Why We Should Not Intervene In Syria

National Review ^ | 10/04/2015 | Andrew McCarthy

[SeekAndFind]

It’s ba-aack.

The Vacuum, that is. That’s the Beltway fairy tale about how Syria was teeming with secular-democratic Muslim moderates ready and willing not only to topple the barbarous Bashar al-Assad regime but simultaneously to rout al-Qaeda. They were not able to pull off these feats, we’re told, without the massive help that President Obama refused to give them. This default, combined with Obama’s unconscionable retreat from neighboring Iraq while jihadists were on the rise, created a leadership void — the Vacuum — into which the Islamic State (formerly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) poured in . . . or spontaneously generated . . . or . . . something.

It is a myth, but a useful one for people who do not know what to do, or know what to do but fear explaining it because they know there is no political appetite for it.

The Syrian mess has gotten messier because Vladimir Putin, with all the unpredictability of the morning sun, has invaded Syria on behalf of Assad and Putin’s more important ally Iran — Assad’s longtime string-puller. The Russian strongman’s claimed purpose is to fight the Islamic State — a pretext no more real than was the supposed need to protect indigenous Russian populations that Putin cited in invading Georgia, Crimea, and Eastern Ukraine.

Putin, with China’s indulgence, is obviously attempting to fortify a sphere of anti-American influence across the Middle East. Anti-Americanism in this Islamic-supremacist region long predates Putin, of course. What has changed is that the United States is governed by a man of the hard Left — a president who is sympathetic to the Islamist narrative about American imperialism, ambivalent at best about American power, and determined to diminish America’s regional commitments, and thus American influence.

Previous American presidents dealt with the Middle East’s endemic anti-Americanism by exhibiting strength in the pursuit of U.S. interests. When they faltered, it was because they seemed to apologize for American strength and accommodated brutal sharia culture, even as they fought the jihadism that culture inevitably breeds. The natives didn’t like us, but they had to respect us. And because their internecine hatreds fuel constant intrigue and conflict, American strength could be a convenient ally in a pinch — and there’s always a pinch, just ask the Saudis.

Obama, however, is different. He was going to befriend the Islamists by paying homage to the Islamists . . . and then leaving them to their savagery and dysfunction without American interference. This would be fine if (a) the United States had no vital interests at stake, and (b) Obama had not executed this strategy by materially supporting the ascendance of Iran, the jihadist revolutionary state that is America’s mortal enemy.

Obama’s fantasy world, in which Iran is a potential ally and Russia a potentially stabilizing influence, created the opportunity for Putin to move in. He loves to humiliate Obama, so he is having his moment now. It should be remembered, however, that the Soviet Union, though far mightier than the pale imitation that is Putin’s basket-case, was devastated by its failed invasion of Afghanistan. That was a less ambitious project than the one today’s Russia appears to have set upon.

Clearly, there is some real upside for Putin in this. It is an object lesson to the Baltic states that Putin covets: The United States is unwilling to fight so take no comfort in NATO’s empty security guarantee. But for Putin, propping up Assad by making his bed with the snakes in Tehran is no sure thing. If the Kremlin found Afghan jihadists to be a problem, wait until it experiences the pain the more formidable al-Qaeda and ISIS can inflict.

Putin’s latest gambit may end up being less of a boon for him than for the Republican presidential field. It brings to the fore Obama’s treacherous Iran deal — the insanity of empowering the mullahs while they actively threaten the region under Putin’s cover. It brings into sharp relief Obama’s patent paralysis against Putin’s bold decisiveness and scorn.

This provides a timely campaign opportunity for Republicans to inveigh against Obama — who, after all, deserves it — while hoping no one notices that they don’t offer much that they’d do differently in Syria. When occasionally pressed, we hear, yet again, about filling the Vacuum.

#share#To repeat, in Syria, there has never been a vacuum — i.e., a void created by the failure to cultivate a viable opposition. Yes, there are some moderates in Syria, but the backbone of Assad’s opposition has always been Islamist: the Muslim Brotherhood and the even more extreme jihadists with whom they seamlessly make common cause. They are not moderates; they want to overthrow Iran’s despicable cat’s paw, Assad, in order to do to Syria what the Brotherhood tried to do to Egypt — and what Islamists have done to Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.

It is not true that Obama failed to back the Syrian “rebels.” In fact, after the mutual Obama-Beltway GOP strategy of siding with Islamists against Qaddafi blew up on us in Libya, a reprise was attempted in Syria. Alas, the “rebels” we backed kept aligning with the jihadists (just as they did in Libya); the weapons we gave them kept ending up in jihadist hands. That was not just because the “rebels” were insufficiently “vetted”; it was because there was no way to overthrow Assad without the Islamists’ playing a major role — and, probably, a leading role.

This contributed to the ascendancy of ISIS, but was not the cause of that ascendancy. The cause is the dominant regional culture — Islamic supremacism. If Washington won’t face up to that fact, then it will of course continue strengthening our enemies in the delusional hope that they will someday become our friends.

Then, to make matters worse, Washington forgot that it had gotten enmeshed in Syria in order to oust Assad. Obama desperately wanted his deal with Iran, which wanted Assad left alone. So the Syria misadventure turned on a dime from targeting Assad on behalf of Sunni Islamists and jihadists to targeting Sunni jihadists — ISIS — to the benefit of Assad. Does anyone wonder why the U.S. has no credibility in the region?

Republicans, especially those seeking the presidency, will never get the policy right until they get reality right. It is reality that must inform American interests, which in turn must inform American action.

Our interests in the region are to defeat both Russia/Iran/Assad and ISIS/al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood. It is not either-or, and it does not serve our interests to elevate one side at the expense of the other. After all, the players change sides — Iran, for example, helps al-Qaeda and Hamas, which is the Muslim Brotherhood. The only thing you can really bank on is that they all hate the United States.

Our vital interest in Syria (and Iraq and elsewhere, for that matter) is to prevent its being used as a platform for the launching of attacks against the United States, our allies, and our interests. Moreover, this, it is crucial to remember, is an American problem. It is not one we could responsibly delegate to another country’s “moderate rebels” even if they were numerous enough to need something bigger than a phone booth for their meetings.

That means it is going to take a large commitment of American forces on the ground as well as in the air to achieve our vital interests. But there is no political support for that in our country at the moment. That, no doubt, is why a candidate like Marco Rubio, who is smart enough to see the writing on the wall, seems reluctant to come out and say it.

Even if there were political support for using American force, it would be a losing cause to take up unless and until we finally start seeing Iran the way Iran sees us: as the enemy.

There are not good guys and bad guys in this equation. There are bad guys and other bad guys. And quelling the threat these bad guys collectively pose to the United States is our responsibility — not something we should do out of humanitarian concern for Middle Easterners, or because we are somehow obliged to slake their purported thirst for freedom.

Until we have that right, we should continue to stay out of Syria. Not because Obama has it right — he doesn’t. And not because Putin’s aggression could end up being good for us — if Donald Trump really believes that, it is yet another demonstration that he is not a serious candidate even if he is running a serious campaign.

No, we should stay out because if we go in for the wrong reasons and with the wrong assumptions, we will do our security more harm than good.

Make no mistake, though: This challenge is not going away. The threat to our national security posed by radical Islam — both the Sunni and the Shiite varieties, plus their state sponsors — is intensifying. It will have to be dealt with, hopefully before it deals with us in a catastrophic way.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

[odawg]

Strange article. Describes the problem, then gives no recommendation for what would be an appropriate strategy. He mentions Rubio as being the only one who sees the problem correctly, and slams Trump. Maybe the whole article is just something he concocted to slam Trump.

I saw a blurb this morning that said Netanyahyu has not criticized the Russian intrusion. He may have made a deal, he just visited Putin.

[rfreedom4u]

Netanyahyu has not criticized the Russian intrusion

When someone is killing your enemy.....let them.

[ETL]

Great to see that there are prominent pro-American sources out there expressing grave concern about Russia's true agenda in the Middle East and beyond. I like the line "Putin, with all the unpredictability of the morning sun". In other words, it's obviously as hell what he really wants to do there.

From the posted article...

"The Syrian mess has gotten messier because Vladimir Putin, with all the unpredictability of the morning sun, has invaded Syria on behalf of Assad and Putin’s more important ally Iran — Assad’s longtime string-puller. The Russian strongman’s claimed purpose is to fight the Islamic State — a pretext no more real than was the supposed need to protect indigenous Russian populations that Putin cited in invading Georgia, Crimea, and Eastern Ukraine.

Putin, with China’s indulgence, is obviously attempting to fortify a sphere of anti-American influence across the Middle East."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425030/syria-putin-assad-obama-republicans

[Mariner]

"Our vital interest in Syria (and Iraq and elsewhere, for that matter) is to prevent its being used as a platform for the launching of attacks against the United States, our allies, and our interests."

Using that logic, it's in our "vital interests" to occupy every country in the world.

McCarthy usually gets it right, but in this case is far, far afield.

[blueunicorn6]

Where is Obama on this?

Is he stoned again?

Or is he waiting for The Grifter to tell him what to say?

[ETL]

Russia taking over the Middle East and attempting to retake Eastern Europe while many dopes and/or pro-Russia trolls here, cheer them on, ping!

[ETL]

Russia moving in under the pretense of ridding the region of ISIS is like the Mafia moving to your neighborhood under the pretense of removing a violent street gang, then setting up a permanent base there to do Mob “business”.

Russia will grow wealthier, more powerful, more aggressive in their overall expansionist agenda (Eastern Europe, eventually elsewhere), and much more of a threat to the US and its allies throughout the region and the world.

Sure it’s great IF they actually do get rid of ISIS (we shall see). But having a country like Russia step in and gain such huge strategic advantage over the US and it's allies is nothing we should be cheering about.

If Obama was serious about wanting to take out ISIS, which I don’t believe he ever was—I think him and Putin are actually in cahoots on this whole thing despite his and Kerry’s moans and groans about it, it might not ever have come to this, although Russia would likely have come up with some other rationale or excuse for moving into Syria and taking control of it, and ultimately the entire Middle East. Makes me wonder if ISIS wasn’t a KGB-like invention of the Russians.

************************************************************

Looks like that may not be so far fetched.

Just came across this last night...

From Aug 23, 2015:

"a recent investigation conducted by Novaya Gazeta, one of the few independent newspapers left in Russia, complicates this cozy tale of counterterrorist cooperation. Based on extensive fieldwork in one village in the North Caucasus, reporter Elena Milashina has concluded that the “Russian special services have controlled” the flow of jihadists into Syria, where they have lately joined up not only with ISIS but other radical Islamist factions.

In other words, Russian officials are adding to the ranks of terrorists which the Russian government has deemed a collective threat to the security and longevity of its dictatorial ally on the Mediterranean, Bashar al-Assad."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/23/russia-s-playing-a-double-game-with-islamic-terror0.html

[ETL]

“For 16 years Putin was an officer in the KGB, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel before he retired to enter politics in his native Saint Petersburg in 1991.

He moved to Moscow in 1996 and joined President Boris Yeltsin’s administration where he rose quickly, becoming Acting President on 31 December 1999 when Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned. Putin won the subsequent 2000 presidential election, despite widespread accusations of vote-rigging,[3] and was reelected in 2004.”

“On 25 July 1998, Yeltsin appointed Vladimir Putin head of the FSB (one of the successor agencies to the KGB), the position Putin occupied until August 1999. He became a permanent member of the Security Council of the Russian Federation on 1 October 1998 and its Secretary on 29 March 1999.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

[ponygirl]

This has all been a plan to destabilize the region in order to bring hundreds of thousands of Muslims to America, where they will receive their next orders and shipments of weapons and all that ammo the DHS has been buying for the last 6 years.

Not sure why people can't see that. The time for arguing is over. It's past time to start fighting back, or we will never be able to. But they'll just call me crazy. (Shrug) okay.

[ETL]

The Obama-Putin Iran deal significantly strengthened Russia's position in the region. Iran is a pawn in Russia's chess game to take control of the Middle East and then some. And both just got a LOT stronger. Thanks to the Obama-Putin deal, ("we will wipe Israel off the map") Iran now has $100 BILLION+ extra 'pocket change' to spread among their friends and allies (Russia, the ChiComs...), not to mention throw into their own military and nuke programs.
_________________________________________________

From Real Clear Politics, Sept 10, 2015...

"In a 2014 New Yorker interview, Obama said his goal was to create a 'new equilibrium' in the Middle East.

In the short run, at least, his signature diplomatic undertaking can be counted on to bring more violence to this volatile region.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the [Obama-Putin Iran deal] agreement is formally known, provides the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism an infusion of somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion of unfrozen assets and a great deal more of continuing revenues as businesses and governments around the world rush to profit from oil-and-gas-rich Iran’s reintegration into the world economy.

The agreement relaxes the international isolation of the Islamic Republic and ratifies Tehran’s status as a nuclear threshold state. And it relieves restrictions on Iran’s acquisition of weapons, including ballistic missiles. ..."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/10/iran_deal_throws_sparks_on_mideast_tinderbox_128034.html
_________________________________________________

Aug 2015...

_________________________________________________

Trump: Iran Deal Requires U.S. Protecting Iran in Event of Israeli Strike

by Jacob Kornbluh
Sept 2, 2015

In a phone interview with CNN Tuesday evening, Trump claimed that there’s “something in the Iran deal” that “people don’t understand” saying if someone attacks Iran, “we have to come to their defense.”

“Does that include Israel?” Trump asked. “And most people say yes, they don’t have an exclusion for Israel. So if Israel attacks Iran, according to that deal, I believe, the way it reads, unless they have a codicil or they have something to it, that we have to fight with Iran against Israel.” ..."

Trump was most probably referring to language highlighted by the opponents of the deal. On page 142, the deal includes a clause that states, “Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.”

Washington-based Center for Security Policy asserted that Annex III appears “to commit the United States and other world powers to the defense of Iran’s nuclear program.”

http://jpupdates.com/2015/09/02/trump-iran-deal-requires-u-s-protecting-iran-in-event-of-israeli-strike/
__________________________________________________________

Russian build-up in Syria part of secret deal with Iran’s Quds Force leader

September 11, 2015
Jennifer Griffin, Lucas Tomlinson
FoxNews.com

As the Pentagon warily eyes a Russian military build-up in Syria, Western intelligence sources tell Fox News that the escalated Russian presence began just days after a secret Moscow meeting in late July between Iran’s Quds Force commander — their chief exporter of terror — and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Fox News has learned Quds head Qassem Soleimani and Putin discussed such a joint military plan for Syria at that meeting, an encounter first reported by Fox News in early August. ...”

The Quds Force is the international arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, involved in exporting terrorism to Iran’s proxies throughout the Middle East including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. ...”

Officials who have monitored the build-up say they’ve seen more than 1,000 Russian combatants — some of them from the same plainclothes Special Forces units who were sent to Crimea and Ukraine. Some of these Russian troops are logistical specialists and needed for security at the expanding Russian bases.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/11/russian-build-up-in-syria-part-secret-deal-with-irans-quds-force-leader/

[blueunicorn6]

Here’s the #1 reason we should not intervene in Syria.

Obama.

He likes to golf and taunt the Republicans and lecture, but in seven years, he has made zero effort to learn the job of being The President of The United States of America.

The rest of the world knows he’s in over his head, but the Democrat Party and the American Press see our governance as some sort of crosstown high school football rivalry and won’t get after him.

We have a player in Syria that we know has nuclear weapons.....Russia.

We need some brains and guts and experience and we have Obama.

It’s like watching the Three Stooges try to fix a leak in the plumbing.

[The Toll]

You’ve been posting this same stuff here over and over for days and no one cares. No one is biting. No one is joining you on your Declaration of War on Russia. No one.

Are you going to understand at any point that American’s simply do not care enough about Syria for nuclear war?

[Mariner]

"The Russian strongman’s claimed purpose is to fight the Islamic State — a pretext no more real than was the supposed need to protect indigenous Russian populations that Putin cited in invading Georgia, Crimea, and Eastern Ukraine."

Russia has been crystal clear from the onset that their goal was to ensure the survival of the Syrian Regime and it's associated institutions of governance.

They stated they would do that by attacking ISIS and OTHER TERRORISTS.

From what I can discern they have not slipped from their originally stated objectives.

Yet, worldwide, we see Western press and politicians ranting about how Putin isn't REALLY there to fight ISIS, but to prop up the Assad regime.

The idiocy on display is laughable were it not so dangerous. Russia stated BEFORE the first plane arrived that their objective would be to prop up Assad. Loudly. In every available media channel and in every international political forum they had access to.

And yet now the West squeals like the Russians deceived them.

These guys are losing touch with reality. We are in a very dangerous time.

[jjotto]

Wierd things at play here. Maybe some of this mania for US involvement in Syria is intended to *prevent* Israel from doing what it needs to do? It’s a chess game, and Obama is playing solitaire.

[tet68]

Kind of late isn’t it, Hillary! and Obama already
put the match to the tinder.

[Grampa Dave]

“Netanyahyu has not criticized the Russian intrusion

When someone is killing your enemy.....let them.”

See my tagline!

[ETL]

"Netanyahyu has not criticized the Russian intrusion"

When someone is killing your enemy.....let them.

And when someone joins forces with a county that is the world's leading state sponsor of Islamo-terrorism, one that threatens to wipe you off the map, and works out a 'deal' that will eventually put nuclear weapons in their hands, be extremely careful about what you wish for.

[Grampa Dave]

Excellent summary of a weird article. Has Trump scrambled the brains of the beltway pundits like this guy?

“”Our vital interest in Syria (and Iraq and elsewhere, for that matter) is to prevent its being used as a platform for the launching of attacks against the United States, our allies, and our interests.”
Using that logic, it’s in our “vital interests” to occupy every country in the world.

McCarthy usually gets it right, but in this case is far, far afield. “

[ETL]

Excellent summary of a weird article.

Talk about "weird". Your posts are among the most off-the-wall I've seen here.