On Friday, as Russian bombs reportedly fell on American-allied Syrian rebels, President Obama declared that Russia’s military move into Syria was a sign of weakness:
Now, last point I just want to make about this because, you know, sometimes the conversation here in the beltway differs from the conversation internationally. Mr. Assad — but out of weakness, because his client Mr. Assad was crumbling and it was insufficient for him simply to send them arms and money. Now he’s got to put in his own planes and his own pilots. And the notion that he put forward a plan and that somehow the international community sees that as viable because there’s a vacuum there. I didn’t see after he made that speech in the United Nations suddenly the 60-nation coalition that we have start lining up behind him. Iran and Assad make up Mr. Putin’s coalition at the moment.
Fair enough. If Assad were ascendant, he’d have no need of Russian planes and pilots. But doesn’t this exact line of reasoning apply to our own recent intervention in Iraq with our own planes and pilots? If our “client” in Iraq weren’t on the verge of complete collapse in 2014, we wouldn’t have intervened. Our client started to crumble before Russia’s client. And we’re mocking Russia’s weakness?
Compounding the irony, Assad is crumbling in part because our own military efforts have thus far failed to halt ISIS. So we intervened “out of weakness” and then kept demonstrating such weakness that our enemy continues to advance.
And while our coalition is certainly larger than Russia’s coalition in terms of numbers of supporting nations, battles are won by forces in the field, not by diplomatic lists, and the vast majority of our coalition partners provide only nominal support. Assad’s coalition partners are providing planes, pilots, and — critically — Iranian and Hezbollah boots on the ground. Moreover, Assad’s partners are demonstrating sufficient resolve that they’re winning over Iraq, our own “client.”
The outcome in Syria and Iraq is very much in doubt. And it’s certainly possible that Russia will be drawn into yet another jihadist quagmire (after its draining conflicts in Afghanistan and Chechnya), but Russia’s weakness is not dissimilar from our own. Which great power will most effectively correct its strategic mistakes?