Langley, I'm begging you: Ignore everything written in today's New York Times editorial entitled "Russia’s Dangerous Escalation in Syria." The Times writes:
- "Syria is Russia’s chief ally in the Middle East, and Mr. Putin has enabled Mr. Assad throughout the conflict."
Still unbeknownst to the Obama administration, Russia's chief ally in the Middle East today is Iran, not Syria. Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force, traveled to Moscow in July in violation of a UN travel ban, to orchestrate this build-up of Russian and Iranian forces in Syria to buttress Assad's shrinking army and Hezbollah's bloodied fighters.
Putin enabled Assad throughout the conflict? Rubbish! Hillary Clinton enabled Assad when she presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a "restart button" in 2009 and then declared in 2011:
"There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer. What’s been happening there the last few weeks is – is deeply concerning. But there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities, then police actions, which frankly have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see."
President Obama enabled Assad when he promised Putin "flexibility" after his 2012 re-election and retreated from his "red line" threatening action if "we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized."
John Kerry enabled Assad when he called this monster "generous" and "my dear friend," and had an intimate dinner with Assad and their wives.
Nancy Pelosi enabled Assad when, all smiles, she met with this mass murderer in 2007.
The Times editorial continues:
- "Whether Russia will try to help Mr. Assad reclaim control over the entire country is unclear."
No, Russia will not help Assad reclaim control over all of Syria. Putin remembers Russian casualties in Afghanistan. He's too wily.
The Times tells us:
- "President Obama appears to have been caught off guard by the bold move to reassert Russian influence in the Middle East, as Mr. Putin no doubt intended. Despite American-led airstrikes, the administration has no real strategy for Syria. There is no obvious Russian strategy either, except for bolstering Mr. Assad, whom Mr. Putin considers the key to stability but most of his brutalized citizens detest."
There is no Russian strategy? Horsefeathers! Putin is sending Russia's military into Syria to support Assad precisely because there is no one in the Oval Office to oppose him - at least for the next year and three months. Putin is taking full advantage of the opportunity to reassert Russian power and influence in the Middle East while it lasts.
The Times goes on to say:
- "Mr. Obama will have to work with America’s partners on a unified response to Russia’s moves and seek a way to end the war."
Which "partners" are those? Israel? And all this while I thought that Russia was supposed to be one of Obama's darling P5+1 "partners," which helped bring about the unsigned, legacy-building, nuclear deal with Iran . . .
The Times ends it editorial by observing:
- "On Wednesday, Mr. Putin said he hoped that after the Russian intervention Mr. Assad would be open to compromise. But with Russia willing to intervene directly on his behalf, Mr. Assad may conclude he can stay in power indefinitely."
Assad "may" conclude he can stay in power? I have news for the editorial board of the Times: Assad isn't going anywhere. After Russian intervention, Assad will be open to compromise? A pity Obama is incapable of comprehending that he cannot and should not believe a word of what Putin tells him, no matter how comforting his lies. The problem is that much akin to Father Flanagan, Obama still believes that there is no such thing as a bad boy.
No comments:
Post a Comment