Over the last week, Vladimir Putin has been addressing ISIS with brisk dispatch, while our President is running around bloviating. This morning our Dear Leader told us:
Mr. Putin had to go into Syria not out of strength but out of weakness, because his client, Mr. Assad, was crumbling. And it was insufficient for him simply to send them arms and money; now he’s got to put in his own planes and his own pilots. And the notion that he put forward a plan and that somehow the international community sees that as viable because there is a vacuum there — I didn’t see, after he made that speech in the United Nations, suddenly the 60-nation coalition that we have start lining up behind him.
Where do I begin?
- The weakness of which Obama speaks is Syria’s, not Russia’s. It’s expected, from time to time, that a stronger country will have to support its weaker allies. And Russia is politically and culturally more ready to engage in direct military action than we are, for a variety of reasons.
- If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. If we haven’t learned the value of doing it yourself from years of proxy warfare, where last year’s ally is this year’s enemy, we probably never will.
- I don’t know if our Dear Leader has noticed, but I don’t believe that Putin cares what the international community thinks of his actions. He is convinced of the rightness of his plan and proceeding accordingly. He doesn’t need to go to the UN for validation.
- In any case, the ‘international community’ just wants ISIS to go away, without any effort on their part.
- And our ’60-nation coalition’ has so far been, in a word, useless.
Beyond that, Syria’s ‘weakness’ is a result of our finagling. Our issues with Syria, as far as I can tell, go back to the Bush administration, when we believed that Syria and Iran were supporting terrorists who were working to destabilize Iraq. I’m not sure why the trying-to-be-secular government of Syria would embroil itself in the morass of Iraq, but then again, our leaders had told us a few years earlier that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had to be stopped, so I’m sure they were also right about Syria partnering with Iran.
Then, more recently, there was the ‘Arab Spring.’ In hindsight, it was a move by the Islamists to install Islamic governments in the countries in the region that didn’t have them. In Egypt, they succeeded in installing a new President loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood, but he was so inept at leading the country that he was deposed in a military coup.
President Assad was a little more astute and saw the Arab Spring movement for what it was. He endeavored to shut it down. And we took the side of the Islamists, and our enemies from ten years ago—who had engaged in actual terrorism on US soil—were now our allies.
That took brains!
So while we rail against ISIS, and our Dear Leader says that we will ‘degrade and destroy’ it, it actually serves our purposes in oppressing the Syrian government. I’ve framed the issue in previous posts as our wanting to support ‘moderate Syrian rebels’ who realized that running their own little state would be easier and safer, as if it were an innocent error on the part of our leadership.
I was being polite. Mistakes of this magnitude are not made innocently.
And now Vladimir Putin is sending his air force, and ultimately his army, to mop up our mess. He isn’t spending six months in the UN to build a consensus. His leadership supports him. He doesn’t have to worry about his plan gaining political traction within Russia. I’m sure that he doesn’t have teams of lawyers scrutinizing target lists (like we did) to avoid collateral damage: you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. And I would expect the Russians to ultimately dispatch ISIS in a few months.
We’re getting schooled… the hard way. Hopefully we will have learned something, at least.