Weissman writes: "Don't be surprised to see Obama, Clinton, or even a
President Trump once again embrace the Israeli option, possibly - as the
Washington Post put it, 'to push the conflict toward a stalemate and force
various factions to negotiate Syria's future after Assad.'"
Barack Obama. (photo: CNN)
Will Clinton Be the Anti-Obama on Syria?
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
31 October 16
We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on
the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of
chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” declared President Obama
on August 20, 2012. “That would change my calculus. That would change my
equation.”
Obama then backed down from his “red line,” and did a deal with Russia to
remove most, though not all, of Assad’s chemical weapons. In the words of
Robert Malley, his chief advisor on the Middle East, North Africa, and the
Persian Gulf region, “No military strike could have produced the result the
administration achieved.”
Working with Vladimir Putin rather than making him Enemy Number One, Obama
scored a significant victory. Yet most of America’s foreign policy elite
have declared that his change of direction destroyed “American credibility.”
Hillary Clinton sides with them, turning against Obama and calling for a
dangerously provocative, American imposed no-fly zone.
In the background but not in the headlines, some very professional voices
are blowing huge intellectual holes in the interventionist case Clinton is
backing. “I’ve yet to see any of the advocates of intervention lay out a
plausible blueprint for a post-civil war political order in Syria and a
plausible path for getting there,” writes Harvard’s Stephen Walt, a foreign
policy realist.
“What I object to most, however, is the attempt to scare Americans into
doing something by suggesting that the country’s power, image, or reputation
is at risk if we refrain. This claim does not stand up to even mild
scrutiny, and the only thing that gives it any bite at all is endless
repetition.”
The U.S. has chosen not to intervene in many situations, including even
greater humanitarian disasters in Cambodia, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
Whatever the humanitarian arguments for and against, Walt argues, the U.S.
stepped aside “without anyone concluding that the country was growing
weaker, lacked the will to defend its own interests, or was becoming [in
Nixon’s words] a ‘pitiful helpless giant.’”
Columbia’s Diane Pfundstein Chamberlain looked systematically at every
international crisis between 1945 and 2007 in which the U.S. was involved.
“The real world does not operate in the way that these critics of U.S.
inaction seem to think it does,” she concluded. “Refraining from acting when
U.S. interests are not directly engaged will not diminish America’s
‘credibility’ or its ability to wield power effectively.”
Perhaps the silliest claim the interventionists make is that Obama’s
“back-down” in Syria gave Putin the green light in Ukraine. Columnist Julia
Ioffe spoke with several Russian officials who found the argument
surprising, contrived, and even insulting. “Russia sees itself as a power on
par with America, and simply doesn’t group itself with a minor regional
power like Syria,” Ioffe concludes. “If anything, in Putin’s view, it was
American actions in Kiev, rather than its inaction in Syria, that prompted
Putin to grab Crimea and invade east Ukraine.”
Obama still refuses to acknowledge the covert role his administration played
in putting together the coup in Kiev. But he generally accepts the argument
these pundits are making, as he made clear in his widely quoted interview
with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. In his words, “Dropping bombs on
someone to prove that you’re willing to drop bombs on someone is just about
the worst reason to use force.”
Obama calls this kind of thinking part of “The Washington Playbook.” An
ongoing goad to intervene, these mythic rules serve the military-industrial
complex as a gift that keeps on giving.
Where, then, is Obama’s “weakness?”
Partly in his rhetoric. The idea of “leading from behind” comes from Nelson
Mandela and encourages giving allies and followers a sense of ownership in
whatever one does. It's a great idea, but takes too much explaining to sell
it to most people, especially those who always want to take credit for
everything.
An even bigger part of Obama’s problem is that he undermined his own realism
and restraint by falling into what I call “the Israeli option.”
“In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins,” wrote the Israeli-American
analyst Edward Luttwak in The New York Times in August 2013. “By tying down
Mr. Assad’s army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against Al
Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington’s enemies will be
engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or
America’s allies.”
“Maintaining a stalemate should be America’s objective,” Luttwak advised.
“And the only possible method for achieving this is to arm the rebels when
it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the
rebels if they actually seem to be winning.”
“The Destruction of Islamic State is a Strategic Mistake,” the Israeli think
tank chief Efraim Inbar updated the option in August 2016. “The West should
seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not its destruction. A weak
but functioning IS can undermine the appeal of the caliphate among radical
Muslims; keep bad actors focused on one another rather than on Western
targets; and hamper Iran’s quest for regional hegemony.”
Ed Luttwak, whom I know from my days at the BBC as a very cagey character,
believed in 2013 that the Obama administration was roughly following his
stalemate strategy. Efraim Inbar warned three years later that Obama and his
gung-ho Pentagon chief, Ash Carter, appeared incapable of recognizing that
Islamic State can be “a useful tool in undermining Tehran’s ambitious plan
for domination of the Middle East.”
