Juan Cole: Why Obama and Putin Are Both Wrong on Syria

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/32663-why-obama-and-putin-are-both-wrong-on-syria

So Obama wants al-Assad to stand down as a prerequisite for effective US action against Daesh in Syria (a few air sorties and even fewer air strikes are ineffectual). Putin thinks al-Assad is key to defeating Daesh and that everyone should ally with Damascus.

Putin is blind to the ways that al-Assad and his military brutality is prolonging the civil war. Backing his genocidal policies will just perpetuate that war. The Guardian says he showed more flexibility after his speech: “However, Putin showed more flexibility than he had in his general assembly speech, acknowledging that political reform in Damascus could be part of a solution, but indicated that Assad would be a willing participant in that change.”

Some sort of synthesis of the Putin and Obama plans is likely to emerge. Obama’s romance with drones and aerial bombardment blinds him to the poor progress the US has made against Daesh using those tools. His search for “moderate” forces to back seems also in Syria to be a pipe dream. If Putin ties himself too closely to the sinking ship of Bashar, he will go down with it.

As Obama said, though, Syria policy-making is the most complex problem the US has faced in over a decade.

[MattSh]

1. And it didn't have to be that way...

As Obama said, though, Syria policy-making is the most complex problem the US has faced in over a decade.

Well, when you back jihadists who are happy to pretend that they are "moderates" long enough to get your guns and money, what else could be expected? When you create a problem and have no idea how to fix it, don't be surprised if someone else steps into the void to fix it themselves.

[pampango]

2. "Putin is blind to the ways that al-Assad and his military brutality is prolonging the civil war."

Putin then went in for some conspiracy thinking, blaming the US and the West for creating Daesh (they did not) to overthrow secular regimes (which they don’t want to do). “Besides, the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes.”

Putin is arguing for a unified push against Daesh by a wide range of countries, and for allying in this effort with the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. He says only such a unified response has a hope of prevailing. He points to Libya as an example of the chaos that occurs in the wake of Washington’s insistence on going around overthrowing governments. So ironically the Russian Federation and its ex-Communist president is taking a conservative position here, of trying to prop up the status quo, which the US views itself as a radical democratizer a ala Thomas Paine.

Obama is a smart man but this plan is completely unworkable. Daesh in Syria would likely take advantage of the fall of the Baath to Western forces, who, staying in the skies above Syria, could no more take them on efficiently then than they can do now.

Obama offered to work with Russia against Daesh, which has allied with the Baath regime of Al-Assad, but said, that “there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the prewar status quo.” This statement is true in both international law and in everyday practice. Al-Assad is too tainted by mass murder to continue as president. And, the third or so of his population who have seceded from his rule are heavily armed and don’t want him coming back.

Great article. Thanks for posting it, eridani.

Russia, the US and others should unite to defeat ISIS even if that plays into the strategy of Assad. ISIS definitely is the 'greater of two evils' now. If that means that Assad stays in control of part, most or all of Syria for another 30 years, so be it. Sometimes bad guys win. He has handled his opposition much better than Ben Ali, Gaddafi or Mubarak did - not in the sense that fewer of his people have died but that he will remain a dictator for the foreseeable future.