===
Boehner accomplished some important things considering the fact that Obama had no desire to work with him and the same goes for those intransigents seated in the opposite aisle. So much for The Pope's "Golden Rule" idea.
Once Sen. Reid was gone, even McConnell proved The Senate could work again.
The problem with Boehner is that he did not know how to cultivate those in his own Party in opposition to his management of The House's legislative agenda.
Speaker of The House is a difficult, if not impossible job, but many have persevered and done admirably. Tip O"Neil comes to mind as does Newt Gingrich, though the latter fell on his sword in the end.
Perhaps more conservative members will come to realize Boehner's positives after he has gone and they might even regret their steadfast determination to replace him.
However, Boehner did the honorable thing under the circumstances by serving not only the interests of the institution but also those of the nation.
or
Did Boehner 'reconstruct' and enact the Pope's suggestion regarding "The Golden Rule's" message? to read: " Do unto others what they are doing to you."
Time will tell how it all plays out.
===
The demand for hats should rise as long as those in the Obama Administration are around conducting our foreign policy. Why? So they can go hat in hand to our adversaries and beg to have America apprised of and included in what is happening. (See 1 below.)
Meanwhile, "Put-in" is appropriately named because, once he perceived Obama as a weak, confused and inept president he has been "putting it in" Obama and America.
Netanyahu will have a meeting with Obama after "Put-in" meets with "PP" and if Netanyahu is wise he will continue to build a relationship with Russia because he lost his battle with Obama who concluded, allowing Iran to develop a nuclear bomb was his way of downgrading America's relationship with Israel and, I believe, was a purposeful slap at Netanyahu. Now Obama is working with Abbas to help him stick it to Israel over Jerusalem.
Israel and Netanyahu are a thorn in Obama's side, a fly in his vision of America's reduced influence in The Middle East and most in his Party have decided to down tick our relationship as well.
Russia now holds the key in The Middle East and its influence will only grow as long as Obama and his bare headed, hat in hand crowd remain in office.
Do not buy a hat Bibi! Your sole mission in life is to prevent Israel from being destroyed.
===
Obama has been effective in purging the military of its best leadership. Just another purposeful act of weakening America.
and
PC'ism is destroying America from within as it filters through our society and courses through every vein. (See 2 below.)
===
So you want Hillarious again. Are you insane? Do you not give a damn? (See 3 below.)
===
While Obama believes climate is the greatest threat to America and its military the winds associated with Iraq's recent deal with Russia is blowing away what vestige of influence we have left in the Middle East.
But then, this is what our inept, pathetic president wanted all along. He told the Egyptians, at the beginning of his presidency, he would reduce American influences because we were an arrogant nation. He then set about to select two patsies as Sec. of State to implement his desire olicies and while he was busy wrecking over 35 years of our involvement in the Middle East he declared war on Israel, our only democratic ally in the region ,our military and its leadership.
Yes, Obama has brought about a lot of change but where's all that hope he promised would accompany that change?
So now who is fielding the JV team - ISIS or Obama?
You decide.
I thought he was an empty suit long before he was elected. (See 4 below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
More Humiliation for Kerry On Syria
In the winter of 2014, the United States kept Iran out of a peace conference aimed at beginning talks to end the civil war raging in Syria. There were good reasons for doing so since, as the Obama administration acknowledged at the time, Iran was a belligerent in that conflict. Tehran had deployed elements of its Quds Force as well as its Hezbollah terrorist auxiliaries on the ground in Syria to help the tottering Bashar Assad regime hold power. But more than a year and a half later after that futile gesture at starting negotiations failed, Secretary of State John Kerry came hat in hand to a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at the United Nations yesterday to ask that his country join the latest effort to resolve the Syrian catastrophe. Coming on the heels of their triumph in the nuclear talks, this was one more sweet triumph for an Iranian regime that is acknowledged to be the world’s leading state sponsor of terror.
