Russia didn't win in Syria, so much as Trump gave in
By David Ignatius / The Washington Post
Its heretical to say so, but Russia has earned its current success in the Middle East. Its using the same mix of military and diplomatic tools that made the United States dominant in the region for so many decades. America didnt lose this battle for influence; it surrendered.
President Trumps efforts to dress up his retreat from Syria as a victory are an embarrassment. He squandered Americas leverage, abandoned our Kurdish allies to a Turkish invasion, and thereby reopened the door for a defeated enemy, the Islamic State, to resume attacks on the West.
Trumps performance shames the United States, especially the military. Imagine what it felt like for U.S. special operations forces as they withdrew this month from the Syrian battlefield pelted by tomatoes thrown by their irate former Kurdish allies. A bitter end to what had been a hugely successful campaign against the Islamic State.
Now Russia steps into this space of northeast Syria. And its useful to examine, without blinders, some reasons President Vladimir Putin has achieved so much. The first, dark fact is that he has been a cynical and brutal partner for an even more brutal Syrian regime. But its more complicated than that.
Putin has triumphed partly because he has used the instruments of power effectively. He intervened in Syria in 2015 with limited force, but decisively. Frustrated by Syrian dependency and mismanagement, he pulled some forces back after the initial campaign and threatened to withdraw more.
Russia has leverage partly because it talks to all the warring nations in the Middle East. Moscow has friendly relations with Iran, but also with Israel. Russia talks to the Turks and also to their mortal enemies, the Kurds. Ambiguity is part of Putins tool kit. He doesnt exclude himself from the bargaining table.
America, not so long ago, was a similar interlocutor. It was the essential partner because it talked with all sides. The U.S. was Israels faithful ally, but it also had a deep relationship (initially in secret) with the Palestinian guerrilla groups. It brokered deals among parties that couldnt talk directly.
Americas addiction to sanctions is part of our self-neutering process. These economic penalties are often a reflexive substitute for a more serious policy to advance American interests. We sanction Russia, Syria, Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela
and after Trump foolishly encouraged Turkeys invasion of Syria, the instant reaction was? Sanctions! This tool is so overused that its becoming counterproductive.
https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/ignatius-russia-didnt-win-in-syria-so-much-as-trump-gave-in/?utm_source=DAILY+HERALD&utm_campaign=b143838ea2-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d81d073bb4-b143838ea2-228635337
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Moscow Don played his Reality TV role to the hilt. Putin has been working the edges of world Influence for more than a decade. And this gave him a front row set in his Influence of the Mid East plus access to another major under proven Oil Reserve Patch as a source of Currency.
And by doing so,he increases his daily revenue for his massive Pipeline that crosses Syria which will be used by Turkish,Syrian,and other Mid Eastern Countries to be able to market their Oil.
Putin has already launched his Arctic Base with a 100k troops and floating Nuke power generator,and he was giving a Deep Water warm weather Port for his new Syrian Out post.
Igel
(35,337 posts)It had tactics. From the get-go, it had tactics.
Intervene to overthrow Assad? No, support rebels. But not too much, because the rebels included Islamists that would take US weapons and help to overthrow Assad, and likely be worse that Assad--and feel no appreciation for the US' role. We'd be a thorn, create enough chaos to produce a million or more refugees and a humanitarian catastrophe, but we couldn't let the rebellion be crushed because hundreds would die at Assad's henchmen's hands. Unlike the many thousands dead in the civil war.
Yeah, that predictably didn't work out.
Of course, it was clear there was no military solution to the fighting in Syria. No way that Assad could survive--he'd need to find a political accommodation with the insurgents/rebels. Seriously, now. Again, how did *that* work out? The only reason there are rebels left is that they are protected by Turkey, the US ally. Otherwise it was precisely what was simply imaginable that solved Assad's problem: A military solution. Of course, it also solved the problem in NE Syria with ISIS, but everybody agreed that ISIS had to go. The Kurds would have fought ISIS anyway, they were protecting their own interests (however much they were only protecting US interests when the rhetoric requires that particular stance).
But push for the Kurds to have anything more than autonomy while the US helped occupy Syrian territory? Without support for Kurdish independence from any country within 1000 miles? What, we were going to stay there forever? No, we couldn't stay, we couldn't leave. At best we might--*might*--be able to argue that we'd yield sovereign territory for a promise of continued (limited) Kurdish autonomy. Because Assad is good about promises.
So what's left. Can't stay, can't go. No military solution except when somebody had the spine to actually pursue the very practicable and effective obvious military solution.
In 2011 it was obvious that the US was not going to win this political diplomatic situation unless Assad magically vanished.
What's amusing is that one of the "real" goes of the US military effort in NE Syria--yeah, yeah, fight ISIS, go team--was to prevent what? Oh, that's right. An Iranian land corridor that would be able to easily transport serious munitions from Iran over through Shi'ite Iraqi territory to Hezbollah. Notice that this has completely vanished from the radar. It's not on Trump's. It's not on the (D) radar.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)someones Radar this week. Read a piece about a Israel Politician meeting with political people from Qatar,Jordan and other people concerned about what you mentioned.
Me,I am watching Germany and maybe France for making a move towards some type of Political arrangement . Iran is sitting with a Army of 4 million highly trained and equipped.
If as had been reported,the ISIS people are roaming around looking for a fight,well,all bets are off.