At Brookings, Michael O’Hanlon, ever-hopeful proposes guidelines for a U. S. strategy on Syria consisting of the following plans:
- Help local allies in Syria hold their ground.
- Take advantage of the threat of further U.S. military operations.
- Establish a more realistic political vision for the country—one that no longer seeks Mr. Assad’s immediate removal.
- Develop a better answer to the Kurdish question to secure Turkey’s cooperation.
Maybe it’s just me but that strikes me as being on the borderline of insanity like Constantinople’s senate debating the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin while the Turks laid siege to the town.
First and foremost, Trump doesn’t do strategy. He’s purely transactional in his approach. Is there a way of nudging him towards that strategy? I don’t see it.
Second and for the umpteenth time, we have no allies in Syria and supporting the Islamist Sunni rebels means only prolonging the carnage.
Further U. S. military operations court a direct U. S.-Russia conflict, something that in turn risks a nuclear exchange unless one or the other country could back down. How could they? The only way to win is not to play.
The “allies in Syria” of which he speaks hold Assad’s immediate removal as their sine qua non. Is there a way to square that circle? Mr. O’Hanlon does not propose one.
Is securing Turkey’s cooperation even possible? They appear to be bent on a neo-Ottoman expansion. How in the world is that in our interest?
Here’s my proposal. Take everything Mr. O’Hanlon suggests and do the opposite.
Or a more moderate approach. What outcome benefits the U. S. most? It would take some persuading to convince me that anything in Mr. O’Hanlon’s proposed strategy advances our interests. Radical Sunni Islamists, Turks, the Israelis, yes. The U. S.? Not so much.
I still think the point of the pre-advertised missile strikes was a demonstration of our new long range radar avoiding missiles, which were NOT shot down, and the intended audience was not Assad, but Kim Jung un.
Tar baby.
@Gray Shambler
Add Putin and the mullahs to the intended audience.
This recently came out on Afghanistan. Read it and weep for the thousands of American lives thrown away for this stupidity.
Repeating the same is Syria is a fool’s errand, yet the usual suspects ensconced in their Washington ratholes have learned nothing.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/special-inspector-general-afghanistan-reconstruction-sigar-lessons-learned-report
Even if every bit of knowledge you had about Afghanistan were limited to what you’d read in Talbot Mundy novels, you’d have predicted everything in that list.