Realistic view of events, not empty words

US President Barack Obama may have scuppered the chances of cooperating with Russia, in particular, and Iran, by association, in the war against Daesh and its affiliates in Syria and Iraq.

During his address to the UN General Assembly, Obama stuck to his stance adopted four years ago that his Syrian counterpart Bashar Assad is to blame for the conflict in his country and should be removed from power — irrespective of the consequences for the fight against Daesh.

Russian President Vladimir Putin argued that nothing should be done to weaken Assad and his military since the army is the only serious force fighting Daesh in Syria. Putin also said the Syrian people, rather than outside powers, should choose their leader once the conflict has been brought to an end.

There had been signals from Washington and European capitals that the more realistic and pragmatic Russian approach could be adopted and a coordinated strategy could be forged between the US-led anti-Daesh coalition and Russia, Iran and Syria, countries with assets on the ground.

Obama’s negativism has soured the atmosphere ahead of talks expected to begin this month.

Obama seems to have persisted with his 2011 policy — “Assad has no future in Syria” — because he cannot bring himself to admit he made a mistake.

But Obama could also have been motivated by the fact that Putin has put the US president on the defensive in both Syria, a traditional Russian ally, and Iraq, which is meant to be a US ally.

In Syria, Putin deployed 28 warplanes, including fighters armed with air-to-air missiles, attack and transport helicopters, surveillance drones, tanks and a number of armoured troops carriers, and 1,700 troops at an expanding airbase outside the northern port of Latakia.

This base not only reinforces the small Russian naval facility at Tartus, which provides fuel and repairs for Russia’s Black Sea fleet, but also strengthens the grip of the Syrian army on the strategic coastal enclave.

Moscow has also dispatched warplanes, rockets and munitions to the overstretched and under-manned army as it tries to defend areas it holds, and claw back regions where Damascus has lost control. Russia has immediate and long-term external interests to protect in Syria.

Moscow — which has been asked for aid by Damascus — understands that if Syria is to survive as a state, the army must be preserved and bolstered with materiel, advisers and air strikes.

During his UN address, Putin reminded Obama that the 2003 US occupation of neighbouring Iraq, formerly the “Prussia” of the eastern Arab world, made it become a failed state and the primary regional host of Daesh and Al Qaeda.

Putin did not point out that Iraq’s armed forces, dissolved and meant to be reconstructed by the US military, are wracked by corruption.

In Iraq, Daesh is held in check only by the Kurdish peshmerga and militias recruited and trained by Iran, Syria’s other indispensable partner.

If Syria suffers Iraq’s fate, the region as a whole and the wider Muslim world would be at risk of destabilisation by extremist groups.

Russia has major internal security concerns over the rise of Daesh, which has already recruited 2,000 fighters from the seven Muslim Russian federation members. Furthermore, the cult is seeking to win converts in these restive republics that have a combined population of 20 million out of a total of 140 million.

The number of Russian warplanes so far spotted on the field is small and does not pose a serious challenge to the hundreds of US aircraft at US bases at Incirlik and Izmir, in Turkey, and bases in seven other regional countries. But the Russian aircraft reinforce the Syrian air force, counter the possibility of US air intervention against Syrian government forces and assert Russia’s stake in the war as well as in peacemaking.

Having back footed Obama by deploying Russian aircraft, men and armour in Syria, in addition to providing fresh materiel to the Syrian army, Putin shamed the US president by agreeing to open — along with Iran and Syria — a joint command centre with the Iraqi military.

The original purpose of this effort is to share intelligence, but it could evolve into greater cooperation and coordination on the ground in Iraq and the introduction of Russian personnel to “advise” Iraqi forces.

This move has shocked Washington, which refuses to acknowledge it “lost” Iraq in 2003-04, during the occupation, when it handed over governance to Shiite fundamentalists loyal to Iran.

Since Tehran and Moscow are partners — and competitors — in the effort to preserve Syria, why should they not cooperate in Iraq as well, particularly since US air strikes and training of anti-Daesh forces failed to contain and roll back the cult.

Putin’s initiatives in Syria and Iraq coincide with US revelations that 30,000 fighters joined Daesh during the past year and Washington’s admission that US-deployed Syrian officers handed over vehicles and ammunition to Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Al Nusra in northern Syria in exchange for free passage through Nusra-controlled territory.

This incident amounted to a third strike against the $500 million US scheme for training and deploying “moderate” Syrian fighters to take on Daesh.

So far, only about 125 of a proposed 5,000 signed up and were dispatched into Syria from bases in Turkey. Only four or five of the original unit of 54 of “Division 30” survived capture by Nusra.

Obama’s assertion in his UN address that the US military is the most powerful in history rings hollow when one examines its recent performance.

On Tuesday, Obama’s administration was again humiliated when US-trained and equipped Afghan forces were routed by the Taliban in the city of Kunduz.

It is about time the White House adopted a realistic view of events in this region and the Indian subcontinent, and responded with workable policies rather than empty words.