Just six months ago, there were two clear trends in the conflict: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, with the support of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, was well on his way to victory; and the Islamic State (ISIS) was about to be soundly defeated by a US-led coalition. Today, the successful campaign against ISIS seems pyrrhic, at best. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost, and a resolution of the larger conflict is nowhere in sight. [emphasis added]
Six months ago I did not think Assad was on his way to victory. Oh, he was winning. But victory was far away even with ISIL going down.
And the successful American-led campaign was a "Pyrrhic" victory? At best?
A Pyrrhic victory "is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way, though the heavy toll negates a true sense of achievement or profit."
In what way was the victory over ISIL in Syria a victory with such a devastating toll on America or the coalition that it is really a defeat?
Now, you can say that the toll in the war in Syria is high. But that is not an American cost.
Nor is the cost in lives solely--or even mostly--the responsibility of the coalition's fight against ISIL.
And the defeat of ISIL will reduce the casualties in Syria going forward that had been caused by ISIL depravity--not to mention ending the sheer misery of living under their cruel rule.
While the author is right that the conflict is not over, this kind of undermines his credibility of thinking 6 months ago that Assad's victory was clearly coming.
And if the author wanted to toss the term "Pyrrhic victory" around in regard to Syria, he could have applied that to Assad if anyone, whose forces have endured massive casualties to get even this far in his war.
So I stopped reading the author. Who was once an American diplomat. God help us.
