The Obama administration’s “lead from behind” foreign policy is having the same impact in Syria this year as in Libya last year: It is providing an opening for France to usurp the traditional American role as the leading outside power in the Middle East. While the bodies pile up in Syria, President Obama limits his support to the Syrian opposition to the rhetorical realm–backed up by the dispatch of a couple dozen computers.
Meanwhile French President Francois Hollande calls for the Syrian opposition to form a government as soon as possible and vows to recognize it as soon as it is created. He also speaks of creating buffer zones in Syrian territory and enforcing at least a partial no-fly zone–something that the Free Syrian Army has now called for. All of this is desperately needed to stop Bashar Assad’s ruthless killing machine, which is being aided by a substantial contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Yet, just as in Libya, the Europeans are unable to act effectively without Washington’s help. They lack aerial refuelers, smart munitions, drones, and other advanced intelligence and surveillance assets that are needed to take down Syria’s air defenses and to enforce a no-fly zone at scant risk to the aircraft involved. Thus as long as the U.S. refuses to act, they will be hard-pressed to do so.
Clearly the Europeans want to act to end the terrible Syrian civil war. Turkey also appears to be willing to do more–it is said to be on the verge of asking the UN Security Council to set up a safe zone for refugees inside Syria. But they are all waiting for President Obama to make a decision–something that is unlikely to happen before our presidential election. As the Washington Post points out in an editorial today, Obama has said that that “preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America.” Yet Obama is willing to do nothing substantive to protect this supposed core interest.
The continuing massacres are the price that Syrians (and Lebanese, who are increasingly being drawn into the fray) pay for an abdication of American leadership–the same price paid by Bosnians in the early 1990s before Bill Clinton finally decided to get involved.
If they are waiting for Obama, they will be waiting a long time. Maybe they shoud send some money for his campaign or just donate to Val Jarrett, if they give enough she will get Obama off his a** and do something, just like taking care of Osama.
Waiting for Obama-did Samuel Beckett write that?…I hope they're not holding their breath.
He should tell both sides about land for peace.
Since when has America played the 'traditional' role of being the leading outside power in the Middle East? n nBritain and France have been the leading outside powers in the Middle East since before America was even invented. n nIf anyone has been doing the 'usurping', its been the Americans!
Max Boot, generally a sensible man, seems to have a soft spot for Sunni Arabs who are just as anti-civilization as the Alawi Arabs or the Shia Arabs. If the bodies are piling up, as Boot (truthfully) asserts, let them. Let the maggots of Sayia taste themselves. If there is a place where an American president should show NO leadership it's in the Syrian civil war. Let Arab (and Iranian and soon Turk) kill Arab. As Democ-rat contributor and felon Martha Stewart puts it, "That's a good thing."
” Clearly the Europeans want to act to end the terrible Syrian civil war. ”
Where did the “clearly” come from? The Europeans are quite OK with Hezbollag hedgemony in Lebanon if they do not apply violence in Europe as they organize groups and raise funds there.
So why should the Europeans be involved, against Iran’s wishes, in a domestic squabble in Syria thus provoking Hezbollah? As long as the Arabs just stick to blowing up themselves and Israelis Europe is a OK with it.