Calling Russia’s stepped up military presence in Syria “asymmetric warfare,” British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond stated the obvious, making a big deal about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s commitment to rescue Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Washington and London take the same position that al-Assad must go to solve Syria’s civil war. Putin sees things differently, comparing Syria to Iraq, concerned that toppling al-Assad would destabilize the Mideast worse than ever, since toppling Saddam Hussein April 10, 2003. Putin told U.N. delegates last week that the U.S. Iraq War opened up the floodgates of Islamic terrorism, giving rise to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS]. Hammond’s statement about “asymmetric warfare” makes no sense, since all Saudi-backed terror groups seeking to topple al-Assad use “asymmetric warfare” to achieve their political ambitions.
Unless a sovereign state uses a conventional military to fight a conventional army, asymmetric warfare is the only way to achieve military objectives. U.S. and British officials are flummoxed by Putin’s military help of his ally Bashar al-Assad. Neither the U.S. nor Brits have any answer for Putin’s military intervention other than complaining about Moscow hitting targets outside ISIS. Putin has acknowledged openly that ISIS isn’t the only player seeking to topple Damascus. President Barack Obama has warned Putin that backing al-Assad’s government would prove counterproductive because numerous Saudi-backed Sunni groups refuse to back al-Assad. What Washington and London forget is that al-Assad is the legitimate U.N.-recognized sovereign government in Syria. If either country wished regime change, they would need to take their case to the Security Council and General Assembly.
Neither Obama nor U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron is prepared to stop Putin’s military intervention to save al-Assad. Saudi’s 53-year-old Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir insisted at the U.N. that al-Assad must go, without any consensus from the U.N. General Assembly or Security Council on what to do with al-Assad. When you consider the mass exodus of Syrians and other groups from war-ravaged Middle East, the most help the U.S. can do to alleviate a growing refugee crisis in Europe is to end the Syrian civil war. Ending the current free-for-all for Damascus would stem the flow of Syrian refugees seeking asylum in Europe. Europe’s fragile economy can’t take the endless flood of refugees from the Middle East, threatening to push an already fragile economy into recession. Watching some 500,000 seek safe haven in Europe puts more pressure to end Syrian’s civil war.
Obama and Cameron can’t continue to beat a dead horse when it comes to imposing regime change in Damascus. Now that Putin’s defending al-Assad, U.S. and EU powers need to shift gears and look carefully at Russian proposals to end Syria’s civil war. It’s reasonable to assume that if Russia and its allies can beat back ISIS, it would end today’s mass exodus that’s threatening the EU economy. “It looks like a classic bit of Russian asymmetric warfare—you have a strong propaganda message that say you’re doing one thing which in fact you are doing something completely different and when challenged you just flatly deny it,” said Hammond, blaming Moscow but giving numerous other terror group seeking to topple al-Assad a pass. Obama and Cameron must look at the big picture of what must be done to end Syria’s civil war to stop the flood of refugees to Europe.
Putin’s strategy in Syria is to go after any group that seeks to upend Damascus. White House officials accuse Moscow of ignoring al-Assad’s atrocities on his own people. What the U.S. and its allies don’t get is that al-Assad is the legitimate U.N.-backed regime in Syria. No one other than a host of Saudi-backed terror group believe that al-Assad, regardless of what’s he’s done to preserve his sovereignty and territorial integrity, must go. No one likes al-Assad’s tactics used to hold onto power, including, going to war against various groups seeking to oust the Damascus. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and British Foreign Secretary Hammond can’t insist on ousting a legitimate U.N. government without consensus from the Security Council and General Assembly. Working with Russia’s military commitment to stop ISIS would offer a path forward to stem the flow of Mideast refugees into Europe.
Accusing Moscow of using “asymmetric warfare” exposes the West’s transparent agenda to topple al-Assad. All countries or groups trying to advance a military agenda use guerrilla warfare when conventional armies no longer get the job done. “We just need a Russia that accepts there are rules in the system, and you can’t throw your toys out of the pram and resort to military forces every time you don’t get your way,” said Hammond, blaming Putin for his hidden agenda in Syria. U.S. and British officials need to figure out the best way to end the Syrian civil war. Expecting to get consensus among warring parties is unrealistic. Putin believes toppling another Mideast dictator would make the current anarchy worse. Instead of re-litigating the Cold War, the West should work closely with Putin to end ISIS, stem the flood of Syrian refugees into Europe and then find consensus in the U.N. to deal with al-Assad.
