Putin can save us from ourselves.

Consider the result of all that we've done since invading Afghanistan.

We know that Afghanistan is deteriorating and our hugely expensive and longest-lasting military adventure in our history will see the Taliban move in when, inevitably, we move out. Guaranteed. Total waste.

With that in mind, this from Robert Parry shows that our current fixation on deposing Assad – and refusing all cooperation with the Russians in their highly effective campaign against the jihadis – will result in a new area in the Middle East becoming a center of oil-funded terror operations against the West, which will require yet more military adventures to overcome. (Turkey will be happy to market the oil from Syria for these terrorists, as they do now, but they are our NATO ally so that's ok.)

Besame mucho.

The obvious, and I do mean obvious, course is to abandon our flawed "Assad must go" strategy and support him as a source of stability. No reasonable person should think otherwise, especially in the light of the horror of post-Gaddafi Libya, unless that person isn't rational and is instead besotted with the idea of his own magnificence.

The chance of our admitting to the futility of the present "policy" appears to be close to zero, though for now we at least appear not to be actively interfering with Russian operations, if you don't count the odd 50-ton air drop to the forces they are fighting.^[1]

Here's Mr. Parry's concise analysis of what our options are:

The Current Crisis

The failure of the [naive U.S.] training program – combined with the destabilizing flow of Mideast refugees into Europe from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other countries affected by the regional chaos due to “regime changes” – has brought new calls across Official Washington for, you guessed it, a U.S.-imposed “regime change” in Syria. The argument goes that “Assad must go” before a solution can be found.

But the greater likelihood is that if the U.S. and its NATO allies join in destroying Assad’s military, the result would be Sunni jihadist forces filling the vacuum with the black flag of terrorism fluttering over the ancient city of Damascus.

That could mean the Islamic State chopping off the heads of Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other “heretics” while Al Qaeda has a new headquarters for plotting terror strikes on the West. Millions of Syrians, now protected by Assad’s government, would join the exodus to Europe.

Then, the option for Obama or his successor would be to mount a major invasion and occupation of Syria, a costly and bloody enterprise that would mean the final transformation of the American Republic into an imperial state of permanent war.^[1]

And Parry does note that "regime change," if we persist in this madness, will risk a direct clash with Russia. With luck, Obama's as weak or reluctant to press the point as they think.

Notes
^[1] That air drop, or one of those air drops, may have fallen into Kurdish hands which is all to the good. The intent, however, was clearly to supply Assad's al Qaida opponents.
^[2] "Obama’s Fateful Syrian Choice." By Robert Parry, GlobalResearch, 10/18/15.