The White House appears to be digging in its heels against any further aid to the Syrian rebels beyond the provision of communications equipment. It is hard to know how lasting this position will be as the president had previously touted Bashar al-Assad as a negotiating partner before calling for his departure from office. And last year, the administration resisted weeks of entreaties to intervene in Libya before deciding to do so. Events in Syria may dictate a more forceful White House response–events such as the recent firing across the Turkish border by Syrian security forces. A few more incidents like that and Turkey may decided to establish “safe zones” within Syria–a move that would probably drag the U.S. along given the close ties between President Obama and Prime Minister Erdogan.
But why has the administration refused to act so far? On its face this refusal is mysterious given that the human rights situation in Syria is even more appalling than the conditions which prevailed in Libya prior to the U.S.-led intervention–and the strategic stakes are considerably higher. The administration has offered various explanations of why intervention wouldn’t work–e.g., claiming that the rebels aren’t united enough or that Assad’s air defenses are too formidable or that UN authorization is lacking–but, as I have previously noted, these explanations are not terribly compelling, especially given a death toll climbing north of 10,000 as we do nothing. If the president wanted to intervene, as he did in Libya, he could easily find cause to override the arguments of naysayers. Why hasn’t he done so?
I can’t help noting that this is an election year in the United States and President Obama is seeking reelection based on a narrative of having “ended” a war in Iraq and being on his way to ending another war in Afghanistan. As the president constantly reminds us, the “tide of war” is receding (try telling that to the Taliban or the Quds Force). Given that’s going to be his pitch to voters, it would be highly inconvenient if, in November, U.S. aircraft were bombing Syrian regime targets. Yet if the president were to act now, there is considerable risk of such an outcome considering the fact that our military intervention in Libya lasted from March to October of 2011.
Thus, on top of various other considerations, election-year politics probably weighs against a more forceful American response. That’s a shame, because if we do nothing, not only will many more Syrians lose their lives, but we will lose a prime opportunity to tilt the Middle East balance of power against our primary adversary, Iran.
Why hasn't he done so? n nA few possibilities: n nBecause the outcome of Libyan intervention was a political and humanitarian disaster. Why should the US intervene in Syria to hand it over the Muslim Brotherhood, or equivalent, or another thug similar to Assad, just with a different name and from a different ethnic group?? n nThe only argument for intervening in Syria is to take it out of Iranian orbit, and it is not a bad one. n nHowever, some believe Obama has made a (stupid) deal with Iran, or would like to make a deal with Iran where Assad survives, in return of Iranian promises to not take their uranium passed 20%. n nIf so, non intervention would make sense from Obama's point of view. n nIn the universe where the rest of us live, this is ridiculous, or course, as Iranians are not trustworthy. n nWhat do you know, Max? Is Obama trying to make this sort of deal with Iran?
This "President" is a fool. He doesn't measure up to being a nice fool. He's bad thru and thru. Why couldn't we see that with nothing more than the Wright situation? Because he is a Negro, a Black, or whatever you want to call him. It's been a case of reverse racism. Not all the voters, but obviously too many. Have they wised up? We can hope, but don't bet the mortgage on it.
No, being "smart" is no guarantee against being either "foolish" or "wicked"–and a wicked fool Obama may often be but cognitive deficits do not seem to be among his failings or account for his sins to date. And you know what, he won in large measure because, he ran against a very old, if honorable McCain and a Veep candidate many of us (still) do not want to entrust with high national office. Did he get a net affirmative action boost? Lately, reading the positive responses many have had for John Derbyshire's Monty Python "just run away! run away!" guide to social interaction with colored folk–you have to wonder. "Reverse racism" may not be the most pressing variety of the beast around nowadays. There seems plenty of the straight-up old-school variety in the not so sotto voce laments about Negros, or Blacks, or whatever you want to call them.
Because it's not clear to Obama how doing one thing or another in this case works to his electoral advantage. No more no less.
