‘No good options’ is not a policy

This editorial is from the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Russian President Vladimir Putin's announcement last month that his military was expanding its presence in Syria in order to slow the spread of Islamic State was quickly revealed to be a ruse. Russian airstrikes this week have been on Syrian rebels opposed to Bashar al-Assad's genocidal government, not on Islamic State. Beyond propping up Assad, Putin's goals plainly include embarrassing the United States.

Thankfully, President Barack Obama isn't treating this as a direct provocation. That said, it's telling that the primary international perception of America's response to Syria's complex, horribly destructive civil war isn't that the Obama administration is cautious. It's that it is incoherent and aimless — 'dithering' is the Economist's preferred term.

Before one criticizes Obama's foreign policy, it can't be emphasized enough that he inherited some awful messes. The public welcomed his decision to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and seems largely unconcerned about the destabilizing effects of our departures; the chest thumpers eager to send our troops around the world on ill-defined, open-ended missions don't grasp this.

But as David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official, writes in Foreign Policy magazine, 'What's done is done. We are where we are. Let's stipulate that Iraq was a disaster. … Let's stipulate that we had no good options in Syria. (But when) an American president is left with a lousy situation and no good options, then there is still the necessity of figuring out how to best advance U.S. interests going forward.'

Unfortunately, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were described in a Sept. 26 Washington Post story as being confounded by Russian actions. There is nothing mysterious about what Putin is doing. Russia wants to reestablish itself as a world power, which keeps Putin popular at home and diverts Russians' attention from their contracting economy. Putin sees a power void — and thus an opportunity — in the Middle East.

Russia's entrance into Syria is an unwelcome complication, but it should not be a paralyzing one.

So what can America do to advance its interests? At the least, it could follow the advice of Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who has called on the U.S. to supply and support 25,000 Kurdish militia members in northeast Syria who are eager to take on Islamic State. This makes far more sense than continuing with failed, costly efforts to train Syrian fighters to take on both Assad and Islamic State. Ignatius and many other analysts have also called on the U.S. and its allies to try to establish safe havens in other parts of Syria to limit the immense collateral damage the civil war is having on the civilian population. These ideas and similar ones that do not involve the deployment of U.S. troops have been on the table for months.

It is no longer acceptable for U.S. officials to just throw up their hands in frustration. America needs to be a more constructive force in seeking to limit the misery and fallout radiating outward from Syria.