While I understand the sentiment behind Roger's article, I disagree with its conclusions. The problem with Syria is that there are simply no good or quick options, only terrible ones. It has also become a major geopolitical battleground & needs a political solution and compromises by all parties. OK, so US bombs Syria and weakens the regime then what? Are we ready for Assad to fall? Who do we think will fill in the power vacuum? The so called "Syrian Opposition" is so fragmented and weak it cant even hold a village without help, let alone running a fractured society like Syria. By bombing Assad &/or removing him, we will in effect be helping ISIS & other Sunni jihadists to extend their reach and add Syria to their conquest. What will happen to Women, Christians, Druze, Shiites, Alavites if Assad falls?
The other problem is that air power alone is not enough to be effective in Syria and it wont be long before ground troops are needed. Is US public ready to send their sons & daughters to yet another Middle Eastern theater of operation on a vague nation-building exercise which will cost trillions with no clear idea on impact to the US national security? IMO - No
Can we or should we do more to address Syrian debacle & humanitarian disaster? Yes. But IMHO, military intervention by the US is not/was never the right approach. We need to exercise diplomatic leadership of the highest order & strive for a politically viable middle ground involving all parties.
The other problem is that air power alone is not enough to be effective in Syria and it wont be long before ground troops are needed. Is US public ready to send their sons & daughters to yet another Middle Eastern theater of operation on a vague nation-building exercise which will cost trillions with no clear idea on impact to the US national security? IMO - No
Can we or should we do more to address Syrian debacle & humanitarian disaster? Yes. But IMHO, military intervention by the US is not/was never the right approach. We need to exercise diplomatic leadership of the highest order & strive for a politically viable middle ground involving all parties.
1
At best, the last 65 years of "American police actions" have probably served to prevent or at least 'put off' WWIII.
At the same time, these actions have helped to 'level' the world playing field, and perhaps even precipitated the decline of US power.
In parallel, the combination of modern technology, and "globalization" has 'leaked enlightenment' into South Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa where the obstacles to open, modern civilization run rampant.
It's hard to see how anything other than 'containment' makes sense. Inhumane as that is, it is still better than the immediate recourse to WWIII.
Technology, and opportunity are driving a world wide diaspora of poor and oppressed people and this will continue. These people will not necessarily be able to take their absolutist, traditions and beliefs with them without disrupting their destination societies. There will be change, or there will be war.
On the surface, the idea of leaving the most conservative among them to fight it our on their home turf does not seem all that irrational, because the stakes of the alternatives seem too high.
At the same time, these actions have helped to 'level' the world playing field, and perhaps even precipitated the decline of US power.
In parallel, the combination of modern technology, and "globalization" has 'leaked enlightenment' into South Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa where the obstacles to open, modern civilization run rampant.
It's hard to see how anything other than 'containment' makes sense. Inhumane as that is, it is still better than the immediate recourse to WWIII.
Technology, and opportunity are driving a world wide diaspora of poor and oppressed people and this will continue. These people will not necessarily be able to take their absolutist, traditions and beliefs with them without disrupting their destination societies. There will be change, or there will be war.
On the surface, the idea of leaving the most conservative among them to fight it our on their home turf does not seem all that irrational, because the stakes of the alternatives seem too high.
Well into 2013 Obama, in concert with European allies, could have at minimum:
1. Established and enforced a No-Fly zone over Syria, or at least most of it.
2. Considered the creation of safe zones for refugees.
Someday, we may know to what extent Obama's actions, or lack thereof, in Syria were connected with his outreach to Iran. And, it is true action would have involved expense and risk. Yet, as we are learning, not acting also has costs.
1. Established and enforced a No-Fly zone over Syria, or at least most of it.
2. Considered the creation of safe zones for refugees.
Someday, we may know to what extent Obama's actions, or lack thereof, in Syria were connected with his outreach to Iran. And, it is true action would have involved expense and risk. Yet, as we are learning, not acting also has costs.
1
Thanks to Hillary Clinton the ignorant
shame on us, 200,000+ innocent civilians dead and now the refugee crisis.
by serving our barbaric allies.
shame on us, 200,000+ innocent civilians dead and now the refugee crisis.
by serving our barbaric allies.
1
Thank you, Roger Cohen, for the thoughtful soul-searching and the eloquence. I expect the Iran deal is also a complete dud. Time will tell... but the atrocities committed by Assad, and accepted as "necessary" by anyone who insists he should remain in charge of all these people his family has enslaved for generations now, are as shocking as anything perpetrated by Daesh/ISIL. The sooner we finally wake up and use some of those advanced weapons we stockpile to put an end to all this butchery, the better. There was no good reason for all this to go on as long as it has. The latest Evil Caliphate videos show them barbecuing prisoners of war. But allowing Assad to exterminate another quarter-million is also not an option. We can make them both stop, and we should.
2
If it had not been for U.S. Policy of regime change in Syria, the uprising in Syria could have been worked out diplomatically. Our insistence that Assad must go and not be a part of the peace negotiations that were being proposed by UN, Russia and others approx. 2 years ago, contributed greatly to this crisis lasting so long and enabling ISIS to become stronger. And please let us not leave out that the Parliament in Britain voted "no" to any attack on Syria back when Obama was threatening to bomb because his red line was allegedly crossed . I doubt that we would have attacked Syria without our ally, Britain providing support.
2
To summarize what Obama should have done according to Mr. Cohen.
1) Engage the Syrian air force while the Syrian government owns state-of-the-art Russian surface to air missiles. Which means that when American pilots get shot down (and they will) Obama has to send in Marines to save them. I guess you can see where this will end.
2) Arming rebels. We have seen in Iraq how well that went. Most of the heavy weapons ISIS has is Made in the US of A. Loot from capturing Iraqi bases.
3) A safe heaven for refugees. If this is done within Syria you must have military presence. If you don't just look at Srebrenica. If done outside Syria: yes, we (not just Obama) should have created that.
1) Engage the Syrian air force while the Syrian government owns state-of-the-art Russian surface to air missiles. Which means that when American pilots get shot down (and they will) Obama has to send in Marines to save them. I guess you can see where this will end.
2) Arming rebels. We have seen in Iraq how well that went. Most of the heavy weapons ISIS has is Made in the US of A. Loot from capturing Iraqi bases.
