General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPutin and Assad have made fools of the West
At the outset of Syrias brutal four-year civil war, I was an almost unique voice in the British media deploring the push to depose the secular dictator President Bashar al-Assad, especially in the absence of a genuinely popular uprising against him. Here in The Spectator I tried to point out that such a short-term strategy would have devastating long-term consequences. Assad, I argued, would not fall, because the people of Damascus would not rise up against him. The so-called secular rebels were in fact vicious Islamists in disguise. Western interests in the region would be dramatically undermined by Saudi and Iranian militias, who would fight a devastating proxy war. Syrias extraordinarily diverse population risked annihilation as a result. And we could even end up provoking a full-blown war with Russia.
No one listened, and I tired of trying to convince them of their folly. Four years on, the suffering of the Syrian people 250,000 slaughtered, half of the population internally displaced and millions more made refugees is obvious. And last week, in the midst of Europes biggest refugee crisis since the second world war (brought about in no small part by fleeing Syrians), the extent of the Wests geopolitical miscalculations became painfully evident. Jihadists of various affiliations, who are now unequivocally the only opposition, were encroaching on Syrias Alawite-dominated coastal heartland, and inching ever closer towards Damascus. So the long-time Syrian ally Russia called Washingtons bluff by establishing military bases in the regime stronghold Latakia. In a flash its tanks, fighter jets, military advisers, warships and even its most modern anti-aircraft missile system were in place. Its engineers constructed an airport landing strip almost overnight, as its navy conducted menacing drills in the nearby (Russian-leased) Syrian port of Tartus.
This was the most brazen overseas military deployment by Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. But it caught Nato off guard. Perhaps we shouldnt be surprised. After all, we learnt of the Islamic States new caliphate arguably the most important development in the region since the founding of Israel in 1948 only when its leader announced the event on YouTube. Still, the question remains: why did the Russians move to guarantee Assads survival? The short answer is because the Wests Syrian strategy was in such disarray that Russia could expect Nato to look the other way.
.....
Assad is in fact now more popular than ever in the roughly one third of Syria he still controls. Anyone in Damascus or on the coast who supported the Islamic State long since either joined it or blew themselves up among the infidels. The West, though, is more hated than ever. A recent poll found that 80 per cent of Syrians believe we created the Islamic State a common belief, incidentally, throughout the Middle East (and not entirely inaccurate). So it took Washington and its reactionary Gulf allies four years and billions of dollars to end up eating humble pie. They have now effectively admitted that Moscow was right about Syria all along. In the process, they have undermined any humanitarian credibility our military adventurism may still have had after the Iraq nightmare.
John R. Bradley is the author of four books on the Middle East.
Complete story at - http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9643672/putin-and-assad-have-made-fools-of-the-west/
msongs
(67,381 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Not even gonna get into the adolescent stupidity of terms like "BushObama."
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Let some other superpower by proxy try to clean up the mess the West and Saudi have left.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)malaise
(268,868 posts)and then some. Too many in the West have forgotten the millions of Iraqis who fled to Syria when US bombs were lighting up the sky to the delight and entertainment of hacks in the media. Bushco created this entire mess.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and spoke out LOUDLY @ the folly of believing this was an "Arab Spring" type of revolution.
Assad has and continues to have majority support in Syria. With Russia and Iran's support, there was no way he was going to fall. Russia was always going to support Syria because of the naval base there - it was obvious even to those of us who aren't DC insiders.
And I'm so not surprised 80% of those in the area are convinced we're responsible for ISIS...
FWIW, I'm glad this has permanently damaged any illusion of US "humanitarianism" when we enter these ME militarily. I just hope enough Americans recognize that, understand it, and make sure their representatives know we know.
Thanks for posting an excellent article. K&R!
pampango
(24,692 posts)His is a minority government in a country with a majority of Sunnis. He may certainly have "majority support" in the regions of Syria that he still controls because he has lost much of the Sunni territory.
The majority Sunnis deserve a voice in selecting who governs Syria just as majority Blacks deserve a voice in who governs South Africa. The Sunnis of Syria will not get that voice. They won't have it with ISIS control of much of Syria. And they won't have it if the world unites to defeat ISIS, as it should, and restore Assad's rule of all of Syria.
Was the Arab Spring only folly in Syria or in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East as well? And how does one know that popular protests are folly? Is that true in all countries all the time? Or just in countries in the Middle East?
romanic
(2,841 posts)The two groups need to learn how to get along, unless they like the constant religious wars that plague their region.
pampango
(24,692 posts)'rivalries' that cause wars and discord around the world. We all have to learn to 'get along'. We have much more in common than what divides us.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)If foreign militants had invaded South Africa to support the Black majority there, in the event that the apartheid government had used force to hold on to power and drive the country to civil war, that would not imply that the government was right just that the militants made things even worse.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)romanic
(2,841 posts)need to buck up and leave the M.E. If Russia, Iran, and whoever want to deal with ISIS and the mess that our country, along with jihadists, Saudis, whoever else, created; then by all means let them take care of it. It pisses me off to no end that our country keeps trying to be the world's police officer; it also pisses me off that the European powers sit on their asses expecting the U.S. to come in and lead.
So yes, let Russia, Iran, and whatever else deal with it and cut our losses and GO!
architect359
(578 posts)Not even that - it's that the job is handled (bungled) so dang badly and naively - then look around as if to say "Who me? Did I do that?"
Just don't do it. Don't even start.
I believe that if we want to make the world a better place we should first put our own house in order; take care of our own problems. Then we can demonstrate a better alternative. Not by imposing ourselves onto others, rather just show by example. If others want to emulate, let them do so by themselves with their own understanding of their own cultures. Others that reject our example, well - that's fine too - they can deal with their own destinies.
...and I rambled. So I'll stop at that. Long story short - I agree with your sentiments about the world police mantle.
flamingdem
(39,312 posts)Wasn't a nearly a billion just spend by the Pentagon for a handful of trained opposition fighters?
Syria has proven to much for the USA.