Tim Drayton wrote:Paphitis,
Thank you for your intelligent and informed comments.
I agree that the situation has become a whole lot more dangerous, especially for Syria and the long-suffering Syrian people who are now likely to see even more of their country reduced to rubble and more of their people turned into refugees, but also for the world as a whole.
I would not put my money on any Western ground forces going in. One common denominator shared by Russia and the US, and other Western countries likely to participate in any kind of ground operation, is that public opinion has no taste whatsoever for sending in troops, in Russia because of the memory of Afghanistan, and in the West because of memories of both Afghanistan and Iraq. I think the present US strategy is right and even if a large-scale intervention could achieve whatever it is that the American ruling elite wants, in the long term it will just create the next problem. Of course, the Russians, in intervening in support of the Assad regime, are essentially working alongside the regime's forces, which includes boots on the ground. There was talk on this morning's BBC Today radio news programme about Iranian ground troops coming in to support Assad. I don't know if this is just a rumour or speculation, but this would be a further game changer.
Sadly, I think Assad's strategy is working. Public opinion now looks at groups like Daesh and think that Assad is the better of the two evils, and presented with this dichotomy, this is of course the correct choice. Of course it is a false dichotomy, because there are other options. There is little memory of the dignified, peaceful, secular protest movement that broke out at the beginning of 2011 and most people in the world now associate opposition to Assad with radical Islamism, just as Assad has always wanted them to. I think it is quite possible, against this backdrop, that with Russian and perhaps Iranian support the Assad regime will be able to retake control over Syria. I don't think this will lead to a permanent solution, either, though.
I agree with what you say Tim and sending troops might be very unpopular back home.
But I feel that Obama is going to make a couple of moves himself now as he has little choice. What that is I am not really sure but the possibilities may range from considering Ground Deployments to actually convincing Russia that Assad must go and replaced with another leader and body which will include the Sunnis in a power sharing arrangement whilst conceding that Syria is to remain a Russian ally so that Russia can keep their base in Tartus - which is what this is really all about when it comes to the crunch.
Either that, or Russia just entered into another Afghanistan which it is going to lose after a long decade of war.
Everyone is going to have to get realistic. Do the powers want peace (Russia included) or years of bloodshed?