3) A safe heaven for refugees. If this is done within Syria you must have military presence. If you don't just look at Srebrenica. If done outside Syria: yes, we (not just Obama) should have created that.
3
Yes, the Syrians want their children to live. But the UN tells us that less than 50 percent of the "refugees" are actually from Syria and only a small percentage are children. 75 percent of the people pouring into Europe are men, often young, healthy, able-bodied men. I wonder if any of them ever considered staying in their home countries to fight for them. This is less a refugee crisis and more a migration of people, the majority men, seeking better economic circumstances.
3
So someone else blames Obama for everything bad that's ever happened or will happen.
One of these days it might occur to these people that
1) The entire Middle East was de-stabilized and the spur for ISIS applied by the criminal regime of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
2) Past action of the US in the region haven't exactly made us the most popular and influential nation there.
3) Bashar Assad isn't likely to listen to anyone, and he obviously doesn't care if millions of his people are killed
4) Yes, we could bomb. That's worked out so well for us in Vietnam, and against ISIS. Yes, we can send troops. That worked out so well in Iraq, Afghanistan,Lebanon, etc.
5) For all his faults and occasional indecision, Obama is a lot brighter than most of the boneheads who attack him. Although he appears to be working on it, he hasn't yet managed to get us into another bottomless quagmire as those "decisive" presidents so often do.
One of these days it might occur to these people that
1) The entire Middle East was de-stabilized and the spur for ISIS applied by the criminal regime of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
2) Past action of the US in the region haven't exactly made us the most popular and influential nation there.
3) Bashar Assad isn't likely to listen to anyone, and he obviously doesn't care if millions of his people are killed
4) Yes, we could bomb. That's worked out so well for us in Vietnam, and against ISIS. Yes, we can send troops. That worked out so well in Iraq, Afghanistan,Lebanon, etc.
5) For all his faults and occasional indecision, Obama is a lot brighter than most of the boneheads who attack him. Although he appears to be working on it, he hasn't yet managed to get us into another bottomless quagmire as those "decisive" presidents so often do.
5
After declaring victory in 2010, the place sure has gone to hell quickly.
That said, the European nations who have piggybacked off of our military protection, while degrading their own for pet projects, have earned the masses of military aged men at their door.
That said, the European nations who have piggybacked off of our military protection, while degrading their own for pet projects, have earned the masses of military aged men at their door.
1
Serious consideration to a broad and deep coalition to confront and/or resolve to contain ISIL is long past due. Without going into details of how really globally destabilizing this threat has become, suffice it to say that a coalition of the US, Russia, Israel, France & Britain -- at the very least -- may in fact be necessary given the multiplicity of risks and the hollowing out, over the past decade and a half, of a huge stateless area where absolutely anything can take place. These immense powers are far better off on the same page given the potential for incalculable crisis and simple error looming otherwise. It may be very hard for some people to accept, but it has proven necessary in the past, and that was before the advent of cyber-warfare and other very high intensity weapons.
2
So it's all "America"? When, exactly, did "Europe" cease to exist? What about the Arab nations?
1
Obama's stupidity in handling the status of forces agreement in Iraq, fueled by a desire to withdraw even a smaller size stabilizing force there, destroyed what he himself and his Dem party sidekick, Hillary, said (and campaigned on in 2012) was a stable, functioning Iraq. His cowardly desire to cut and run at ALL costs has lead to an even bigger cost. The complete destabilization and, now, destruction of the country Bush had belatedly stabilized (as Obama publicly recognized) and the rise of ISIS that now has partitioned Iraq and has its hooks into Syria. Further, Obama's public statements and foreign policy efforts to weaken and destroy Assad has effectively allowed ISIS to come in, allowed Iran and Russia to come into Syria as a response and resulted in the migration crisis that now besets Europe.
Every one of these debacles lie at the doorstep of Obama. As well as his foolish supporters. All of whom, diminished as they are, still post their hand-wringing support here. Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster of epic dimensions. And, notwithstanding the few readers that remain of the NYT, the substantial majority of Americans agree. The recent executive agreement with Iran is but the crowning glory of his foreign policy disasters.
Every one of these debacles lie at the doorstep of Obama. As well as his foolish supporters. All of whom, diminished as they are, still post their hand-wringing support here. Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster of epic dimensions. And, notwithstanding the few readers that remain of the NYT, the substantial majority of Americans agree. The recent executive agreement with Iran is but the crowning glory of his foreign policy disasters.
3
This kind of argument is seriously problematic. Over a decade ago, the U.S. intervened strongly in Iraq and today the country is a mess. A few years ago, the U.S. tried limited intervention and today the country is a mess. In Syria, the U.S. largely did nothing and today the country is a mess. Could it be that the U.S. does not, in fact, determine the flow of all events in the world? I realize those three events are, in fact, tremendously complex and I've given a facile summary, but I also think that American commentators need to realize that when a country is hellbent on internal division, there is often no good option--only a bunch of bad ones.
A few years ago joe Biden declared Iraq a success story. What happened since then?
3
If President Obama had not stated almost from the beginning that Syria's president must go, this Syrian uprising would likely have been over in a few months. This Syrian misadventure was about regime change and our involvement appears to still mainly be about regime change. Was ISIS our ticket to gain approval of American people to military action in Syria?
While I believe that firm and competent military action can solve many problems, I don't believe that the Obama administration is capable of carrying one out. We need to let the situation in the Mideast go until a new president takes office who can do something besides make it worse.
Too bad for the Mideast and Europe, but they were thrilled with Obama's candidacy and election.
Too bad for the Mideast and Europe, but they were thrilled with Obama's candidacy and election.
2
How has Obama's 'prudent pivot" towards Iran helped this situation? It seems to have been easier for the administration to discuss, in an almost abstract way, the future of Iran's nuclear ambitions, than challenge Iran's role, right now, in the mess in both Syria and Iraq. Iran has been Assad's chief supporter, both directly - have we not been reading recently of the presence of the Quds Brigade in Syria? - and indirectly through the intervention of Hezbollah, nothing but an Iranian proxy. Iran's ingerprints are all over the Shia governance of Iraq, a reason why the majority Sunni have been at best passive in their response to the horror of Islamic State. And with Obama's equivalent of Chamberlain's piece of paper with its infamous promise of "peace in our time" we can expect now, as then, a further deterioration.