But Trudy, if the country, if the majority of folks really wanted to go deep in Syria his calculations would be different. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? The whole deal is that we expect, even demand, that politicians make their power-hungry, corrupt, craven, cynical climbing-the-greasy-pole calculations and bring themselves into line with what the electorate wants. When Obama went ahead and disregarded the election of Scott Brown to Ted K's seat, I don't remember him being applauded for throwing out electoral advantage and taking a bright-line ideological stand and lifted on shoulders as a man of principle. n nOn second thought then, maybe he isn't in not only because the upcoming election but because he doesn't want to be there.
Obama is, I think, playing to his OWS base which, for lack of a better word, is a gaggle of neo Lindbergh crypto fascist isolationists. In the end, Obama's utter lack of any identifiable policy or direction at all has been blessed as an inscrutable kind of 'lead from behind' policy by default. Do something poorly enough and everyone's left wondering if THEY'RE the ones who're too stupid to get it.
Yet he is also now on record stating that Iran talks must end with Iran suspending enrichment. But, sure, large segments of his base (not the unions) would be fine with no Pentagon–I disagree that the OWS crowd rises to political coherence. I see a lot of pseudo hippie anarchism and twee participatory democracy leaking out between their infantile Marxist posturings.
I am much more cynical about Obama than you are. I suspect that Obama reached a quiet detente with Iran though Erdogan that if Iran doesn't test an atomic bomb in 2012 then he won't stop them. And if they wait until after his reelection he won't need to care. A point I think that gets missed in all of this is that Iran has poured billions into a nuclear 'civilian' program has, in 30 years generated exactly zero point zero kilowatts of electricity purportedly the sole stated purpose of this whole endeavor. So either they're the worst engineers in the history of people or they're lying. Let's face reality – North Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Romania, India, China, South Africa all got further along in less time with less money and less effort. So if Obama insists on telling us 2 + 2 = arctan(-e^pi) then we're bigger fools than he thinks we are if we believe him and do nothing.
Max, why do you assume he actually wants to help the US? Perhaps he hasn't acted because acting on Syria would actually change the Middle East and the Iran situation in a material way that would advance US power and interests, which he does not want to do. Plus, it would help Israel, which he really does not want to do. Plus, it would hurt Iran and Russia, which he does not want to do. All he really wants to do is do just enough to get re-elected, then he can get back to putting the screws to Israel to prevent it from stopping Iran getting a nuclear bomb capability, which he is fine with.
Let us cut to the chase , using Occam's Razor , if you will.. This is an election year .Period .
Max, do you remember what happened in Iraq after the dissolution of the Baath Party (oh my, Syria is also run by a family oligarchical cum sectarian mutation of the Baath, who wudda thunk?) and the security forces. Why be soooo sure that getting on the train to the next station over is not a ticket to a train wreck? And don't overestimate Obama's mancrush on Erdogan when option A isn't hanging Israel out to dry on Mavi Marmara but rotating National Guard reservers into the Homa.
Max, why isn't the U.S. trying to straighten out the brutal Chinese occupation of Tibet? Why isn't America solving all of the world's problems? It's a mystery fer sure. As for Syria, there is nothing constructive the U.S. can add to that situation, except to stay out of it. Turkey is correctly taking the lead in Syria. It is close and has the resources to shepherd the exit of Bashar Assad. Crying over the demise of one brutal dictator who will inevitably be replaced by another is a waste of emotions. My advice is simple. Sit back, relax and enjoy the show. After Bashar, Russia will not have a Med port, Iran will not have a proxy state, Hezbollah will be diminished. Groovy. Not perfect, but groovy. Oh, innocent victims? There are no innocent victims in war. That's why it's called war dude.
Intervention would be a bloody and expensive business, and I guarantee you, you won't like the outcome. Why borrow Chinese money to send American boys to replace an Alewi dictator with a Sunni?