The ostensible reason for this turnabout is that the situation has gotten worse and that every possible effort must be made to do something to stabilize Syria. Seen from that perspective it is only common sense to acknowledge that Iran is a major player in Syria and that no political solution can be achieved without their participation. But there’s more to Kerry’s humiliating reversal of position than the worsening situation on the ground in Syria and the tragic flood of refugees from that war-torn country that is seeking to enter Europe. The administration has sought to depict its deal with Iran as a way to prevent or at least postpone the Islamist regime’s quest for a nuclear weapon. But it is increasingly apparent that there was more to their decision than a retreat on the nuclear question. What we witnessed in New York this week was merely the logical next step that was mandated by a policy of détente that seeks to make Iran America’s partner in the region. Rather than a last resort move to deal with a no-win dilemma, this attempt to recruit Zarif to work toward a rational solution in Syria signals growing U.S. acquiescence about Iran’s quest for regional hegemony.
That same spirit of accommodation of Iran’s foreign policy dictates is motivating Kerry’s half-hearted attempts to do something about Syria and ISIS. With Russia conducting an arms buildup in its coastal enclave, Hezbollah trying to set up its own bases in Syria near the Israeli border and the Syrian government transferring Russian weapons to the Lebanese group, the result isn’t merely a dangerously chaotic war zone. The situation is now one where Iran and its allies are firmly established on Syrian territory and in a position to guarantee Assad’s survival no matter what Obama and Kerry say is their goal. That means Iran’s effort to establish a sphere of influence that stretches all the way to the Mediterranean is now not only a fact but also one that the U.S. is now prepared to recognize and even implicitly endorse.
In the nuclear talks, the U.S. went from a position opposing Iran’s uranium enrichment and its retention of its nuclear infrastructure to one in which it becomes the guarantor of its right to a program that sooner or later makes a weapon a virtual certainty. Similarly, in Syria, the U.S. went from demanding Assad’s ouster and Iran’s exclusion from the country to one where it is now in bed with Tehran and its allies with no apparent hope of ever getting rid of them.
It can be argued that faced with an ISIS “caliphate” that is committing massive atrocities, erasing Syria’s borders and generating a massive wave of refugees, the U.S. has no choice but to work with the supposedly less bad Islamists of Iran and Hezbollah. But this apparent lack of options isn’t an accident. Having prioritized a desire to withdraw from the region and good relations with Iran from the start of the crisis, this outcome was more or less foreordained by American policy as much as by ISIS and Iranian adventurism.
During the negotiations with Iran, administration critics attempted to point out that the point of the agreement seemed to be as much an effort to advance détente with the regime as much as it was to restrain, or at least postpone its acquisition of a bomb. But now that the deal was snuck through without benefit of popular support or a majority in either the House or the Senate, Kerry’s humiliating appeal to Iran conclusively demonstrates the truth of that assertion. Lest anyone wonder who has the final say in Syria, no one should ask Kerry. It’s Iran’s Middle East now and those nations — such as Israel and neighboring Arab states — that must live in the shadow of that push for hegemony as well as their nuclear threat, can no longer expect the U.S. to do a thing about it.
Jonathan S. Tobin is senior online editor of COMMENTARY magazine and chief political blogger at www.commentarymagazine.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Disaster: Today's Warrior Purge in the U.S. military
By Robert K. Wilcox
“Where do we find such men?”
That memorable line comes from James Mitchner’s Korean War novel, The Bridges of Toko-Ri. It refers to intrepid aviators lifting from a carrier, flying into untold danger. They know they may not return. They launch anyway. In boldness unfathomable to many, they willingly, artfully fly into peril. They are warriors, men of rare talent, intellect, and courage – a combination essential for victory.
Needed warriors are now being purged from the U.S. military. If America went to war right now with China or Russia, we could lose because of these purges. We’re losing top-level warrior-leaders to make the crucial differences in battle. They’re being systematically drummed out as politically incorrect. When the going gets tough, political correctness (PC) is useless. Then the brilliant, wily fighters, the coolest heads, the most courageous warriors, are needed to lead regardless of social views or record.
