The Sorry State of Political Analysis in the U.S.

A democracy really does need a Fourth Estate.  That's the name we give the press.  Today, the term might be used more generally to cover not only the press, but also radio and TV.  It's the Fourth Estate that tells the public what is going on, and who is doing what to whom.  It serves as the eyes and ears for a public concerned with the welfare of their country.  It's why in totalitarian states, the press is not free, but rather under the heavy thumb of the government.

When I can see beyond what is being reported to the American people, when I can analyze a situation better than the TV talking heads, it scares me.  Here's an example:

The situation in Syria, a country fractured by tribal divisions -- yes, religion can break down a country along tribal lines -- and from where the latest threat to civilized humanity comes from an inhuman group referred to as ISIS, has been reported and analyzed in an abysmal fashion.

The Syrian leader, Bashar Al Assad has misruled his country and remained in power only through the most brutal of means.  He has barrel-bombed his people, he has gassed them, and he has tortured them.  And, so it is difficult to know who is really worse, Assad or ISIS.

The American approach (the Obama approach) has been to remain above the fray.  It has been to cheer on Assad's enemies, but to do little else.   It has been to bomb the territory and assets of ISIS.  But, it hasn't really worked.  Assad's enemies need more than cheering.  They need weapons equivalent to what is available to Assad.  And, as to ISIS, while attacking them from the air is  helpful in diminishing some of their assets, it will never eradicate them.  To the extent that ISIS has global ambitions, they represent a somewhat greater threat to America and the world than does the miserable Assad regime.

The above has been reasonably reported on and analyzed by the press.  What follows has not.

It's the opening left by Obama to the Russians that has been very poorly covered.  We know, or certainly should known, the ambitions of Putin.  We have seen him tear chunks out of Georgia.  We have seen him take a chunk out of the Ukraine.  And, we have seen him invade Crimea, which, after WWII, had become a part of the Ukraine.  Why did we not see him eye Syria as the next place into which he would insert himself?

It was an obvious target for Putin.  It was an area that contained oil.  The forces opposed to Assad and ISIS that were gathering there were led by the U.S. under Obama, a president who set forth meaningless red lines and who would not allow American hands to get dirty.  Putin saw such leadership as a pushover for his interests and ambitions.

The first thing he did was to send planes into Syria and bomb the hell out of Assad's enemies, the very people we had been cheering on.  Instead of Assad and his Alawites seeking refuge, it was now the Sunnis, the Kurds in northwest Syria, the Yassiries and Christians who were running for cover.  By allying his interests with Iran, Putin had gained the support of the Shiites and the armed forces that the Iranians would provide.

Our press pondered: Would Putin support Assad or not?  What a stupid question.  Assad was now Putin's puppet.  He provided Putin with all the legitimacy he would ever need to do whatever he wanted done in Syria.  Wasn't this obvious?

If the picture were not clear enough, Putin put Russian troops into Syria -- something he had said earlier he would never do.  Did anyone really believe him?  And, now we have Putin flying in bombers from Russia with Iranian escort fighter planes.  In addition, he is installing the latest and newest available radar systems.

Dear President Obama:  Since you don't seem to be able to figure out what is happening, let me explain --
Putin will destroy all of Assad's enemies in Syria.  He will be aided by the Iranians.  Hezbollah will come in under his protection.  Then when he's finished that job, he will go after ISIS.  Or, he may not.  If he sees the Americans, the Brits and the French expending munitions in a useless and wasteful fashion, he might well let them continue with their hopeless efforts.  He knows that if, and when, they  become exhausted, he'll go in with his troops and with the Iranians and finish them off.  Syria will change from being a place with mixed ethnicities to one populated primarily by Shiites.

What to do with Turkey and the Kurds?  Putin can take his time with that question.  One option might be to befriend the Kurds.  He might tell them to get out of Iran and, in return for that, encourage them to lop off 20% off of Turkey.  It would give the Kurds a port on the Mediterranean.  Everyone would cheer; the Europeans, the Israelis, the Egyptians, and no doubt others.

The big losers:  The Americans, the Saudis, and the Sunnis in general.  For the Israelis, it's not that clear.