You raise an interesting point. It isn't only the Chinese money borrowed–interest on the debt is a helpful booster to the Chinese PLA mliitary that, let's not forget, is engaged in an expansion Prez O doesn't seem inclined to counter. However, on the other hand this is another signal to the neighborhood locals as to what happens if a Middle Eastern polity is on the wrong side of overwhelming force. Then again, actual peace will, if it occurs, be worked out by those same muderously intimate cousins. Hasn't happend yet.
McCain undermined Bush at war at EVERY turn – hnow begs Obnama to aid Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Middle East, such as in Syria and Libya, as he did in other places before such as Egypt and Yemen. n nDoesn't figure Obama for leaving Soros team Muslim Brotherhood hanging out there. Weird.
With Obama, election year calculations started in January 2009 and won't stop until he is re-elected when (as we know from the open mic scandal in South Korea) Obama will have more "flexibility" to do whatever the hell he wants to do. n nThat said, Obama has shown throughout his term that he will undertake only military actions that are deemed easy and low cost. Libya was undertaken only because it was shooting fish in a barrel and the U.S. could "lead from behind" with the Euros in front. His exponential expansion of drone warfare is largely due to its ease of use and ultra-low risk. He *likes* this kind of thing. The only exception, you might say, would be the Bin Laden raid, but recall that he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that one. According to the Wa Po story and others, Panetta and Hillary practically made the decision without him (some say they *did* make the decision without him). It would take enormous pressures (as in the OBL raid) for Obama to overcome his risk-averse nature and do anything of substance in Syria. Even if it is only supplying weapons and ammo to non-Islamist Syrians washed through third parties. n nThe final element to Obama's aversion to aiding the Syrian rebels is his ambivalence to American power and American national interest as that has been traditionally understood. Obama simply doesn't believe that there is or should be any difference between what benefits the U.S. and what benefits…? The "International Community" whatever that is. Again, it would take enormous pressures for Obama to take any foreign policy action that ran counter to world opinion or "international consensus" or whatever naive notions Obama entertains about the current world order. In this respect, Obama truly is the first, "Post-American" president. His foreign policy has consistently been one that restrains and even subordinates America's national interests to those of the international community (however he conceives that to be). Dislike or disdain of Israel is just part of the broadly held world attitude to which Obama seeks to conform. He attended Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago for a reason: Wright was espousing a worldview that Obama completely agrees with. To the extent that American interests run counter to that world view, American interests get pitched overboard.
yeah, but beyond the ideological component and those periodic Manchurian candidate penumbras around his open-mic moments, he seems psychologically risk-averse foreign-policy wise in a way other Presidents haven't been. This is no Lyndon Johnson.
Washington's latest statements goes beyond this to declaring Iran must end enrichment pure and simple.
Why is the US not helping the Surian Rebels? Because Russia supports Assad. It is also the same reason that Obama will not stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
on word OIL! n
Wow have you no idea of the geo-political situation of the area? What happened when the USA last armed a Arab group against invaders and its government? We funded and trained a young Osama Bin Laden and those weapons were thus used against us. So were going to arm people that really do hate us because 1) their very close proximity to Israel and thus the Palestine struggle. 2) Our unwavering support for Israel, and 3) our general middle East politics. You can be pretty sure that any arms given to the Syrian rebels will someday find themselves turned on our ally Israel. Osama Bin Laden was what happened when we armed a Muslim population. We'll never supply or help because the politics of Syria directly effect the politics of Israel. n nDoes an election year effect it, yes it does but not to the extent of being remembered as the president that founded the next great anti-US terrorist.. After the war whoever wins will still hate Israel….that is a fact. We can control or work with Assad but if not we will now get another unstable partner like Egypt that just ripped up the Camp David peace accords. We have literally bought off the peace in the middle east for Israel but with new populist Islamic governments war with Israel on behalf of the Palestine struggle is not a matter of if but when.