" In 2011, Obama said, “The time has come for President Assad to step aside.” At that time, as events have shown, the president had no policy in place to achieve that objective and no will to forge such a policy. His words were of a grave irresponsibility."
Roger has a legion of enthusiastic readers overseas. His followers share most of his views expressed in well crafted pieces. When dealing with American world power domination, however, he continues to be as hawkish as W. neo cons.
Take Roger's reasoning on the first paragraph. He blames Obama for not having in place a military plan to enforce his wish to remove Assad from power. Toppling 'evildoer' foreign leaders -- not aligned with the US, of course -- continues to be the sacred duty of every White House occupant.
Perhaps Obama's courageous decision to normalize relations with Iran/Cuba could signal a new era in American foreign/domestic policy. That is, tapping the country's formidable arsenal of brain power and money to solve deep seated social-economic problems plaguing society today.
As far as overseas challenges/opportunities, old fashioned diplomacy is the best instrument to solve conflicts and wars. Regarding world's evildoers, perhaps the problem can be solved by American heroes, Batman and Super Man.
Roger has a legion of enthusiastic readers overseas. His followers share most of his views expressed in well crafted pieces. When dealing with American world power domination, however, he continues to be as hawkish as W. neo cons.
Take Roger's reasoning on the first paragraph. He blames Obama for not having in place a military plan to enforce his wish to remove Assad from power. Toppling 'evildoer' foreign leaders -- not aligned with the US, of course -- continues to be the sacred duty of every White House occupant.
Perhaps Obama's courageous decision to normalize relations with Iran/Cuba could signal a new era in American foreign/domestic policy. That is, tapping the country's formidable arsenal of brain power and money to solve deep seated social-economic problems plaguing society today.
As far as overseas challenges/opportunities, old fashioned diplomacy is the best instrument to solve conflicts and wars. Regarding world's evildoers, perhaps the problem can be solved by American heroes, Batman and Super Man.
1
"President Obama has tried to claw back American overreach after the wars without victory in Afghanistan and Iraq." - Roger Cohen
Obama threw away victory in Iraq. He tossed our human sacrifice away.
Politico - 7/5/2010
BAGHDAD — Vice President Joe Biden said after a three-day trip to Baghdad that the American people will see President Barack Obama’s Iraq policy as a success when the “combat mission” ends on schedule Aug. 31. Biden said the administration “will be able to point to it and say, ‘We told you what we’re going to do, and we did it.’”
“I think America wins,” Biden told POLITICO in an end-of-trip interview at the ambassador’s residence in the sprawling U.S. Embassy complex. “I sound corny, but I think America gets credit here in the region. And I think everybody gets credit, from George Bush to [President Obama].
Obama threw away victory in Iraq. He tossed our human sacrifice away.
Politico - 7/5/2010
BAGHDAD — Vice President Joe Biden said after a three-day trip to Baghdad that the American people will see President Barack Obama’s Iraq policy as a success when the “combat mission” ends on schedule Aug. 31. Biden said the administration “will be able to point to it and say, ‘We told you what we’re going to do, and we did it.’”
“I think America wins,” Biden told POLITICO in an end-of-trip interview at the ambassador’s residence in the sprawling U.S. Embassy complex. “I sound corny, but I think America gets credit here in the region. And I think everybody gets credit, from George Bush to [President Obama].
What is happening in Syria is a natural event. We are witnessing in the ME the unraveling of the post-WWI Sykes-Picot order, a creation out of the rubble of the collapsed Ottoman Empire, of the Western powers for the benefit of the Western powers. There was little to no regard for the realities on the ground. The formation of artificial states like Iraq and Syria could never last, and after 90 years of Western powers keeping them together with blood and treasure, they are now coming apart.
It is a bloody mess, but it is "natural." These regions will have to find their own balance, and they will, eventually. Bad actors like ISIS will come, just as did Saddam/Bathists, and all the other ones we have seen, but I think it better to allow the process to take place and the people on the ground figure it out.
The US and West cannot and should not control it. We can offer aid, and we should, but we need to step back. Our only national interest there is oil, and perhaps this will give us further incentive to move in another direction.
BTW, read T.E. Lawrence's (Lawrence of Arabia) early 1920s description of "Syria," and you will be reading exactly what we see going on today. Same in "Iraq." Perhaps the main reason Sunni ISIS ran over northern Iraq is because it is Sunni and hence low hanging fruit. The Shia Iraq govt has little interest in the "Iraqi" people there and not enough to expend itself in recovering it, so "Send in the Marines!" As the father of a serving Marine I say NO!
It is a bloody mess, but it is "natural." These regions will have to find their own balance, and they will, eventually. Bad actors like ISIS will come, just as did Saddam/Bathists, and all the other ones we have seen, but I think it better to allow the process to take place and the people on the ground figure it out.
The US and West cannot and should not control it. We can offer aid, and we should, but we need to step back. Our only national interest there is oil, and perhaps this will give us further incentive to move in another direction.
BTW, read T.E. Lawrence's (Lawrence of Arabia) early 1920s description of "Syria," and you will be reading exactly what we see going on today. Same in "Iraq." Perhaps the main reason Sunni ISIS ran over northern Iraq is because it is Sunni and hence low hanging fruit. The Shia Iraq govt has little interest in the "Iraqi" people there and not enough to expend itself in recovering it, so "Send in the Marines!" As the father of a serving Marine I say NO!
4
"Syria will be the biggest blot on the Obama presidency." That's garbage. Liberal intellectuals can be as deluded as neocons. There is no solution to the Syria problem that can be imposed from the outside. Syria is a product of Versailles, when the West still ruled the world. Things have changed. The American people don't want to bear any more burdens involving blood and treasure in order to salve the consciences of well-to-do old men who will not be shedding their own blood on the battlefield.
One of the best things Obama has done is to resist sending U.S. combat troops into Syria, or back into Iraq. We cannot impose solutions in places like Syria. We need to reconcile ourselves to the fact that we no longer live in the America of Teddy Roosevelt or John Wayne.
One of the best things Obama has done is to resist sending U.S. combat troops into Syria, or back into Iraq. We cannot impose solutions in places like Syria. We need to reconcile ourselves to the fact that we no longer live in the America of Teddy Roosevelt or John Wayne.
