I read recently that Russia had 100,000 “techincal assistants” in Syria.
This must be why. If Assad falls to a factional power that wars with itself (as in Libya) those chemical weapons will get everywhere. The U.S. might be indifferent to their ‘accidental’ use in eastern europe and the middle east… I think Russia will care more (EU might too). I also think one of the reasons the U.S. wants Assad overthrown so much is because Russia has so many assets with his regime.
http://www.infowars.com/putins-geopolitical-chess-game-with-washington-in-syria-and-eurasia/
“Humanitarian Aid” has been an excuse since Laos.
The difference in foreign policy in this country, as I have seen it (in academic terms) is as follows:
Realists: Eisenhouer, Reagan, Carter, & Obama
These people use paramilitary intelligence operations and will arm and fund rebels. They will bomb countries and not admit to it. They will use “coercive diplomacy” which is basically the wikileaks operation; get gossip and dirt on diplomats and leaders that we don’t like or need then release it to the media and the populations of the countries get rid of them. Iran/Contra is a basic example of “realism.”
Old School Realists: Nixon, Bush Sr.
These are realists that have committed to the full use of force which is the only thing that really differentiates them. Bush and Nixon (!!) were willing fund and arm militant groups that massacred people. I can’t prove it, yet, but I think Bush Sr. waged, basically, a PR campaign aimed at convincing people that we went to war with Iraq (Bush practically gave Iraq the nod to attack Kuwait after we manipulated them into war with Iran) and won it within “thirty minutes” or whatever.
NeoCons: Clinton (was instrumental to the preface of their policy & let them dominate the State and Defense Depts.), Bush Jr.
The Mujaheddin came from Carter. Reagan used it effectively in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Obama is simply aiding the pawns in whatever arena we need them in. I would also argue that Guantanamo is not just a prison, it is a training camp. We have sent many “prisoners” from Guantanamo to Libya, Yemen, & Pakistan. We pick them up, we break them down, we get them fit, we send them back with money, guns, and diplomatic support.
This is the same thing that India and Israel say about the WMD’s. The whole strategic purpose of the WMD is to say that conventional warfare is moot. “We will nuke your infantry…” It necessarily elevates conflict from “WMD vs. convention” to “WMD vs. WMD.” The latter is why we don’t invade Pakistan and North Korea, but will invade countries that don’t have them, like Iraq. This is the prime reason that Iran is scrammbling to acquire them (they are developming them, they would be dumb not to). Quite the conundrum game theory simulation.
Russia will be too. Noone in the world wants Israel to secure those weapons.