Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
My guess is that most Americans recoil, as I do, from the horrific news out of Syria, feeling in their gut that we should at least do something to stop the slaughter, the disappearances, the executions, the burning and bombing of towns and farms, and the terrorizing and torturing of civilians and children.
In a June 12 forum at the Brookings Institution, Secretary Clinton implied that America’s subdued response was conditioned by fear of extremists (al Qaeda) in the opposition and in any new Syrian government. She said the situation was “complicated” by “fear among many elements in Syrian society about what would come next.” She claimed there hadn’t been “a wholesale departure … or even exile of a lot of major players in the Syrian society.” She favored a political transition that would provide “some level of protection to Christians, Druze, Alawites, Kurds, Sunni business leaders and the like.” In a July 16 interview with CBS, Clinton added, “We don’t want to support, either directly or indirectly, the arming of people who could perhaps not use those weapons in a way we prefer.”
It all sounds sensible enough, but it’s misleading. The pre-revolution Syrian opposition strove genuinely for democratic reforms and brought together diverse elements of Syrian society. Activists bravely began to organize in 2006 under the Damascus Declaration’s National Council – a collection of pro-democracy groups. Their goals and tactics were the opposite of Islamic extremists, who want Sharia Law and advocate the use of violence. Syrian protestors were originally peaceful and wanted human rights, free elections, an independent press and judiciary and an end to the hated Emergency Law. The National Council still dominates the opposition. If there are extremists in the opposition now, it is primarily because of the vacuum created by a do-nothing U.N. and U.S. While the administration prevaricated, deferred to others and insisted that any response had to come through the Security Council - wherein it knew Russia and China would veto any meaningful action - others, notably Iran, stepped in. Here are four key points:
1. The protest movement only grew into an armed rebellion in response to the regime’s human rights atrocities. I recommend a report entitled “We’ve Never Seen Such Horror: Crimes Against Humanity by Syrian Security Forces,” in which Human Rights Watch describes events that sparked Syria’s flame. “The Daraa protests, which eventually spread all over Syria, were sparked by the detention and torture of 15 young boys accused of painting graffiti slogans calling for the downfall of the regime.” When the regime arrested and shot the protestors and even bystanders, protests grew still more. As another example of this dynamic: During an assault near Daraa, a child got separated from his father. A month later, the child's body was returned bloated, purple and bruised from torture. In response, enraged and heartbroken residents of surrounding villages joined the rebellion.
2. In no instance did Obama or Clinton make a passionate plea for the Syrian people or make a strong attempt to pressure the Syrian regime. They mostly avoided talking about the horrors in Syria and took pains to make Assad appear better than he was. Remember Clinton suggesting Assad was a “reformer?” Remember Obama’s moral equivalence in calling for an end to the “violence” on both sides? Remember their unwise and unnecessary public declarations that the US “would not” enter the conflict and “would not” supply protestors with arms? When Obama finally - sort of - called for Assad’s exit, the administration was careful not to appear assertive, stipulating that "the United States cannot and will not impose this transition upon Syria” and reiterating that America would not “intervene.” Obama and Clinton failed to mention that Assad is one of the world's worst butchers and one of the world's worst troublemakers - ever. He employs terror as an instrument of both domestic and foreign policy, actively supports Iran and Hezbollah and and causes unimaginable suffering in Lebanon.
3. As reports out of Syria grew much worse and as the Assad regime targeted entire populations for annihilation, the administration turned to others for guidance - and for cover for its own callous, ineffective policies. As the Arab Plan unraveled, the administration nevertheless expressed support for it and said it would “lead from behind.” When the French suggested a Humanitarian Corridor, the White House praised the French for their "leadership," but expressed "surprise" at the proposal. After the Arab plan failed, the U.S. agreed to the Russian-backed UN/Kofi Annan plan, which did not require Assad to step down. (No one pointed to the futility and turpitude of asking Syrians to negotiate with a regime that was slaughtering, torturing and imprisoning them.) When that plan failed, the administration nevertheless expressed "confidence" in it - then reverted to its policy of supporting limited sanctions and occasionally calling on Assad to leave.