Today, in large measure, our fighting forces are led by briefcase-carrying busybodies, yes-men more interested in enforcing political beliefs and social change than leading in battle. They care more about their careers than what’s happening to the military and thus the country. Just last week, a new downsizing of the army was announced – without a protest.
Warriors are not prized. They are criticized and ridiculed. Up-and-coming warriors who admire the purged want to emulate them, see what’s happening, and are exiting as a result.
“Soldiers like George Patton or Curtis LeMay are no longer wanted,” writes LCOL Greg Lee, USMC (Retired) in a well-circulated internet forward. “The fundamental job of the military, ‘kill bad people and break things,’ has become critically hampered by ‘rules of engagement’ and policies who’s sic guiding logic is political outcome, not successful combat. If the US military is ever defeated, it will be because rather than honing fighting skills, nurturing fighting thinkers and leaders it is running the best Day Care centers in the world.”
Political correctness, social change, even care for the enemy are now the battle cries of the U.S. military hierarchy in the Pentagon. The rules of engagement (ROI), changed to limit civilian deaths under President Obama, are now so dangerous that American soldiers have been made into sitting ducks. In years past, generals and admirals resigned over such disregard for their troops. Today’s leaders acquiesce and espouse confusing non-military goals. The president confounds Coast Guard graduates saying their enemy is climate change. He sends 3,000 troops to battle...Ebola?
Pentagon priorities are women’s and gay rights and defeating the world’s social ills – disease, hunger, and poverty. These are worthy causes for a Peace Corps, church group, or diplomat, but not for the military, whose sole constitutional purpose is defending Americans against military threats. Do you send a sniper to nurse a baby?
Battlefield interrogation, once a life-saver for engaged troops, is now considered torture by the Pentagon and therefore almost eliminated. Commanders know it will bring immediate dismissal. Ask former representative Alan West, who, as an army commander, roughed up an Iraqi spy and saved his men from ambush. He was quickly relieved of command, and had it not been for public opinion, he would probably be in jail. Soft interrogation in the heat of battle is useless. Toughness, not empathy, is needed once war is declared. War is hell.
Leaders are increasingly chosen for race and/or gender rather than military skills. Under Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel a Pentagon training manual taught how white males in the military have an unfair advantage. A hushed story is that a Blue Angels skipper, Donnie Cochran, picked to head the famed Navy flying group largely because of race, resigned after admitting he wasn’t up to the job. Similarly, the first female Tomcat pilot, Kara Hultgreen, rushed into the cockpit because of her gender, died slamming into the rear of the carrier on approach because of “pilot error.” In both cases, PC rushed the assignments. The ignorance and bias of most media regarding warriors and warfare exacerbate the problem. Few have served. Most see only the social arguments.
Sexual orientation appears the next criterion – especially with the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. According to the Washington Times (June 9, 2015), a gay general in the Army recently introduced his husband at a Pentagon gay rights rally, where Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was the keynote speaker. In opening remarks, Brig. Gen. Randy S. Taylor, master of ceremonies, called attention to his husband, Lucas, “sitting up front.” Carter then told the audience, “We need to be a meritocracy. We can’t afford to close ourselves off to anybody.” Gays, as well as women, can certainly be warriors, but needed warriorhood was not mentioned at the rally. It is never mentioned, because it is shunned.
Religion, too, a bedrock of warrior culture, is being purged. Pentagon edicts have banned any expressions of Christianity in counseling soldiers. A Marine lance corporal, Monifa Sterling, a black female, was given a court martial and bad conduct discharge for having a Bible verse on her desk and refusing to remove it. In contradiction to the old truism, will atheists now be the only soldiers allowed in foxholes? How about Muslims? In direct contrast to Christianity, militant Islam, a self-declared enemy, is coddled, even defended. A blind eye is turned to its murder, tyranny, and aggression, a prime example being the Ft. Hood shootings. The rugged individualism and fervor, sometimes religious, of warriors like Patton, Jimmy Doolittle, Pappy Boyington, and Robin Olds are now deemed bigotry and discrimination – a quick ticket out.
