Obama's Syria Policy
Two Years of Failure
show comments
  • rheddles

    Obama is not stupid; incompetent, yes, but stupid, no. So, watching all this I have to ask what is the motivation?

    From the Obamacare fiasco we know there is no limit to the incompetence and arrogance of this administration. But at least it was motivated by an understandable, if naive and childish, desire to see that everyone be protected from the cost of medical care. But what is he trying to do in the Middle East and why?

    Amerika has traditionally sided with Israel and Saudi Arabia. It overthrew the Mossadeq regime in Iran and supported the evil regime of the Shah. Obama wants to right this wrong and support the underdog in the ME against the tools of American power, So he is attempting to do a Nixonian shift and play the Shia card. It is as naive and childish as Obamacare, and will cause more damage.

  • TommyTwo

    Here’s another WSJ article (“As Syrian Chemical Attack Loomed, Missteps Doomed Civilians”) that I’ve had trouble getting out of my mind. Pretty good fodder for “Why do they hate us?”

    [Behind the WSJ paywall;.]

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    I see the Obama incompetence in the middle-east, as more favorable than many realize. With the end of the Bush strategy of attempting to force change on the backward Arab Islamic Culture with the imposition of Democracy, a new strategy must take its place. And as is common in US foreign policy, where the US falls into a pile of Dung and comes out smelling like a Rose. The new strategy is the low cost strategy of “Divide and Conquer”, with the Sunnis and the Shiites focusing all their resources on killing each other, and having little left over for attacking the US and the West. This is a great strategy used for centuries by the Byzantine Empire to keep the Barbarians occupied and out of the Empire.

    With the American will spent trying to impose Democracy on a mostly intransigent Islamic Culture, there really isn’t any other strategy open to the West.

    Cultures change at glacial speeds, and the West will now have to be patient and wait for Islamic Culture to adopt purple fingers as a more legitimate form of government.

    • rheddles

      It’s hard to see how handing the Levant to Russia and Persia constitutes divide and conquer.

      And we should be more interested in policies that preserve peace than promote change.

      • Kavanna

        Russia is economically stagnant and in demographic collapse. Putin is a shell game. Just watch the Olympics, and you’ll see.

        • rheddles

          I agree with everything you say, which makes handing the Levant over to Russia all the more stupid a move. Why would a not stupid person so such a stupid thing?

      • Jacksonian_Libertarian

        How can you say this is handing the Levant to Russia and Persia? Nothing has been settled yet, the Sunnis have DEEP pockets. And peace is overrated, and not a part of the “Divide and Conquer” strategy. I expect heavy logistical support to the Syrian rebels in the form of men, material, and money, from the Sunni dominated states.

  • TheCynical1

    Israel seems curiously quiet about Syria (cf. Iran), while American commentary seems curiously quiet . . . about the fact that Israel is curiously quiet (e.g., this WSJ article does not mention Israel once). Does this suggest that Israel sees Syria as a lower-priority issue — and if so, are they wrong.

    • rheddles

      It suggests Israel has made its thoughts known in private and sees no value in taking the issue public. Especially when it is reevaluating its relationship with the US.

      • Kavanna

        That’s more due to the WSJ’s generally strange coverage/non-coverage of the Middle East. The Murdochs own Dow Jones, the parent of the WSJ. While Rupert evidently doesn’t care, his son is tight with the Gulf kingdoms and does not like Israel. So their coverage of the region has a very Gulf-centric tone. Israel is strangely absent. The reporting and editorial staff seem to be suffering from hesitancy or fear of broaching anything broader.

        The Murdochs are distancing themselves from their print assets. My hope is that they will divest themselves of DJ altogether, and the WSJ can go back to its robust defense of Israel and provide a less truncated coverage of the region.

  • Anthony

    Adam Garfinkle’s June post provides more context – Talkin’ Syria intervention – to above Feed.

  • B-Sabre

    You need to parenthesize that headline with (and Counting) at the end.

  • Kavanna

    There’s no more ridiculous series of gratuitous and unforced errors in the history of US foreign policy. It’s a result of the toxic mix of Obama’s governance: ignorance, incompetence, and narcissism. He’s a pseudo-intellectual empty suit. All that’s left is his Chicago gang of provinicial, malicious hacks.

    • Guest

      Thank you.

  • Blaton Hardey

    While 2013 was a good year for me personally, thinking about the big picture of what’s going on in the world sickens me and makes me bitter. My innermost beliefs and desires are in line with what I think are traditional, libertarian American values (although this might be wishful thinking). So even while I’ve never even been to America, I feel like it’s my country (and it certainly will be on paper, in the foreseeable future). But right now, it feels like I watch the ship sink as I dream about boarding it. The big, beautiful ship. What makes America beautiful to me is not democracy but the idea of an independent and free life. America needs to acknowledge it is an empire. The American Empire is (as corny as it sounds) the single (!) most important safeguard of Liberty, a fragile and abstract and infinitely precious good (and considering the basic traits of man, an unlikely phenomenon). I don’t blame the current administration for its arrogance, policy failures and botched interventions. I think all this perfectly represents the state of affairs in America as a whole. Ideological confusion, no deep sense of what America should be, neither now or down the line. Every chickenshit policy is hysterically and emotionally debated, but rarely the greater purpose is discussed. Same goes for strategy. Anyone who tries to find strategy in America’s foreign policy these days (these years? decades?) could as well try to decipher the gestures of the sign-language interpreter next to the POTUS at Mandela’s funeral. I think no other moment epitomizes the cultural state of affairs in America as plainly as this one. This might sound patronizing and endlessly arrogant, but I worry about America like a son about his aging, alcoholic mother. Miss Liberty is still beautiful. God bless.
    If anyone bothers to respond to this post, it will most likely be to point out my naiveté and unsophisticated views and that things are a actually a lot more nuanced… Well yeah. But then close your eyes and imagine the world without America.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.