1
It's certainly apt to fault President Obama for continuing to make pronouncements on what "must" happen in Syria without having any policy or taking serious action to make them happen. That has been totally irresponsible and has had seriously negative consequences. The whole thing about thinking we can decide on a group of "good" rebels with any expectation that they will have some kind of relevance in Syria, however, is deluded and ignores history, all the way back to when we wanted to decide on a "good" dictator to run things in South Vietnam. We had a bunch of good politicians to back in Iraq, we wanted to help Morsi become a good Islamist, we had our good warlords in Afghanistan, and all of them basically end up as liars, thieves, hypocrites and/or roadkill. You can't expect to have a lot of success manipulating things in the world if your policies are based on a fantasy worldview.
2
Americans are all too concerned about Middle East terrorism and all too little concerned about sectarianism. 2,000 kids radicalized abroad is not nearly as big a threat to security as millions of angry displaced persons. We have looked at the Middle Eat through all too narrow a lens and have missed the big picture. We have spent too much time dealing with the atrocities of ISIS, for fear of terrorism, and thereby given all too little attention to the collapse of a region, a fundamental problem whose potential to disrupt the peace is far greater. The big error has been obsessing over bogeymen in the closet when the house was burning down.
What is it about hand wringing Opinionators who, when frustrated over a Middle East crisis that seems unsolvable through diplomacy or too upsetting to let nature run its course, always demand US military intervention. US military intervention rarely solves anything - most often makes a bad situation worse by creating unintended consequences exacerbating the original problem. Few rational thinkers would deny the US' foolhardy Iraq War has solved nothing but instead created new deadly conflicts. The Iraq War has effectively destroyed Iraq as a functioning state, empowered Iran, gave birth to ISIS and helped destabilize Syria. As a result the Middle East is aflame with death, destruction and millions of desperate refugees. Cohen's solution? More war that would only further inflame the region causing more death and destruction and more refugees.
6
70 years ago the U.S. took on the role of world-police because otherwise we would have been over-run by fascism - nobody else was both standing up and had the military capability to withstand the nazis and their allies.
In the decades since, our Navy has been the one who steps in when Pirates emerge or when a regional conflict threatens a key waterway. We had (up until the past few years) protected the states that had separated from Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, through NATO (an extension of the U.S. military, as NATO is little without the U.S.). We do this because the only other nations with suitable military capabilities are China and Russia - both of which act as enemies, not allies - including recent major cyber-war against our entire governments employees.
14 years ago today we learned, powerfully, that organizations in the middle east will strike out at America directly even in the absence of major American activities in the area.
2 years ago we learned that when President Obama sets a redline for Syria, then does not back it up, the civil war and suffering foretold happens and Russia establishes military bases in Syria to expand it's influence.
Our intervention in Libya - and then withdrawal - is another in the same story.
These lessons have something in common: The U.S. will be involved whether it likes or not. We have to be smart about it. And when we get involved, we need to plan a long-term commitment like we did in Japan and Korea and Europe.
In the decades since, our Navy has been the one who steps in when Pirates emerge or when a regional conflict threatens a key waterway. We had (up until the past few years) protected the states that had separated from Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, through NATO (an extension of the U.S. military, as NATO is little without the U.S.). We do this because the only other nations with suitable military capabilities are China and Russia - both of which act as enemies, not allies - including recent major cyber-war against our entire governments employees.
14 years ago today we learned, powerfully, that organizations in the middle east will strike out at America directly even in the absence of major American activities in the area.
2 years ago we learned that when President Obama sets a redline for Syria, then does not back it up, the civil war and suffering foretold happens and Russia establishes military bases in Syria to expand it's influence.
Our intervention in Libya - and then withdrawal - is another in the same story.
These lessons have something in common: The U.S. will be involved whether it likes or not. We have to be smart about it. And when we get involved, we need to plan a long-term commitment like we did in Japan and Korea and Europe.
1
Mr. Cohen suggests "bomb something" as a solution to Syria's strife. Would he care to divulge the effective targets, if any, he has in mind?
Has he learned nothing from the long futile "interventions" in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan?
Does he favor squandering more American blood, limbs, and treasure as a gesture of faith in a solution to the centuries-old ethnic and religious conflicts of the Middle East?
Does he not know that tribal conflict resulting in the mass movement of peoples has featured in human history from the beginning?
If any man is smart enough to reform human nature, let him begin with his friends and neighbors at home, not with strangers the other side of the planet!
Has he learned nothing from the long futile "interventions" in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan?
Does he favor squandering more American blood, limbs, and treasure as a gesture of faith in a solution to the centuries-old ethnic and religious conflicts of the Middle East?
Does he not know that tribal conflict resulting in the mass movement of peoples has featured in human history from the beginning?
If any man is smart enough to reform human nature, let him begin with his friends and neighbors at home, not with strangers the other side of the planet!
I agree with Roger Cohen: syria will be a big blot on the Obama presidency ( not sure if it will be the biggest).
He made a speech in Cairo, at the start of his presidency, in favour of democracy in the Middle East. This inspired the Arab masses, and started a cycle of protests, repressions, revolts, civil wars. The civil war in Syria is not the only one, there's one also in Libia and one in Yemen, The leading nation of the world, the USA, can't turn its back to those who fight in Syria, and Libia, for democracy, for fear of making mistakes. If you're afraid of mistakes, you can't lead the world.
He made a speech in Cairo, at the start of his presidency, in favour of democracy in the Middle East. This inspired the Arab masses, and started a cycle of protests, repressions, revolts, civil wars. The civil war in Syria is not the only one, there's one also in Libia and one in Yemen, The leading nation of the world, the USA, can't turn its back to those who fight in Syria, and Libia, for democracy, for fear of making mistakes. If you're afraid of mistakes, you can't lead the world.
A country (Syria) has been destroyed because GWB's invasion of Iraq unleashed forces that have undone the equilibrium of the entire region.
To blame this even in part on President Obama because he didn't believe in "American Power" is nothing short of hilarious.
I'll concede that his rhetoric about "red lines" was extremely ill advised, but in terms of overall cause and effect on the region, essentially irrelevant.
Would anything be different had he not said that?