As a well-circulated piece in the Beaufort (South Carolina) Observer lamented: “Can you imagine someone today looking for a leader to execute the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo and suggesting that it be assigned to a dare-devil boozer whose attributes nonetheless are those of a needed warrior he had respect of his men, an awesome ability to fly, and the organizational skills to put all together?” No way. “Where are all the dynamic leaders of the past?” I’ll tell you, adds the piece: “they were fired before they made major.”
Numbers tell the tale: 197 officers purged in the five years up to October 2013 – this according to Stand Up America, a media organization founded by army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (Retired). That’s an extraordinary number. Later figures are unavailable (probably hidden). It appears that senior officers who wanted to aid those under siege at Benghazi were purged. A January 2015 article at AMAC’S named Gen. Carter Hamm, in charge of African Command, and Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, a carrier commander in the Mediterranean at the time, as believed relieved because of their indications to aid. “Take a look at some of the nine who have been fired or relieved of duty since Benghazi,” writes AMAC’s Joseph R. Carducci. “This is one of the largest and fastest purges of military commanders that has ever been recorded.”
The White House is behind the purges. For the first time in American history, a U.S. president, Barack Obama, disdains the military from the Oval Office. From ignorance of the military word “corpsmen” to not acknowledging fallen heroes like at Benghazi to championing huge and dangerous reductions in the military budget, Obama, even as threats mount, has shown his contempt for warriors. While speaking out on questionable deaths of black youths, he says little to nothing about warrior deaths. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy is woefully undershipped – from 600 to 300 in a matter of years. This despite military buildups in China and Russia. The Air Force and Navy need new and better planes to keep pace. We’re ridiculously withholding arms from those fighting ISIS. Only lip service is given to shamefully treated veterans. In addition, Obama refuses to identify by name America’s most vocal enemy – militant Islam. The religion’s fighters rape, murder, and torture, and assault almost every PC belief Obama and his aides expound, yet Obama dismisses them as “JV” (junior varsity), “terrorists,” or an aberration. They know he won’t fight.
Like Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister on the eve of WWII, Obama and his advisors have a naive and dangerous belief that appeasement and concession are the ways to avoid conflict and aggression. Chamberlain, waving his meaningless treaty from Hitler, learned the hard way. Once Hitler started WWII, the British people saw the error of Chamberlain’s beliefs and elected Winston Churchill, a warrior if there ever was one, to lead them in crisis.
But it may soon be too late for America. Few, if any, of Obama’s aides seem to know this gallant history. Few, if any, have served in the military. They disguise a low opinion of warriors by casually referring to anyone in uniform as a “hero” while privately ridiculing soldiers as ignorant, offish, and war-mongers – the “bitter clingers” Obama has spoken of. They certainly do not embrace the “warrior culture,” one of the phrases most used by the purgers in calling for good riddance.
No less than John Lehman, former secretary of the Navy, has called attention to the purging. In a recent U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, he wrote, “The attributes of naval aviators –willingness to take intelligent, calculated risk, self-confidence, even a certain swagger are the very attributes that make them particularly vulnerable in today’s zero-tolerance Navy.” Zero tolerance means one strike and you’re out – no second chance. Commanders, especially warrior-commanders, are being “bounced for the bad luck of being breathalyzed after two beers, or allowing risqué forecastle shipboard follies.” Such follies, usually to commemorate events like crossing the equator, have been international naval tradition for hundreds of years.
