Let me suggest metaphor from much further back in history. In 480 BC, the Persian King Xerxes constructed a bridge to cross the Hellespont (today known as the Dardanelles Strait) and invade Greece. A storm raged. The turbulent sea destroyed the bridge and much of Xerxes’ prized fleet of ships. An angry Xerxes tried to punish the sea by ordering his soldiers to whip the sea. The soldiers punished the Aegean waters with 300 lashes of their whips. A military strike to punish Assad’s regime in Syria is about as helpful in finding a diplomatic or even military solution to the Syrian crisis as Xerxes’s whips on the water were to the punishment of the Aegean Sea. The long list of U.S. military intervention since WWII have convinced me that the United Staes has relied too heavily on military solutions to political problems. — Nick Hayes








Or, perhaps, it is better said that Obama’s loss was Putin’s gain on the only issue of substance at the G20 Summit. Obama achieved at most tepid support from 10 of the 20 G20 nations for a watered-down resolution that called for “a strong international response” to Syria’s use of chemical weapons but left open exactly what such a response would mean.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel discretely waited until the day after the meeting to give her support and thus broke the tie. Her delay was a political gesture to distance herself from Obama. Germany had not participated in the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya. Do not expect it to participate in any military intervention in Syria.

Even Pope Francis tweeted and wrote a personal letter to Putin supporting his opposition to a military strike in Syria.

What Putin gained at Obama’s expense in St. Petersburg was the opportunity to place his views on the Syrian crisis in the context of numerous issues of concerns to members of the European Union . At least on the issue of intervention in Syria, the St. Petersburg Summit was a rare case where the Russian president, not the American, seemed more in touch with European and world opinion.

Before we lapse into a latter day Cold War Russo-phobia, we would do well to listen to Putin’s points. Some of his arguments are disingenuous. For example, his refusal to accept the evidence that the Assad regime is responsible for deploying the chemical weapons does not help his credibility Nevertheless, privately, Putin and his aides express a personal distaste for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. They share the international community’s aversion to the use of chemical weapons.

Above all else, Putin’s arguments rest on three points: 1) Only the Security Council of the United Nations can authorize the use of force against a sovereign nation. 2) Assad is an odious figure but the most likely alternative, a radical jihadist regime with ties to Al-Qaeda, would be worse. 3) U.S.-led military intervention and sponsored regime change is neither an acceptable nor effective international response to the revolution that is sweeping across the Middle East.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.