There are a host of countries in the area that one would think should be invested in some type of stability being reached, yet they seem very content to sit back and do nothing.
If "arming the "moderate" rebels" was such a can't miss early option, President Obama probably would have signed on to that. He's a pretty smart guy.
And can somebody please explain to me what a "moderate" rebel looks and acts like? Mr. Cohen, maybe you can do that in your next column.
To blame this even in part on President Obama because he didn't believe in "American Power" is nothing short of hilarious.
I'll concede that his rhetoric about "red lines" was extremely ill advised, but in terms of overall cause and effect on the region, essentially irrelevant.
Would anything be different had he not said that?
There are a host of countries in the area that one would think should be invested in some type of stability being reached, yet they seem very content to sit back and do nothing.
If "arming the "moderate" rebels" was such a can't miss early option, President Obama probably would have signed on to that. He's a pretty smart guy.
And can somebody please explain to me what a "moderate" rebel looks and acts like? Mr. Cohen, maybe you can do that in your next column.
1
Jay,
As I understand it GWB is responsible for earthquakes and thunder storms too. Obama on the other hand is responsible for nothing. He is the dog ate my homework president; never guilty of anything.
As I understand it GWB is responsible for earthquakes and thunder storms too. Obama on the other hand is responsible for nothing. He is the dog ate my homework president; never guilty of anything.
Funny, what you describe kind of sounds like Dick Cheney to me!
Still trying to tell us what a good idea going into Iraq was.
Nobody better than the GOP breaking everything in sight, then turning around and blaming the Democrats for their idiocy.
Still trying to tell us what a good idea going into Iraq was.
Nobody better than the GOP breaking everything in sight, then turning around and blaming the Democrats for their idiocy.
1
It's all very fine for Cohen to point out the failures of Obama's recognition of the limits to America's capability to fashion the world in its own image. What the critique fails to note is the limits to America's ability even to fashion its own society in accord with its ideals, much less the rest of the world. Is it too much to ask that Cohen acknowledge that our realistic choice is not between Obama's diffidence and some Utopian ideal but between Obama's reserve and the hyper arrogance of neoconservative recklessness.
Perhaps the lesson from Syria is that the results of the intervention in Libya are not so bad after all. What would have happened if there had been no intervention? The West helped remove Ghadaffi. A multitude of armed groups arose during the revolution. That is predictable. Now they are still in the process of stabilizing the country, a process that will last many years. If Saudi Arabia continues to support muslim extremism, it may take forever. Still the situation in Libya is far better than in Syria.
This reminds us that politics is the art of the possible. Perhaps something better was possible in Syria.
This reminds us that politics is the art of the possible. Perhaps something better was possible in Syria.
One counterfactual that was omitted in this article is that intervention could have led to quagmire.
Well although Obama received Syrian problem by inheritance from his predecessors if I'm not mistaken nevertheless he's definitely failed either to win it or to stop it.
This article pretends to care about people of Syria. In reality, it calls for further destruction of the country, which already lost half of its population and is lying in ruins. Cohen is obfuscating the fact that the West did interfere militarily. Arming and training various 'moderates' by Western "advisers" gave birth to ISIS. It's the result of these interventions, that Cohen is so eager for, that moderate, secular countries like Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Turkey have turned into fundamentalist nightmare. Enough already with this kind of help. Only a lunatic can think that bombing a county into oblivion can turn it into a democratic paradise.
2
How can we blame the US for the Syrian debacle. We can, but only if we all share the blame ,starting the Assad regime and its attempts to perpetuate a legacy of murder and misrule to start with. So many have ignored the saituation in Syria to the point of giving it legitimation.
Cohen is right. We should have jumped in and helped ISIS take out Assad. Oh right. We are already fighting ISIS. Well, maybe we can help ISIS knock out Assad, and then when we get rid of his regime we can aid Iran in taking out ISIS. But then Iran will be in charge of Syria and Iraq. Hmm. Is there any way we can bring Saddam Hussein back? Whose idea was it to knock him out in the first place? At least when Reagan intervened in Afghanistan we helped get rid of the Russians. The only downside was we helped launch Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden. Oops. After the Reagan and Bush fiascoes, it is really hard to see how unilateral action by the US has any hope of achieving lasting benefits.
1
The Syrian situation is entirely the product of Washington's neocon machinations. It was engineered to counter Iranian and Russian influence in that country by tipping the balance of power to Sunni jihadists funded by the autocrats in the Gulf with State Department and White House blessings.
Syria is essentially a replay of what Washington orchestrated decades ago in Afghanistan. Blowback was inevitable from the latter and will surely come from the former.
Empowering barbarians to thwart rational adversaries seems, to say the least, a very unwise move.
Syria is essentially a replay of what Washington orchestrated decades ago in Afghanistan. Blowback was inevitable from the latter and will surely come from the former.
Empowering barbarians to thwart rational adversaries seems, to say the least, a very unwise move.
1
Removing the dictator hasn't worked in Iraq and Libya. Why not try to work with Russia this time? There needs to be the largest possible alliance to beat the IS!
1
Obama was elected and re-elected on no more war. He and most of the country can see our interventions have only made things worse.
Who could imagine that 14 years later we have not only not crushed those who flew the airplanes, but we've spread Bin Laden's legacy in ways he would never have dreamed----a rigid ruthless Salafist movement creating a caliphate, gaining territory and converts?
When do we acknowledge that the last 14 years have been hell for us- terror alerts and now lone wolf non-alerts- and redo our approach/policy? It's been wrong for so long now yet its MIC bureaucracy keeps cranking out propaganda that we could just go in and win it all with bombs & troops. Like Iraq never happened (and isn't still happening).
If anyone can help defeat ISIS it is IRAN, not US troops on the ground. It makes no sense to continue backing the Sunni Salafists that are the world's biggest terrorists, who have no problem w/ ISIS in their yards.
Who could imagine that 14 years later we have not only not crushed those who flew the airplanes, but we've spread Bin Laden's legacy in ways he would never have dreamed----a rigid ruthless Salafist movement creating a caliphate, gaining territory and converts?
When do we acknowledge that the last 14 years have been hell for us- terror alerts and now lone wolf non-alerts- and redo our approach/policy? It's been wrong for so long now yet its MIC bureaucracy keeps cranking out propaganda that we could just go in and win it all with bombs & troops. Like Iraq never happened (and isn't still happening).
