Time to rewrite America’s Syria strategy

Articolul aparut pe site-ul New Lebanon (site libanez) discuta in cuvinte dure strategia americana pornind de la definirea lui Baby Assad de catre Hillary Clinton ca fiind un conducator arab "diferit" de altii si despre care "unii cred ca este un reformist" (sic!).

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently defended Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, showcasing the US administration’s lack of a real regional strategy. (AFP photo)

Time to rewrite America’s Syria strategy

by Toni Badran, New Lebanon, 31 March 2011

One wonders what US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now thinks of her statement last Sunday, when she said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was a “different leader,” whom many believe is a “reformer.” Aside from the fact that Assad was killing his own people in the streets, anyone with rudimentary familiarity with the Syrian dictator knows that his “reform” conceit always was a cynical charade, as was made plain in his smug speech yesterday. However, Clinton’s statement reflects the Obama administration’s lack of an overarching strategic vision.

The secretary’s remarks on CBS were in response to a question on whether the US would interfere in Syria as it had done in Libya. Her tortured answer threw the incoherence of the so-called “Obama doctrine” into sharp relief.

While it’s dubious that a military intervention in Syria at this point is a suitable, let alone viable, option, from a national interest standpoint, going after Qaddafi and not Assad makes little sense. Whereas the Libyan dictator had come clean on his nuclear program, his Syrian counterpart has yet to allow full access to the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect his covert nuclear program. Moreover, Assad is a sponsor of terror, a supporter and supplier of Hezbollah and Hamas, and, as the CBS host reminded Clinton, a strategic ally of Iran and a facilitator of its influence in the region. This is not to mention his years-long proxy war against the US in Iraq.

Perhaps recognizing this was the case, Clinton fell back on the administration’s justification for military action in Libya: humanitarian intervention. But there too, the argument was weak, given how Assad was just as ruthlessly murdering protesters – who, one might add, were unarmed, unlike the Libyan rebels. This led her to claim that Assad was different, simply for not using air power to slaughter demonstrators. That’s when she opted to dig even deeper, conjuring up the views of certain members of Congress (read: Senator John Kerry) that Assad was also a “reformer.”

Continuare