Today’s purgers, writes Lehman, are PC “thought police” who, “like Inspector Javert in Les Miserables, are out to get the offenders and are relentless.” Any infraction means dismissal. A soldier’s previous record or potential means nothing. He has no chance to learn from his mistake. “Adm. Chester Nimitz who led the U.S. Navy’s Pacific victory in WWII put a squadron of destroyers on the rocks. But while being put in purgatory for a while, he was protected by seniors who recognized his potential talent. In today’s Navy, Nimitz would be gone” – as would any officer who wanted to keep him. “Political correctness just might do more damage to American security than did the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
If you're under 50, you need to read this. If you’re over 50, you lived through it.
When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovered of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.
Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.
Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.
Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the “bimbo eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle was:
She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.
She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.
Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.
Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.
After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, China, and artwork that she had stolen.
What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type low-life mess?
Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next. But to her loyal fans - “what difference does it make?”
Electing Hillary Clinton president would be like granting Satan absolution and giving him the keys to heaven!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
Deal With Iraq to Fight Islamic State Extends Russia’s Reach in Middle East
Kremlin rivals U.S. for influence in region
Shiite militia fighters stage a military parade in the southern Iraqi city of Basra on Sunday. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
Iraq joined Russia, Iran and Syria in a new agreement to strengthen cooperation against extremist group Islamic State, extending the Kremlin’s reach in the Middle East as it rivals Washington for influence.
U.S. and Russian officials held talks Sunday on the sidelines of a United Nations summit in New York to try to forge a common approach to fighting Islamic State, a day before President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin were to hold their first formal meeting in more than two years at the U.N. The two had an informal encounter in November on the sidelines of a G-20 summit in Australia.
Iraq’s Defense Ministry said Sunday that the country had signed an intelligence and security cooperation pact with Russia, Iran and Syria, pledging to cooperate in collecting information about Islamic State. The deal effectively formalizes years of military collaboration among the four nations, which have intermittently been allies since the 1980s.
The deal is another challenge to U.S. influence in the Middle East at a time when Russia is deploying new military assets—primarily in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—including fighter aircraft and attack helicopters in the coastal region of Syria.
At the same time, the U.S.-led international coalition that has been striking Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria from the air since last fall is grappling with a series of setbacks.
U.S. officials appeared to be taken by surprise by the announcement of the four-nation security pact and said they were still struggling to understand Mr. Putin’s long-term strategy for the region. Mr. Kerry, they said, kept open the possibility that the White House and Kremlin could coordinate, if not cooperate, in fighting Islamic State.U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, at the U.N. General Assembly on Sunday in a bid to harmonize military operations in the region, U.S. and Russian officials said.
“We’re just at the beginning of trying to understand what the Russians’ intentions are in Syria, in Iraq, and to try to see if there are mutually beneficial ways forward here,” said a senior U.S. official who attended the Kerry-Lavrov meeting. “We’ve got a long way to go in that conversation.”
Mr. Lavrov put a more positive spin on the meeting, saying the U.S. and Russia could find a convergence of interests fighting Islamic State.
“The fact is that today, John Kerry confirmed that the only aim of the U.S. and the coalition it has formed is to fight terrorists, primarily [Islamic State], which is our aim as well,” the Russian diplomat told state media.
Mr. Putin’s aggressive push into Syria in recent weeks is increasingly marginalizing the White House’s influence over events on the ground, Arab diplomats said.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said late Sunday that he has been in close coordination with Mr. Putin about Russia’s actions in Syria and that they both support an effort to strengthen the Assad regime. “The government in Damascus cannot be weakened,” Mr. Rouhani told a group of American foreign policy experts and journalists in New York.
Washington’s ability to oust Mr. Assad, its stated goal in Syria, is rapidly diminishing, said the Arab diplomats. And any willingness by the White House to collaborate in Syria and Iraq could place it in a de facto alliance with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization.
“The meeting with Putin is a function of the realities that Putin is creating,” said Dennis Ross, who served as Mr. Obama’s top adviser on the Mideast during his first term. “The Russians are making it pretty clear that nothing is going to happen without them, and they’re putting themselves in the position where we don’t have a lot of choice but to talk to them.”
