Originally Posted by
Azor
RE:
1-2. Regardless, Obama was loath to use force against Assad even to protect U.S. personnel, for fear of the optics. The fact that the U.S. is now unconcerned with the optics of appearing to provide CAS for the rebels (or “terrorists” according to Damascus and Moscow) indicates a major change of policy.
3. Thus far, there have been no reports of any chemical weapons use by Assad since the airstrike on Shayrat Airbase, let alone of Sarin.
4. Trump was never going to radically break from Obama’s handling of Daesh. The fact is that Obama’s approach was the most cost-effective, and fit with his overall CT strategy of containment and attrition. Any radical departure would either be prohibitively expensive in blood, treasure and political capital, or would allow for a resurgence of Daesh. Neither Trump nor the Republicans are especially fond of the JCPOA. Whereas Obama was prepared to give Iran a free hand in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, and to tolerate Iranian provocations such as the capture and parading of U.S. soldiers, Trump does not appear to have those inclinations. Any approach that does not involve direct conflict with Iran can be regarded as “pro-Iranian”, given that country’s aggression.
Syrians were not “collateral damage” for the JCPOA. The fact is that humanitarian grounds aside, the U.S. had no compelling interest to intervene in Syria. Rather than the JCPOA, I would suggest that probably there was a gentleman’s agreement between Washington, Moscow and Damascus, that Obama would not intervene in Syria as long as Assad surrendered his chemical weapons. It was difficult to punish Assad in 2013, when Washington wanted him to both refrain from using chemical weapons and to keep those weapons secure.
5. The tilt to the PKK was done by the previous administration. For the reasons that Aaron Stein provided above, it is a sound policy if the objective is solely the defeat of Daesh as a statelet and conventional force, and as quickly as possible. As for any unfinished business or loose ends, these were also present in 1865, 1918, 1945, 1953 and 1991, to say nothing of later marches to folly. Arguably, the Vietnam War's end has produced the least fallout of any major American war, despite the loss.
Bookmarks