Cameron is right about Syria – but the outcome now depends on Russia

Last edited Sat Nov 28, 2015, 02:22 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/david-cameron-syria-russia-hollande-putin

** The comments are a must read if you want to deconstruct this article

Found this quote:
Unpleasant and distasteful as it may be, the choice in Syria is between -as the BBC's Bridget Kendall put it - dictators with moustaches and dictators with beards.

Building up a unified European resolve is especially important because no one is under any illusion that the Obama administration wants to embroil itself deeper in the Middle East: America, miles across the Atlantic, simply doesn’t feel its own security is on the line. But Europe’s is. The Middle East is spewing out its violence on to our continent. Germany has announced it will contribute surveillance and refuelling planes over Syria. Eyes are now on Britain.
membership

But what is the strategy? It is clear to all that Isis cannot be defeated with airstrikes alone. Ground forces are needed to rout Isis in Raqqa – its self-styled “capital of the caliphate”, in eastern Syria, and from where the Paris attacks were planned. Ground forces will also be needed for future postwar stabilisation efforts. These ground forces cannot, and should not, be western. That would invite a repetition of the costly mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan, where military occupation created a spiral of violence and radicalisation.

So who can be deployed against Isis? David Cameron’s assertion in the House of Commons that 70,000 “moderate” Syrian rebels could be counted on caused raised eyebrows. As yet, no other western leader has publicly made that claim. Surely, in the chaos that engulfs Syria, precise figures have to be handled with caution.
But if there is a logic to Cameron’s assertion then clues to understanding it might be found in recent talks between Hollande and Vladimir Putin. Cameron’s case for UK airstrikes wasn’t just about a national British strategy – it was obviously drawn from consultations with western allies. Cameron went to see Hollande in Paris ahead of his statement to the Commons, and ahead of the French president’s diplomatic tour, which included stops in Washington and in Moscow.
Francois Hollande at the Paris attacks memorial

The statements that came out of those meetings didn’t provide all the answers, but they made one thing clear: how Russia acts now will decide whether an anti-Isis strategy has any chance of success in Syria. If Russia can be made to turn the guns and missiles of its fighter planes against Isis – and only Isis – an important step forward will have been taken.

Here’s the logic: what Cameron calls “moderate” Syrian opposition forces are anti-Assad rebels who currently spend most of their energy and resources resisting the onslaught of Syrian government troops who, since September, have benefitted from Russian close air support. If those rebels can be “freed” from having to fight on that front (located in the west of Syria), they would become available to move against Isis (mostly in the east).