Russia's influence isn't extending.
Jennifer Rubin is discouraged by the Obama administration's reluctance to enter into Syria's civil war:
Not unlike the Green Revolution in 2009, the president nearly three years later is willing to allow an opportunity â?? to undermine Iran, support democracy, reassert U.S. leadership â?? slip away. Every now and then the president talks a good game on human rights, but his heart is never in it. In this case, even when coupled with an obvious and compelling national security objective, passivity rules the day.Obamaâ??s reelection objective, namely no more foreign conflicts, trumps decent policy. But the foreign conflicts donâ??t go away simply because we donâ??t participate. Instead, despots triumph, other powers (e.g. Russia) extend their influence and the United Statesâ??s credibility is eroded. When they ask, â??Who lost Syria and Iran?â? youâ??ll know the answer.
I commend the comments of Larison and Massie here on the dubious logic underlying the claim that either Iran or Syria were ours to "lose."
Instead, I will point out another curious concern of Rubin's - the supposed "extension" of Russian influence. Syria has always been close with Russia - they haven't suddenly become tight during Assad's crackdown. Russia is indeed backing Assad's brutal repression, but that's not an extension of anything, it's been Russia's policy to backstop the regime for years now. It's not like the Russians are suddenly "influencing" states not already allied with them...