If anyone can help defeat ISIS it is IRAN, not US troops on the ground. It makes no sense to continue backing the Sunni Salafists that are the world's biggest terrorists, who have no problem w/ ISIS in their yards.
1
The devil is in the details, and that is where Cohen, usually a very thoughtful and interesting observer, fails in this case. It is one thing to decry what has occurred; it is another to explain precisely how one should and could have acted differently with a reasonable chance of a defined success and with an exit strategy.
The Middle East is still largely an area of non-countries, where allegiance to clan, tribe, religion, and ethnicity take clear precedence over allegiance to the political entity within which people reside. Little has changed in the past century, since it was described by T. E. Lawrence in "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" a reading of which by Bush's people might have disabused them of the notion that America would be welcomed in Iraq.
Americans, political romantics at heart, often confuse should and could. Unfortunately, in the current world, that distinction is very important. Compounding the problem is that both Left and Right tend to strongly believe in American exceptionalism, viewing America as the cause of either all that is good or all that is evil in the world.
The Middle East is still largely an area of non-countries, where allegiance to clan, tribe, religion, and ethnicity take clear precedence over allegiance to the political entity within which people reside. Little has changed in the past century, since it was described by T. E. Lawrence in "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" a reading of which by Bush's people might have disabused them of the notion that America would be welcomed in Iraq.
Americans, political romantics at heart, often confuse should and could. Unfortunately, in the current world, that distinction is very important. Compounding the problem is that both Left and Right tend to strongly believe in American exceptionalism, viewing America as the cause of either all that is good or all that is evil in the world.
1
I admire Roger Cohen's essays, but this one evades essential questions. 200,000 dead Syrians is a calamity, and many hundreds of thousands of displaced people still another. American military intervention with hundreds of thousands of troops and support personnel might have reduced those numbers but no one can know by how much. What we can be sure of is that it would have caused many American deaths and many more wounded and maimed Americans. Is it really the President's duty to arrange for many American deaths and injuries for the welfare of a larger but unknown number of foreign lives? If so, why is it? And, had that been done, in view of recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan, what good reason is there to think that stability would ensue in the absence of permanent American occupation of Syria?
1
Making one-sided concessions to Iran and Cuba is not a success. Of course, they are willing to accept our concessions. What did we get in return? A sham agreement with Iran that will soon expire (if they don't cheat first). Nothing at all from Cuba---no political prisoners freed, no freedoms for the Cuban people, the dictators remain in power as long as they live, to be succeeded by their cronies. That's not negotiation---it's surrender.
1
There is a big difference between intervention and non-intervention. When you intervene, you are responsible for the consequences. When you do not, you are not. Does our "non-intervention" make us responsible for every problem the world over? Had we intervened militarily against Assad, as we did against Sadaam Hussein in Iraq or the Taliban in Afghanistan, who would have filled the resulting void? Who would have governed any "safe" areas we might have protected? We could not protect civilians from the Assad regime unless there was another authority to put in its place. Who would that have been within the fractious and, as we have seen, sometimes ruthlessly extreme opposition? Critics of Obama's policy and those who blame his "inaction" for today's tragedy don't have to answer any of those questions. They just assume intervention would have been better, against all the evidence of the last generation or more of direct American intervention in the Middle East. Sadly, the real result of 20/20 hindsight might be to conclude that we'd have been better off supporting Assad in the interest of stability and pushing hard for a longterm strategy to open up the regime and ease its policies gradually. Better the devil you know than complete chaos.
1
I disagree with Cohen on this one. Throwing out authoritarian governments has not helped in the Middle East. In fact it has been disastrous. A better approach would be to work with a government like Assad's in conjunction with Russia and iIran to force him into better government for Syrians. This is the failure of the Obama administration, the thing they did not get right.
1
Now let us just imagine one thing: if we would not have invaded Iraq, then most likely no Syrian conflagration, most likely a stable Iraq even with Hussein in charge much better of than now, Lybia still intact. Mr. Cohen's hand-wringing is admirable, but somehow the hundred thousand or so dead Iraqi civilians seemingly do not count in his list, the ones we are responsible for, not Putin, or Iran or Syria. I guess they were sacrificed for a good cause in Mr. Cohen's book. If the lesson is that power abhors a vacuum, then the lesson for the US should be not to create one in the first place. The original sin, from which all recent disasters in the MIddle East flowed, was our intervention in Iraq. So to then conclude that we need more of it, not less, seems to be a masterpiece of Orwellian logic. Lastly, it seems that Syria's neighbors, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates and last not least Israel fall woefully short of taking in refugees, even though they are wealthy and have a similar cultural background. We should get rid of the paradigm that the United States should be responsible for solving every problem, simply because it is there. First, our solutions seem more often than not to make the problem worse, if they didn't cause it in the first place; second, it is reasonable for those countries in the immediate vicinity to take care of problems that afflict them most, and lastly, there are plenty of problems at home that need solving and which should be our prime concern.
1
I disagree with Mr. Cohen on chiding President Obama for his reluctance to get involved in Syria. I think the experiences of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya has taught us that any half-hearted involvement by the U.S in any conflict may have disastrous consequences, while a full-fledged involvement has huge costs that America is unwilling to pay. I think it is time that the progressive forces in the world promote a veto-proof UN to get involved and become the final arbiter in such conflicts.
1
"In Libya, Obama bombed and abandoned. In Afghanistan, Obama surged and retreated. In Syria, Obama talked and wavered."
I admire president Obama, still. But these charges are quite accurate. This has led to enormous, incalculable misery to tens of millions of people. All his achievements are minuscule compared with these failures and shortcomings. He should at least acknowledge his failures, as Bill Clinton did. Compared with Bill Clinton's failures Obama's are enormous and far more consequential, and comparable with George W. Bush's Iraq debacle. History may not judge him too kindly. That is sad.
I admire president Obama, still. But these charges are quite accurate. This has led to enormous, incalculable misery to tens of millions of people. All his achievements are minuscule compared with these failures and shortcomings. He should at least acknowledge his failures, as Bill Clinton did. Compared with Bill Clinton's failures Obama's are enormous and far more consequential, and comparable with George W. Bush's Iraq debacle. History may not judge him too kindly. That is sad.