The new security deal was only the latest example of Iraqi cooperation with Russia, Iran and Syria. Iraq has allowed Russian military transport planes to fly over its airspace to supply Syria with weapons, against the wishes of its American allies.
Russia last year sold jet fighters to Iraq’s air force that were used to bomb Islamic State, after a promised U.S. shipment was delayed. Baghdad is currently negotiating with Moscow to buy more advanced weaponry.
American officials have accused Iraq’s government of allowing Iran to use Iraqi airspace to transport weapons to Mr. Assad. Iraq has denied it. Iranian-backed militias have also played a leading role in the ground fight against Islamic State in Iraq, often failing to coordinate with U.S. officials.
Moscow has long provided conventional weaponry to the military of Mr. Assad, whose resources have been stretched thin after four years of conflict. But in recent weeks, Russia has deployed new military assets to the country, including tanks and fighter aircraft, in what U.S. officials see as a possible prelude to direct military action.
Mr. Putin said he had informed the leaders of Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia about efforts to coordinate the fight against Islamic State, according to remarks released by the Kremlin on Sunday.
“We are offering cooperation to the countries of the region, and we’re attempting to create a kind of coordination structure,” Mr. Putin said, according to an excerpt of an interview with U.S. broadcaster Charlie Rose also released by the Kremlin.
Mr. Putin said the Kremlin had also informed Washington about its ramped-up activities in the Middle East, saying that U.S. and Russian militaries were in communication with each other. But the Russian leader reasserted that his country’s forces were currently in Syria to assist in training and equipping the military of Mr. Assad.
“With regard to our…presence in Syria, it’s at present expressed in the delivery of weaponry to the Syrian government, in the training of personnel and the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Syrian people,” Mr. Putin said.
The White House is looking to Monday’s meeting with Mr. Putin as a decisive moment to determine whether the two leaders can reach a consensus on Syria and Moscow’s role in fighting Islamic State.
Administration officials aren’t expecting a resolution this week. But the meeting is designed to make headway in setting out a formula for a political transition in Syria and for Mr. Obama to gauge whether Russia is willing to relent on its insistence that the U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State coordinate with the Assad regime.
By intervening more muscularly in Syria and Iraq, Mr. Putin is directly challenging Mr. Obama’s two core foreign policy objectives for the final year of his presidency: finding a resolution to the multi-sided war in Syria and fine-tuning the fight against Islamic State. Both will feature prominently in Mr. Obama’s address to the U.N. General Assembly on Monday.
Mr. Putin’s moves in Syria and Iraq come at a time when Mr. Obama’s policies have faltered. The dynamic gives Russia significant leverage heading into Monday’s meeting.
The Syria crisis has become the one major foreign policy issue Mr. Obama has left unresolved. Despite years of attempts to reach a solution, Mr. Obama never invested heavily in ending the conflict and has been reluctant to wade too deeply into such efforts. His reluctance is largely based in his belief that there is no solution that wouldn't pull the U.S. into another open-ended conflict in the region.
White House officials said Mr. Obama had planned to focus more on the conflict after securing the Iran nuclear deal. But Mr. Putin has expedited that shift.
His military buildup in Syria surprised the White House, which wasn’t planning a meeting with the Russian leader in New York until Mr. Putin forced Mr. Obama’s hand by escalating its involvement in Syria.
The administration’s line on the timing of Mr. Assad stepping down has softened in recent weeks. Some officials don't rule out Mr. Assad remaining in power for several more years as part of an agreement.
A senior administration official acknowledged there is “a new reality” in Syria that has forced Mr. Obama to seek a resolution that allows Mr. Assad to stay in power for a time rather than step down immediately as the White House previously advocated. Russia’s recent moves in Syria helped solidify that shift.
—Nathan Hodge in Moscow contributed to this article.
