No, Mr. Obama. Putin Doesn't Act Out of Weakness

In a recent press conference, President Obama called Putin's incursion into Syria "an act of weakness".

Unfortunately, that statement is as foolish as it is wrong.  Putin is in Syria because he saw an opening in which the free-Syrian rebels are being bogged down by fighting two wars:  one to overthrow Bashar Assad, and the other, fighting the ISIS insurgency.  This, then, was the perfect opening for Putin to step in and insure that Syria becomes another strong ally in the Middle East.  Also, he knows that Obama is weak as an anti-war foe, and that our President won't step in to take on Russia while Putin's forces decimate the free-Syrians.

This is exactly what he did in the Ukraine.  As soon as there was a Ukrainian revolution in early 2014, Putin took advantage of the chaos by first seizing and annexing Crimea.  Then, by fighting with the pro-Russia, Ukrainian separatists to annex all of the Ukraine once the dust settles.

To not recognize what Putin is up to and thinking he is weak is as ridiculous as calling ISIS a JayVee team.  Also, Obama shouldn't be surprised if the "weak" Putin takes back the Ukraine and creates another puppet-state by securing Assad's future as President in Syria.  Then he will just move on to another conquest whenever the time is right.  Mark my words.

References:

Opinion: Acting out of weakness? Why Obama's dangerously wrong about Putin's intentions in Syria: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/06/acting-out-weakness-why-obamas-dangerously-wrong-about-putins-intentions-in-syria.html

With a straight face, Obama asserts Putin is weak and no challenge: http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/101215-772941-60-minutes-interview-obama-putin-is-weak-clinton-mistake.htm

The Problem With Obama Expecting Friendly Syrian Rebels To Fight ISIS

As outlined in his ISIS prime-time speech, President Obama now expects to arm friendly (to us) free-Syrian rebels so they can take the fight to ISIS.  Thus negating any U.S. boots on the ground.

The problem with that thinking is that those rebels are already tied up in trying to wage war against President Bashar Assad's army.  There efforts so far have been, at best, a stalemate. Now, they are expected to fight ISIS at the same time?

While arming the rebels might sound good and appear to be a workable strategy to the uninformed public, it just isn't a viable plan for destroying ISIS in Syria.  Don't forget that, just a month ago, Obama belittled these rebels as being just a bunch of farmers, doctors, and pharmacists and not trained soldiers. Yet, now, he expects those same rebels to fight ISIS and Assad.  But simply, despite maybe getting training and some weapons, these doctors/pharmacists/farmers, without any outside help on the ground, will be stretched too thin to fight  two different battles; thus, weakening themselves on both fronts.  As a result, Assad will be able to beat them back and ISIS will probably be able to finish them off completely.  Nothing will be gained other than both Assad and, more importantly, ISIS will grow stronger.

This simple fact is why our U.S. military commanders like the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey are saying we need "boots on the ground" to fight ISIS.

Reference:

Arming Syrian rebels, key part of Obama's war strategy: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/15/arming-syrian-rebels-key-part-obama-war-strategy-gets-crucial-support-from/

Barack Obama rebukes (arming) Syrian (rebels as) ‘fantasy': http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/barack-obama-rebukes-syrian-fantasy-109890.html

Dempsey raises possibility of involving U.S. combat troops in fight against Islamic State: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/dempsey-raises-possibility-of-involving-us-combat-troops-in-fight-against-islamic-state/2014/09/16/8e13a742-3da1-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html