4. By the time Clinton began to show more active interest in finding ways to influence the outcome in Syria, Iran and Al Qaeda had infiltrated the opposition movement. Oh that we had shown an interest in helping - and influencing - the opposition from the start. Clinton did, finally, start to emphasize the need for a “democratic transition” and to explore ways to help the opposition short of supplying arms. But she and the rest of the administration continued to downplay the human rights implications of the Syrian cataclysm.
“Never again” was the farthest thing from their minds, and they encouraged the rest of us Americans to be small-hearted as well.
- Comment (54)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
The US wants to maintain credibility in the ME, there are factions that look to the US as global sponsor of freedom and democracy.
We also want to appear consistent, but we aren't. The reasons for our involvement in Libya and position on Mubarak suggest a duty to support the Syrian freedom fighters.
By turning our back on Syria, as we did with the protesters in Iran, we're saying that our actions are not principled, but based on political expedience. Such is not the way of a strong nation, the worlds sole superpower, such is the way of a vassal state seeking to ingratiate itself.
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Yeah...ok.: I DO NOT CARE ABOUT SYRIA.
I used to not care about Afghanistan. Now I do care about Afghanistan. I doubt if anyone could convince me that we're either better off or worse off today because of our action or inaction in the last 40 years. Where is evidence we know what Syria needs?
We've got enough to deal with here. A strong domestic U.S.A. is the best thing for the rest of the world. A solid society will be better for international situations. · 9 hours ago
We don't have the luxury of isolation in this interconnected world. That was the idea in the 1930s and it came back to haunt us. If we never use our influence for good, others will influence the world and us in ways that will eventually force us into involvement. To be clear, I am not advocating going in with arms. Reagan knew how to be involved, make a difference in the world, without going to war. Like Truman, he understood that America at its best combines moral and practical concerns. We can be both pro-democracy, and judicious and prudent.
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Highlama: The US wants to maintain credibility in the ME, there are factions that look to the US as global sponsor of freedom and democracy.
We also want to appear consistent, but we aren't. The reasons for our involvement in Libya and position on Mubarak suggest a duty to support the Syrian freedom fighters.
By turning our back on Syria, as we did with the protesters in Iran, we're saying that our actions are not principled, but based on political expedience. Such is not the way of a strong nation, the worlds sole superpower, such is the way of a vassal state seeking to ingratiate itself. · 31 minutes ago
Yes, it's ironic that the President that wanted to improve our reputation in the Middle East reinforced the worst stereotypes about us - that we're in bed with dictators and only care about democracy in the West.
Aug '12
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Imho supporting democracy in much of the ME means supporting the people freely choosing Islamist Govts of some stripe (from the Brotherhood to Al-Nahda), probably at least for the next decade or so. given this likelihood, is the US, and are the American people, genuinely willing to be consistently pro-democracy in the ME?
Jan '11
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Anne Pierce, Guest Contributor
Yeah...ok.: I DO NOT CARE ABOUT SYRIA.
We've got enough to deal with here. A strong domestic U.S.A. is the best thing for the rest of the world. A solid society will be better for international situations. · 9 hours ago
We don't have the luxury of isolation in this interconnected world. That was the idea in the 1930s and it came back to haunt us. If we never use our influence for good. · 7 minutes ago
The world may be more interconnected than a century ago but our skill at "influence for good" is limited. Earthquake, tsunami, drought - we'll help. We're not even sure what we want for ourselves how do we know what is "good" for others?
Isolationism isn't a luxury - it's constant work.
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
I can understand why people might be reluctant to get involved in Syria. Bush's inept handling of the immediate aftermath of our overthrow of Saddam Hussein has left a bad taste in many mouths, and Obama has been busy every since throwing away the victory that we eventually won. But it would be a blunder not to recognize that we need to do what we can to shape the larger security environment in which we live. We are, whether we like it or not, a global power, and Syria matters. An end to the Assad regime would be a severe blow to our enemies in Iran and might be fatal to Hezbollah's dominion in Lebanon.
