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:
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Xennady: 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. · 1 hour ago
We should have reached out to the opposition when they cried out to us. They asked us- not the Brotherhood - for help.
Jan '12
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Kerensky headed up the provisional government, but not for long; we have seen how quickly the Muslim Brotherhood filled the leadership void in Egypt.
Anne Pierce, Guest Contributor
We should have reached out to the opposition when they cried out to us. They asked us- not the Brotherhood - for help. · 11 minutes ago
Mar '11
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Anne Pierce, Guest Contributor
We should have reached out to the opposition when they cried out to us. They asked us- not the Brotherhood - for help. · 11 minutes ago
Your sentiments are laudable yet specifically what outcome do you imagine emerging from this imbroglio? Let us accept your statement that the activists you mentioned, the Damascus Declaration’s National Council, hold all the views one could desire of a pluralistic and free society. So what? Are you actually claiming these individuals represent a majority of Syrian society? Or even a significant minority? A bold claim indeed which appears strongly at odds with most reports.
If these activists are all that you claim the appropriate foreign policy response is to offer them visas to enter the United States and escape that hell hole, not to aid them in a doomed endeavour which even if successful is all too likely to be subsumed into the violent jihadist sentiments of Islamist factions in the region.
Edited on October 3, 2012 at 3:47amRe: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
In response to Barbara Kidder's and Roberto's comments:
It's odd. This admin. reached out repeatedly to the Brotherhood in Egypt, and even spoke of their right to participate in elections, including presidential elections, before Egyptian society as a whole had accepted that premise.
The United States of America makes a difference (and a statement) when it reaches out to certain organizations and not others - Why the fawning treatment of the Brotherhood in Egypt and the shunning of the Syrian movement? It is so sad that Iran and Islamists have taken advantage of the void created by American indifference, and infiltrated the Syrian movement, as they have done in so many other places - including Egypt. I agree that the risks are greater now than they were and wish wiser, more creative policymakers had been there to respond when Syria started to unravel.
Jan '12
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Anne Pierce, Guest Contributor: In response to Barbara Kidder's and Roberto's comments:
The United States of America makes a difference (and a statement) when it reaches out to certain organizations and not others - Why the fawning treatment of the Brotherhood in Egypt and the shunning of the Syrian movement? It is so sad that Iran and Islamists have taken advantage of the void created by American indifference, and infiltrated the Syrian movement, as they have done in so many other places - including Egypt. I agree that the risks are greater now than they were and wish wiser, more creative policymakers had been there to respond when Syria started to unravel. · 27 minutes ago
Thank you for sharing your thoughtful views.
Perhaps it comes down to nothing more weighty than the fact that Syria is the latest in a long line of trouble spots in the ME, and the American public has grown weary of our government wading in to conflicts with no clear goal nor any commitment to victory.
It is hard to point to any country in the ME where the U.S. has entered the conflict and not ultimately created enemies out of both factions.
Mar '11
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Anne Pierce, Guest Contributor:
The United States of America makes a difference (and a statement) when it reaches out to certain organizations and not others - Why the fawning treatment of the Brotherhood in Egypt and the shunning of the Syrian movement? It is so sad that Iran and Islamists have taken advantage of the void created by American indifference, and infiltrated the Syrian movement, as they have done in so many other places - including Egypt.
The end result in Egypt, Iran and now most likely Syria is a tragedy without question and feckless foreign policy by this administration has its' share of blame. Yet there are times when no good options are available, the Middle East is the Middle East. There is a population in these lands upwards of 400 million souls and they are neither animals nor slaves and have their own notions on how the World should be, beliefs very strongly at odds with us in the West. The power our nation has often results in hubris making it all the more important we understand limits. We can influence events, we can crush nations and topple governments yet we are not God.
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Roberto,
All I can say is: If it were your mother and sister being raped, your son who had disappeared, your children who were permanently psychologically and physically maimed from the bombing of humans and villages all around them, your relatives and friends being tortured ...Would you want the most influential country in the world, that has very real influence -and interests - in your region, to stand idle? In my upcoming book, OUTCRY: How President Obama and Secretary Clinton Abandoned Allies, Ignored Human Rights and Defiled America's Purpose, I dispute the idea that human rights are desired by certain populations and not others, but I don't want to give the whole book away before publication.
