This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/30/syria-russia-assad-obama-putin-analysis

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Russia's intervention in Syria brings Obama's dilemma to the fore Russia's intervention in Syria brings Obama's dilemma to the fore
(34 minutes later)
An aggressive Russian military intervention in Syria has placed Barack Obama’s policy for one of the world’s most devastating conflicts at a crossroads.An aggressive Russian military intervention in Syria has placed Barack Obama’s policy for one of the world’s most devastating conflicts at a crossroads.
Russia’s military resurgence in the Middle East comes as the White House’s own military contribution to the Syrian civil war is collapsing, something even Obama’s former aides are acknowledging. The question now facing Obama is whether he will cut his losses in Syria, an intervention he has never wanted, and leave Vladimir Putin holding the bag.Russia’s military resurgence in the Middle East comes as the White House’s own military contribution to the Syrian civil war is collapsing, something even Obama’s former aides are acknowledging. The question now facing Obama is whether he will cut his losses in Syria, an intervention he has never wanted, and leave Vladimir Putin holding the bag.
Putin’s military gambit in Syria is the inverse of Obama’s. It has been rapid where Obama’s is belated, decisive where Obama’s is tentative, and focused where Obama’s is diffuse. What similarities exist concern the two countries’ euphemistic description of their involvement: Russia is claiming an operation against the Islamic State while actually attacking enemies of client Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US is bombing Isis in Syria while treating the country as peripheral to a central conflict in neighboring Iraq.Putin’s military gambit in Syria is the inverse of Obama’s. It has been rapid where Obama’s is belated, decisive where Obama’s is tentative, and focused where Obama’s is diffuse. What similarities exist concern the two countries’ euphemistic description of their involvement: Russia is claiming an operation against the Islamic State while actually attacking enemies of client Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US is bombing Isis in Syria while treating the country as peripheral to a central conflict in neighboring Iraq.
Related: Russia launches first airstrikes against targets in SyriaRelated: Russia launches first airstrikes against targets in Syria
Russia’s inaugural airstrikes on Wednesday – the culmination of a monthlong buildup in the western airbase of Latakia – undermined days’ worth of talk from Obama and Putin about cooperation in the conflict. Pentagon officials fumed at a call from the Russians to ground its own warplanes even though Russia targeted an area further west than the US bombing campaign. A day after the Pentagon spoke about “deconflicting” air operations, it defiantly declared that it would continue its own strikes.Russia’s inaugural airstrikes on Wednesday – the culmination of a monthlong buildup in the western airbase of Latakia – undermined days’ worth of talk from Obama and Putin about cooperation in the conflict. Pentagon officials fumed at a call from the Russians to ground its own warplanes even though Russia targeted an area further west than the US bombing campaign. A day after the Pentagon spoke about “deconflicting” air operations, it defiantly declared that it would continue its own strikes.
After Putin sent approximately 30 warplanes to Latakia, US officials publicly declared themselves confused by Russian intentions. Putin clarified them to 60 Minutes on Sunday. Asked if his true intentions were to bolster Assad rather than eradicate Isis, Putin answered: “Well, you’re right.” US officials said on Wednesday that they were still working to determine whom the Russian strikes hit, although early indications suggested a US-backed militant group was bombed.After Putin sent approximately 30 warplanes to Latakia, US officials publicly declared themselves confused by Russian intentions. Putin clarified them to 60 Minutes on Sunday. Asked if his true intentions were to bolster Assad rather than eradicate Isis, Putin answered: “Well, you’re right.” US officials said on Wednesday that they were still working to determine whom the Russian strikes hit, although early indications suggested a US-backed militant group was bombed.
Wearing down the US-backed Syrian militants appears easy. Gone are the Pentagon’s 2014 assurances that it would field a 5,000-strong ground force of Syrian “moderate” rebels by now; such comments were replaced with a dramatic admission earlier this month that it has yielded only a handful. Pentagon assurances about the parlous state of its Syrian proxies are in doubt: within a week, it initially denied and then conceded that one group provided US equipment to al-Qaida in Syria and that it has paused the process of adding new recruits.Wearing down the US-backed Syrian militants appears easy. Gone are the Pentagon’s 2014 assurances that it would field a 5,000-strong ground force of Syrian “moderate” rebels by now; such comments were replaced with a dramatic admission earlier this month that it has yielded only a handful. Pentagon assurances about the parlous state of its Syrian proxies are in doubt: within a week, it initially denied and then conceded that one group provided US equipment to al-Qaida in Syria and that it has paused the process of adding new recruits.
