By John Ubaldi
Contributor, In Homeland Security
In his first news conference since Russia began military operations in Syria, President Barack Obama gave an unclear strategy as to how the U.S. plans to deal with the current situation.
During the news conference, Julie Pace, of The Associated Press, asked the president about his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the United Nations and what the U.S. strategy is going forward in Syria.
The president mentioned in his questioning on his discussion with Putin, “I was very clear that the only way to solve the problem in Syria is to have a political transition that is inclusive – that keeps the state intact, that keeps the military intact, that maintains cohesion, but that is inclusive – and the only way to accomplish that is for Mr. Assad to transition, because you cannot rehabilitate him in the eyes of Syrians.”
Since the crisis erupted in 2011, President Obama has stated Assad has to go, but has never stipulated how this was to be accomplished and who would replace him.
The president continued in his remarks with regard to his meeting with Putin, “I’d be prepared to work with him if he is willing to broker with his partners, Mr. Assad and Iran, a political transition – we can bring the rest of the world community to a brokered solution – but that a military solution alone, an attempt by Russia and Iran to prop up Assad and try to pacify the population is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire. And it won’t work. And they will be there for a while if they don’t take a different course.”
The president needs to understand that Putin’s desire is to maintain Russia’s regional presence in the Middle East, and the preservation of the military facilities at Latakia and Tartus.
The intervention by Russia into the Syrian conflict is to protect and keep Assad in power, as military operations have been against Syrian rebel forces, with minimal strikes against ISIS.
President Obama said in his remarks that the U.S. is, “prepared to work with all the parties concerned” which means to Putin once the opposition to Assad is eliminated, he could then replicate the situation in Iraq.
In August 2014, former Prime Minister Nouri al’Maliki’s Iraqi government collapsed when he lost support from his Iranian backer’s, and was replaced by Haider al-Abadi, who has the backing of Tehran.
Once Assad position is solidified, Moscow and Iran would either force Assad or ease him out of power, thereby consolidating their continued influence with the new Syrian leadership, then concentrate on ISIS.
Russia at this point is mindful of past military operations in Afghanistan, the North Caucasus and especially in Chechnya, and that Moscow doesn’t need to send in a ground element when it has Hezbollah fighters and Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops as its ground force, with the Russian Air Force providing air support.
It should be of no surprise to anyone, as before the nuclear agreement was signed with Tehran, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Qud’s Force Commander, Major General Qasem Soleymani, had traveled to Moscow in August to meet with Putin. One can only speculate that top on the list was how Russia would coordinate with these forces once Moscow entered the fray.
The one aspect that has perplexed many was the statement by the president, “I made very clear early on that the United States couldn’t impose a military solution on Syria either, but that it was in our interest to make sure that we were engaged with moderate opposition inside of Syria because eventually Syria will fall, the Assad regime will fall, and we have to have somebody who we’re working with that we can help pick up the pieces and stitch back together a cohesive, coherent country. And so we will continue to support them.”
The opposition that the president speaks of is being targeted by Russian, Syrian and Iranian forces, and as U.S. Central Commander General Lloyd Austin testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, only “four or five” trained moderate Syrian fighters remain in the fight against ISIS.
The president mentioned this fact, “part of the reason, frankly, is because when we tried to get them to just focus on ISIL, the response we’d get back is, how can we focus on ISIL when every single day we’re having barrel bombs and attacks from the regime? And so it’s been hard to get them to re-prioritize, looking east, when they’ve got bombs coming at them from the west.”
What is U.S. strategy with regard to the Syrian opposition?
The final aspect Obama mentioned, “Mr. Putin had to go into Syria not out of strength but out of weakness,” missing in his analysis is that the region looks at Russian strength and U.S. weakness.
Current Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi traveled to Moscow in August to seek out closer ties in the fight against terrorism, and in June 2016, will hold their first joint naval exercise.
The president needs to understand that the region looks at him as a weak indecisive leader and it’s turning more toward Russia for support.
The next president will have his or her hands full in the Middle East.
Comments are closed.