Perhaps U.S. policy toward Syria could be more incoherent and ineffectual, but it’s hard to see how. Yesterday Secretary of State John Kerry made what it is in essence the pro-intervention case. He said:
The longer the bloodshed goes on, the greater the prospect that the institutions of the state of Syria implode. And therefore the greater the danger is to the region and the world that chemical weapons fall into the hands of really bad actors. We do not want that to happen….
Right now, President Assad is receiving help from the Iranians, he is receiving help from al-Qaeda-related – some elements, he’s receiving help from Hizbollah, and obviously some help is coming in through the Russians. If he believes he can shoot it out, Syrians and the region have a problem, and the world has a problem.
That’s precisely what those of us who have been in favor of arming the moderate factions of the Syrian rebels—and perhaps supporting them with Western airpower—have been arguing for the past two years. Yet what conclusion does Kerry draw from his premise?
This the punchline: “President Obama has made it clear that the United States does not stand in the way of other countries that made a decision to provide arms, whether it is France or Britain or others.”
Huh?
The administration position seems to be that we need to alter Assad’s calculations by arming the opposition—but we won’t provide the arms ourselves. Instead we will applaud our allies for arming the rebels.
This is almost a caricature of “lead from behind” foreign policy. What is the point of letting our allies do the heavy lifting? It’s not even the case that they will risk their soldiers’ lives and we won’t—funneling arms doesn’t require any foreign military personnel to be on Syrian soil. Nor are we saving money since the funds we are currently providing for nonlethal assistance could just as easily be redirected to pay for what the rebels most desperately need–weapons.
I just can’t understand the administration thinking at all, unless the current policy is simply a split-the-difference approach between those in the administration who want to arm the rebels and those who don’t. If so, this demonstrates again the danger of policymaking by committee and highlights the continuing indecision on the president’s part which has allowed the Syrian crisis to get worse and worse.
Give it up Mr. Boot. nSyria was a mythical creation of Sykes-Picot. Let the original Imperialists deal with their creature, and, hopefully, the inevitable blowback will fall on them, not the U.S. n n
Are there really moderate factions in Syria? I read about rebel groups pledging to take back the Golan, and what rebel faction would oppose this pledge and still have any support in Syria?
What possible good could anything but benign neglect of the Syrian civil war do for a gardener in Los Angeles, a farmer in Iowa, or a factory worker in Buffalo? n nEven the Israelis are engaging in watchful waiting. Better the Devil one knows.
exactly, let them live in their islamic sewer
even?
“I just can’t understand the administration thinking at all”
Max, Max, Max . . .
I often disgree with you wrt to policy, but I credit you with a rational world view, mostly reasonable opinions, and the demonstrated capacity to present your preferred policies and recommended actions with logic and reason.
. . . so why are you surprised you don’t understand the ‘administration’s thinking?’
Best Regards,
part of the incoherence is the people doing the deciding. for example, Valerie Jarrett should not be making foreign policy. (actually, Jarrett shouldn't be doing anything in Washington but that's another story.) Obama has surrounded himself with lightweights who have Arabist leanings just like he himself does. n njust like Holder is the perfect AG for Obama, and Hagel is the perfect SecDef for Obama, Kerry is the perfect SecState, with his willingness to be "for it before he was against it," no matter the subject. n nI'd like to ask those Republicans and independents out there who stayed home in November: how are you liking the way it's going? are you happy, the 2-3 million of you who voted for McCain in 2008 but couldn't be bothered to vote for Romney in 2012? because Obama's dismantling of our beloved country is YOUR FAULT.
What about "intended" incoherence. Chess game ultimately! Isn't it?