Do we need a new Syria policy? I'm not sure what policy America could forge to address the Syria problem given our lack of interest in committing our national power--hard and soft--to solving that problem. I just want America to decide what our policy is in Syria before we experience a high-casualty event there.
Half a year into his administration, President Biden has yet to arrive at a new strategy for addressing the horrifying conflict in Syria, now in its 11th year.
In the beginning, more than half a million deaths ago, America decided it didn't want to get involved to avoid further "militarizing" the conflict (quoting a news report):
US President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan agreed Sunday on the need to send "non-lethal" aid to Syrian rebels, including communications equipment, a US official said. ...
The rebels are badly outgunned by Syria's armed forces but the White House has said that it does not favour arming them, arguing that further "militarising" the conflict would worsen civilian bloodshed.
Other powers with far more interest than America have committed much power to influence events there. Turkey, Russia, Iran, and Israel come to mind, not to mention the Sunni Islamic jihad.
Since then American intervention has been half-hearted and mainly designed to fight the image of not caring.
Except for the fight against ISIL in eastern Syria. Which we carried out decisively through Syrian Kurds and their allies. Which does in fact help us screen Iraq from the old Assad-supported jihadi "rat line" that fed suicide bombers into Iraq.
Which leads us to [link fixed] the only thing I want us to define in our Syria policy--what are we willing to fight and die for in eastern Syria?
I've long said that while I would not send in 150,000 American troops to overthrow Assad in Syria--because ultimately Israel will deal with western Syria--that when we had the chance we should have taken our shot at a long-time enemy who deserved to feel our wrath after Assad killed a lot of our troops in Iraq by funneling in jihadis recruited around the world through Syria into Iraq.What are we willing to fight and die for in Syria?
But we blew that chance when the anti-Assad rebellion was at its strongest and before jihadis dominated it. And after the rise of the ISIL caliphate led us to intervene in Syria we failed to build a rebel force in eastern Syria that we could have backed after defeating ISIL. The Kurds, I said, would never be a force to march on Damascus.
And I was uncomfortable with American troops in eastern Syria post-ISIL caliphate mission without an idea of what they would do despite our interest in protecting the Kurds who fought with us, our interest in blocking Iranian supply lines to Hezbollah, and our interest in preventing eastern Syria from being a sanctuary for jihadis to threaten Iraq.
I was uncomfortable because we could face an attack that leads to a large loss of American lives that prompts a rapid retreat and defeat that encourages enemies. See the Marines Beirut Barracks bombing and the Battle of Mogadishu for examples of that worry.
I hope that we have alternate means to US troops in eastern Syria to protect the Kurds (and our reputation for standing by allies), block Iran's supply line, and protect Iraq.
Of course, defeating Iran's mullah regime at home would go a long way to achieving those objectives.
The bottom line is that we have limited interests in Syria. And where we do have interests, demands for a Syria policy ignore that a lot of good could be achieved there by having an Iran policy that puts pressure on Iran to break it and prevent it from going on its multiple missions from Allah around the region and world.
It would be smart to deal with Iran before it makes things bad enough to require a major American military operation to resolve. Don't we have enough problems with a rising China now and a still-annoying Russia?
Face it, Iran is the Gordian Knot for a lot of our problems in the region. Let's address the Iran problem, which is a lot older than the Syria problem.
UPDATE: Biden really is determined to reward Iran (tip to Instapundit). What is with Democratic unrequited love for Iran?
