Vladimir Putin did it again. The Russian president forced his US counterpart, Barack Obama, to put “boots on the ground” in Syria against the latter’s better judgment. The White House announced on October 30 that up to 50 special-ops US soldiers would “train, advise and assist” Syrian militias fighting Islamic State (IS) militants. Of course, targeting troops loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is also part of the plan. This was the second time in a month that Obama broke his solemn promise to US voters of ending overseas wars. Two weeks earlier, he had announced that thousands of US troops would remain in Afghanistan indefinitely to prop up the flagging Kabul regime. Funnily enough, both orders coincided with the increased tempo of Russian airstrikes in Syria and reports of Pakistan’s growing rapprochement with Moscow and Tehran. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left scratching our heads over the definition of democracy in the Middle East. In Syria, for example, the US wants Assad to shut up shop though he won the 2014 national vote by a landslide. This would make him legit in most countries but not Syria because the US and Saudi Arabia do not wish it so, even if observers from 30 countries called the election free and transparent. Moreover, a different standard applies to Yemen. Saudi Arabia, with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in tow, has been will-nilly bombing its southern neighbour since March to restore President Mansour Hadi’s rule. Here, the Houthi rebels stand accused of usurping the people’s choice, but no one cares that they may have genuine grievances or that Hadi got elected in 2012 by default because major opposition groups boycotted the polls. Why, you ask? One word: money. Five thousand people have died in Yemen since the Saudi offensive began but Obama has consistently ignored this humanitarian crisis in favour of railing against Assad. That, dear friends, is the power of oil in action. Also, other than Russia, no one questions the UN Security Council Resolution 2216 on Yemen, which is essentially a Saudi policy facsimile. It orders the Houthi rebels to disarm and give back territory without mandating the GCC to cease-fire. The bigger problem, however, is what will rise from the ruins in Yemen. On-ground reports suggest that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has dug in for the long haul by moving into territory vacated by either Hadi loyalists or the Houthi rebels. AQAP has ostensibly shored up tribal support in southeastern Yemen and now controls the Hadramout province, including the key port of Al-Mukalla. Like IS in Afghanistan, it is filling the public works vacuum to gain local support and the UN World Food Programme gives Hadramout high marks for relative food and fuel availability. Katherine Zimmerman of the American Enterprise Institute believes, “The problems in Yemen are long-term grievances against the Yemeni state,” adding, “That is what is behind the current civil war.” Unfortunately, as the war drags on and a central government is nonexistent, militant groups like AQAP have the perfect opportunity to create and defend safe havens. This will also wipe out the terrorist-hunting gains made by the US drone programme since 2002. Through August this year, Obama hoped that the painful memories of Soviet occupation in Afghanistan would dissuade Putin from landing forces in Syria. Once it became clear that Russian troops were lining up in the port of Latakia, ready to aid Assad’s forces alongside reinforcements from Iran, Obama put out a terse warning: “An attempt by Russia and Iran to prop up Assad is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire.” He further stressed that Russian airstrikes meant to target IS but also bombing US-backed Syrian rebels, would irk the region’s Sunni population and provoke a backlash. Of course, anyone that followed the Second Chechen War or understands the Ukraine conflict knows people pleasing is neither Putin’s forte nor desire unless it brings economic benefits. One thing Obama is right about, though, is that the civil war has irreversibly fractured Syria (and Yemen, lest we forget). In this case, replacing one political system or person with another will be band-aiding at best. Such experiments have sputtered in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are unlikely to work elsewhere. Iran has now joined the Vienna talks to hammer out a political settlement for Syria but a quick breakthrough is unlikely. Another big if is whether the actual warring parties, meaning Assad and the Syrian National Council (SNC), will accept a solution devised without their participation. Shireen Hunter, a political science professor at Georgetown University, believes, “The best solution would be a semi-federal system within which various ethnic and sectarian groups enjoy considerable local autonomy and the central government deals with foreign and defence policy.” This applies to both Syria and Yemen. There will be teething problems initially but it beats the alternative, which is terrorist groups taking deep roots in both countries. The writer is a freelance columnist and audio engineer based in Islamabad