tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8493138.post4460430214895446442..comments2024-02-03T10:37:28.343-05:00Comments on Madman of Chu: What to Do About ISIS NowMadman of Chuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12867538212499011319noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8493138.post-27923975915454592662015-11-17T08:48:46.630-05:002015-11-17T08:48:46.630-05:00Jonathan, I don't blame Obama. I blame ISIS. I...Jonathan, I don't blame Obama. I blame ISIS. I voted for President Obama twice and stand by that choice. Certainly I feel we are all safer with him at the helm than we were with George W. Bush. But I am critical of this aspect of Obama's foreign policy. <br /><br />I have been advocating for a long time that we take a more robust stand in Syria (not that anyone does or should listen to me, but...). Long before Putin committed forces to the region, the Obama administration set a course that attempted to dis-aggregate the problem of ISIS from the larger problem of the Syrian civil war. The notion that we could arm Syrian rebels, who were fighting a war with Assad, and hope that they would accept our aid on the condition that it be used against ISIS, was an utter fantasy. There was never any way to redress the problem of ISIS without committing to a more global resolution of the Syrian civil war, and the Obama administration has never demonstrated any robust understanding of that principle.<br /><br />Let me be clear- I understand the motives behind the administration's policy. The time when American action would have been most potentially effective (mid 2012) was one fraught with political peril for the administration. If we had declared a no-fly zone for the Syrian air force back then the Assad regime would most likely have collapsed. But if one of our pilots had been shot down and paraded on Syrian television, that might have resulted in President Romney (and what that would have meant for our foreign policy is anyone's guess, but to my mind it could not have been good). Even in the intervening years the risks of a robust intervention in the Syrian civil war were very high. Russia would have reacted. Iran might have pulled out of negotiations over its nuclear program. Monday morning quarterback is always a very easy game to play.<br /><br />But the risks have reached a new level of danger, and the stakes are now much too high to allow for vacillation. If Obama does not move aggressively to redress the situation, it will have catastrophic consequences for both the international community and our domestic politics (President Trump is no longer beyond the realm of possibility). At the very least, he should be projecting to the world that the removal of Bashar al-Assad is now a non-negotiable demand of the US and our first priority in the war against ISIS. I did not see anything approaching that in his recent press conference. From there one could ratchet the pressure up on Russia in a variety of ways, up to and including declaring a blanket "no fly zone" in Syria for all non-US coalition aircraft, including those of Russia (if it will not align with our strategy). That would obviously be a very, very risky policy, and I would not advocate it if I did not feel that the danger of inaction was even higher (President Trump...). I don't think it would get to that, though. At this point Putin has every motive to see ISIS gone as we do, and he must realize that throwing Bashar al-Assad under the bus is a small price to pay.Madman of Chuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12867538212499011319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8493138.post-21400369606282990762015-11-16T22:26:46.848-05:002015-11-16T22:26:46.848-05:00So rational, so reasonable, if only President Obam...So rational, so reasonable, if only President Obama had the WILL and DESIRE to solve this problem, it would be solved in the most reasonable, rational way....<br /><br />I'm sorry, but this is circular: you attack Obama for bad policy, but the only -- absolutely the only rational -- way forward you say is something that (as it turns out) he's advocated for as aggressively as humanly possible short of outright warfare, but hasn't gotten... and you still call Obama the one at fault? <br /><br />What should he do differently? More pressure on Putin? With what? What will the cost really be to putting that kind of pressure on Russia? What if he does this and Putin still won't see reason? Jonathan Dresnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04356112719229675996noreply@blogger.com