By John Ubaldi
Contributor, In Homeland Security
Far too often, President Barack Obama and his administration fail to understand the motives and rational of why Russian President Vladimir Putin does what he does; especially in the Middle East.
In a recent interview on “60 Minutes,” President Obama was interviewed by Steve Kroft who repeatedly asked, is Putin challenging you? Obama kept firing back, “in what way?” Kroft kept pushing until the president responded, “Well Steve, I got to tell you, if you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in, in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we’ve got a different definition of leadership.”
The problem is that the president fails to understand the axiom articulated by Sun Tzu, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
The administration continually fails to understand the motives of Putin. President Obama continually touts the weakness of the Russian economy as a liability, but going back to the czar’s, no leader has ever cared for their own people, it was always what was best for Russia! Putin is no different!
Moscow’s intervention into Syria was always about keeping Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power, and the preservation of the Russian military base at Tartus and Latakia. It had nothing to do with the Islamic State, as both Russia and the U.S. agree that there is no military solution to the crisis, but what Moscow is doing is creating events on the ground which are favorable to its interests. At the present time that means keeping Assad in power with the assistance of the Iranians. If he becomes a liability, then Moscow will replace him with someone more pliable to Moscow.
Once the situation is stabilized to Moscow’s interests you can rest assured that both the Russians and the Iranians will seek a peace proposal that reflects their interests.
Russia has no intention of introducing ground forces into Syria when it has Hezbollah and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard’s providing the ground force, with the Russian military providing the air cover.
Many in the region have openly complained about U.S. strategy in the Middle East, especially in the fight against ISIS, one in which President Obama promised to “degrade and ultimate destroy,” but the Islamic State is still firmly in control.
In the Wall Street Journal it was reported Saturday that Iraqi officials and Kurdish fighters have long complained about the pace of the U.S. bombing campaign against Islamic State, and Washington’s unwillingness to provide forward spotters to guide these airstrikes or to embed U.S. advisers with combat units. These constraints have made the U.S. military, in effect, a junior partner of Iran in the campaign against Islamic State, providing air cover to Iranian-guided Shiite militias that go into battle with portraits of the Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei plastered on their tanks.
Where does this leave the Sunni Arab’s? From there vantage point, they see Russia propping up Assad and the Iranian’s spreading it’s Shiite influence throughout the region, coupled with the U.S. using airstrikes against ISIS, a Sunni terror group…where does it leave them?
The lack of strategy by the Obama administration has embolden Putin to seek the power projection unseen since the Cold War, and has even made Moscow to seek greater relationships with many nations in the Middle East, to include Iraq. This is a nation in which the U.S. invested so much blood and treasure, and now is openly allying itself with Moscow in the fight against ISIS.
Putin’s move into Syria has hamstrung U.S. efforts to include setting up a no-fly zone or safe haven from Assad’s forces.
On Friday, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post on how to counter Putin’s move inside Syria. In the article they mentioned no fly zones, “We have to create our own facts on the ground. No-fly zones and safe harbors for populations are not “half-baked” ideas. They worked before (protecting the Kurds for 12 years under Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror) and warrant serious consideration.”
Even Republican candidate for president, Governor Chris Christie, in an interview mentioned that setting up a no fly zone over Syria would let Moscow know we mean business, which could include shooting down a Russian aircraft if warranted.
This would dramatically escalate the conflict, as Putin would never believe Obama would go this far.
President Obama has placed the U.S. in an untenable situation, and with each option caries great risk, but doing nothing creates even greater risk. The president’s foreign policy strategy was always to have others do the heavy lifting.
In a January, New Yorker magazine interview of the president articulated a foreign policy doctrine that had repudiated U.S. foreign policy since World War II.
“It would be profoundly in the interest” of the regions citizens “if Sunnis and Shias weren’t intent on killing each other,” Obama continued in the interview. “If we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion—not funding terrorist organizations, not trying to stir up sectarian discontent in other countries, and not developing a nuclear weapon—you could see an equilibrium developing between . . . predominantly Sunni Gulf states and Iran.”
In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg this past May the president wanted “to find effective partners—not just in Iraq, but in Syria, and in Yemen, and in Libya.” Even in his U.N General Assembly address last week the president stated, “Work with other nations under the mantle of international norms and principles and law.”
By not understanding the unique role the U.S. plays in the international arena, any abdicating of this crucial responsibility will be filled by other powers, one in which Russia and Iran are filling and securing their interests by any means necessary.
Instead of stability, this strategy only breeds chaos!
Comments are closed.