Russian buildup in Syria shows need for broader US strategy

There has been much talk to the effect that the Obama administration has no strategy in Syria. While there is a policy toward the region, the primary focus of the administration is tactical: degrade and defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Despite the deluge of commentary by many, there is merit to the arguments regarding the absence of a Syria strategy.

{mosads}Recent actions by Russia in Syria have truly highlighted the need for a broader Syria strategy. Several reports, appearing to evolve on a daily basis, have indicated that Russia now has an operational military presence on the ground in Syria and could soon, if not already, be carrying out military action for the Assad regime, its ally. Russia contends that it is merely providing military aid to the Syrian government — something it has done for years — but reports indicate otherwise.

Russia’s action in Syria is troubling because it highlights the pitfalls of the parochial counterterrorism position President Obama has taken. The policy is simply focused on the elimination of the terrorist group ISIS. It is important to note that a broader political and societal approach is being pursued in Iraq, however. “We welcome anyone who wants to help in the coalition against ISIL,” Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook responded when asked if the U.S. would welcome Russian support against ISIS. Cook followed up by saying that “Our focus in Syria is against ISIL.” Other officials have said that assisting Assad will only further destabilize the region.

The problem for the U.S. is not only a tactical alliance with adversarial nations — Syria, Iran and Russia — but lack of foresight for once ISIS is ousted. While pushing back ISIS is important, filling the areas it governs is just as, if not more, important. When questioning military intervention, Obama told Thomas Friedman of The New York Times that he learned after the Libyan intervention to ask “Do we have an answer [for] the day after?”

Military officials maintain that ridding ISIS in the region can take upward of five to 10 years, but this is no reason for a lack of planning. It is entirely likely that Obama understands how limited his reach is within the remainder of his presidency and is simply biding his time so the Syrian conflict will be inherited by his successor.

Despite comments to the effect that Syria President Bashar Assad must go, the administration has not taken many overt steps toward a transition aside from participation in several failed diplomatic initiatives and Obama’s authorization of covert training of Syrian rebels. Obama has staked his presidency on restraint and trying to avoid getting into the business of regime change and nation-building in the greater Middle Eastern area. Case in point, the requirement that rebels trained under the $500 billion train and equip program not use their weapons or their U.S. training against the Assad regime — they are to use this training solely to fight ISIS.

The U.S. has expended serious diplomatic capital recently on the Iran nuclear agreement reached with five world powers to curb the Islamic republic’s nuclear program as well as on yet another attempt toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. The diplomatic route is the hallmark of this administration and has been cited time after time as a solution for Syria. Despite potential fatigue facing U.S. diplomats, it is imperative from a policy, legacy, security and humanitarian standpoint for the administration to expend such diplomatic efforts as seen with Iran and Israel.

At present, there is no clear plan for the future of Syria. It has been said many times that ISIS is just a symptom of the larger issue of the Syrian civil war, which puts Assad’s brutal rule at the center. The U.S. is on the same side as Russia, Iran and Assad at the moment in trying to stem ISIS’s territorial control, but the U.S. has a different vision for the future of Syria — particularly one without Assad.

“Syria is never going to be solved militarily. Syria has got to be solved at a political level. Syria has got to have a political transition away from Bashar al-Assad. He can’t be part of the solution,” said former Marine Corps. Gen. John Allen, special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter ISIS. “And so we have to be in constant conversation with our international partners and ultimately with the opposition elements in Syria to effect that transition.”

Several experts have asserted that Assad is a replaceable asset — nation-states are merely vying for greater influence and reach within the region. “Iran’s efforts in Syria were never about saving Assad as such, but securing its own strategic position in the Levant,” Faysal Itani, resident fellow at the Atlantic Council wrote recently. U.S. Institute of Peace-Wilson Center distinguished scholar and Iran expert Robin Wright claimed at an event at the Wilson Center last year that Iran’s support for Assad is tactical because Iran “believes it is strategically lonely.” Similarly, former Italian Ambassador to Iran Roberto Toscano asserted at the same event that “For Iran, Assad is expendable,” continuing, “If [Iran] can reach some concrete result by abandoning [Assad], they would.”

The same goes for Russia. David Kilcullen, an Australian author, strategist and counterinsurgency expert, writes that “Russia vetoed any UN resolution calling for armed intervention to protect civilians in Syria, in part because of its ties with Damascus but also because Russian leaders felt betrayed by the U.S. over what happened in Libya in 2011,” when the U.S. and allies expanded the mission to oust Gaddafi, a Moscow ally. Moreover, “Putin is more interested in defeating [ISIS] and retaining influence in the Middle East than he is in propping up an increasingly weak ally,” Bloomberg reported. These notions indicate that Russia and Iran are more concerned with maintaining a friendly regime in Syria more so than who is at the helm — particularly someone that is not beholden to the West per se.

While Assad’s allies such as Russia assert that he is the best option in the region to fight ISIS, it would be shameful if a situation arose where Assad eventually became the only option for stability. The U.S. government needs to paint a broader picture for the future of the region – especially considering that it is now deeply invested as the leader of the global anti-ISIS coalition. As a former State Department official, Aaron David Miller, asserts, the Syrian situation is “not Obama’s fault.” Furthermore, former Special Assistant to the President and White House Philip Gordon outlined how history has not lent favorable options for the U.S.: “In Iraq, the U.S. intervened and occupied, and the result was a costly disaster. In Libya, the U.S. intervened and did not occupy, and the result was a costly disaster. In Syria, the U.S. neither intervened nor occupied, and the result is a costly disaster.” However the Obama administration has decided to take a more involved role and has invested itself for the long term. As such, a broader vision is a matter of necessity.

Pomerleau is a freelance journalist based in Washington covering politics and policy. Follow him @MpoM24.