Russia has provided Syria’s President Bashar Assad with
weapons and air power, which he has used to suppress the pro-democracy
uprising, while US president Barack Obama was equivocating about sending or not
sending weapons for the rebels.
Assad, however, is now losing the
fight against the Islamist ISIS. On the other hand, predicting what and how
things would be different had the US provided weapons to pro-democracy forces
is only a guess. And so, blaming Barack Obama as some do is less convincing
than blaming Russia, Assad’s main support and source of military power.
The presence of Islamist fighters in Syria seemed to be the
reason given for Obama’s reluctance to send weapons to any Syrian rebels, for
fear they may end up in the wrong hands. And now ISIS is the main force fighting
the Assad regime on the ground, as the refugee crisis is becoming worse.
Obama’s hesitation was not surprising. For decades, the US
had been mostly indifferent to Assad’s oppression of the Syrian people (in
contrast to instant indignation over atrocities committed by ISIS in Iraq).
Turkey, taking the brunt of Syrian refugees within its borders in the last
several years, has been by far more unnerved by Assad’ regime, and would join
US action. That was not to be because
the US has been and still is highly circumspect about Russia’s reactions — as it similarly is in Ukraine.
Notice that ISIS did not surface until year 2014. Obama’s
detractors point out ISIS would not exist had the US forces stayed in Iraq
(although the decision to withdraw was made earlier by the Bush presidency).
That supposition is questionable, because the beginning of ISIS was in Syria,
not Iraq.
What is by far more certain is that ISIS would be
nonexistent if the US had never invaded Iraq, and left Saddam Hussein in charge
in Baghdad — as it did earlier while helping him wage war
against Iran during the Reagan years.
There is more than anecdotal evidence that ISIS founders
were graduates of the infamous Abu-Ghraib prison, where mistreatment of Iraqi
POW’s was revealed soon after, in 2004 in The New York Times and in the
Financial Times. For instance: “Lawyers decided law on torture (international
Geneva Conventions) didn’t bind President Bush”, The New York Times, May 21,
2004), and “Justice Department memo explained how to skip prisoner rights”, The
New York Times, May 2, 2004.
Demographically, ISIS fighters are mostly from the same
Sunnis that were the base of Saddam Hussein’s power. The latter did not appear
to be Islamist zealots. Saddam kept the Al-Qaeda out of Iraq. The best that can
be said about the Bush-Cheney decision to invade Iraq is that they both were
confused by ideologically motivated advisers with strong opinions. And maybe by
some oil experts.
Even if the Bush administration was trigger-happy, it
studiously avoided moves that could anger Russia. The US mainly stood aside as
Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. Ironically, Georgia at the time had 3000 of its
troops helping NATO in Afghanistan.
Actually,
the Pentagon at about the same time was negotiating with Russia about details
of sending American military supplies through Russia to Afghanistan, which was
agreed near the end of 2008. Denying that Russia received nothing in return
takes some spin. Most likely, President George W. Bush’s strategists did not
quite understand that the Kremlin was happy to see the USA stay and fritter
away its resources in Afghanistan.
The tribulations of Syrian refugees now trying to reach
Europe and then navigating through checkpoints and barbed wire has caught
attention worldwide. Europe seems to be willing to provide a bit more than it
was willing to do only two weeks ago.
On the other hand, questions are asked why most refugees are
aiming to reach Germany or Sweden rather than stay in other parts of Europe.
Their insistence to do just that apparently provoked dramatic clashes with
police in Hungary, when they were kept away from boarding a train to Austria,
as seen in the news media. Some websites are quick to point out that countries
like Spain have social support networks by far weaker than what Germany has,
and that may be a factor.
Be it as it may, the European Union is having its hands full
with growing numbers of Mideast and African refugees. This is the beginning of
a growing and much larger population shift, rooted in war and in global poverty, growing with climate change and
unsustainable population growth.
The Syria exodus is somewhat unique in terms of its
political overtones that involve both the European Union and Russia. It complicates
the EU prognoses and is bound to have repercussions in Ukraine. Problems for
the European Union is good news for the Kremlin.
Meanwhile, U.S. National Intelligence Director James
Clapper said that the current refugee crisis is a “disaster of Biblical
proportions.”
What may also turn this disaster into a badge of inaptitude for
U.S. President Barack Obama is the sudden appearance of Russian combat forces in Syria to aid Assad forces battling Islamic state militants in early September. “Losing
Syria” is not an option for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, considering that Syria
has been in Russia’s glove for at least a generation, and he also needs to make
sure not to be kicked out as the boss in the Kremlin.
Putin can be almost sure he is not risking an overwhelming
response from the West. President Obama’s timid response to Russia’s aggression
in Ukraine pretty much had sized him up in the eyes of President Putin.
Russia’s
latest move in Syria “is an attempt by President Vladimir Putin to carve out a
central role for himself from his international isolation over Ukraine”
(“Moscow urges US cooperation as it seeks to wrest initiative on Syria”,
Financial Times, Sept. 12).
In plain language, Putin is seizing an opportunity
to kill two birds with one throw: Number one is putting Ukraine in play in
exchange for his own “cooperation” in Syria, and number two, save Assad’s skin
by keeping him in power in at least in a major part of Syria.
