Long time readers here will recall that we were opposed to intervening in the Syrian civil war back during President Obama's presidency. My reasoning is that it was folly in the extreme to believe that there was a western rebel force that was going to turn Syria into a democracy. Like it or not, the Assad regime actually is the most western force in the region, fascist though it is.
An added set of fears was that getting into the Syrian civil war in a halfway sort of way would prop up incompetent forces against less incompetent ones, prolong the war and open the Syrian government up to increased cooperation with Iran and Russia.
All of this has come true.
We would have been better off just pounding ISIL targets in Syria. If we were going to go beyond that, we should have given massive support to the Kurds. Enough that they could bloody not only Damascus but Istanbul if need be.
Well, here we are.
Now for the second time in a year Damascus has used chemical weapons. Last time we struck back. We're going to have to now.
And when we do, we should contemplate the extent to which a second rate power ruled by a tin pot dictator, Vladimir Putin, is responsible for this to some degree. We opened the door, at least a bit, to the Russians coming in, and they did. They seem to still fight, everywhere they fight, as if it's 1944, not 2018. Military advisors are likely telling the President to make sure he doesn't hit any Russian targets in Syria.
But the Russians and Iranians went in and they're propping Assad up.
Should their interests be considered? Should the Russian military, which is hardly the first rate power its portrayed to be, be given a pass?
And what about the Kurds. Why aren't they entitled to a state, if we must stay in and try to sort out this mess.
No comments:
Post a Comment