Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,026 posts)
Fri Oct 25, 2019, 01:51 PM Oct 2019

Russia didn't win in Syria, so much as Trump gave in

By David Ignatius / The Washington Post

It’s heretical to say so, but Russia has earned its current success in the Middle East. It’s using the same mix of military and diplomatic tools that made the United States dominant in the region for so many decades. America didn’t lose this battle for influence; it surrendered.

President Trump’s efforts to dress up his retreat from Syria as a victory are an embarrassment. He squandered America’s leverage, abandoned our Kurdish allies to a Turkish invasion, and thereby reopened the door for a defeated enemy, the Islamic State, to resume attacks on the West.

Trump’s performance shames the United States, especially the military. Imagine what it felt like for U.S. special operations forces as they withdrew this month from the Syrian battlefield pelted by tomatoes thrown by their irate former Kurdish allies. A bitter end to what had been a hugely successful campaign against the Islamic State.

Now Russia steps into this space of northeast Syria. And it’s useful to examine, without blinders, some reasons President Vladimir Putin has achieved so much. The first, dark fact is that he has been a cynical and brutal partner for an even more brutal Syrian regime. But it’s more complicated than that.

Putin has triumphed partly because he has used the instruments of power effectively. He intervened in Syria in 2015 with limited force, but decisively. Frustrated by Syrian dependency and mismanagement, he pulled some forces back after the initial campaign and threatened to withdraw more.

Russia has leverage partly because it talks to all the warring nations in the Middle East. Moscow has friendly relations with Iran, but also with Israel. Russia talks to the Turks and also to their mortal enemies, the Kurds. Ambiguity is part of Putin’s tool kit. He doesn’t exclude himself from the bargaining table.

America, not so long ago, was a similar interlocutor. It was the essential partner because it talked with all sides. The U.S. was Israel’s faithful ally, but it also had a deep relationship (initially in secret) with the Palestinian guerrilla groups. It brokered deals among parties that couldn’t talk directly.

America’s addiction to sanctions is part of our self-neutering process. These economic penalties are often a reflexive substitute for a more serious policy to advance American interests. We sanction Russia, Syria, Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela … and after Trump foolishly encouraged Turkey’s invasion of Syria, the instant reaction was? Sanctions! This tool is so overused that it’s becoming counterproductive.

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/ignatius-russia-didnt-win-in-syria-so-much-as-trump-gave-in/?utm_source=DAILY+HERALD&utm_campaign=b143838ea2-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d81d073bb4-b143838ea2-228635337

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Russia didn't win in Syria, so much as Trump gave in (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Oct 2019 OP
Yupper! Wellstone ruled Oct 2019 #1
The US had no strategy. Igel Oct 2019 #2
It is apparant that it is now on Wellstone ruled Oct 2019 #3
 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
1. Yupper!
Fri Oct 25, 2019, 02:03 PM
Oct 2019

Moscow Don played his Reality TV role to the hilt. Putin has been working the edges of world Influence for more than a decade. And this gave him a front row set in his Influence of the Mid East plus access to another major under proven Oil Reserve Patch as a source of Currency.

And by doing so,he increases his daily revenue for his massive Pipeline that crosses Syria which will be used by Turkish,Syrian,and other Mid Eastern Countries to be able to market their Oil.

Putin has already launched his Arctic Base with a 100k troops and floating Nuke power generator,and he was giving a Deep Water warm weather Port for his new Syrian Out post.


Igel

(35,320 posts)
2. The US had no strategy.
Fri Oct 25, 2019, 09:48 PM
Oct 2019

It had tactics. From the get-go, it had tactics.

Intervene to overthrow Assad? No, support rebels. But not too much, because the rebels included Islamists that would take US weapons and help to overthrow Assad, and likely be worse that Assad--and feel no appreciation for the US' role. We'd be a thorn, create enough chaos to produce a million or more refugees and a humanitarian catastrophe, but we couldn't let the rebellion be crushed because hundreds would die at Assad's henchmen's hands. Unlike the many thousands dead in the civil war.

Yeah, that predictably didn't work out.

Of course, it was clear there was no military solution to the fighting in Syria. No way that Assad could survive--he'd need to find a political accommodation with the insurgents/rebels. Seriously, now. Again, how did *that* work out? The only reason there are rebels left is that they are protected by Turkey, the US ally. Otherwise it was precisely what was simply imaginable that solved Assad's problem: A military solution. Of course, it also solved the problem in NE Syria with ISIS, but everybody agreed that ISIS had to go. The Kurds would have fought ISIS anyway, they were protecting their own interests (however much they were only protecting US interests when the rhetoric requires that particular stance).

But push for the Kurds to have anything more than autonomy while the US helped occupy Syrian territory? Without support for Kurdish independence from any country within 1000 miles? What, we were going to stay there forever? No, we couldn't stay, we couldn't leave. At best we might--*might*--be able to argue that we'd yield sovereign territory for a promise of continued (limited) Kurdish autonomy. Because Assad is good about promises.

So what's left. Can't stay, can't go. No military solution except when somebody had the spine to actually pursue the very practicable and effective obvious military solution.

In 2011 it was obvious that the US was not going to win this political diplomatic situation unless Assad magically vanished.

What's amusing is that one of the "real" goes of the US military effort in NE Syria--yeah, yeah, fight ISIS, go team--was to prevent what? Oh, that's right. An Iranian land corridor that would be able to easily transport serious munitions from Iran over through Shi'ite Iraqi territory to Hezbollah. Notice that this has completely vanished from the radar. It's not on Trump's. It's not on the (D) radar.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
3. It is apparant that it is now on
Fri Oct 25, 2019, 10:23 PM
Oct 2019

someones Radar this week. Read a piece about a Israel Politician meeting with political people from Qatar,Jordan and other people concerned about what you mentioned.

Me,I am watching Germany and maybe France for making a move towards some type of Political arrangement . Iran is sitting with a Army of 4 million highly trained and equipped.

If as had been reported,the ISIS people are roaming around looking for a fight,well,all bets are off.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Russia didn't win in Syri...