1
"Compared with Bill Clinton's failures Obama's are enormous and far more consequential, and comparable with George W. Bush's Iraq debacle."
One thousand times over, no no no. Four years have elapsed since the Syrian civil war started, so a person in Damascus or Aleppo today may be looking at things from a vantage point similar to how a person in Baghdad was viewing things in 2007--four years after America decided to unilaterally invade that country on false pretenses.
I just can't understand how any Syrian person in 2015 can hold Barack Obama responsible the way Iraqis back in 2007 were holding George W. Bush responsible. You seriously think Barack Obama would merit getting a shoe thrown at him in Damascus by an angry Syrian?
One thousand times over, no no no. Four years have elapsed since the Syrian civil war started, so a person in Damascus or Aleppo today may be looking at things from a vantage point similar to how a person in Baghdad was viewing things in 2007--four years after America decided to unilaterally invade that country on false pretenses.
I just can't understand how any Syrian person in 2015 can hold Barack Obama responsible the way Iraqis back in 2007 were holding George W. Bush responsible. You seriously think Barack Obama would merit getting a shoe thrown at him in Damascus by an angry Syrian?
The article fails completely to explain why the insanity in Syria is America's responsibility or how the heck the US is supposed to solve it?
1
The whole world of six billion can absorb these refugees fleeing from the hell of tribal conflict.
Look at our global geography.
And our global transport infrastructure.
These poor souls do not have to stop at the first point of resistance.
Pass them through.
Syria exits into the shores of the Mediterranean.
From there to Europe and Western American and Central Asia,
Refugees merely of the tens of millions fleeing to the bosom of the billions.
Look at our global geography.
And our global transport infrastructure.
These poor souls do not have to stop at the first point of resistance.
Pass them through.
Syria exits into the shores of the Mediterranean.
From there to Europe and Western American and Central Asia,
Refugees merely of the tens of millions fleeing to the bosom of the billions.
Just as Bush's mistake was to invade Iraq without understanding the tribal feuds and differences between Sunni and Shia, Obama's mistake was to encourage an Arab Spring still not understanding the same tribal feuds and the same differences between Sunni and Shia. Libya, Yemen and Syria are direct results of the lack of understanding. Egypt was saved because there is a strong military with nationalistic views, unlike the other failed states.
The United States reacted in my view, from a moral standpoint to assist citizens being slaughtered by the Assad Regime demanding political change on the face of it had merit, Did the Administration give thought to the possibility in the first instance Syria,s partners Iran & Russia would stand idly bye & do nothing,. one has proxy fighters the other is a major weapon supplier with known geopolitical ambition, Time has proven clearly they did not, that help has prolonged the civil war. A diplomatic solution should have been tried first, this is all water under the bridge now. except shortly President Obama,Putin.Rouhani will meet in New York. They all know I.S is a major problem for Europe. & the World, this window of opportunity should not be left closed. these three have the opportunity to resolve this problem.& it will take time. Many Syrian,s wish to return .
To say that the US swings between non-interventionism and retrenchment in this overgeneralized way trivializes the issue.
How to discuss the complexity in a brief column?
There have been reasons for both isolationism and interventionism. As Cohen implies, some interventionism is regarded as adventurism. Presumably that is not something to be pursued with its overtones of arrogance and dubious rationale - throwing one's weight around , you might say. Usually things tend not to go well and results in the Isolationism which has tended to be a reaction to that sort of behavior. People appreciate the futility of the intervention and the tragic loss of life and say no - with good reason.
The Bush Presidency which was run by the Cheney/Wolfowitz gang was driven by such bluster. While getting rid of Saddam and his evil offspring was probably not a bad thing, the rest of the campaign has not had a great outcome with ongoing chaos and ISIS, corrupt leadership etc.
Obama's supposed skittishness is part of the reaction. It's not as though he has had many allies abroad, or at home, judging by the conduct of the GOP who damns him if he does or doesn't.
So interventionism fine; why? with what allies ? with what end goal?
"American Power" is a fine abstraction - but it is backed up by American lives -
there's the rub.
How to discuss the complexity in a brief column?
There have been reasons for both isolationism and interventionism. As Cohen implies, some interventionism is regarded as adventurism. Presumably that is not something to be pursued with its overtones of arrogance and dubious rationale - throwing one's weight around , you might say. Usually things tend not to go well and results in the Isolationism which has tended to be a reaction to that sort of behavior. People appreciate the futility of the intervention and the tragic loss of life and say no - with good reason.
The Bush Presidency which was run by the Cheney/Wolfowitz gang was driven by such bluster. While getting rid of Saddam and his evil offspring was probably not a bad thing, the rest of the campaign has not had a great outcome with ongoing chaos and ISIS, corrupt leadership etc.
Obama's supposed skittishness is part of the reaction. It's not as though he has had many allies abroad, or at home, judging by the conduct of the GOP who damns him if he does or doesn't.
So interventionism fine; why? with what allies ? with what end goal?
"American Power" is a fine abstraction - but it is backed up by American lives -
there's the rub.
Let's just say voting for President Obama the first time was huge disappointment. Needless to say, the numerous issues that he refused to acknowledge and act upon that he stated should not stand including Assad. In January of 2014 when that group which at that time hardly had a name, had started to take over a few cities in Northern Iraq, and I looked at the television that day and day by day, and thought, "You mean, this administration is not going to get a small ground force back in there to take care of this?" Of course, by the time they decided to act this year, things were so bad that it is a, "Nightmare," like Roger Cohen says. Anti war people will say well, if the Iraq men will not fight let them die. Guess what, their culture is not the fighting type. The reason we should of been back there was because we are still giving the government billions each year and that money is worthless if things descend into utter chaos. I did not vote for George W. Bush and knew that it was false to go into Iraq as Saddam Hussein had been under sanctions for so long, that they didn't have the money or ability to create weapons of mass destruction. People don't realize that all situations are best dealt with as preventative measures because most are like cancer, early detection and appropriate treatment likely surgery is the best result. Once cancer metastasizes, it often proves deadly. What we are dealing with in the Middle East and Africa is deadly, only on so many fronts.
1
Mr Cohen and others are still in that parallel universe where it was expected USA would arrive and ultimately leave with matters still screwed up. The Obama critics should get used to USA, as in previous outings, but no longer playing world cop anymore.
