WASHINGTON, D.C. Oct. 1 (DPI) – Russian jets yesterday bombed targets in western Syria – targets that were apparently not ISIS but rebel groups backed by the CIA – further complicating the mess that is today’s Middle East. And readers on news sites – to a greater degree than cautious U.S. journalists — did their best to sort out the confusion.
Many comments seemed to get past the narrative that the entry into Syria by Russia was a result of weakness by the Obama Administration, whose foreign policy moves are a popular target of Republicans. In fact, many readers recognized that 1) Russia’s military role could stabilize Syria by strengthening its ally, the Assad regime, and weakening ISIS and Al Qaeda groups alike; and 2) Israel welcomes Russian actions since Assad is “the devil it knows” and Assad would be preferred to any other extremist regime; 3) Having the Russians involved militarily, and not the US, will spare US lives and 4) While Russian intervention may help Putin’s standing in ever-weakening Russia, long-term he’ll likely pay dearly for his decision to jump in the quicksand of the Middle East.
Among the most popular comments on NYTimes.com and WashingtonPost.com:
The Russians are looking to keep Assad in power and help him retake all of Syria. Frankly, it is the only way to end ISIS in Syria and stabilize the country. In order to accomplish this though Syria and the Russians have to get through territory that is under other rebel control first then push on through. Why would any military force leave an enemy force to their rear? Enough with the Anti-Russian propaganda, we will let then continue because even our politicians know that the Russians have the only plan to stabilize Syria. Of course you will never hear the administration admit it, just like the previous administration never admitted their mistakes “liberating” the Middle East.
Putin deserves our thanks, and our non-interference. It’s long past time that someone stepped in to stabilize Syria. We’d rather see the chaos continue than to see Assad win. I’d rather see Assad win if that ends the chaos. So would Russia, and so would Assad. So be it — at least that approach gets rid of ISIS, which is the only alternative (other than the al Qaeda affiliate, al Nusra Front). Who, exactly, would be better off if ISIS, or the al Nusra Front, ends up in control of Syria rather than Assad? Israel may not like Assad, but he’s the devil they know; I’m sure they prefer him to the alternatives. We’ve had fun, I suppose, prolonging this war with our semi-competent CIA commandos sneaking into Syria with boxes of weapons and fistfuls of $100 bills. But it’s been a lot less fun for the Syrian people. Why don’t we poll them with this question: “If Russia helps Assad to regain control of Syria and prevent ISIS or the al Nusra Front from taking control, will you consider that a good outcome?” How do you suppose the Syrian people would answer that question? Do you think their answer might be different from the answer given by the US government? If so, whose answer should matter here?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/world/middleeast/russia-syria-airstrikes-isis.html
Didn’t any of you conservative mental giants ever wonder how Russia got up and running in less than a week? It’s because they have had a naval base in Syria for over 40 years and have been supplying arms to Syria for all of that time. The whole Syrian military is Russian-made and always has been. They didn’t just get to Syria . . . they never left.
How long can Russia last? About another 15 months according to Russian economists. Cash reserves have gone from $356 billion to $180 billion in the last 15 months. Putin is blowing Russia’s last paycheck trying to re-build the Soviet Union with an economy a third the size of Japan’s.
Netanyahu has made the decision that keeping Assad in power is better than the unknown and he is partnering with Putin to get there. We have no national interests in Syria whatsoever. Everything will be ok.
The discussion in the US is always about ISIS and Assad, while the third major player, al-Nusra, is passed over in silence. There’s no shadow of doubt that al-Nusra is the main proxy for Saudi Arabia and Erdogan. Saudi Arabia, through bribery or some other mechanism, is visibly controlling policy set in London and Washington. Slowly, quietly, our political elites have come to see al-Nusra as being on our side. Al-Nusra is also the force most directly threatening Assad’s heartland, on both northern and southern fronts. It’s a pretty sure bet that where the Russians weren’t striking ISIS, they struck al-Nusra. And this has annoyed our leaders. They are looking for a way to express their annoyance without admitting that they are sticking up for an official branch of al-Qaeda. But that is precisely what they are doing.