"In Syria, the joke’s on Washington"

[uawchild]

By Josh Cohen, Reuters

"When Russia began its military campaign in Syria, the Obama administration and its allies quickly claimed it was a disaster in the making. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called Russian President Vladimir Putin “impulsive” and said he was “winging it” in Syria with no long-term strategy. Former United States Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul ridiculed Putin’s “supposed strategic genius,” arguing the Russian leader “cannot restore Assad’s authority over the whole country.” Even President Barack Obama joined the chorus, publicly warning Putin that he risked an Afghanistan-style Russian “quagmire” in Syria.

It turns out, though, that the joke’s on Washington: Thanks to shrewd tactics plus tailwinds from the Paris attacks, Syria is turning into a major strategic victory for Putin. Here’s what he’s accomplished and how he did it.

For starters, as Putin explained in both 2013 and during his recent United Nations speech, what he fears most is power vacuums filled by extremists. As Putin stated early in Russia’s bombing campaign, Russia did not plan major ground operations, since its goal was simply “to stabilize the legitimate government” to prevent its immediate overthrow. For this reason, as director of the Carnegie Moscow Center Dimitri Trenin argues, Putin never meant to help Bashar al-Assad achieve complete military victory, but rather to stave off Syria’s collapse.

Putin has already met this first objective. The Assad regime is no longer in imminent danger, and with Russian air support it has actually re-taken key areas in central Syria and Aleppo. As a result, the regime’s key territory in its Alawite heartland no longer faces the risk of being overrun.

Putin’s second achievement has been to expand Russian military and political influence throughout the Middle East. Russia established a number of bases in the west of Syria while also expanding its naval base at Tartus — Moscow’s only permanent naval presence outside Russia and a key refueling depot for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Putin can now project Russian military strength throughout the Levant and eastern Mediterranean."

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/in-syria-the-jokes-on-washington/

===================

The lack of a coherent US policy in Syria besides vague and indifferently backed up protestations that "Assad must go" is the core of the problem. What is our end game strategy to end the civil/proxy war in Syria? What is OUR peace plan? To keep funneling arms into "moderate islamist rebels"?

It's past time for the US to broker real compromise and conduct serious peace talks in Syria.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Peace talks? With whom?

[uawchild]

2. The internal factions and their proxy backers.

The Syrian government, the Syrian Free Army, any civil Sunni Syrian leadership opposed to Assad (certainly that must exist, right?), representatives of the Christian and other religious minorities -- these would be the internal factions that would have to be included at the very least.

Then the outside BACKERS of these factions that have been supplying arms and money, namely, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US, Russia and Iran at the minimum.

As for ISIS, well, they are more than a terrorist group and more accurately a rogue proto-state -- whether they can be brought into a peace process and their behavior modified to within acceptable norms remains an open question. The old saying is that you don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies, but ISIS might not be reachable.

Nevertheless, all the non-ISIS factions should be engaged in a peace process at the minimum.

[Matrosov]

3. "As long as our primary objective is met, the consequences don't matter."

The end game is the same as always. "As long as our primary objective is met, the consequences don't matter."

The West is more interested in removing Assad than in containing ISIS. For the US, removing Assad would be a blow to Iran and Russia. For Europe, removing Assad would mean the completion of the Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline.

Having ISIS capture all of Syria would be an absolute catastrophe for the average person living in Syria. Yet as long as Assad is removed (the primary objective is met), we couldn't care less about what happens to Syria (the consequences don't matter).

Look at Libya. Gaddafi had to go, we said, because Libya deserved freedom and democracy. Now that Gaddafi is gone, there's even less freedom and democracy than ever. Yet because Gaddafi is no longer in power (the primary objective is met), we couldn't care less about what a hellhole Libya has become (the consequences don't matter).

Before someone accuses me of attacking President Obama, I should point out this is not a Democratic or Republican issue, but US standard operating procedure going back decades. Keep in mind Reagan and Afghanistan in the 1980s. As long as the Soviets were forced out (the primary objective is met), we couldn't have cared less about the US-backed radicals forming the Taliban and using the power vacuum to take over the entire country (the consequences don't matter).

[Oneironaut]

4. US policy in Syria is shortsighted and idiotic.

Ok, Assad gets ousted. Then?

Oh yeah... Oops...

This is the first time I hope the U.S. fails at its objectives. We should be helping Russia and Assad. We're on the wrong side.

[randome]

6. And what happens after removing the rebels? Any plan for that?

As for Assad, isn't it about time we stopped hoping for a strong dictator to help keep the peace?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Oneironaut]

17. Assad is the head of the Syrian state.

Helping him crush the rebels would be returning the country to stability. The alternative is chaos (and an ISIS breeding ground).

