Yesterday, president Obama repeated the mantra that has been his administration's view of the Russian entry into Syria. First, Russia went into the fight "out of weakness" according to Obama. Second, Syria will be a quagmire for the Russians which will cost them dearly while not letting them achieve much at all. It's strange to think that the man who is president of the United States could be so off base in his thinking.
Let's start with this weakness/strength comparison. The idea is that Russia was somehow forced into Syria; it was just too weak to resist the pull of the Syrian civil war. The inevitable initial reaction to this claim is, to quote Hillary, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" The Russians are in Syria. That presents some clear problems. What should America's response be? That ought to be Obama's focus. Instead, he and his people keep trying to point to supposed Russian "weakness" as if it were some sort of victory or positive for the USA. It isn't. It really doesn't matter. Nevertheless, it you think about this Russian weakness, you find that what Russia has done here is to enter Syria together with the Iranians to help their embattled ally, Bashir as Assad. Helping an ally is not a sign of weakness. Think of it this way: if Iranian forces were to invade Turkey, a NATO ally, and the USA sent armed forces to help defeat the Iranians, that's not a sign of American weakness. It would be a sign of American resolve, of America's honoring its commitments, and of what would surely be portrayed as commitment to the world order. When Russia does the same thing, it's not a sign of weakness. Obama is just wrong.
Then there's the quagmire claim. There's no reason why Syria should be a quagmire; that will be up to others like the Saudis, Jordanians, and Egyptians. Certainly, if the non-ISIS rebels do not get substantial help from outside Syria, the Russian/Iranian/Hezbollah forces combined with the Assad forces will crush those rebels. They may persist in the fight, but they will be more of a bother than a threat to Assad. Of course, were the Saudis or any of the others to send weapons and maybe even troops to the Sunni rebels, there could be substantial costs for the Russians and Iranians. A few handheld anti-aircraft missiles could bring down those big Russian transports that supply the Russian forces. It would not take all that much to inflict real costs on the Russians. But would the Saudis take on Russia and Putin? More precisely, would Saudi Arabia take on the Russians and Iranians when the Saudis know that no help would be forthcoming from Washington? I don't think any of the local Arab regimes would chance that. So the Russians will be able to take out the non-ISIS Sunni rebels. That leaves the rest of the world a choice between Assad and ISIS. It's the one contest that Assad ought to have no problem in winning. Somehow, this doesn't sound much like a quagmire.
But the USA hit a quagmire in Iraq, didn't we? Obama certainly thinks so. But he is wrong. He forgets that in Iraq, America fought with different rules of engagement than the Russians are using. We tried to avoid civilian deaths; the Russians are not. Just look at the first three days of Russian bombing and you see that the majority of the dead are women and children. America also faced Iranian efforts in Iraq to inflict death and destruction on our forces. We did nothing to stop the Iranians due to restrictive rules of engagement. The Russians will not be so kind to foreign intervention in support of their opponents. And let's not forget the big point: after the surge in Iraq, we won. The war was over. America won the Iraq War and then Obama lost the peace after it. Our president was so insistent on getting out of the quagmire that he still saw, that he handed Iraq to ISIS and Iran. We are all now paying for that delusional move.
Let's start with this weakness/strength comparison. The idea is that Russia was somehow forced into Syria; it was just too weak to resist the pull of the Syrian civil war. The inevitable initial reaction to this claim is, to quote Hillary, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" The Russians are in Syria. That presents some clear problems. What should America's response be? That ought to be Obama's focus. Instead, he and his people keep trying to point to supposed Russian "weakness" as if it were some sort of victory or positive for the USA. It isn't. It really doesn't matter. Nevertheless, it you think about this Russian weakness, you find that what Russia has done here is to enter Syria together with the Iranians to help their embattled ally, Bashir as Assad. Helping an ally is not a sign of weakness. Think of it this way: if Iranian forces were to invade Turkey, a NATO ally, and the USA sent armed forces to help defeat the Iranians, that's not a sign of American weakness. It would be a sign of American resolve, of America's honoring its commitments, and of what would surely be portrayed as commitment to the world order. When Russia does the same thing, it's not a sign of weakness. Obama is just wrong.
Then there's the quagmire claim. There's no reason why Syria should be a quagmire; that will be up to others like the Saudis, Jordanians, and Egyptians. Certainly, if the non-ISIS rebels do not get substantial help from outside Syria, the Russian/Iranian/Hezbollah forces combined with the Assad forces will crush those rebels. They may persist in the fight, but they will be more of a bother than a threat to Assad. Of course, were the Saudis or any of the others to send weapons and maybe even troops to the Sunni rebels, there could be substantial costs for the Russians and Iranians. A few handheld anti-aircraft missiles could bring down those big Russian transports that supply the Russian forces. It would not take all that much to inflict real costs on the Russians. But would the Saudis take on Russia and Putin? More precisely, would Saudi Arabia take on the Russians and Iranians when the Saudis know that no help would be forthcoming from Washington? I don't think any of the local Arab regimes would chance that. So the Russians will be able to take out the non-ISIS Sunni rebels. That leaves the rest of the world a choice between Assad and ISIS. It's the one contest that Assad ought to have no problem in winning. Somehow, this doesn't sound much like a quagmire.
But the USA hit a quagmire in Iraq, didn't we? Obama certainly thinks so. But he is wrong. He forgets that in Iraq, America fought with different rules of engagement than the Russians are using. We tried to avoid civilian deaths; the Russians are not. Just look at the first three days of Russian bombing and you see that the majority of the dead are women and children. America also faced Iranian efforts in Iraq to inflict death and destruction on our forces. We did nothing to stop the Iranians due to restrictive rules of engagement. The Russians will not be so kind to foreign intervention in support of their opponents. And let's not forget the big point: after the surge in Iraq, we won. The war was over. America won the Iraq War and then Obama lost the peace after it. Our president was so insistent on getting out of the quagmire that he still saw, that he handed Iraq to ISIS and Iran. We are all now paying for that delusional move.
No comments:
Post a Comment