Aug '12
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Anne - all too often the US has been complicit with regimes that have committed these crimes against their own people - and it only becomes a problem when they harm vital interests by doing something like invading an oil producing country. (Let's not forget who built up Saddam Hussain in the first place and why.) I'm not arguing that morality and human rights don't have a place in foreign policy - only that a certain scepticism when they are cited is understandable, and that you can't ignore history if you're thinking about an intervention.
Jan '12
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Anne Pierce, Guest Contributor: Roberto,
All I can say is: If it were your mother and sister being raped, yourson who had disappeared, yourchildren who were permanently psychologically and physically maimed from the bombing of humans and villages all around them, yourrelatives and friends being tortured ...48 minutes ago
Anne:
You are using an argument for which there is no rebuttal!
In the entire 68 years of my life, there has only been one member of my family who was wounded in a war; my grandfather who fought with the British in South Africa, during the second Boer War.
But if I had a father, husband, brother or son who had been killed or maimed in one of these wars that the U.S. has been embroiled in since the Vietnam war, I would be only too willing to respond, in kind, to your comment !
I admire your dedication to such a noble cause, but, unlike Wilberforce, you must persuade this nation to take up arms, not just give up their slaves!
I believe that we are war-weary and, especially skeptical of the notion that a Muslim government can ever be our trusted ally.
Edited on October 3, 2012 at 8:45pmRe: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
The U.S. has not been as complicit with dictators as liberal textbooks lead us to believe and has often taken a stand for the Middle Eastern people - as meticulously documented by historian Michael B. Oren. I do not believe we built up Saddam so much as we temporarily tolerated him (in one instance, going so far as to assist him) at times when he was our enemy's enemy. No administration has so cosied up to dictators as the current one. Every time the U.S. has allied with ruthless dictators, including with Saddam Hussein, it has backfired.
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Barbara Kidder
But if I had a father, husband, brother or son who had been killed or maimed in one of these wars that the U.S. has been embroiled in since the Vietnam war, I would be only too willing to respond, in kind, to your comment !
II believe that we are war-weary and, especially skeptical of the notion that a Muslim government can ever be our trusted ally. · 7 minutes ago
Edited 3 minutes ago
I understand and mostly agree with these two points. Again, I am in not in any way, shape or form suggesting we should go to war or send a single American soldier anywhere near the conflict. As Reagan showed, there are ways to respond to such situations that are both principled and prudent. One of his tactics was to make rousing speeches that drew the world's attention to Soviet repression.
Edited on October 3, 2012 at 9:25pmAug '12
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
[The U.S. has not been as complicit with dictators as liberal textbooks lead us to believe]
Anne, without engaging in a straw man argument about the accuracy of "liberal textbooks", the US was complicit with the Shah in Iran (for decades), with Saddam Hussain in Iraq (the 'one instance' you cite presumably being the Iran-Iraq war that lasted something like a decade), with Pinochet in Chile, with Noriega in Panama - and those are just the first that come to mind.
[No administration has so cosied up to dictators as the current one.]
Specifically which dictators have been cosied up to by Obama that were shunned by Bush?
[Every time the U.S. has allied with ruthless dictators, including with Saddam Hussein, it has backfired.]
Absolutely true. Though I think it detracts from your argument when you try and draw a distinction between Republican and Democratic Administrations when it comes to this issue. There seems little difference in their foreign policy instincts.
I question the value of rousing speeches from US Presidents when it comes to containing and managing Islamic extremism - given the non-American population's perception of the US' historical engagement with the Muslim world.
Regards
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
I have to admit, "one instance" was an understatement.
Re: Syrian Tragedy - Foreign Policy Mythology Part II
Devereaux,
I should have said Thank you. Much appreciated. Ricochet is an amazing community, as indicated by this lively, intelligent discussion on our Syria "policy," and I'm honored to be a part of it.
Devereaux: 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. · Oct 2 at 7:24am