Posted on 10/01/2015 7:13:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Vladimir Putin is having a field day in the Middle East. He has sent Russian planes to bomb rebels in Syria. He has reached an intelligence-sharing agreement with Syria, Iran and Iraq. At the U.N. Monday, he reaffirmed his commitment to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He seems determined to fill the regional vacuum allegedly left by the United States.
What should the Obama administration do? Let him.
Republicans regard this as a calamity. But what's the downside? There are two main ways this gambit could go. And neither would be a bad deal for us.
The first possibility is that he will inflict significant damage on Islamic State. In that case, one of our most vicious enemies would be weakened -- at little cost or risk to Americans. The only thing better than defeating Islamic State is getting someone to do it for us.
In that scenario, of course, another enemy, Assad, would survive. But someone named Assad has held power in Syria since 1970. We managed fine before this civil war. If Putin can bring it to an end with the Assad government still in power, we'll manage fine afterward.
The second possibility is that Putin will fail: His bombing raids will prove unavailing, the insurgents will gain ground, and the regime will be in jeopardy. Then he may be forced to send ground troops.
He could find himself in a costly, bloody war. Or he might decide the prize is not worth the effort and pull back, which would dash his dreams of regional power and discredit him at home. Either way, he's worse off, and we're not.
Why should we stand in his way? It's not as though we have a better plan. President Barack Obama has largely stayed out of the Syrian war because 1) there are no "moderate" rebel factions with a plausible chance of prevailing, 2) he's never been willing to take the risks of intervening in a way that would matter, and 3) the outcome could be awful even if we somehow got our way.
Critics regard Syria as a colossal tragedy that Obama could have prevented. More likely, it's a colossal tragedy that he could not have prevented. Removing a hostile regime by force, as we learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not a ticket to tranquility. Syria is a disaster. But it's a disaster that has claimed no U.S. soldiers and very little U.S. money.
The assumption is that anything Putin seeks in the Middle East will come at our expense. Marco Rubio declared, "Putin wants nothing less than the recognition of Russia as a geopolitical force." I hate to break the news to him, but Russia is already a recognized geopolitical force. Those alarmed about Putin supposedly displacing us in the region mistake symbolism for substance.
His latest move suggests anxiety, not strength. If Assad falls, Russia stands to lose its only naval base outside of the old Soviet Union -- not to mention its closest ally in the Middle East.
For a long time, the U.S. has been the dominant military power in the region. What has been so great about that? Instead of making us safer, our role has given us more enemies. If Putin wants to invite jihadists to turn their attention from attacking America to attacking Russia, more power to him.
We got involved in the region mainly to assure access to Persian Gulf oil. That imperative is less urgent than before, since we are producing more oil at home and consuming less. In any case, the U.S. is not about to leave and let the chips fall where they may. Our power has rested mainly on our navy, whose continued presence and supremacy are not in doubt.
Plenty of countries in the region will lean toward us regardless of what Putin does -- including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Israel. Others will be uncooperative regardless, notably Iran. Russia's venture isn't likely to make much difference either way.
Obama's critics portray him as weak and lost in the face of the bold Russian challenge. But the truth is he's engaged in geopolitical jujitsu, using the opponent's strengths against him. He's avoiding risks that carry no commensurate rewards.
The president understands that we don't know how to restore peace and stability to Syria. Putin probably doesn't either, but he may have to find out the hard way.
No downside except unless our Spoiled Brat in the WH (and McCain prods it along) goes after Russia with our own troops on the ground in Syria. This is where WW3 will kick off officially in the not to distant future.
There's so much more to it than that now. Like it or not, we have to play the great game with Russia in the middle east.
Trump backs Putin’s move
The big problem is there is now a direct great power confrontation looming with no one really strong in place. Take a look at our team, The Mahdi, The Viet-Nam Hero at State and that sad sack Martin Dempsey of diversity is more important than troop security fame as CJCS and that clod Capper from the old USAF Security Service as intel chief and crypto-Muslim Brenner at CIA. This is a situation made for real danger. Putin will try to get a firm position in Iraq as well as Syria and there probably be shoot down incidents with USAF aircraft as we sure aren't sharing IFF info with the Russians. This could burn on into next year and then really explode during the election cycle.
I hope he didn’t step across Obama’s red line.
Trump is a cunning bastard too.
Media darling Carly wants us to declare a “no fly zone” around the so called Free Syrian Army (who are allied with Al Qaeda) and shoot down any Russian jets that bomb them. Why? We don’t even need mideastern oil anymore. If Russia wants to fight muslims, let them.
That IMHO is something Beelzebama might do to satisfy his truly monstrous ego..
What isn’t mentioned here or in any postings I’ve read so far is that both the U.S. and Russia have entered into a religious war between the Sunni sect and the Shiite sect of the Islamic religion that has been ongoing now since the 7th Century AD.
Russia’s obvious motive for taking part in this Muslim religious war on the side of Syria’s Shiite President Assad and Shiite Iran is clearly to establish Russian influence and control in the Middle East. The United States’ just as obvious motive for taking sides with the Syrian Sunni rebels who are attempting to remove Syria’s Shiite President from power and install a Sunni leader can only be attributed to Sunni Saudi Arabia’s influence within our government.
