Syria, Russia and the United States. The media loves to have tension and conflict, and since relations between Putin and Obama are strained, at best, any event which highlights the tension and helps sell media products is front page news. What has to be considered is that 69 years ago on February 10, 1946,Syria and the USSR signed a secret agreement whereby Moscow wold give Damascus diplomatic, political and military help to bring the new country (just freed from French control) into the international arena. Four years later, the two countries signed a non-aggression pact, and the USSR began to supply Syria with weapons. In 1971 the two countries agreed that Moscow could use the Syrian port of Tartus to support her naval fleet in the Mediterranean Sea.Relations have continued to improve under the current president, Bashar Al Assad, who succeeded his father in 2000. Moscow has invested heavily in Syria's infrastructure especially in gas and oil production.
The "Arab Spring" in Syria began shortly after Mubarak's fall in Egypt in February, 2011. Thousands of students took to the streets to oust the Assad government, which was renowned for its cruelty. America stood by and did little. Washington was afraid that were Assad ousted, there would be no government and Syria would become a bastion for terrorists. Or,if the Syrian government moved toward a precipice, Tehran would come to its aid, and America could end up with a war against Iran, not a war the White House wanted. Obama also feared that if Assad continued to lose power, he would encourage Hezbollah and Hamas to be more confrontational with Israel, again an alternative the White House wanted to avoid. 
Since Obama was unwilling to commit to America leading a movement for change in Syria, the White House looked to the United Nations Security Council for help. However, Russia, threatened to veto any UN measure restricting Assad's regime. Russia's continued support in the UN undermined America's effort at regime change in Damascus. 
The rapid development and expansion of ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, brought the radical Islamic movement in Syria, thereby threatening the Assad regime. Moscow has no desire to see a Syria controlled by ISIS and has begun to send in troops, men and money to bolster the Assad regime. Washington is caught. She had been supplying weapons to forces opposing Assad for the past three years. But the White House also wants to put an end to the ISIS efforts to have a Syrian-Iraqi caliphate. While both Putin and Obama are opposed to ISIS, and both realize that the solution is to aid the Syrian army's efforts to destroy ISIS, the end game is the problem. Moscow has a leg up on dealing with 
Syria, her near 70 year relationship, while America has historically little to do with the entire Middle East except to think of her as a oil well, and to try to limit Soviet and later Russian influence in the area. Now the question is: will the White House accept an Assad Syrian government as the price to pay for working with Russia to destroy ISIS. For once ISIS is defeated, Assad will have sufficient military supplies to destroy the American supported rebels. The ball is in Obama's court.

Putin-Obama meeting

I think this is a brilliant play by Putin. If Obama meets him, there is an implicit acceptance of Russia's seizure of the Crimea, and the eastern part of Ukraine. Putin's offer to work with Obama to destroy ISIS is perfect. If we say yes, and between the two countries were are successful, which we should be, when the smoke clears, Assad is still in control of Syria unless Obama can make a deal that following the destruction of ISIS, Assad is replaced by a strong government representative of the people. This is a "wish". The problem is what becomes of the rebels that Washington is supporting to reduce or remove Assad from office.
On the other hand, let say that Obama refuses to meet with Putin, this will not prevent Putin from sending more troops and supplies into Syria to eliminate ISIS--it would be a big commitment, but the prize would be Assad in power, and Syria as a Moscow satellite.
Anybody have alternative ideas? send comments to me at jfharrington76@gmail.com

America’s foreign policy since 1945 has evolved from containing Communism in the post-war period, to looking to Russia and China as partners in maintaining a world safe from terror and nuclear war. During this evolution, each administration addressed problems without concern for successors, and at times without regard for policies established by predecessors. Each administration brought to the Oval Office, the goals of its political party, an awareness of public opinion, and the president’s own agenda.

Throughout this period, America often compromised her moral image of being the “Citty upon a hill.” The resurrection of old powers such as China, the recovery of the Soviet Union from near destruction during the Great War, an Arab world demanding recognition as a world player,  European enlargement through NATO and the European Union, have all forced Washington at various times to compromise her values, and sacrifice morality for world dominance. She was willing to overthrow legitimate leftist governments, and to orchestrate the assassination of  troublesome heads of state including Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Allende in Chile,  Diem in Vietnam,  Lumumba in the Congo, and a failed attempt on Castro in Cuba. Her actions in Vietnam defy morality, from the deadly defoliant Agent Orange, to blanket bombing of cities, to the slaughter of civilians who harbored VC guerillas; all of this done in the name of preventing a “domino” progression of Communism. Her indifference to Muslim beliefs permitted her to humiliate prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, and to arrest and imprison others without trial. She redefined the definition of prisoners-of-war, thereby prohibiting them from receiving the protection of the Geneva Convention. The list goes on, but in spite of her indiscretions, the world continues to look to America for leadership. In the 1990s, a new image emerged from the White House, America was the “indispensable nation” needed to maintain world order. When Obama arrived in the White House he wanted to alter that image, but much of the world had become accustomed to Washington’s oversight, and saw no other nation capable of being the world’s policeman. While Washington might be “conflicted” in trying to live up to her moral image, she is still the “go to guy” when world order is threatened.