An op-ed in the LA Times from Max Abrahms and John Glaser points out how wrong U. S. pundits left and right were about Syria and DAESH. Here’s the kernel of the op-ed:
The notion that Assad “won’t fight†Islamic State was always wrong. The notion that “defeating Islamic State also requires defeating Bashar Assad†was, likewise, always wrong. By now it should be obvious that the Syrian Arab Army has played a role in degrading Islamic State in Syria — not alone, of course, but with Russian and Iranian partners, not to mention the impressive U.S.-led coalition. In marked contrast to pundit expectations, the group’s demise was inversely related to Assad’s power. Islamic State’s fortunes decreased as his influence in the country increased.
Equally contrary to analyst predictions, the group imploded right after external support for the “moderate†rebels dried up. The weakening of the rebels was a major setback for Islamic State because Assad could finally focus his firepower on the group. Fewer weapon shipments into the theater, moreover, meant fewer arms fell into the hands of Salafi jihadists.
which, if you will recall, is what I’ve been saying all along.
I don’t think that Assad is a good guy. The issue is one of priorities and IMO stability in Syria was a higher priority than ousting Assad. Additionally, under no circumstance should we support violent radical Islamists and that’s exactly what we were doing.
The question is why were we doing what we did? I don’t agree with Pat Lang that we were just doing the Israelis’ bidding. It’s possible that we were doing the Saudis’ bidding. Neither of those is a good course of action.
The most benign explanation is that we are naive and were trying to do the right thing. I hope that’s the case.
I wouldn’t say we re doing JUST the Israeli’s bidding, but it certainly seems like it was a factor. It is a bit difficult, I think, to separate out whether it was mostly the Saudis or mostly the Israelis pushing against any Iranian involvement.
Steve