Last September, Russia took the lead in Syria. Obama scoffed at it, but Russia has now achieved its goals. It wasnt afraid to act. Another foreign policy abdication for the US.
When Vladimir Putin of Russia announced about six months ago that he would be sending in his planes to attack ISIS in Syria, President Obama scoffed. “Quagmire,” he said. Putin was going to sink his country in a quagmire. Bad move. . . . a mistake the US would not make.
As was not hard to predict at the time, the reality was just the opposite: the aggressive initiative taken by Putin would consolidate Russia’s disproportionate influence over the future of Syria. Which is just what has happened.
Flying thousands of sorties, most aimed not at ISIS but at the Syrian opposition groups, Russia achieved its policy goals: the entrenchment of the brutal Syrian dictator Bashar Assad in power and the corresponding weakening of the opposition’s hold over Syrian territory.
The opportunity for control over the future of Syria was just waiting to be grabbed. Russia grabbed it. The US did not. By the way, Russia did not put many “boots on the ground.” Putin got what he wanted with a clear vision and a minimum of investment. His main strategy was airpower.
At his announcement of the beginning of the Russian withdrawal from Syria, Putin dealt in typically Orwellian newspeak worthy of the Soviet era: “I hope that today’s decision will be a good signal for all parties to the conflict.”
Translation: It is a great signal for Bashar Assad, mostly an indifferent signal to ISIS, whose defeat never was Putin’s central aim, and a terrible signal for the freedom fighters in Syria — abandoned by the US. The rebel stronghold of Aleppo has been nearly encircled by Assad’s forces.
Putin continued: “I hope that this will considerably increase the level of trust between all parties of the Syrian settlement and will contribute to a peaceful resolution of the Syrian issue.”
Translation: Dictators impose “peace.” Assad, long accustomed to being a dictator, will now have greater strength to impose his brutal will, thanks to Putin’s massive military support. Still more: Assad is getting help from two American enemies, Iran and Hezbollah of the Shia axis. A great policy gain for Assad and his allies, a great policy defeat for the US.
There is always “trust between all parties” when one of the parties — the freedom fighters — is radically reduced in strength and influence. “Trust” means submission.
Putin said that “diplomacy” should take over. Why not? Now that the reality on the ground is pretty much as Putin wants it, diplomacy is welcome. Diplomacy, of course, rarely achieves anything radically different from the realities on the ground. Diplomacy at Appomattox took over because the South was defeated. Diplomacy took over after Hiroshima and Nagasaki because Japan was defeated.
Needless to say, Putin’s intervention did disrupt ISIS to an extent. But this was neither his main goal nor his main activity.
The White House used to have a policy: a “political transition,” that is, the end of Assad’s rule. Russia changed that. The White House policy now calls for ceasefires and still calls for a “political transition,” but it’s not pushed. It can’t be. The reality on the ground has changed.
Nothing new here. In 2012, Obama laid down a red line against Assad. If Assad used chemical weapons, the US would respond with air strikes. Assad used chemical weapons. The US did not respond as promised. The messages sent by this administration about Syria are perfectly clear: Handwringing is in order. Action is not. Leadership will be available for whomever exercises it. Putin exercised it — against American interests.
No quagmire befell.
Copyright © 2016 by the Intermountain Jewish News
