I get the sense the US is re-examining their strategy in Syria, including their commitment to the FSA.
So while I can see why some might interpret this attack on the FSA by Russia as a poke in the eye to the US, I think it’s simply new evidence that suggests the US is coming around on their previously held position/strategy in Syria.
I think the only way for the US to “win” here is not to play.
Seriously? Then why is the US conducting airstrikes in Syria, supposedly to support the “moderate rebels”?
Agreed. Which is what I hope is starting to happen given a more co-operative attitude towards Russian involvement. At the risk of sounding calous towards general suffering and loss of innocent life, there is nothing in Syria worth “winning”.
I expect that strategy to change in the coming days/weeks. If it has not already.
LOL. So - Putin tells Obama to stop conducting operations in Syrian airspace. Obama complies. QuickSilver: “Win for the US!!11!!!”.
But if you think US will stop airstrikes in Syria, you better show your sources of that info. There were airstrikes just yesterday.
Getting out will be a “win for the US”, no matter how or why we do it.
So what is the upside of cooperating with Russia in Syria, if you don’t actually care about the outcome?
Doubt very much Putin is calling all the shots in Syrian airspace now. But if it helps you get over the top to think that Putin made Obama his bitch, have at it.
No, I didn’t say that. I said that perhaps in days and weeks to come we will see a new strategy developing with regards to Syria and Assad. I don’t KNOW that this is exactly what will happen. I sure hope so. Unlike some, I would not rush to interpret that as a weakness.
Let’s see. You spend $500M to train “moderate rebels” and their asses are kicked all over the place, their equipment that you provided is now in ISIS hands, and their leader either defects or is captured by Al Queda (it’s not clear which). Then you do a 180 (if it happens as you wish) on your previously loudly announced airstrikes in Syria - after your global political opponent tells you to do so.
Nah. It’s not weakness. Right? It’s STRENGTH!!! I swear, US is getting more and more like Soviet Russia in the propaganda department.
The up side in co-operating with Russia would help repair the strained relations to date. Reasonable leaders/nations can disagree about one issue (Crimea) while collaborating on another (ISIS).
Chauvenist reactions that Putin being right about Syria immediately makes the US Putin’s bitch aside, what is the down side? That Assad and Putin will become even closer friends?
Your link shows 3 strikes in Syria, two of them on ISIL “excavators” and the remaining 23 on more obviously military targets in Iraq.
I am sure that the fans of Putin shirtless horsey riding are also impressed with his putting troops on the ground in Syria but really it’s not of large import. Yes, they’ll likely let Assad hold on to the 25% of territory and 60% of the people and Russia will get to keep it’s port. But politically it won’t add up to much. Middle East states aren’t going to start looking to Russia as the new big brother.
I wasn’t in favour of the decision to find support within the FSA. It was stupid to begin with. But the $500M is a sunk cost now. Let it go. The smart thing to do now is to cut losses and that means a change in strategy.
Look, you and I both have a grudge against the former Soviet Union and by extention the current Russian government. They are like that bad ex you wish would just drop dead. But I get the sense we broke up about the same time. Perhaps it’s time you let the bitterness and resentment go a little bit. The US is a far cry from the USSR in every way.
Getting out and ending such useless actions is a lot stronger than getting more involved.
I meant, why collaborate on ISIS if “there is nothing in Syria worth winning.” Surely there are other ways to make nice with Putin, if that is what matters to you.
Because ISIS is not Syria’s problem alone. It’s a regional threat. We have other allies in the region that we don’t wish to abandon or see threatened.
This is not about “making nice with Putin”. Where does this childish mindset come from? Putin is a pretty nasty piece of work in many respects. But his approach to the regional problem happens to be more right than US’s position to date. It’s not wrong or weak to give credit where credit is due.
Our support for the FSA has always been lukewarm, and largely not a good strategy. The FSA is full of terrible Islamists, many of whom go on to join ISIS. While we were giving these guys money they were turning captured Americans over to the likes of the al-Nusra Front.
We’ll continue to conduct airstrikes in Iraq and Syria–but the lion’s share of them will be in Iraq, as they have been. While it’s hopelessly incompetent, in Iraq we have a clear ground force to support with our airstrikes, which is why most of them have been there. In Syria, aside from situations like Kobane where we have a clear ground force to support, our strategy to date hasn’t really had any partners on the ground. I’d argue for going with Russia because we could say we’re working with a “regional security partner” and while we’d really be assisting Assad, we’d be doing it “through Russia” which maybe gives us enough political cover.
In whose eyes?
The Reality-Based Community’s. We have seen what happened in Iraq – destroying Hussein’s government wasn’t worth the trouble. It ruined the country, caused perhaps half a million deaths and even more refugees, and made nobody safer.
BTW, what’s the Israeli take on this? Is leaving Assad in power a tolerable solution to Israelis, if it means ISIS can be destroyed? He is the Devil you know, after all.