Once again tonight on 60 Minutes, president Obama threw out his line that president Putin of Russia is "acting out of weakness" by putting Russian troops and planes into Syria. According to Obama, Putin is putting more stress on the weak Russian economy and getting caught in a quagmire like Afghanistan in the 1980s by moving into Syria in a vain attempt to shore up the position of Russia's ally Bashir al Assad. For some reason unexplained by Obama, this statement is supposed to prove that America need do nothing in response to the Russian moves. Indeed, the USA can drop all of its efforts regarding Syria according to Obama, and there will be no adverse consequences.
Let's take a moment to think about Obama's claims.
Putin is taking military action to support his ally in Syria. We are supposed to believe that this is a "weak" move. Why is it weak? If NATO were attacked and the USA sent its forces to repel the invader and to help support our allies in NATO, would that be acting out of weakness? The truth is that in that instance, America would just be satisfying its obligations to our allies. Why is the same move "weak" if the Russians do it? Obama has no answer to this question. But Russia's economy is weak, isn't it? Doesn't that make Putin someone acting out of weakness? Once again, the answer is NO! In the long run, if Russia has allies in the Middle East, it is more likely to have business dealing in that region which can help strengthen the Russian economy. The move into Syria, if successful, will help strengthen Russia.
But wait, Obama also says that Putin is putting Russia into a quagmire like the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Of course, Obama leaves out the key ingredient for that quagmire. Remember, the Soviets went into Afghanistan in 1979, and there was resistance by the inhabitants of that country. That is also the case in Syria today. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, however, he started the American program to funnel weapons and other assistance to the Afghan opposition. It was those American weapons that were used to shoot down Russian planes and helicopters. It was those American weapons that were used to stop Russian tanks. It was communications equipment supplied by America that let the Afghan opposition coordinate the efforts against the Russians. There is no one in Syria supplying those weapons and equipment to the rebels fighting Assad. Indeed, to the limited extent that the USA was giving help to the rebels, Obama has just ordered that to stop. In other words, there is no reason to believe that the rebels will be able to hold out against the Russian/Iranian/Hezbollah/Assad forces. There is no VALID reason to believe that Syria will be a quagmire for the Russians.
So we come back to the basic question: why does Obama think it acceptable to do nothing in the face of the Russian support for Assad? Russia, after all, is hitting those Sunni forces that opposed ISIS. Russia is hitting the Sunni forces that America previously helped. So Russia hits our allies and Obama's only answer is to falsely claim that Putin is action out of weakness. It makes no sense. It is as if an arsonist started the White House on fire and Obama does nothing but says it is of no concern because the arsonist did not use an accelerant. Hey, genius, the White House is still on fire! Send in the fire department.
Let's take a moment to think about Obama's claims.
Putin is taking military action to support his ally in Syria. We are supposed to believe that this is a "weak" move. Why is it weak? If NATO were attacked and the USA sent its forces to repel the invader and to help support our allies in NATO, would that be acting out of weakness? The truth is that in that instance, America would just be satisfying its obligations to our allies. Why is the same move "weak" if the Russians do it? Obama has no answer to this question. But Russia's economy is weak, isn't it? Doesn't that make Putin someone acting out of weakness? Once again, the answer is NO! In the long run, if Russia has allies in the Middle East, it is more likely to have business dealing in that region which can help strengthen the Russian economy. The move into Syria, if successful, will help strengthen Russia.
But wait, Obama also says that Putin is putting Russia into a quagmire like the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Of course, Obama leaves out the key ingredient for that quagmire. Remember, the Soviets went into Afghanistan in 1979, and there was resistance by the inhabitants of that country. That is also the case in Syria today. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, however, he started the American program to funnel weapons and other assistance to the Afghan opposition. It was those American weapons that were used to shoot down Russian planes and helicopters. It was those American weapons that were used to stop Russian tanks. It was communications equipment supplied by America that let the Afghan opposition coordinate the efforts against the Russians. There is no one in Syria supplying those weapons and equipment to the rebels fighting Assad. Indeed, to the limited extent that the USA was giving help to the rebels, Obama has just ordered that to stop. In other words, there is no reason to believe that the rebels will be able to hold out against the Russian/Iranian/Hezbollah/Assad forces. There is no VALID reason to believe that Syria will be a quagmire for the Russians.
So we come back to the basic question: why does Obama think it acceptable to do nothing in the face of the Russian support for Assad? Russia, after all, is hitting those Sunni forces that opposed ISIS. Russia is hitting the Sunni forces that America previously helped. So Russia hits our allies and Obama's only answer is to falsely claim that Putin is action out of weakness. It makes no sense. It is as if an arsonist started the White House on fire and Obama does nothing but says it is of no concern because the arsonist did not use an accelerant. Hey, genius, the White House is still on fire! Send in the fire department.
No comments:
Post a Comment