Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
As Syrian rebels face an onslaught of Russian bombs ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, back in Washington President Barack Obama faces incoming volleys himself.
Critics claim Obama's lack of response to Putin's bombing campaign makes Obama looks "weak" in comparison. Others argue that American "credibility" is at stake in Syria, and that the United States must now "reestablish deterrence" against Russia. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brezinski even claims that because Russian forces in Syria are "geographically vulnerable" they could be "disarmed," though without explaining how.
The fact is any escalation would be dangerous by definition, and of dubious benefit to the United States.
For starters, none of Obama's critics explain how Putin's actions in Syria threaten American "credibility" or its deterrence posture vis-à-vis Russia. Risking credibility, in this case, means that if the United States does not counter an adversary in one place, this adversary will be tempted to threaten more vital American interests elsewhere. This was the logic behind the Vietnam War, where the United States' expenditure of blood and treasure was meant to reassure our NATO allies that Washington would protect them from a Soviet attack in Europe.
That logic was misguided then and is equally misguided now. Putin is not threatening American allies such as Israel or the Gulf States, nor does he appear willing to risk a serious military confrontation with America's NATO allies. Indeed, the United States already announced plans to station hundreds of tanks, howitzers and other armor in the Baltics, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's secretary general just stated that "we are implementing the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War," and that "NATO is on the ground. NATO is ready."
While Putin may be prickly, he is not crazy, and no evidence exists that the United States' caution in Syria will tempt the Russians to strike core American interests in other parts of the world.
In addition, those demanding a strong response to Putin's Syrian campaign ignore a key fact: Even if Obama did favor an escalation in Syria, he faces a buffet of policy choices ranging bad to worse. For example, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) urges Obama to supply Syrian rebels with surface-to-air missiles capable of shooting down Russian planes. This ignores the fact that in Syria's confusing mishmash of overlapping alliances, its "moderate" rebels frequently cooperate with al-Qaida's Syrian affiliate. Since surface-to-air missiles can shoot down commercial airliners - as al-Qaida has narrowly missed doing previously - McCain's idea is a recipe for disaster.
Another option for Obama is to revisit arming Kiev with billions of dollars of American military hardware. It's difficult to see how this might induce Russia to stand down in Syria, and this idea also ignores how Putin may respond. As Obama rightfully concludes, Putin would likely react by increasing Russian support for the separatists; thereby make a bad situation worse. What is the point of causing a major flare-up in Ukraine if doing so won't solve anything in Syria?
Finally, the very notion of "disarming" Russian military assets in Syria by military force lies somewhere on the spectrum between crazy and suicidal. Russia would almost certainly respond by striking American or NATO military forces - perhaps in Eastern Europe - so unless Obama suddenly feels a hankering to start World War Three this is an idea the president can safely ignore.
None of this means the United States should ignore Putin's Syrian military campaign, but it does demonstrate that Obama is right to respond cautiously. Nevertheless, the president can take certain steps - just not the type that will satisfy Washington's legion of escalation.
First, the White House must not act like the sky is falling every time Putin does something it disapproves of. Beyond propping up Russia's longtime ally Bashar al-Assad, Putin's Syrian campaign also allows him to stick his thumb in America's eye. The best way to respond is not hysterically, but calmly. Russia does not possess anything near the military strength of the Soviet Union, and exaggerating Russian power serves no useful purpose. Indeed, if Russia is dragged deeper into the Syrian quagmire - particularly if its forces suffer casualties - Putin may come to rue his Syrian gamble. Thankfully, this type of attitude fits perfectly with Obama's "play it cool" persona, and in fact during the president's recent news conference he noted that Putin went into Syria "out of weakness, not strength." It would be nice to see the rest of Washington follow Obama's lead.
Second, Obama should ensure that the Pentagon continues its policy to "de-conflict" Russian-American air operations in Syria. An accidental clash between American and Russian forces could not only produce unpredictable military consequences, but would also allow Putin to raise the rhetorical temperature several notches - which fits precisely with his desire to ratchet up support at home by aggressively confronting the United States.
Lastly, Obama should redouble efforts to find a solution that ends the slaughter in Syria. One worthwhile idea is to duplicate the P5+1 strategy that worked so well in the Iran negotiations. This strategy would require that the interests of all stakeholders in Syria are taken into account, including the Iranians. Obama would need to stop demanding Assad's departure as a pre-condition for successful talks, but this is a price worth paying if it stops the slaughter. Syria will almost certainly never return to its status as a unitary state with strong centralized control over its entire territory, but all parties share a common fear of Islamic State and this should serve as a common starting point for P5+1 Syrian talks.
The Syrian conflict presents no ideal outcome for the United States, but by proceeding cautiously Obama can prevent a dangerous military clash with Russia - and also avoid making a bad situation worse.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.
18 Comments
Login to comment
Illyas
Never have I seen the US government and its people so out of step on an issue. The American people applaud the Russian military action. By all means, take out the ISIS rebels and the CIA backed not-ISIS rebels that are just as bad (remember the guy who cut out and ate a Syrian soldier's heart? Thanks CIA!). Russia is doing the world a favor, while the US tries to prolong war because it didn't get its way with its plan to depose Assad.
kcjapan
Thank you! Josh Cohen!
