Maggie's Farm

I have seen other articles like this. The authors all seem to have the knee jerk reaction that we should oppose the Russians because . . . well . . . they are the Russians for crying out loud.

So let's look at this.

1) Syria is not strategically important. The three strategic points of the Mediterranean Sea are The Dardanelles, The Suez Canal and Gibraltar.

2) While the Russians may indeed construct a base in Syria, it has to be supplied by sea and that logistic link can be tenuous. It makes the base vulnerable.

3) If Putin's excellent Syrian adventure ends up pulling Assad's fat from the fire they will certainly have to support him financially to keep him in power and rebuild his country. From my vantage point high up in the peanut gallery, that looks like pouring lots of money down a rat hole.

4) The author worries of a Shia Alliance spreading from Syria to Iran, but as we ave seen time and time again, Muslims can change sides overnight and Persians and Arabs have never gotten along so this putative alliance strikes me as a house of cards. Putin's influence will only last as long as he can pump money into the region. Money he doesn't have.

5) The author states the Syrian conflict will be a magnet for Jihadis. Well duh! Isn't that what we want? Wasn't that one of Bush's arguments for going into Iraq and Afghanistan? Draw the Holy Warriors in and kill them over there? So what's wrong with that?

6) The S-300 AA system. I recall the Iranians wanting the system several years ago but the deal fell through because they couldn't pay the bill. So this time, is it all talk or are the Russians going to give an expensive weapons system away?

7) The author points out that the Russians are showing our word is worthless to our allies. I would counter that it has been worthless since dems allowed South Viet Nam to fall. Any foreign power would be wise to view our promises and commitments as expiring when a new administration comes to power. There has been no continuity in our Foreign Policy in 40 years. The Russians are merely exposing the obvious.

8) As for the Baltic States I suspect Russia will eventually force the issue and expose NATO for the hollow shell that it is. The Baltic States and countries in Eastern Europe should never have been admitted to NATO in the first place.

In summary, we have no national interest in Syria, we have no friends there, intervention is hugely expensive and must be funded with printed money, and it is highly unlikely we will gain a satisfactory result from involving ourselves there.

Going in just 'to oppose the Russians' is not nearly reason enough in my opinion.