One reason behind the minimal enlistments is the goal of the US project: not to fight Assad, but instead to fight Isis, which many Syrians consider a lesser priority. Amidst fierce criticism from congressional hawks, who argue that defeating Isis means first defeating Assad, Obama has drawn sharp limits on expanding the goal of US involvement. He has balked at using US warplanes to patrol a “safe zone” corridor for Syrian civilians, and thus far refrained from using air power to protect rebel groups from Assad’s helicopter-launched barrel bombs. One reason behind the minimal enlistments is the goal of the US project: not to fight Assad, but instead to fight Isis, which many Syrians consider a lesser priority. Amid fierce criticism from congressional hawks, who argue that defeating Isis means first defeating Assad, Obama has drawn sharp limits on expanding the goal of US involvement. He has balked at using US warplanes to patrol a “safe zone” corridor for Syrian civilians, and thus far refrained from using air power to protect rebel groups from Assad’s helicopter-launched barrel bombs.
If the US approach to Syrian rebels is tentative, its approach to Assad is rhetorical. Obama consistently calls for Assad to relinquish power; Assad consistently declines. After reaping minimal results on both fronts of its bifurcated policy, the administration is currently reviewing its Syria initiatives to determine if an alternative ought to be adopted.If the US approach to Syrian rebels is tentative, its approach to Assad is rhetorical. Obama consistently calls for Assad to relinquish power; Assad consistently declines. After reaping minimal results on both fronts of its bifurcated policy, the administration is currently reviewing its Syria initiatives to determine if an alternative ought to be adopted.
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, may be gesturing towards an option. In the past several days, Kerry met with representatives of Assad’s patrons, Russia and Iran, seemingly to determine if a brokered endgame for the conflict is achievable. A US official, briefing on Kerry’s Sunday meeting with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, said the two diplomats discussed the prospects “to get back to the conversation about a way forward on a political transition”.John Kerry, the US secretary of state, may be gesturing towards an option. In the past several days, Kerry met with representatives of Assad’s patrons, Russia and Iran, seemingly to determine if a brokered endgame for the conflict is achievable. A US official, briefing on Kerry’s Sunday meeting with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, said the two diplomats discussed the prospects “to get back to the conversation about a way forward on a political transition”.
Speculation is rife that Obama will pivot to such a diplomatic settlement. His speech to the United Nations on Monday included a line about a “managed transition” in Syria to an “inclusive” post-Assad government. It followed a provocative argument from a former White House Syria aide endorsing a “messy compromise” that can accept deferring Assad’s ultimate fate.Speculation is rife that Obama will pivot to such a diplomatic settlement. His speech to the United Nations on Monday included a line about a “managed transition” in Syria to an “inclusive” post-Assad government. It followed a provocative argument from a former White House Syria aide endorsing a “messy compromise” that can accept deferring Assad’s ultimate fate.
The top Democrat on the House intelligence committee on Wednesday denounced Russia’s bombing as undermining “pressure on the regime and its supporters [that] may have finally led to a negotiated end to the conflict”. An alternative interpretation is that Russia’s bombing aims to strengthen Assad’s hand ahead of any such negotiation and, as a fallback, preserve Russian influence in a post-Assad Syria. Russia may indeed seek an end to the conflict – just one that occurs on Assad and Moscow’s terms.The top Democrat on the House intelligence committee on Wednesday denounced Russia’s bombing as undermining “pressure on the regime and its supporters [that] may have finally led to a negotiated end to the conflict”. An alternative interpretation is that Russia’s bombing aims to strengthen Assad’s hand ahead of any such negotiation and, as a fallback, preserve Russian influence in a post-Assad Syria. Russia may indeed seek an end to the conflict – just one that occurs on Assad and Moscow’s terms.
Russian intentions and results are two different things. The country may not be able to broker an accord at all; it may also fail at suppressing Isis in Syria, a necessary objective for the viability of any Russian-backed Syrian government, with or without Assad. The perils of both objectives – a bloody quagmire – are the sources of Obama’s hesitation in Syria. Pentagon officials cited in the Daily Beast seemed almost relieved that the Russians would risk entangling themselves.Russian intentions and results are two different things. The country may not be able to broker an accord at all; it may also fail at suppressing Isis in Syria, a necessary objective for the viability of any Russian-backed Syrian government, with or without Assad. The perils of both objectives – a bloody quagmire – are the sources of Obama’s hesitation in Syria. Pentagon officials cited in the Daily Beast seemed almost relieved that the Russians would risk entangling themselves.
Yet Russian entanglement in Syria does not mean US extrication, even if that is Obama’s goal. Putin has done nothing to indicate Russia will battle Isis in Iraq, Obama’s relative priority, where daily US strikes occur as well. As the Pentagon insists that the Russian air campaign will not deter its own, Obama has yet to send a signal that Putin’s gambit will be cover for winding down a US intervention he never wanted.Yet Russian entanglement in Syria does not mean US extrication, even if that is Obama’s goal. Putin has done nothing to indicate Russia will battle Isis in Iraq, Obama’s relative priority, where daily US strikes occur as well. As the Pentagon insists that the Russian air campaign will not deter its own, Obama has yet to send a signal that Putin’s gambit will be cover for winding down a US intervention he never wanted.