Feb
10
Obama Will Stay Out Of Syria – Lack Of US Engagement Shows That Weakened US Is Unwilling To Lead – Have We Just Entered A Post-America World?
By Paolo von Schirach
February 10, 2012
WASHINGTON – The normally level headed The Economist came up with a fanciful and really complicated plan that should lead to the forced retirement of Syria’s Bashar Assad. It would not be an invasion, nor a bombing campaign against Assad’s loyal army relentlessly pounding the lightly armed rebels in Homs who have been joined by a few mutinous units that formed the Free Syrian Army. The piece How to set Syria free advises to hit the government where it hurts and that is economically, while at the same time convincing all those who hang on to the Alawites coat tails that the regime has no future and that they would be better off jumping ship. There should also be a way to convince the Russians that they could preserve their influence in Syria by supporting the opposition. Then it should be possible to convince Turkey to play a bigger role that would include creating some kind of safe area at the border with Syria that would become a safe haven and a training area for the rebels. And finally the international community would arm the rebels, so that they could have more muscle. Pretty long list of actions. If you ask me, too many moving parts.
Syria like Kosovo?
In a separate piece in The Wall Street Jourmal historian and keen Arab world expert Fouad Ajami of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution has a different take. America, he argues, should follow in Syria the script used by president Bill Clinton in the Kosovo air campaign in 1999. At that time the issue was the open assault against the Kosovo Albanians launched by Serbian strong man Slobodan Milosevic. The US- led NATO bombing campaign, (agreed upon outside the UN framework), eventually convinced Milosevic to let go. And so Kosovo could gain its autonomy, finally leading to independence from Serbia.
Ajami argues that America could do today in Syria something like the 1999 Kosovo air campaign. This would not be another Iraq. There would be no US “boots on the ground”. No messy, prolonged engagement. Ajami’s basic point is that America should act because action would be morally right, instead of just standing by while innocent Syrians are slaugthered with impunity. Without America in the lead, the international community, short of empty condemnations, will take no action; while Russia and China have insured that nothing meaningful will come out of the UN Security Council.
The US will not lead
All well and good. It is true that something should be done to get this Arab autocrat out of the way. But what is missing from the recommendations coming from both The Economist and Ajami is US leadership. And it is totally out of the question that America now has the will to do anything at all.
Just look at the recent past. The Obama administration, after a prolonged and embarassing delay, finally did something in Libya; but not too much. It “led from behind“, therefore guaranteeing that a smaller NATO force would make the conflict much longer, as the combined air power of the Europeans is a fraction of what America could have brought to bear. And even that smallish contribution (even though critical nonetheless, given what the others had), was very contentious and rather unpopular at home.
Obama will not start another US engagement
Given that precedent, and given America’s deliberate lack of involvement in post Gaddafi’s Libya –a sorry country that is turning into a big mess that might precipitate the country into anarchy– it is most unlikely that this president will do anything at all regarding Syria. Obama is the US leader who is desperately trying to move up the clock on the Afghanistan engagement, so that he will be able to go to the November vote as the president who is ending conflicts. Starting another one, even if once again “leading from behind” does not look like good politics. Therefore, getting involved in the Syrian conflict is totally out of the question.
Lighter touch will not work either
That said, I believe that even the lighter type of indirect engagement proposed by The Economist is out of the question. For that complex plan to happen, someone would have to lead, coordinate, cajole, finance. And if this someone is not America, nobody will. Do not expect the Arab League to do anything meaningful. Do not expect Turkey to do it all by itself. Do not expect zero profile Europe to act. Europe of course would have many of the economic and financial levers that could help turn things around in Syria. But Europe has no real foreign and security policy tools, while it lacks a proper decision-making process. Can you imagine 27 EU countries getting together and deciding on something with teeth, something that will stick? Out of the question.
So, bottom line, without America’s active leadership, nothing doing. Impossible. And this president, while willing to openly condemn and willing to say that Assad “has to go” will do nothing to make this happen. To a degree, this is understandable. America is just getting out of a decade of conflicts that it entered eagerly and then turned out to be really messy. Starting another one does not seem like a great idea.
US will not act because of weakness
That said, however, I believe that US reluctance at this point goes way beyond a cool assessment of the situation and a rational decision to stay out of a conflict that will turn out to be bad. I believe that here we have the hesitation of the weak. America has no money. There is a huge and growing national debt. And we have a president whose mind is entirely focused on how to sell his “fairness” ideas to the voters.
Post American world?
And look at the broader policy context. Under directives from Secretary Leon Panetta the Pentagon has already started to plan serious cuts. Besides, this president is uncomfortable leading an international coalition, and politiclly he does not want to embark in something serious abroad, just a few months before the November vote. And I am sure that all his advisers reminded him that the Syrians do not vote in the US elections. As for the American public, I’m afraid, it is not that interested in what is happening in Syria. So, no electoral downside for staying out. But America’s absence will be noted by all other countries. I am not sure how a post-American world will turn out to be –not that good, I fear– but we shall soon find out, as we have entered it.
Print This Post