While many in the Arab world think that the America’s inaction in Syria is a proof that Washington has acted in bad faith, I opt for a different explanation. I argue that the failure of the United States to help salvage the Syrian people is a function of a broader strategic miscalculation. All wheeling and dealing led to nothing but perpetuating the Syrian misery.
Criticism of the American negative role in Syria has not only come from Arabs. Many Americans argue that the United States could have done more. In her book, “Hard Choices,” Hillary Clinton makes the case that the administration’s reluctance in helping the Syrian revolution paved the way for the advent of radicals into the Syrian fray. Just a few days ago, Nicholas Kristof from the New York Times wrote an article entitled “Obama’s Worst Mistake,” in which he blames Obama’s cautious approach to the unfolding Syrian crisis.
But even in the United States the critique of Obama’s lack of strategy in Syria is bipartisan. Many Americans believe that a no-fly zone would have made a huge difference in Syria and would have ameliorated the refugees’ crisis. Obama’s argument that there was little to do does not resonate well because sitting idly by and watching the Russian planes deliberately bombing civilians and targeting hospitals is hard to explain. Rather than becoming a key player in the crisis, the United States sends a message that it is disengaging from the region in a disorderly manner. For this reason, President Putin and the Iranian leaders are emboldened to kill as many civilians as possible and affect a kind of sectarian cleansing in Syria.
Ironically, US Secretary of State John Kerry seeks to bring about an end to the crisis. His strategy that focuses on working with the Russians has yet to yield positive results. However, Russia has been systematically talking about the need to find a political solution while in reality it undermines the very prospects of that solution by propping up the embattled Assad regime. And yet, there is no price tag on Russia’s negative tactics.
In August 2013, President Obama’s red-lines on the use of chemical weapon were crossed. Needless to say, that Obama missed a golden opportunity to restore the lost deterrence. When all expected the United States would launch a surgical attack to ground the Syrian air force, Obama got cold feet. Ever since, Obama’s continuous statement about the need to rid Syria from Assad as a condition to fight radicalism and terrorism fell on deaf ears. In other words, a few, if any, in our region would take his words seriously. His odd notion of “leadership from behind” has rendered him ineffective.
But contrary to those who accused him of working in bad faith, Obama has been driven by one objective: Not to involve his country in another war in the Middle East. He genuinely thought that there was a different road to be taken. All along, President Obama has been obsessed with his own legacy in the Middle East. At the heart of his strategy was to lure Iran to sign a deal on the nuclear program so that Iran would act responsibly. By doing so, Obama has succeeded only in alienating his allies in the region while failed in getting Iran act responsibly in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
Two problems have haunted the Untied States over the past few years. First, Obama’s reliance on the power of ideas and logic is inconsistent with the reality of power politics particular in the Middle East. Second, the perception that Obama lacks the global leadership has further debilitated the effectiveness of relying on the power of logic. Hence, it is up to the new administration to turn around a failed strategy before it is one dollar short and one day late.
Criticism of the American negative role in Syria has not only come from Arabs. Many Americans argue that the United States could have done more. In her book, “Hard Choices,” Hillary Clinton makes the case that the administration’s reluctance in helping the Syrian revolution paved the way for the advent of radicals into the Syrian fray. Just a few days ago, Nicholas Kristof from the New York Times wrote an article entitled “Obama’s Worst Mistake,” in which he blames Obama’s cautious approach to the unfolding Syrian crisis.
But even in the United States the critique of Obama’s lack of strategy in Syria is bipartisan. Many Americans believe that a no-fly zone would have made a huge difference in Syria and would have ameliorated the refugees’ crisis. Obama’s argument that there was little to do does not resonate well because sitting idly by and watching the Russian planes deliberately bombing civilians and targeting hospitals is hard to explain. Rather than becoming a key player in the crisis, the United States sends a message that it is disengaging from the region in a disorderly manner. For this reason, President Putin and the Iranian leaders are emboldened to kill as many civilians as possible and affect a kind of sectarian cleansing in Syria.
Ironically, US Secretary of State John Kerry seeks to bring about an end to the crisis. His strategy that focuses on working with the Russians has yet to yield positive results. However, Russia has been systematically talking about the need to find a political solution while in reality it undermines the very prospects of that solution by propping up the embattled Assad regime. And yet, there is no price tag on Russia’s negative tactics.
In August 2013, President Obama’s red-lines on the use of chemical weapon were crossed. Needless to say, that Obama missed a golden opportunity to restore the lost deterrence. When all expected the United States would launch a surgical attack to ground the Syrian air force, Obama got cold feet. Ever since, Obama’s continuous statement about the need to rid Syria from Assad as a condition to fight radicalism and terrorism fell on deaf ears. In other words, a few, if any, in our region would take his words seriously. His odd notion of “leadership from behind” has rendered him ineffective.
But contrary to those who accused him of working in bad faith, Obama has been driven by one objective: Not to involve his country in another war in the Middle East. He genuinely thought that there was a different road to be taken. All along, President Obama has been obsessed with his own legacy in the Middle East. At the heart of his strategy was to lure Iran to sign a deal on the nuclear program so that Iran would act responsibly. By doing so, Obama has succeeded only in alienating his allies in the region while failed in getting Iran act responsibly in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
Two problems have haunted the Untied States over the past few years. First, Obama’s reliance on the power of ideas and logic is inconsistent with the reality of power politics particular in the Middle East. Second, the perception that Obama lacks the global leadership has further debilitated the effectiveness of relying on the power of logic. Hence, it is up to the new administration to turn around a failed strategy before it is one dollar short and one day late.
