Was Putin Right About Syria?

[Purveyor]

By Ishaan Tharoor August 22 at 1:47 PM

What a difference a year makes. Around this time last year, the West was gearing up for military action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who was accused of carrying out chemical weapons attacks on his own people. That intervention never came to pass, not least because domestic public opinion in countries such as Britain and the United States was opposed to further entanglements in the Middle East.

Now, the U.S. is contemplating extending airstrikes on Islamic State militants operating in Iraq in Syria — fighters belonging to a terrorist organization that is leading the war against Assad. The Islamic State's territorial gains in Iraq and continued repression and slaughter of religious minorities there and in Syria have rightly triggered global condemnation. "I am no apologist for the Assad regime," Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria, told NPR. "But in terms of our security, [the Islamic State] is by far the greatest threat."

The irony of the moment is tragic. But to some, it doesn't come as much of a surprise. Many cautioned against the earlier insistence of the Obama administration (as well as other governments) that Assad must go, fearing what would take hold in the vacuum.

One of those critics happened to be Russian President Vladimir Putin, who warned against U.S. intervention in Syria in a New York Times op-ed last September. He wrote:

A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

--clip
Putin decried the growing Islamist cadres in the Syrian rebels' ranks:

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria?

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/08/22/was-putin-right-about-syria/

[HooptieWagon]

1. More right than the Neo-cons.

But then, Putin is also biased by Russian strategic and economic interests in Syria.
Overall, before going into a country for regime-change, we damn well better have a good plan for its replacement.

[Igel]

2. Trivially so.

Syllogism:
The sky is made of orange marmelade.
Orange marmelade is blue.
Therefore the sky is blue (unless those nasty grey clouds made out of grape jam cover it)

That's a true inference and the syllogism is true. The major and minor premise are irrelevant since the conclusion is true and have no bearing on the truth value of the conclusion. F --> T is T.

Putin had the correct conclusion, which is more than many in the West had. (For the record, I still think Pelosi was barking when she said that Syria was a partner for reform during her political visit there in '07 or '08, when she donned a scarf to respect Islamic sensibilities. One can think that Assad the Lesser is a bad person and want him replaced by a better alternative and still think he's the better than the whole range of plausible alternatives, none of which contain a realistic "better alternative" and most of which are far, far worse.)


Putin's defense of Assad wasn't motivated by general security concerns. He was motivated by defending a traditional ally and trading partner in the area. It takes a special kind of enlightenment to say that it's a good thing to beat up your enemy even if you have a larger, worse common enemy; but it's only to be expected when we knife allies in the back when they fail to live up to our perceptions of what their behavior should be in furthering our particular interests. If you can't be friends to your allies, it's awfully difficult to cooperate with even milquetoast enemies. (I guess the only exception is when our enemies are more useful for knifing domestic, closer-to-home enemies ... then we tend to regard those who want to hurt "us" as allies because, really, we're not part of "us". Those foes are typically more serious, as well.)