The fact that the Syrian Sunni rebels are almost indistinguishable from the Sunni ISIS/ISIL Jihadists who are also actively striving to remove Syria’s Shiite President and install Sunni leadership seems to be apparent to the Russians but obtuse to the U.S.
Your guess is as good as mine as to why these facts aren’t being openly discussed by our government spokesmen and our Main Stream Media.
“Republicans regard this as a calamity. But what’s the downside?”
In this guys mind McCain represents all Republicans. That sends up a red flag to me.
Your analysis is fine as far as it goes, but it overlooks the fact that there are others involved besides the Alawites and Sunnis. Syria has a sizable Christian minority, which has always backed the Ba’athist government — Ba’athism being the only popular ideology among the Arabs that is actually secular, most Arab Christians in the Middle East, if they are political at all are Ba’athists — and most Syrian Christians are, like Russians, Orthodox.
During the Ottoman period, Russia acted as the protector of Orthodox Christians under Ottoman rule by periodically saber rattling to force concessions from the Sultan. Church-State relations in Russian having returned to more or less the status quo ante the Bolshevik seizure of power, it is natural for Russia to return to the role of protector of the Middle Eastern Orthodox.
Did she actually suggest that? If she did, then she’s either stupid or she is just spouting forth nonsense to try and get votes. Probably both.
Author of the piece, Chapman, seems to be an idiot.
Who are the Republicans he claims that see Russia’s actions in Syria as a “calamity”? He doesn’t bother to name them.
“No downside except unless our Spoiled Brat in the WH (and McCain prods it along) goes after Russia with our own troops on the ground in Syria.”
There aren’t too many good sides to having a hollowed out military, but one good side is that a guy like Obama can’t get away with sending large numbers of troops on his pet adventures...since we no longer have large numbers of troops. Send a few battalions over there and he’ll be forced to issue draft orders to Americans, which I don’t see happening.
“Media darling Carly wants us to declare a “no fly zone” around the so called Free Syrian Army (who are allied with Al Qaeda) and shoot down any Russian jets that bomb them.”
Carly is more than welcome to LEAD THE CHARGE. But the last time the Russians painted us with their S-400 fire-radar our pilot did one of the fastest u-turns in history and ran for his life.
Interesting history, thanks. This is a welcome development as far as I can see. The Western leaders have shown they don't give a fig for the Christians of the Middle East. So get out and leave the field to someone who does.
My guess is Orthodox and Catholics in the Middle East will feel way more protected under Vlad than under a wimpified America.
To try to think of Putin, a former KGB Colonel, leading a Crusade to protect Middle Eastern Christians would stretch one's wishful thinking to the breaking point. However, it could make a convenient cover story in an attempt to hide his true intentions, and, in my humble opinion, his motive is as follows:
Before this is over, Iran, with Russian and Chinese support, will invade Saudi Arabia and seize the Saudi oil fields. With Russia and Iran in control of most of the world’s developed oil reserves, they can not only say, “Death to America,” but they can then make it happen, and who do we have to blame for this? We have no one to blame but ourselves, for it was the American people who voted politicians into office, both Democrat and Republican, who could be bought by the Saudis through campaign contributions and outright bribes to prevent the development of our own oil reserves. We will soon be dependent on oil reserves controlled by our enemies, who will not hesitate to use this dependence to destroy us.
Once our oil supply is interrupted, our economy could collapse before we can replace Saudi oil with our own. If our economy can no longer provide for the 47% of our population who refuse to provide for themselves but depend on “Free Stuff” in exchange for their vote, our population could fragment and slide into the abyss of violence and racial hatred.
All of Europe would then be totally dependent on Russian controlled oil and gas for their survival, and when this happens, Putin's motive for invading the Middle East will be apparent to even the most rabid Putin apologists. Russia will have finally gained something they've been trying to achieve for centuries, total political control of all of Europe. Yes, "Putin The Great" will be remembered for many years to come
Putin, the chess player that he is and thinking five moves ahead, knows that Obama, an impotent homosexual, doesn’t have the courage to prevent him from taking control of the Middle East, and by the time Obama is out of office in 2017, it’ll be too late.
Charlie Rangel has been pushing to the reinstate the Draft for a long time, but haven’t heard anything from him lately. This is all about drumming up CHAOS with no other clear goal that serves our national interest. Obama has nothing but contempt for our troops and will have no problem putting our diminished forces in harms way for no other reason than total demoralization. I have a friend whose son was sent to Iraq - WHY? For what purpose now? I totally disagree with what Bush 2 did in Iraq as well, so he needs to be held accountable along with his NWO shill father. The Globalist Oligarchy is running the show, and we must not cooperate - the Europeans are seeing just how far the Merkel traitors will take them down the rathole to utter destruction.
Putin is the only Russian head of state ever to make a pilgrimage to Mount Athos -- no Tsar ever visited the Holy Mountain -- and the Orthodox Church is again a significant influence on political affairs in Russia (including on Putin's staunch stance against the promotion of homosexuality).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.