When it comes to the Middle East, one would be inclined to think that president Obama would have all his ducks in a row. After all, the Middle East has been in the spotlight for almost two years, and much before that for strategic purposes.
But it seems that now, if one is to judge the actions of the president, there is no strategy in place when it comes to dealing with Syria, and that there was a missed opportunity, which is now coming back to haunt the administration.
In an effort to show its difference between his administration and the preceding one, Obama viewed the Syrian civil war as a matter that should be monitored but not one to act upon,. However, the long history of civil war in Syria, and the attempts made by the people of Syria to overturn first Hafez al Assad in the early 1980's and now his son, Bashar, in the present conflict, should have given the president thought as to how to handle the matter.
Having missed the chance to take a stand at the beginning in the name of Muslim self-determination, and hamstrung by Russia and China's lock step disagreement on disarmament and intervention in the Syrian conflict, Obama is now dragging, unwillingly and painfully into the widening conflict, from which we have stayed away for too long and shamefully failed to take decisive action as we try to juggle the numerous pressures this matter comports.
After strongly Obama expressing his 'line in the sand' limit, over which threshold American action would spring, he is now having to parse the meaning and validity of evidence of chemical use in Syria. And as he does so, there is a nagging sense Obama is now in the corner, with a strong spotlight shining upon him.
What is insufficient about the chemicals used so far in Syria? is the evidence of dubious source? why not say so then?
Is the evidence too small to qualify for the threshold? as in : do we need for Bashar al Assad to use a good load of the stuff and kill a few thousand? upon which event the whole of humanity will rise in horror and anger and we will then be justified in our intervention?
But why not call a spade a spade? why not say, we can't go in, because there is Hezbollah, and part of the Iranian guard waiting for us and some Al Qaeda affiliated groups, and that's part of their strategy. And : we can't send our men in, because they'll be sitting ducks. And we can't start bombing the place without international consensus, especially since that could trigger even wider use of chemical weapons.
Or why not point the finger of responsibility at the rest of the world? Why don't we say, well we could go in, but Russia and China are not allowing us to do so. And the UN can't unilaterally tell us to go.
Or even more honestly, why not say, we can't go in alone, and we don't want to be involved in another war?
As the president talks, the spectator also senses the painful realization on the part of the president, that this is making him look very bad. As in, I can't tell the truth, because it's ugly, and I can't tell you what we will do, because I don't know myself.
But sitting there saying that a handful of people foaming at the mouth is insufficient evidence after almost 100,000 people have been killed, quashed, tortured and who knows what else, is not statesmanlike. It makes the president look like he is grasping at straws and that he is just wishing the problem would go away.
What is the difference between 100,000 dead, tenfold that starving in camps, and a few hundred victims of a deadly chemical attack? We look downright foolish. And we should have chosen very carefully the yardstick with which to measure Assad's excesses. It might not even be a coincidence that he is using the chemical weapons in small doses, as a frightening deterrent, but not in large enough quantities to be blatantly exposed and proven.
As the conflict widens, president Obama will become involved one way or another. Why not show some confidence, or at least the semblance of a plan? is he that smart that he wants no clues on how he will handle it? or is he that tired that he doesn't want to deal with it?
These concerns were echoed yesterday by Security Advisor Brzezinski, who at 85 is still a formidable if controversial expert on foreign affairs.
His words sound like alarm bells, even as they are delivered with the utmost softness :
"I am one of those who have been saying that there is not much we can do at this stage. This is the reality we have to face......did Obama have a plan for making him [Assad] go? Not really."
And there in a nutshell is the problem. If anyone thought that Syria's civil war could remain self contained like the other 'arab springs' then someone was asleep at the wheel.
Syria, just by its history, just by its geography, and just by its allies and importance, and including its formidable arsenal of deadly weapons, should have never been let to unfold without a serious and expert examination of the consequences of its civil war.
OP-ED
Partial Source : Spiegel online 5.1.13
No comments:
Post a Comment