I am not suggesting that we send troops in. It would be sufficient that we encourage the Turks, who were not long ago itching to go in. They are our allies, and they have a real interest in settling matters in Syria to their liking.
There is another reason to act. The Baathist regime has done us considerable harm over the years. The world should know that, when you mess with the Americans, there will be a reckoning.
Sep '10
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Most of these people, on both sides, are the ones that were in the streets cheering on 9/11. It seems to me allowing them to continue to slaughter each other is a great idea. No US tax payer dollars need to be spent, or US servicemen sacrificed trying to stop it. If you are so upset you might want to consider leaving the safety of your key board, flying over there and fighting for which group you favor. Not much chance of that happening. I would suggest the people that are recoiling are comprised primarily of parasitic pundits.
Sep '10
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Paul A. Rahe:
There is another reason to act. The Baathist regime has done us considerable harm over the years. The world should know that, when you mess with the Americans, there will be a reckoning. · 48 minutes ago
I would suggest that under the Bush, Clinton and Obama the exact opposite lesson has been learned. If you mess with Americans they will respond clumsily, grow impatient and eventually retreat.
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
liberal jim
Paul A. Rahe:
There is another reason to act. The Baathist regime has done us considerable harm over the years. The world should know that, when you mess with the Americans, there will be a reckoning. · 48 minutes ago
I would suggest that under the Bush, Clinton and Obama the exact opposite lesson has been learned. If you mess with Americans they will respond clumsily, grow impatient and eventually retreat. · 36 minutes ago
Under Clinton and Obama, yes. Bush was initially clumsy, to be sure, but he was patient and he did not retreat. His last two years in office he was impressive.
I do not object to taking into consideration humanitarian concerns. There is no harm in our doing good if we can also manage to do well. Our chief aim should be to gain a reputation for helping our friends and harming our enemies. Those who do so come to have many friends and very few enemies, and they end up conserving resources that they would otherwise have to spend. The policy of isolation we adopted after World War I cost us dearly.
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: What's the plan, exactly? I'm not terribly big on involving ourselves in other countries, even in sad situations such as what is happening in Syria.
But even setting aside my non-interventionist leanings, what would we do if we got involved? And to what end? People I know who worked on Syria during the Bush administration say that the reason why no one is getting involved is because there is no better option at the present, no matter how awful the current situation is. · 11 hours ago
I know the Bush admin. was divided on human rights issues .... Truman and Reagan took strong moral positions and used our geopolitical leverage. None of our Cold War successes came from downplaying atrocities or ignoring hostile powers. Toward Syria, I would recommend: An impassioned call for regime change; an unveiling of the crimes against humanity; unwavering strong sanctions; the withholding of funds from every entity that supports the regime; the material and financial support of the resistance movement perhaps including the provision of arms; meeting with and attemping to influence the opposition; the establishment of a “humanitarian corridor;" the use of our very real geopolitical power as leverage.
Jul '10
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Ms Pierce - you once again point out sharply that we simply lack any coherent foreign policy. Acquiring one takes thought, knowledge of the area and players, and a willingness to influence.
I would submit that there is little value in our intervention with arms - at least ours. I would submit there is room for pressure - of a variety of kinds. Russia is hardly so stable that it can't be pressured. China, for all the glorious reports, has it's own sets of very real and serious issues. All those things can be worked on.
Being repulsed by images doesn't mean we need to saddle up and ride to the rescue. Islam has images of depravity all over the place, and so far no one seems willing to admit it is an inimical ideology that needs answering.
One step at a time.
Jul '10
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
BTW Ms Pierce, I have found your several contributions so far to be serious work, worthy of serious thought by all. No red meat for the lions, but careful analysis of issues.
I salute you on work well done. You seem a wonderful addition to this site.
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Devereaux: Ms Pierce - you once again point out sharply that we simply lack any coherent foreign policy. Acquiring one takes thought, knowledge of the area and players, and a willingness toinfluence.
I would submit that there is little value in our intervention with arms - at least ours. I would submit thereis room for pressure - of a variety of kinds. Russia is hardly so stable that it can't be pressured. China, for all the glorious reports, has it's own sets of very real and serious issues. All those things can be worked on.