Do you really think Al Nusra has a plan for Syria's future? They're Sunni fanatics! The US supporting Syrian rebels like the FSA makes as much sense as supporting Al Qaeda (which they basically are). We're making the same mistakes over again.

The FSA is not going to be able to hold on to Syria. They will be utterly incompetent. They wouldn't even be able to manage a Burger King effectively if given the chance.

I want Assad to win because the alternative is more failed US foreign policy, another power vacuum (which ISIS loves), and another disastrous terrorist breeding ground. If there is any proof that the US government is full of incompetent fools, this is it.

[randome]

5. And getting their advanced jets blown out of the sky by Turkey (TURKEY!) doesn't mean anything.

Putin has self-confidence issues and he's taking Russia down a poorly planned path if he thinks he's going to resurrect the U.S.S.R.

Does anyone really think Putin's plans are any more coherent than Washington's? It's a mess over there. It always has been. And now it's Putin's mess.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[lame54]

7. Let Russia have it

[Johonny]

8. Yeah I can see Obama brokering a deal between Asaad, Isis, Turkey, Kurds, Hezbollah, Russia...

really going over well.

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. The author is a Pro-Putin troll. He strongly supported Putin's incursion into Ukraine.

Josh Cohen is a former USAID project officer involved in managing economic reform projects in the former Soviet Union. He contributes to a number of foreign policy-focused media outlets and tweets at @jkc_in_dc .

http://www.jpost.com/International/Putin-says-Ukraine-being-overrun-by-fascists-and-he-may-be-right-403205

Just so everyone knows he brings a pro Putin bias to his writings.

[uawchild]

10. Did you read your own link? The article is not "pro-Putin" at all, its anti-NeoNazi

Did you read your own link? The article is not "pro-Putin" at all, its anti-NeoNazi. Plus Josh Cohen, the author, makes the point that these laws give cover to Putin's accusations. Take note of the use of scare quotes when he refers to Putin's "evidence". People can read it here for themselves.

from your linked article published by the Jerusalem Post:

"Kiev has now handed the Kremlin "evidence" for Putin’s claim that Russia is facing off against fascists.

As Ukraine continues its battle against separatists, corruption and a collapsing economy, it has taken a dangerous step that could further tear the country apart: Ukraine’s parliament, the Supreme Rada, passed a draft law last month honoring organizations involved in mass ethnic cleansing during World War Two.

The draft law - which is now on President Petro Poroshenko’s desk awaiting his signature - recognizes a series of Ukrainian political and military organizations as “fighters for Ukrainian independence in the 20th century” and bans the criticism of these groups and their members. (The bill doesn’t state the penalty for doing so.) Two of the groups honored - the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) - helped the Nazis carry out the Holocaust while also killing close to 100,000 Polish civilians during World War Two.

The law is part of a recent trend of contemporary Ukrainian nationalism promoted by those on the extreme right to break with the country’s Communist past and emphasize Ukraine’s suffering under the Soviet regime. In addition to the moral problem of forbidding the criticism of Holocaust perpetrators, the law hinders Ukraine’s European ambitions - and validates Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claims that the country is overrun by neo-Nazis."
http://www.jpost.com/International/Putin-says-Ukraine-being-overrun-by-fascists-and-he-may-be-right-403205

==========

To me this does not sound like a pro-Putin troll, it sounds like a Jewish person upset by recent Ukrainian laws he considers honoring groups that committed ethnic cleansing against Poles and aided in carrying out the Holocaust during WWII.

Also, for the record and to avoid any confusion, Josh Cohen is a former _US_ State Department project officer that worked on _US_ economic freedom issues in Russia.

[Mojorabbit]

11. Still, I have yet to hear any kind of plan from our side

and that has nothing to do with how I feel about Putin.

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. Unless you're in the war room, I'm not sure you need "to hear a plan". Who are you?

[Mojorabbit]

13. We always put some official goal to our overt interventions out there.

A lot of the time the goals are bogus but they are there. I expect to hear something. I don't have to be in a war room to expect to hear what my government is looking to achieve. I am not sure where you got that idea. It may be out there but I have not seen it yet.

[uawchild]

14. Seems like our plan is something like this...

1. Arm Islamist Rebels to get rid of Assad regime

2. Defeat ISIS

3. ??????

4. Peace

The only problem I see is stage 3. What happens to the substantial Shiite, Alawite, Christian and non-Islamist Sunni moslems populations when the "moderate Islamist" Wahhabist take power?

Ok, I guess I have doubts about stage 2 also. What does defeating ISIS really mean? What's to stop ISIS supporters from simply voting in an ISIS like government and taking power "legitimately"? Hasn't that happened before in Egypt with the Moslem Brotherhood, for example? Once it has been released, due to George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, putting the extreme ideology of ISIS back in the bottle is a frighteningly daunting problem.

[Mojorabbit]

16. +1000 nt