America's reluctance not to engage Russia directly in Syria and other conflicts is guided by the inability of the American public to accept large amounts of fatalities on the battlefield : US policy elite, public support for operations is, at best, tenuous and likely to collapse in the face of US troop fatalities. The public response to the deaths of eighteen US Rangers in Mogadishu Somalia in October 1993 is viewed as a key example.
Featured
Follow @jackool50
Most viewed
-
-
-
If you look around the game board right now all of the people who were the architects of the Syrian war are either out of power or losing it rapidly — Hillary Clinton, Obama, Merkel, Macron, Netanyahu, David Cameron. This is why Russia’s entrance into Syria was so important. It was a moment the entire geopolitical narrative turned. Someone stood up to the U.S. successfully. Institutional confidence is based on the perception of invulnerability. And Putin moving air assets into Syria to assist the Syrian Arab Army was a declaration that Russia had reached its limit, just like with Crimea, with U.S. meddling in its long-term goals. Remember, in 2015 the narrative was ISIS just sprang up out of the desert. And they would need a full invasion to defeat. Then the Russians send in some 30 planes and change everything about the conflict within six weeks. All of a sudden ISIS was beatable. All the U.S. could do was attack Putin for going after Al-Qaeda, not ISIS. But, why were we protecting Al-Qaeda? Didn’t they blow up the Twin Towers?
Follow @jackool50
-
No comments:
Post a Comment