Washington Post would rather war in Syria continue than let Russia broker peace.
In their recent editorial, Washington Post editors made clear they’d rather the Syrian war continue than achieve peace.
Opinion | A hug that says volumes about the situation in Syria
WITH THE near elimination of the Islamic State in Syria, there has been a fresh burst of diplomatic activity aimed at…
The Post writes:
With the near elimination of the Islamic State in Syria, there has been a fresh burst of diplomatic activity aimed at ending the country’s civil war. A new session is scheduled Tuesday of U.N.-sponsored talks in Geneva following conferences last week hosted by Russia…
Most Americans would consider “the near elimination of the Islamic State in Syria” and an end to the Syrian war to be great news. But the pro-war Post considers a diplomatic approach towards peace to be unfortunate.
Unfortunately, Mr. Trump appears more than happy to abet that project…he enthusiastically endorsed Mr. Putin’s plans, which nominally entail new negotiations between the Assad regime and opposition groups over a new constitution.
The Post then describes Trump’s decision, to let Russia take on the peacemaker role in Syria, as a display of weakness.
For now, however, Russia has supplanted the United States as the convening power of the Middle East’s most important conflict. That Mr. Trump would welcome that development is another testament to his curious deference to the Kremlin.
Letting Russia fight our shared enemy, ISIS, is not “deference to the Kremlin”. With that logic America should be considered weak for letting the Soviet Union deliver the final blow to Nazi Germany in WW2 — Nonsense.
If defeating ISIS and establishing peace in the Middle East are America’s true goals in Syria, it should not matter what role Russia has in it, so long as those objective’s are accomplished.