Whose Problem Is Syria Anyway?

Russia has strategically blocked any United Nations action against its quasi satellite state Syria for Decades mainly to protect their interest in Syria's Mediterranean Sea port of Tartis where Russia has a Naval support facility. Losing that port would present particular problems for Russia which is landlocked except for Russian Ports on the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov that do not provide Russia with ready access to the Suez Canal and points East. China has joined in blocking UN Security Council Action against Syria mainly to create good will with its benefactors Russia and Iran, from whom China purchases crude oil for its rapidly developing economy.

Syria presents a problem for the United States on several fronts. First and foremost it shares a border with Israel and any instability on that border endangers the only US allied democracy in the region. Syria also shares a border with Turkey which is a NATO member country and tens if not hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria have crossed into Turkey fleeing the violence of the Syrian Civil War. Turkey has also been the recipient of several stray attacks which have met measured response from the Turkish military. The same is true for the Kingdom of Jordan, also a friend of the United States, and temporary home to Syrian refugees which the US is currently giving assistance to support.

About a year ago President Barack Obama drew a line in the sand as it were, often referred to as a "red line" with respect to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Bashar Hafez al-Assad led government, either against the rebel fighters or civilian populations or both. Several months ago there was evidence of use of chemical weapons which was verified independently by several governments. The US response was unknown at the time, but recently revealed by the President as to have provided some kind of lethal military assistance to the Syrian opposition.  In recent days another more serious attack has occurred killing many hundreds perhaps more than one thousand Syrians and a great number of them women and children. While not fully or independently verified video evidence sent out by rebel forces seems to show what is likely the result of a nerve agent attack. This action would be a clear crossing of any and all lines set in place by the President of the United States concerning the use of Chemical Weapons.

The President is faced with a dilemma, none of them good, and none of them worthwhile, especially since President Assad doesn't much care what President Obama does short of taking him out altogether. If President Obama strikes militarily, it could start a regional war bringing in Iran, and their proxy Hezbollah. This would no doubt result in NATO involvement. It would also leave a Syria without a government, which is what faced Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein and we all know how well that worked out. They are still killing each other and we've been gone nearly a year.

I look to the wise words of former President Ronald Reagan who said "You can accomplish much if you don't care who gets the credit..." The United States is not weak by any means, but we are war torn and war weary. We do not need to involve ourselves in another Middle East conflict at this time, or perhaps ever again if it is at all avoidable. We've made our contribution, and our relationships with our friends in the region can be furthered without the need of entering into unnecessary entanglements.

President Putin of Russia has been President Assad's Protector in Chief, and before that General Secretaries of the Soviet Union protected President Assad's father who was a dictator for many decades over his people in Damascus. Russia's history there makes them the perfect foil for this very difficult dilemma. Without Russia President Assad will no doubt lose his United Nations Security Council veto and without Russia there is every reason to believe that Iran will back down and play nice in its own sandbox. Russia has a very long standing economic relationship with Iran as well since the fall of the Shah in the mid 1970's.

President Putin knows and understands the military complexities, and certainly can explain to President Assad the need to destroy his stockpiles of chemical weapons.  President Putin does not want to end up in his native Russia as the result of an acquisition of Islamic Militants from Chechnya and Dagestan partnering with Al Qaeda fighters running lose in Syria amongst the rebel groups. President Putin has a vested interest in maintaining peace in Syria and protecting his Naval Base. President Putin also would not mind being cast on the world stage as a peace maker, which would also allow him to again thumb his nose at the United States.

Our Most recent incursion into Libya where we "led from behind" left us with a country in chaos and a consulate in flames with four dead including our Ambassador. Our ability to affect constructive change in Syria is very limited. In war, you are all in or you aren't; if you are not you lose. Our Military is not trained to lose. The President is not willing to commit us to a full on war with or without allies to take over Syria, let the United Nations set up a new democratic government, and then provide enough troops for enough time to insure that government is a success. Neither Russia or China would be willing to go along, and Iran would constantly be interfering like it has in Iraq. Sometimes it is better to quit while you're ahead, right now, even though he might look really bad, he's still ahead. Leave this one to RUSSIA!