In Syria, America loses if either side wins, Edward Luttwak suggests:
Indeed, it would be disastrous if President Bashar al-Assad’s regime were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the rebellion and restoring its control over the entire country. Iranian money, weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have become key factors in the fighting, and Mr. Assad’s triumph would dramatically affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanon-based proxy — posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel.
But a rebel victory would also be extremely dangerous for the United States and for many of its allies in Europe and the Middle East. That’s because extremist groups, some identified with Al Qaeda, have become the most effective fighting force in Syria. If those rebel groups manage to win, they would almost certainly try to form a government hostile to the United States. Moreover, Israel could not expect tranquillity on its northern border if the jihadis were to triumph in Syria.
Luttwak recently wrote about China’s lack of strategic thought and shared his thoughts on Conversations with History:
(Hat tip to our Slovenian guest.)
Well, if you disregard the rhetoric and look at actions, the US is already acting to balance out the factions, prolong the fight, and increase the body count, by providing or allowing just enough aid to the rebels to keep them in the game. And this recent effort to launch strikes against “delivery methods” (planes, helicopters, and artillery) can easily be seen as a reaction to the regimes recent successes and as a compromise with the people that want to provide advanced AA/AT weapons to the rebels (instead of providing the weapons, US strikes the targets themselves).