Asking Greece to revoke flyover rights to Russia into Syria, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry exposed deep flaws in U.S.-Syria policy. Backing regime change in Damascus, the White House aligns itself with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, whose rapist Supreme Leader Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi seeks to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to set up his extremist ISIS state. Russia and Iran 100% back al-Assad I
100% inn his efforts to beat back a Saudi-backed Sunni insurgency begun March 15, 2011, killing at least 250,000 Syrians, displacing millions more. President Barack Obvama and his Secretary of State John Kerry agree with al-Baghdadi that al-Assad must go. You’d think recent experience in Iraq, Libya and Egypt all descended into anarchy once their authoritarian leaders were deposed. White House officials opposed Russia and Iran’s attempt to back al-Assad.
Meddling in Greece, asking it to take sides against Russia and Iran, the State Department, leaves the White House in the worst foreign policy clout since the end of the Cold War when the Soviet Union collapsed Jan. 26, 1991. Secretary of State John Kerry embarrassed the White House calling his Russian counterpart, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, to stop Russia’s arm’s flights into Damascus. Russia “has never concealed that it deliver military equipment to official Syrian authorities with the aim of combating terrorism,” Lavrov told the State Department, telling the U.S. to stopping meddling in its foreign affairs. Backing al-Assad, the Kremlin wants to preserved what’s left of order in Syria. When you consider all the anti-Assad forces battling Damascus, it’s no wonder the U.S. finds itself caught between a rock-and-a-hard place when it comes to Syrian policy.
Senate Armed Services Chairman Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has asked the White House for a no-fly zone, something once backed by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. No one at the White House or State Department admits that backing al-Assad’s regime change, essentially give into the Saudi-backed Sunni insurgency against Damacus’ Shiite regime. Expecting Moscow to back a counterproductive U.S. foreign policy makes no sense. Knowing the anarchy that came from the Iraq War, it’s illogical for the U.S. to pursue the same strategy in Syria. Former Vice President Dick Cheney routinely rips Obama for doing little to stop the rise of ISIS. With the agreement signed by former President George W. Bush with former Iraqi Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki to end U.S. military involvement by the end of 201, it’s no wonder the U.S. got out.
When al-Maliki refused to give the Pentagon a an immunity agreement, Obama had no choice but to pullout U.S. Armed Services. Cheney often blames Obama for abandoning Iraq, causing the current anarchy. It’s far easier to blame the Bush administration for a foreign policy that rid the world of Iraqi dictator Saddam Husseim but opened up the floodgates of terrorism. Since Saddam’s fall April 10, 2003, Iraq has been in free-fall, spreading Wahhabi terrorism around the Middle East. Cheney likes to blame Obama but it’s clear the country was fed up wasting more lives and tax dollars in Iraq, regardless of the rise of ISIS. Instead of lecturing Moscow or pressuring Greece to take sides, the White House needs an urgent overhaul of its Iraq and Syrian strategy, accepting the Russian and Iranian position that a stable government in Damascus helps all parties.
Obama’s GOP critics, now on the 2016 campaign trail, blame Obama for the rise of ISIS and not putting more U.S. boots-on-the-ground. Given the sheer volume of terror groups fighting al-Assad, the White House hasn’t gotten the principal that the-enemy-of-my-enemy is not my friend. McCain’s attempt to cozy-up to the Free Syrian Army in 2013, known as a so-called moderate Sunni group, backfired, giving ISIS a wealth of military hardware by beating back the group. Figuring out who’s our friend or enemy hasn’t been easy, prompting Obama to sit on the fence. Having a gutless policy is no substitute for sound foreign policy. There’s no logic to State Department backing regime-change in Dmascus, while, at the same time, cherry-picking which terror group to back. If Moscow and Tehran back al-Assad, there’s usually a good reason, not simply taking partisan geopolitical sides.
Whatever differences exist with Moscow and Tehran, surely the White House can admit that regime change in Baghdad spread Islamic terrorism to the Middle East. Backing moderate Sunni groups, like the Free Syrian Army, to topple al-Assad, the White House opposes Russia and Iran, taking a counterproductive position. Iran’s Lebanon-based Hezbollah militia continues to fight a proxy war against all Saudi-backed terror groups. International rights groups, especially London-based Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, often criticize Damacus for the carnage and refuge crisis bleeding into Europe and beyond. Today’s refugee crisis directly relates to the multi-pronged Wahhabi insurgency that’s pitted various Sunni terror groups against al-Assad. Like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, the U.S. reserves its sympathies for Sunni insurgents seeking to topple al-Assad.
