NATO aircraft and crews. 

He also noted that most targets in Syria are deep inland, increasing the exposure of U.S. or allied pilots to anti- aircraft defenses and increasing the possibility of a pilot crashing in hostile territory. 

Syria's geographic layout stands in sharp contrast to Libya, as the bulk of populated Libya lies along the coast, providing an easier escape route for damaged aircraft to exit the country's airspace. 

Moreover, a no-fly zone would not prevent Syrian ground troops from unleashing lethal attacks with chemical weapons, said White, former deputy director of the U.S. State Department's Middle East Intelligence Office. 

Others options might include joint operations with several partners to provide weaponry for rebels not affiliated with Islamic extremists, but a rash of hurdles come with that choice.
White argued the most effective rebel groups have become Islamic extremists. In some cases over the past 12 to 15 months, they are openly affiliated with al-Qaeda, adding to fears that weaponry could fall into the hands of Islamic militants.

Friedman is usually, I think, in the Neoconic camp, opposed to  all things Russian.

RT, the national Russian newspaper, notes -- perhaps not a non sequitur -- only thus:

Rebels film execution of 11 Syrian soldiers, as Obama continues anti-Assad rhetoric

Wikipedia has a worthwhile history of foreign involvement in at the Syrian civil war, including this useful map: