It’s nice to see John and Terr can agree on something…
And truth to tell, I have to agree with them. What we may be seeing (IMHO only) in Syria/Iraq and possibly spreading to the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia (in which case we do have a major interest, as does Europe. Japan, and China) is a Muslim version of the 30-Years War (1618-1648), where religion and politics are so closely intertwined and influencing the fighting (and the secondary wars that broke out outside of the main conflict in what is now Germany).
I would also not that about 1/4 to 1/3 of the German people died during that war and it kept germany from becoming a united county for almost 200 years.
What makes you think all the international players would rally around this one figurehead instead of fighting over who the figurehead should be? The Russians and Iranians have tremendous influence in that country and have no interest in letting other countries butt in.
Its not our fight, we leave it alone, and either sanction the bastard we won’t like who won, or send some pittance of aid to the guy who won that we do like. As bad as things are there, I don’t think the US can substantially help with troops. The humanitarian crisis is awful but we can’t help
Syria is already (de facto) partitioned. Assad will keep the Med Coast area, the Kurds will take the North, and God knows what will happen to the rest. as i predicted (2011), the Treaty of Versailles (which created the past WWI ME) is over-we now have a time of instability and chaos. and it would be best to stay out of it.
Not really an “end game” unless it offered some way for his whole Alawite-Ba’athist government to step aside, and some generally acceptable multi-ethnic regime or partition, one or the other, to replace it. Assad himself is not the problem. The problem is that Syria is no more a nation than Lebanon or Iraq ever was.
Unfortunately, neither is likely now that Russia is in the mix. Assad will likely win, Russia will gain a strong ally in the region and use Syria to project power in the area.
The world is getting to be a much more dangerous place.
Russia wont be able to end the war. A real endgame will be drawing new terrirtorial boundries in what is now Syria and Iraq based on ethnic composition. The countries will be much more stable. Turkey will also have to make peace with the Kurds. Its a greata moment to make a sweeping change in the region.
Is Russia likely to project power beyond Assad’s Syria?
Russia has shown a remarkable lack of ability to project it’s power outside/beyond it’s borders to any great effect. It’s ability to do so has been in steady decline since the late 70’s and early 80’s.
What part of the Islamic world views Russian oligarchy as a preferable (compelling?) alternative to Western style social democracy?
Presumably the large portion that doesn’t have Western-style social democracy doesn’t see that as one of the options.
$500 million is the tax dollar equivalent of the change you find under the sofa cushions. That sort of project is designed (1) to allow a bored general to test his pet theories, and (2) to make it look like we are Doing Something.
The US won’t get anywhere with token involvement. Training troops didn’t do much good in Iraq. They mostly deserted and took their training to enemy factions.
If Russia gets involved, let them. They’ll have another Afghanistan to suck them dry like a mutant tick. Anti-Assad forces will buy obsolete weapons from other countries, so the Russians will have to spend resources to arm Assad. When the Soviets gained control of Afghanistan, they took control of the major urban centers and strategic military bases. Instead of paralyzing the Afghans, it united them in nationalistic pride and made them resort to guerilla warfare. Meanwhile, assuming command of the war front inspired the Afghan army to desert, mainly because the Soviets made them fight as infantry while they manned the tanks. This led the Soviets to rely on air strikes and intimidation to quell rebellions, which drew universal scorn from the rest of the world. Soviet troops occupying Afghanistan were subject to ambushes and sneak attacks, because the Afghans just wouldn’t lay down for them.
Right now, the Russians are already stretched for resources due to trade embargos and sanctions. They’re also identified as being atheists, which inspires the Muslims to fight godless Infidels. Unlike Odessa, there’s very little pro-Russian sentiment among the Syrians, so they’re going to have a costly time maintaining control if they ever manage to establish it. There’s no way Russia is going to establish a power base in Syria given all these factors.
This is true, though I disagree on the atheist part. Not all Russians are, and many Syrians are not religious. But it all varies.
So if Vladimir Putin wants to get involved in Syria full throttle, let him. Things won’t pan out like Ukraine, and soon even his most delusional, mindless supporter at home or abroad will realize what a true PHUCK UP Putin really is. One dictator throwing away blood and treasure to prop up an even more brutal savage ally.
I highly doubt the rebels will lay down and accept Assad, even Assad with Russian backing.
But when will Bashar Assad “win”? He has said he will bring the way to an end last year, and now most of 2015 is gone, and the war is not winding down. If I were Assad’s supporter, I would view him as a total failure.
