Tonight, I'm going to talk about why I think Russia is backing Assad.
DISCLAIMER: my knowledge of the Middle East is a bit dated, but I believe my premises are still valid.
1: Syria is the only "serious" jumping point to Israel and Lebanon. If the Russians REALLY decided to change things via bayonet, Syria is the place they'll base troops. If they take Lebanon, they are in a GREAT position to threaten the Suez Canal, Israel, and the Mediterranean in general.
2: Russia has problems with Muslims too. Chechnya is a major sore point for them. (The Boston Bombing suspects emigrated from Chechnya and even called there AFTER the bombings). No love lost between the Russians and Muslims.
The Russians know WHAT they're getting with President Assad.
An quotation attributed to several AMERICAN Presidents, including FDR goes like, "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's OUR son-of-a-bitch."
Assad is Putin's son-of-a-bitch. Not because of money, but because the alternative is far worse.
Don't get me wrong, President Bashir Assad needs a .50 frontal lobotomy performed ASAP. He's supported terrorism across the Middle East for years. He needs to go bye-bye, whether by ballot, rope or a bullet.
Therein lies the problem.
A partial quote from Rudyard Kipling:
"Stick to the Devil you know."
Why is Putin is sticking to the Devil he knows?
Stability.
No matter how you cut it, Syria WAS a stable nation. Tyrannical, but INTERNALLY stable. Say what you want again, but Assad has REAL control of his chemical weapons.
What happens IF the "rebels" (you know, those fun-loving, pranking Muslims working with Al-Qaida) take control of Syria?
If they take control, they ultimately get hold of all those chemical weapons and delivery systems. Israel could be attacked as a warm-up exercise. If Israel's nuclear weapons policy is like ours, Damascus will have a 2 million degree sunrise an hour after any chemical attack is proven. (US Policy states WE will NOT use nuclear weapons in a first strike, but we retain the right to use them in retaliation for a WMD attack).
Consider the "new government" does NOT use those chemical weapons. They just sit on them and think for a moment.
In the meantime, Russia would instantly lose their influence and port of call privileges in Syria. And it gets WORSE.
What happens AFTER the "revolution?"
One only has to look at Egypt to answer that question. The Muslim Brotherhood acted like a spoiled child given the keys to the gun cabinet, the liquor cabinet, the car, and Dad's ATM card. The Egyptians bought the promises, put up with creeping Sharia law for about a year and threw the MB out. Clearly, the Egyptians do NOT want the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
For purposes of discussion, let's say Der Holy Lord and Savior Mommy-Daddy Obama gets his way and Syria is taken over by those outrageous party animals, the Muslim Brotherhood.
What happens next?
After a healthy dose of ethnic and religious cleansing, the Muslim Brotherhood will eventually get control of the chemical weapons and decide where to use them.
Leon Uris wrote in his novel "The Haj" a line which must be seriously considered. The following is NOT a perfect quote, but close enough for blogging purposes.
"The Druze against the Sunni, the Sunni against the Shi'ite and all of us against the infidel."
Radical Muslims HATE infidels. However, they have a special brand of hatred for Communists (and probably their descendants because of Chechnya. Given how Chechnya is fighting/has fought the Russians, it would not be too hard to imagine a few of those chemical weapons going to Chechnya to help out their beleagured brothers in their jihad. Putin would not be pleased, but would give the order to nuke/gas someone.
Ask yourself this: What did WE do when the Soviet Union decided to put nukes on Cuban soil? We made them back down because there was no way we would tolerate such a threat to our security.
Why should Putin tolerate a threat to HIS security?
I'm no Putin fan, but his keeping America out of Syria make more sense than Il Douche's idea of going in.
No comments:
Post a Comment