By Ted Belman. What to do about Syria. With his Senate colleagues Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, McCain released a statement calling for “relief from Assad’s tank and artillery sieges. .??.??. Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition groups is necessary. Lee Smikth says follow McCain. but use air power also. My position is that the US should support the “other opposition groups” such as SDC so that Assad is replaced those in support of a federated state in which all minorities have a region, rather than opt out of who takes control, or much worse, help the SNC take control,
By Lee Smith, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
[..]
In the June 1982 air battle over Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, it took the Israelis only half a day to destroy almost all of Syria’s Soviet-made surface-to-air-missile batteries as well as 29 Soviet-supplied aircraft. Within three days the rout was complete; the IAF downed 82 Syrian planes without a single loss of its own.
That was a victory for Jerusalem and for Washington. The confrontation showed that Soviet arms were far inferior to American weapons—even making allowance for the fact that it was Syrians at the controls. The Bekaa Valley turkey shoot, as some still refer to the 1982 debacle, was facilitated by the Syrians keeping their mobile missile systems in one place for several months because they didn’t like digging latrines.
Perhaps that example—and the memory that bad things can happen when Moscow ties its vital interests to a Syrian military whose chief capability seems to be murdering unarmed civilians—is not lost on Vladimir Putin. The recently reelected Russian president is standing by Assad, but admits he doesn’t know how much longer the regime can last.
Nonetheless, the Obama administration is putting way too much emphasis on Russia’s calculations. It’s waiting on a Putin change of heart because it fears that U.S. material support of the Free Syrian Army will convince the Russians that the conflict is a proxy war. But the Russians already perceive it as a proxy war. So do the Iranians, which is why both are pouring in as much support as they can to keep Assad afloat. The administration’s response to Russian intransigence was to hold a Friends of Syria conference in Tunisia that was so incommensurate with the bloody reality it aimed to address that even the Saudi foreign minister stormed out in disgust.
For the United States, the key issue should be countering Iran. As General James Mattis, the head of CENTCOM, said, the fall of Assad would be “the biggest strategic setback for Iran in 25 years.” During his Senate testimony the next day, Panetta agreed that it would hurt the Islamic Republic. The good news then is that the administration is starting to see how the pieces are arrayed on the game board. The bad news is that it’s still wary about taking the other side’s pieces.
The White House believes against all evidence that a diplomatic solution to the crisis can be found. Sure, it would be helpful if Putin told Assad that his time was up, but Putin’s in no hurry to abandon his own throne in Moscow; why would he ever urge Assad to step down in Damascus? And why would Assad listen to him if he did?
Regional players are finally coming out strongly against Assad. Last week former Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri denounced the regime and its Lebanese partner, Hezbollah. That Hariri—who has frequently been threatened by Assad and his allies, and whose father Rafik was allegedly killed under Assad’s orders—has taken to the podium is yet more evidence that smart money in the region is betting on Assad’s eventual collapse.
But if the White House wants to spur defections from the Assad regime and promote a swift collapse, it should stop waiting for the Russians and go around them, as well as the air defenses they sold to the Syrians. Take a few tanks or artillery pieces off the board and there will be plenty of defections from the Syrian military. Target the presidential palace in Damascus, headquarters of military intelligence, and the barracks of the notoriously vicious intelligence arm of the Syrian Air Force, and then there will be a surge of momentum for a diplomatic solution.
If the Obama administration insists on leading from behind, it should fall in behind John McCain, now running point on a Syria policy that would actually succeed.
I assume this article is in support of McCain, and that McCain is in favor of the US getting involved in Syria. Up until now, I’ve said that:
!. This spate of wars, revolutions, interventions, etc. in the Mediterranean basin this past year-and-then-a-bit has had echoes of the Colonial era, and
2. Israel has little or nothing to gain by getting involved in Syria. It must focus on Iran, and not complicate the matter.
That said, it’s curious how the situation in the area resembles the October, 1956:
1. The US President is focussed on the upcoming election, now as then.
2. The French and British are interested in opposing Russian interests in the area by taking out a dictator, then as now.
3. A serious effort to overthrow an unpopular Russian-supported puppet has been ignored, then as now (In 1956, the dictator was in Hungary).
4. The US has been finding common cause with the Russians and others of our enemies, at the expense of Israel, then as now.
It’s as though Obama and Eisenhower read from the same textbook.
What does it matter what McCain thinks, when the US Commander in Chief is committed to a path leading to the destruction of Israel? As in 1956, Israel needs to look after its own interests and say “To Hell!” to the US President. That’s pretty clear — the course of action for Israel is obvious. As for Americans, we Americans do not control American policy; Barack Obama does. The best we can do, is to dump him and his in November. To that end, by the way, I wish Newt Gingrich would drop out of the race so Santorum can win a few extra contests. That said, I will back ANY Republican against Obama — even John McCain, if he were to run again.
There is only one conflict in the Middle East right now, and the lines are pretty clearly drawn: Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas, Iran, Russia and China are on one side. The United States, Israel and NATO are on the other. It’s just a matter of timing, which spark sets off which conflict at which time. Only an insane leader cannot see the situation. Unfortunately, the US has an insane leader, and anything can happen. I wonder if the British and French are as frustrated with Barack O-doublehead as I am. God help us. Eisenhower screwed the Brits and Frenchies in ’56, to crush them and ensure American paramountcy in international affairs. If Obama tries to do the same, he will only ensure America’s humiliation. Maybe that’s what he wants.