Being repulsed by images doesn't mean we need to saddle up and ride to the rescue. Islam has images of depravity all over the place, and so far no one seems willing to admit it is an inimical ideology that needs answering.
One step at a time. · 4 minutes ago
I think you were writing your post at the same time I was writing mine! In above post you'll see that I agree - There are various ways to apply pressure short of direct intervention.
Apr '12
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
If you connect the dots, our foreign policy looks like: At the convenience of President Obama.
Sep '10
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Paul Rahe;
The Bush administration negotiated a status of forces agreement that called for the withdrawal of the US from Iraq. Given the divisions in this country, if one was going to invade the country he should have been prepared to make a 30 - 40 year military commitment prior to invading. If the Bush administration were thinking in these terms they certainly did not inform the American people and failed to follow through. Bush invaded, lost interest, had a face saving surge and then retreated. He accomplished nothing. His Afgan record is worse. You term Obama's record as weak and yet he has used over 200 drone strikes compared with Bush's 40. Face it no US president since Reagan has had the stomach needed to fight a war. Obama may, but is so morally defective he would only do so if he believed it would enhance his political stature.
Mar '11
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Whether or not such is wise policy it is almost exactly the one this administration currently appears to be pursuing. You seem to be critiquing Obama's policy here more on style than substance.
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Roberto
Whether or not such is wise policy it is almost exactly the one this administration currently appears to be pursuing. You seem to be critiquing Obama's policy here more on style than substance. · 1 minute ago
The administration has fallen backwards into doing anything at all, and only recently adopted any policy. Ilan Berman (in the Daily Beast) and others have documented the admin's "deliberate minimalism." For example, when the French suggested a humanitarian corridor, Obama officials expressed "surprise" at the proposal. They insisted the Security Council was the only option even though they knew Russia and China would veto any real plan. They made not one single human rights speech. Oh for a leader with Reaganesque clarity.
Oct '12
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
There maybe little we can do BUT I am glad someone is bringing attention to the appalling situation in Syria. These are human beings , for God's sake...we all should be aware of what is going on there...hopefully by keeping attention on the situation, somewhere down the road this attention might have an impact on sanctions, UN etc. Should we just bury our heads in the sand as was done during WWII in Germany...NO!!!
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
liberal jim: Paul Rahe;
The Bush administration negotiated a status of forces agreement that called for the withdrawal of the US from Iraq. Given the divisions in this country, if one was going to invade the country he should have been prepared to make a 30 - 40 year military commitment prior to invading. If the Bush administration were thinking in these terms they certainly did not inform the American people and failed to follow through. Bush invaded, lost interest, had a face saving surge and then retreated. He accomplished nothing. His Afgan record is worse. You term Obama's record as weak and yet he has used over 200 drone strikes compared with Bush's 40. Face it no US president since Reagan has had the stomach needed to fight a war. Obama may, but is so morally defective he would only do so if he believed it would enhance his political stature. · 7 hours ago
I disagree. Bush was slow in replacing generals hostile to the policy they were asked to implement, and for that I fault him. Then, we fought, and we won. The agreement negotiated presupposed a substantial American presence thereafter.
Feb '11
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
I am doubtful that any likely US intervention in Syria will have any positive outcome for US interests.
If we intervene to the extent of hastening the overthrow of the Assad regime the likely outcome is that the muslim brotherhood takes over- and the atrocities will continue, henceforth devoted to ethnically cleansing Alawites and other minorities with the goal of imposing an islamist totalitarian regime.
What then? I suspect the end result would a whole lot of hand-wringing angst but no further action. Failure, that is.
Even if we intervene via an invasion such as Iraq- extremely unlikely- I expect roughly the same outcome. I note that islamists in Iraq ethnically cleansed Christians from that country despite the presence of US troops. So in the end I expect islamists would still take over in Syria, with the added benefit for them of vast sums of American money spent on development and the opportunity to kill American troops for the jihad.
No thank you. We should stay out- and wring our hands from afar.