The editors of the Washington Post are skeptical of the Obama Administration’s latest efforts in Syria:
WHEN HE was asked why the Obama administration announced the dispatch of a contingent of Special Operations forces to Syria on the same day a multinational conference was discussing diplomatic solutions to the country’s civil war, Secretary of State John F. Kerry responded that it was a “coincidence.†The remark was more revealing than he intended. A flurry of U.S. actions on Syria in recent days not only failed to add up to a coherent strategy, but also did not even support one another.
Mr. Kerry was in Vienna trying to win agreement on a plan for a political transition in Syria that would include the creation of a transition government, the drafting of a constitution and U.N.-supervised free elections. That broad idea won support, but Mr. Kerry’s proposal for a timeline under which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would be removed in four to six months and elections held in 18 months was flatly rejected by Russia and Iran, according to the Wall Street Journal. That means the cease-fire the diplomats called for is unlikely to happen, since rebels will not accept an end to the war that leaves the blood-drenched dictator in power.
as are the editors of the Wall Street Journal:
Secretary of State John Kerry’s right-hand man even used a Vietnam War-era word to describe Mr. Putin’s supposed predicament: “The quagmire will spread and deepen, drawing Russia further in.â€
Somehow we doubt Mr. Putin feels so beleaguered. So far his intervention in Syria has stabilized Mr. Assad’s regime and let the Syrian go on offense principally against rebels who are fighting both him and Islamic State. Russia has done so at the relatively modest cost of some weapons transfers, bombing runs, and 2,000 or so military advisers.
Mr. Putin was also able to midwife Iran’s presence at the peace talks for the first time. Mr. Kerry acquiesced to Iran’s participation and strong-armed our Sunni Arab allies to go along. The Obama Administration’s diplomatic logic seems to be that Iran will also throw over its long-time satrap in Damascus now that it has a seat at the table and Mr. Assad is stronger. In victory, it will surrender.
Where’s Richard Holbrooke when you need him? The diplomat, who died in 2010, understood that durable settlements are possible only when the U.S. negotiates from a position of strength. He was able to negotiate peace in the Balkans in the mid-1990s after he convinced President Bill Clinton to secretly arm Croatia against marauding Serbia. Mr. Clinton also supported NATO bombing to stop Serbian predations in Bosnia.
Only after the balance of forces on the ground had evened out did the Serbs seriously negotiate a settlement. It’s a measure of this Administration’s detachment from Middle East reality that it won’t even learn from successful Democratic foreign intervention.
When the means are so dissociated from the stated means or goals, you can’t help but be tempted to believe that the objectives are something other than what the administration is saying.
Meanwhile, If you had to prioritize the following three objectives in what order would you prioritize them:
- Ousting Bashar al-Assad
- Defeating Al Qaeda
- Defeating DAESH
What would your preference be?
The US should team with Assad, Russia and Iran in defeating DAESH
and, roughly concurrently, forcing Israel off the West Bank, the source of much of the general problem. Then clear out of the Mideast.
Obviously the members of the American political class will need replacement first.
Subtly advancing the caliphate.
Not sure there is enough difference between b and c to differentiate. Those should be our goal. We should place US interests first.
As to Russia, I don’t know if they are entering a quagmire, but our first few months in Iraq also went well.
Steve
a, b, or c … How about announcing that we’re after all three, and pursuing a strategy that seems to point in that direction, by going for a fourth objective — starting up a sizable, oil-rich, Kurdish state in Northern Iraq and Syria, and stationing troops there to protect that country from its unruly neighbors. This strikes me as doable, and at least as moral as any other course of action in the middle east. It might even be sold to the war-fatigued American voter.
Likely this will drive the current Turkish government totally ape-sh** of course, but hopefully the next generation of Turk politicians will prove a bit saner.
As to Russia, I don’t know if they are entering a quagmire, but our first few months in Iraq also went well.
Yeah, but I doubt the Russians are interested in turning Syria into England, so they’ve got that going for them.
mike shupp:
I think you’re making the error that a lot of Americans have—overselling the Kurds. Why is a Kurdish state in our interest? I can see that it might be in the Kurds’ interest but not necessarily ours. For one thing, how about access to the sea?
Is it just a coincidence that their political parties’ leaders are the hereditary chieftains of their largest tribes?
Does anybody remember the last time the US armed rebels to fight against the Russians in a country halfway around the world? If so, do you remember the outcome? Would you be so kind as to share your knowledge? Some of us just ain’t gettin’ it.
The people who want to arm the “rebels” are the same ones who warn us about a US city being blown up with a nuclear device. It would be interesting if sometime in the future, their “good rebels” repaid them by blowing up a US city with a nuclear device. Of course, it would be President Obama’s fault.
My recollection is that the Russians left after they’d taken enough punishment, our rebels got taken down by radical Islamists and the country got used as a planning and staging area for an attack on the United States. Only a vague recollection, of course.
steve raises a good point about the Kurds. I wonder if US perceptions would be different if a point was made of stressing that the Kurds are the only people of Iraq that practice female genital mutilation on a fairly widespread basis?
IMO the reports of economic development in the Kurdish sections of Iraq illustrate what increased capital investment can do. Similar development can be seen in KSA, Bahrain, and Qatar.
I wonder whether it really points to sustainable endogenous economic growth though or just lots of FDI. I guess that’s the material for another post.