Barack Obama's policy on Syria has been a complete and utter failure

No president has looked as ineffectual on the world stage since Jimmy Carter

*         <http://www.independent.co.uk/author/rupert-cornwell> Rupert
Cornwell Washington 

*         

President Obama can thank his lucky stars for the inability of the US news
media to focus on more than one story at a time. Their choice, reasonably
enough, has been the fascinating and vastly colourful 2016 presidential
race. Otherwise it might have been the debacle that is Washington’s policy
over Syria.

I’ve been living in the US for 25 years, arriving just as the first
President Bush was staging a stunning projection of American power and
leadership in the first Gulf War. A quarter of a century on, the ghastly war
in Syria has left Barack Obama looking weaker and less effectual on the
world stage than any of his predecessors since Jimmy Carter.

Yes, the mess in Syria is hideously complex, a morass of conflicting
interests and ideologies, and competing priorities – and, yes, a ceasefire
of sorts was
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-civil-war-world-p
owers-agree-cessation-of-hostilities-and-expansion-of-humanitarian-aid-a6868
786.html> announced on Friday in Munich by John Kerry, the Secretary of
State, and his Russian opposite number, Sergei Lavrov. The main parties to
the civil war are agreed on a “pause” in hostilities, due to begin at the
end of this week, coupled with the immediate despatch of aid to prevent a
humanitarian disaster. One prays it succeeds. But none of this masks the
fact that US policy over Syria has been a terrible failure. The blame
extends to the West as a whole, but it is the US, the leader of the West to
whom the world instinctively looks at such moments, that must bear the brunt
of it.

 

Within the US, it should be said, Obama has not been alone in sinking to the
occasion. One might have expected the Syrian crisis to provoke some serious
discussion among the rival Republican presidential candidates. Do they not,
after all, represent the party traditionally held to be a “safer pair of
hands” on national security matters?

But no. Their thoughts on the matter hardly extend beyond making it harder
than ever for Syrian refugees to get to the US – see Donald Trump’s call for
a temporary ban on all  Muslims entering the country, a proposition
supported by two-thirds of Republican voters in last week’s New Hampshire
primary – and puerile threats to “make the desert sands glow” with US air
strikes.

Obama has been America’s leader since the Syrian crisis began in 2011, and
since then it has been much talk but little action. The Assad regime, we
were told, must fall, and would do so quickly. Yet the US did not give aid
to rebel groups that might have made this happen, nor did it set up a safe
area for civilians in northern Syria, protected by a US-enforced no-fly
zone, as many were urging at the time. 

Then came Obama’s infamous declaration about Bashar al-Assad crossing “a red
line” if he used chemical weapons against civilians. The regime did use
them, but Obama blinked and did nothing – other than allow Russia, protector
power of Assad, to take the initiative in negotiating a deal to get rid of
those weapons. Cynical and duplicitous, but relentlessly focused on
protecting Russian interests in Syria, Vladimir Putin has never relinquished
that initiative since.

When Russia began its bombing in support of Assad, Obama predicted the
intervention would lead to disaster. Instead, it seems on the brink of
producing a military solution that US diplomats have insisted was
impossible. US materiel support for the rebels seems to be drying up. With
Russian air strikes pounding rebel positions, Assad’s forces appear close to
recapturing Aleppo, something that may be achieved in these few days before
the “cessation of hostilities” takes place. If it does at all.

Even the eternally optimistic Kerry was cautious. “What we have here are
words on paper,” he said in Munich. “What we need to see in the next few
days are actions on the ground.” So confident is Assad that he boasts in
interviews that he will retake all of Syria. The US, meanwhile, quietly
concedes that he will stay, at least until Syrians agree on the shape of a
future government. Some hope.

As for the notion of a no-fly zone to protect civilians, that has been
rendered moot by Russia’s air operations. In short, the US has virtually no
leverage in the crisis – unless it moves to a more robust Plan B, hinted at
by some officials here. In reality, this would amount to a complete policy
reversal, with stepped-up help for the rebels and military action against
Assad: in other words, precisely the deeper US involvement that Obama has
wanted to avoid, and that ordinary Americans, soured by Iraq and
Afghanistan, absolutely do not want. And, needless to say, it would mean a
direct face-off with Putin.

Perceived American weakness in Syria, coupled with the concessions that Iran
has extracted over its nuclear deal with the West, has also unsettled many
of the Washington’s traditional allies in the region: will the US stand up
for them when the chips are down? Some are plain furious. America regards
the Kurds as the most effective opponents of Isis, but Turkey regards them
as terrorists – which has led to President Erdogan accusing Washington, in
its refusal to declare a Syrian Kurdish group a terrorist organisation, of
turning the region “into a sea of blood”.

It is hard to imagine any recent US president allowing this sort of thing to
happen. Certainly not the first President Bush. Nor Bill Clinton, for all
his early wobbles over disintegrating Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide.
There followed the US-brokered Bosnian accords, and the US-led Nato bombing
which forced Yugo- slav forces out of Kosovo. Nor could George W Bush,
however wrong-headed and foolish his invasion of Iraq, be said to have
projected weakness.

In his determination to avoid such mistakes, Obama has over-corrected. Cool,
detached and supremely rational, he believes that others will act rationally
and decently as well. In Syria, tragically, they have not, and America has
been humbled. Clinton has been haunted by his failure to stop the slaughter
in Rwanda. Syria may well be the nightmare that haunts Obama.

 

 

EM

On the 49th Parallel          

                 Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in
anarchy"
                    Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni
katika machafuko" 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet

UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/

All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/

The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including 
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------

Reply via email to