The next few months will tell. Ash Carter seems intent on driving the
Islamic State into the desert, which will likely increase terrorist attacks
in other countries, including the United States. But don’t be surprised to
see Obama, Clinton, or even a President Trump once again embrace the Israeli
option, possibly – as the Washington Post put it, “to push the conflict
toward a stalemate and force various factions to negotiate Syria’s future
after Assad.”
________________________________________
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly
Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a
magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France,
where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How
Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently
Break Their Hold.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
<HTML><META HTTP-EQUIV="content-type"
CONTENT="text/html;charset=utf-8"><P></P><p class="contentpaneopen wtitle
artp"><p class="buttonheading"><A onclick="window.print();return false;"
href="#"></A><IMG alt="Print" src="/images/M_images/printButton.png"><A
onclick="window.print();return false;" href="#"></A> </DIV></DIV><p
class="contentpaneopen artp"><p class="art02"><P class="wtext"></P><P
class="imgon2"><IMG width="430" height="195" title="Barack Obama. (photo:
CNN)" style="border: 0px currentColor; border-image: none;" alt="Barack
Obama. (photo: CNN)"
src="/images/stories/article_imgs23/023055-barack-obama-103116.jpg"
border="0"> <BR>Barack Obama. (photo: CNN)</P><P class="noslink"><A
href="http://readersupportednews.org/"; target="_blank"></A><IMG title="go to
original article" alt="go to original article"
src="/images/stories/rsn_gotoarticle.jpg" border="0"><A
href="http://readersupportednews.org/"; target="_blank"></A></P><p
class="txtimg"><BR><H1 class="txttitle">Will Clinton Be the Anti-Obama on
Syria?</H1><P class="txtauthor">By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported
News</P><P class="date">31 October 16</P><P> </P><P><IMG
src="/images/stories/alphabet/rsn_quote3.jpg" border="0"><IMG
src="/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-W.jpg" border="0">e have been very clear
to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red
line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving
around or being utilized,†<A
href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/20/remarks-president-white-house-press-corps";
target="_blank">declared President Obama</A> on August 20, 2012. “That
would change my calculus. That would change my equation.â€</P><P
class="indent">Obama then backed down from his “red line,†and did a
deal with Russia to remove most, though not all, of Assad’s chemical
weapons. In the words of <A
href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/15/a-defense-of-obamas-middle-east-balancing-act-syria-russia-iran-nsc/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=Flashpoints";
target="_blank">Robert Malley</A>, his chief advisor on the Middle East,
North Africa, and the Persian Gulf region, “No military strike could have
produced the result the administration achieved.â€</P><P
class="indent">Working with Vladimir Putin rather than making him Enemy
Number One, Obama scored a significant victory. Yet most of America’s
foreign policy elite have declared that his change of direction destroyed
“American credibility.†Hillary Clinton sides with them, turning against
Obama and calling for a dangerously provocative, American imposed no-fly
zone.</P><P class="indent">In the background but not in the headlines, some
very professional voices are blowing huge intellectual holes in the
interventionist case Clinton is backing. “I’ve yet to see any of the
advocates of intervention lay out a plausible blueprint for a post-civil war
political order in Syria and a plausible path for getting there,†<A
href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/24/the-great-myth-about-u-s-intervention-in-syria-iraq-afghanistan-rwanda/";
target="_blank">writes Harvard’s Stephen Walt</A>, a foreign policy
realist.</P><P class="indent">“What I object to most, however, is the
attempt to scare Americans into doing something by suggesting that the
country’s power, image, or reputation is at risk if we refrain. This claim
does not stand up to even mild scrutiny, and the only thing that gives it
any bite at all is endless repetition.†</P><P class="indent">The U.S. has
chosen not to intervene in many situations, including even greater
humanitarian disasters in Cambodia, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
Whatever the humanitarian arguments for and against, Walt argues, the U.S.
stepped aside “without anyone concluding that the country was growing
weaker, lacked the will to defend its own interests, or was becoming [in
Nixon’s words] a ‘pitiful helpless giant.’â€</P><P
class="indent">Columbia’s Diane Pfundstein Chamberlain <A
href="http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/it-is-time-to-drive-a-stake-into-the-heart-of-the-american-credibility-myth/";
target="_blank">looked systematically</A> at every international crisis
between 1945 and 2007 in which the U.S. was involved. “The real world does
not operate in the way that these critics of U.S. inaction seem to think it
does,†she concluded. “Refraining from acting when U.S. interests are
not directly engaged will not diminish America’s ‘credibility’ or its
ability to wield power effectively.â€</P><P class="indent">Perhaps the
silliest claim the interventionists make is that Obama’s “back-downâ€
in Syria gave Putin the green light in Ukraine. <A
href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/russia-syria-red-line-obama-doctrine-goldberg/473319/";
target="_blank">Columnist Julia Ioffe</A> spoke with several Russian
officials who found the argument surprising, contrived, and even insulting.