Before the Shia Tea GOP gets too crazy, remember what the old tymers used to say, "keep your powder dry."
As President Obama has shown repeatedly, America should not stumble bum the blundering stupidity of AWOL Bush. As an easy avenue to privateer warriors profits, example, Erik Prince, (see current position as advisor to China in Africa), but add Halliburton and the rogues gallery of war profiteers from AWOL's disaster as the business plan of the Shia Tea GOP, Americans shouldn't need another a chilling reminder that destroyed the world economy by 2007.
Gods forbid Americans take that course blindly under the frenzy of manufactured threats as Vice President Cheney handily packaged and delivered to Bush as a yellow cake of lies.
kurisupisu
Thanks to Russia (unlike the US) we will eventually see Syria return to peace and normality......
PTownsend
I'll vote for world emperor anyone who can claim an understanding of what's going on and where this is heading.
The bits we in the public are allowed to see reported by the media show a mess akin to what was going on in Europe about 100 years ago, suggesting WW1 is being recycled.
John-San
It about time to leave to middle east and to leave it these idoits. With all the money spent on these faith ruled countries, we could have a solar energy if this money was invested in solar. Over the last 15 years solar energy has come on in leaps and bounds. Imagine if the money spent on these unproductive war which have produce on real outcome but a more volatile middle east, Solar power would be on grid by now.
avigator
Russia, as an invited coalition member of the Syrian government, should ask Syria to declare their airspace off-limits to any foreign aircraft not authorized to be there and in violation of Syria's sovereign airspace just as the US, France, UK, Nato, etc would normally do in a similar situation. This way the so called "coalition" that keeps sending arms to the "moderate" terrorist will not be able to violate Syria's foreign airspace. One rule will be: if you violate the airspace and after warnings to not turn around, you will be shut down. Turkey is a country that continues to violate Syria's sovereign airspace for the purpose of slowing down the advancement of the Kurds. Russia needs to give them a strong warning to stay away from Syria's airspace. Now you know that democracy means nothing as none of the policies the US follows is to any benefit of the American people or the World in general but to the benefit of the shadow government and money masters.
Illyas
The tactics may be different (air bombardment versus ground invasion) but when it comes to results, Obama is just as bad as Bush. It was often asked in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion - 'Is Iraq better off now than under Saddam?' Well I propose a similar question for Obama's ill-conceived war - 'Is Libya better off now than under Qaddafi?' And looking at the state of Libya now - a failed state, hot spot of people smugglers, divided into opposing fractions - I submit the answer to that question is very similar to the one posed of Iraq. Obama isn't any better than Bush.
kcjapan
Check your notes: "In the case of Libya, Obama acted surgically and preempted the typical slippery slope to a larger military intervention that involved "owning the outcomes" inside Libya. Obama's strategy worked, and the U.S. in partnership with France, England, the UAE, and Qatar delivered a low-cost political transition inside Libya."
source: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/obama-succeeded-in-libya-hes-failing-in-syria/277146/
While the Shia-Tea-GOP plays the games of scolded children after the mischiefs been discovered in their BushWars, they now play the pout lip petulance of their intellectual immaturity for a matter recorded in open source reporting. Reading their foolish repetition here is another unpleasant confirmation of ignorance and deception. Somehow the 100,000 dead of Iraq in AWOL's yellow cake war is a Shia-Tea badge of courage.
Wakarimasen
WWIII or Armageddon?
Asakaze
How about some REAL fighting with ISIS? That would be a good start.
shonanbb
America...get out already. Just protect Israel and let all the others alone.
Geoff Gillespie
Neither. As any student of history will tell you, it's just another day in the office...
bass4funk
A little too much on the booze? Once the hangover is over and reality sets in, the situation will worsen.
While the Shia-Tea-GOP plays the games of scolded children after the mischiefs been discovered in their BushWars, they now play the pout lip petulance of their intellectual immaturity for a matter recorded in open source reporting.
What about the games that the anointed one keeps playing as if he knows what is going on (but in reality hasn't a shred of a clue) and by not pursuing our national interest is just taking it up the..... and dry at that. Capitulation and and a healthy diet of chicken is something that this president and his party are used to, since the truth is something that they elude like a cockroach eludes light.
I think you meant, the sectarian that caused most of the violence.
Illyas
@kcjapan
You're delusional if you can't see what a disaster Libya has turned into. Half of the current refugee crisis in Europe is due to due to the Libyan war. The country is now a failed state. You say the US doesn't bear responsibility for what's happening there, yet it does for Iraq? The 100,000 Iraqis dead is on Bush, but Libya turning into Somalia 2.0 isn't on Obama? When Libya is still a failed state 20 years from now, the net consequence will be much, much greater than 100,000 dead.
bass4funk
True, but the real problem with your analysis and the root cause is that most Democrats and progressive liberals is they don't live in a world of reality, but in a theoretical world where tantalizing images of Gurus, reefers, flowers, incense and paisley shapes are floating around desensitizing their cerebral cortex thus blocking their inability to rationalize what is real or what is fiction. There is always an answer to the mind-boggling madness.
turbotsat
and
Your article 2 years old.