Many bad outcomes could follow the downfall of the Assad
regime, but good US
policy, while cognizant of these risks, should not be paralyzed by them. The Obama Administration’s policy is best understood as inaction through internationalization, results
from its fear of taking on any risk. This has allowed Syria to devolve into a greater source
of regional instability, and enhanced the threat to US interests while ignoring the opportunities.
Instead of cautiously undertaking steps to develop
relationships with the opposition and provide direct support as a way to influence those groups, the administration chose what it believed
was a risk-free, exclusively political path through the UN. Most analysts understood that Russia , China and Assad himself would not
cooperate with this approach to any meaningful degree. However, the administration used the process
for political cover and happily pointed its finger at those not willing to sign
on to meaningful action. Just
as it has blamed President Bush for the country’s economic ills, Obama’s Syria blame-game
has run its course as the conflict spins completely out of control.
Even as it seems likely that the administration will
finally take a more direct role in facilitating Assad’s ouster, delays and
uncertainty continue. A Daily Star
article from this week reports that a Presidential Directive to provide support
to the opposition has “been on Donilon's (National Security Advisor) desk for
quite some time without further action.”
The article goes on to refer to Obama’s policy on Syria as an ‘odyssey’ and quotes a variety of inside sources
that paint a picture of deep uncertainty on Syria policy.
This deterioration in Syria , obvious for some time, has
been well documented this week too. The
New York Times reported that the conflict evolved from a “protest
movement” into “an armed battle in response to the government’s use of
overwhelming lethal force”. This created
“a draw for jihadists”. Analysts that
the Times spoke with believe that the first suicide bombings perpetrated by
outside jihadist groups (Al Qaeda among them) only began last December. A Wall Street Journal piece goes into more
details on Al Qaeda’s infiltration and infrastructure in Syria noting that they have “appointed
a management council, set up a headquarters and created regional networks with
military and religious leaders to run operations, manage cross-border activity,
and procure weapons and other supplies.”
As the US
abdicated leadership on this critical security issue in favor of gaining
political cover beneath a UN process that leads to nowhere, Al Qaeda has established
itself for a long-term presence in Syria . The Obama Administration’s desire to avoid
difficult choices and to keep any risk at arm’s length has led to the exact bad
outcomes that paralyzed them in the first place.
Daily Star article here