“Russia sees itself as a power on par with America, and simply doesn’t
group itself with a minor regional power like Syria,†Ioffe concludes.
“If anything, in Putin’s view, it was American actions in Kiev, rather
than its inaction in Syria, that prompted Putin to grab Crimea and invade
east Ukraine.â€</P><P class="indent">Obama still refuses to acknowledge the
covert role his administration played in putting together <A
href="http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22758-meet-the-americans-who-put-together-the-coup-in-kiev";
target="_blank">the coup in Kiev</A>. But he generally accepts the argument
these pundits are making, as he made clear in his widely quoted <A
href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/";
target="_blank">interview</A> with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. In his
words, “Dropping bombs on someone to prove that you’re willing to drop
bombs on someone is just about the worst reason to use force.â€</P><P
class="indent">Obama calls this kind of thinking part of “The Washington
Playbook.†An ongoing goad to intervene, these mythic rules serve the
military-industrial complex as a gift that keeps on giving.</P><P
class="indent">Where, then, is Obama’s “weakness?â€</P><P
class="indent">Partly in his rhetoric. The idea of “leading from behindâ€
comes from Nelson Mandela and encourages giving allies and followers a sense
of ownership in whatever one does. It's a great idea, but takes too much
explaining to sell it to most people, especially those who always want to
take credit for everything.</P><P class="indent">An even bigger part of
Obama’s problem is that he undermined his own realism and restraint by
falling into what I call “the Israeli option.â€</P><P
class="indent">“<A
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html?_r=0";
target="_blank">In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins</A>,†wrote
the Israeli-American analyst Edward Luttwak in The New York Times in August
2013. “By tying down Mr. Assad’s army and its Iranian and Hezbollah
allies in a war against Al Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of
Washington’s enemies will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented
from attacking Americans or America’s allies.â€</P><P
class="indent">“Maintaining a stalemate should be America’s
objective,†Luttwak advised. “And the only possible method for achieving
this is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are
ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be
winning.â€</P><P class="indent">“<A
href="http://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/destruction-islamic-state-strategic-mistake/";
target="_blank">The Destruction of Islamic State is a Strategic
Mistake</A>,†the Israeli think tank chief Efraim Inbar updated the option
in August 2016. “The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic
State, but not its destruction. A weak but functioning IS can undermine the
appeal of the caliphate among radical Muslims; keep bad actors focused on
one another rather than on Western targets; and hamper Iran’s quest for
regional hegemony.â€</P><P class="indent">Ed Luttwak, whom I know from my
days at the BBC as a very cagey character, believed in 2013 that the Obama
administration was roughly following his stalemate strategy. Efraim Inbar
warned three years later that Obama and his gung-ho Pentagon chief, Ash
Carter, appeared incapable of recognizing that Islamic State can be “a
useful tool in undermining Tehran’s ambitious plan for domination of the
Middle East.â€</P><P class="indent">The next few months will tell. Ash
Carter seems intent on driving the Islamic State into the desert, which will
likely increase terrorist attacks in other countries, including the United
States. But don’t be surprised to see Obama, Clinton, or even a President
Trump once again embrace the Israeli option, possibly – as the <A
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/plans-to-send-heavier-weapons-to-cia-backed-rebels-in-syria-stall-amid-white-house-skepticism/2016/10/23/f166ddac-96ee-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html?utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Sailthru";
target="_blank">Washington Post</A> put it, “to push the conflict toward a
stalemate and force various factions to negotiate Syria’s future after
Assad.â€</P><BR><CENTER><HR size="3" style="width: 25%;"></CENTER><P
class="indent"><EM>A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the
New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London,
working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works
in France, where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate
State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to
Nonviolently Break Their Hold.</EM></P><P class="indent">Reader Supported
News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is
freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported
News.</P><BR></DIV><p style="text-align: right; display: none;"><A
title="e-max.it: social marketing"
href="http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize"; target="_blank"
rel="nofollow"></A><IMG width="12" height="12" style="vertical-align:
middle;" alt="e-max.it: your social media marketing partner"
src="/plugins/content/easyopengraph/assets/img/social_media_marketing.png"><A
title="e-max.it: social marketing"
href="http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize"; target="_blank"
rel="nofollow"></A></DIV></DIV></DIV> <SPAN class="article_separator">
</SPAN>_