We are spending billions in Veteran medical care for bad adventures as far as Vietnam and honorable as Korea and WWII. Syria is just part of series of bad military decisions for which vets paid a price, our nation has suffered and an entire region has become unhinged. There is a lot to be said or at least pondered about that 'Pandoras Box'.
We are spending billions in Veteran medical care for bad adventures as far as Vietnam and honorable as Korea and WWII. Syria is just part of series of bad military decisions for which vets paid a price, our nation has suffered and an entire region has become unhinged. There is a lot to be said or at least pondered about that 'Pandoras Box'.
Really? More boots on the ground in yet another Middle Eastern country? Because it's gone so well in the others. Damned if we do; damned if we don't. So let's "don't" and save some of our soldiers and our thinly spread dollars. We cannot afford politically or financially to police the world. If a coalition had been formed, then yes, by all means, we could have joined. But if there's anything the past 14 years have taught us, it's that this region has a long, complicated history that we'll never understand or have the capabilities to make a dent.
1
This article is gravely irresponsible. It comes from a neocon point of view which assumes American force is the solution to everything. It is not. We cannot be the mother to the world on every issue. We have our economy (broken) to think about and thus the world's.
Iraq was the grandest foreign policy mistake a country has made since Vietnam, or Russia in Afghanistan. We have learned from this and moved on. We do not have unlimited resources, we cannot simply buy every poor broken country and invest trillions of dollars to fix it. We are not liable as long as we do not touch and I'd like it to stay this way. Domestic affairs (which we focus so little on) are far more important.
Iraq was the grandest foreign policy mistake a country has made since Vietnam, or Russia in Afghanistan. We have learned from this and moved on. We do not have unlimited resources, we cannot simply buy every poor broken country and invest trillions of dollars to fix it. We are not liable as long as we do not touch and I'd like it to stay this way. Domestic affairs (which we focus so little on) are far more important.
Getting rid of the chemical weapons, for the most part, was a huge victory. HUGE. Just imagine if they were there.
1
Oh, really? I am completely on rantall's, and swlewis',pages regarding this editorial. I especially dislike Mr Cohen's presumption of certainty about his comments. The world is really, really complicated at this point. Obama is a very competent and well educated man. I believe he has been making the best "deals" that our first black president could hope to do, despite massive, unending, obliterating opposition within our own country. I think he had to save whatever powder he could muster in the face of this at times treasonous criticism, for whatever he thought he could really accomplish. To "walk away" from some situations can be a very courageous--and wise--action. If we would like to place some blame, then I think that the Republican Party, with its endless grandstanding, unjust attacks, and desperate attempts to seize the narrative have preoccupied the country's political discourse beyond any acceptable degree, and have made rational policy making (that the rest of the world would believe would hold up) virtually impossible.
1
Why do pundits always start with the assumption that problems in the ME exist because of something the U.S. is failing to do and that the U.S. is responsible for fixing all of the problems in the ME?
Why are the problems and the solutions never the responsibility of those who live there?
Why are the problems and the solutions never the responsibility of those who live there?
This is another intractable sectarian conflict. Remember Serbia? Remember Northern Ireland? Tragic, yes. Disruptive and regionally dangerous, yes. A direct threat to the U.S.? No.
The world does not need American boots on the ground in those kind of conflicts. And neither does the U.S.
The frequency and intensity of sectarian conflicts is definitely increasing, particular so in the Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean, but elsewhere as well--not the Americas.
In the past, these conflicts only yield to internationally broad and muscular coalitions acting in moderation. There are no military solutions, however.
I thank God we have a president that has avoided stupid mistakes. It's so incredibly rare.
The world does not need American boots on the ground in those kind of conflicts. And neither does the U.S.
The frequency and intensity of sectarian conflicts is definitely increasing, particular so in the Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean, but elsewhere as well--not the Americas.
In the past, these conflicts only yield to internationally broad and muscular coalitions acting in moderation. There are no military solutions, however.
I thank God we have a president that has avoided stupid mistakes. It's so incredibly rare.
This column is simplistic and naive. Let's just send a few planes and drop a few bombs and somehow everything will magically be ok again? You sound like George W. Bush. These "countries" of the Middle East were formed through colonial fiat and have been ruled by despots for decades. Certain ethnic groups enjoyed a privileged status while others were cruelly repressed. When that lid gets unscrewed, the dispossessed will seek power and revenge, while the former rulers fight to reassert control and defend themselves from utter destruction. How exactly are we supposed to get in the middle of all that and establish a fair and stable government? What will be created in the ruins of Iraq and Syria will redraw the map of the region. This is a painful and horrible process for those living through it. But these seeds were sown a long time ago and we are not about to fix it without a terrible toll in both American lives and American treasure. Better that we intervene in situations where we can do some actual good, instead of deciding we want to rule the entire world and remake it in our image. This fire will burn itself out, and when it does we should be ready to lend a hand.
Which side can we attack there which is not loathsome?
What targets can we attack which will not aid killers?
Of the warring sides, is there any who would be our worthy friend? Is there any which should not be our enemy?
Without answers to those issues at least, there can be no basis even to consider military action.
However, we can and should enthusiastically aid the refugees and harangue our friends and allies for not doing more to help.
What targets can we attack which will not aid killers?
Of the warring sides, is there any who would be our worthy friend? Is there any which should not be our enemy?
Without answers to those issues at least, there can be no basis even to consider military action.
However, we can and should enthusiastically aid the refugees and harangue our friends and allies for not doing more to help.
Damned if you do (Bush) and damned if you don't (Obama), and often by the same people. That said, it is better to try and fail (Bush) than fail to try (Obama).
Good article, Mr. Cohen. Should have used the headline: Nobel Peace Prize Update.
1
Now for Syria. How do you think Assad would respond to his planes being shot down? Certainly not curling into a ball and surrendering or even stopping bombing civilians. He would shot down any US plane going into Syria to say bomb him or ISIS or give supplies to those in need. He probably would extend the war to US allies or get his sponsors in Iran to get their terrorist buddies to attack us and our allies. And you can say goodbye to any help with ISIS. As for the safe area, what happens if Assad attacks it? Do we defend it and risk embroiling ourselves in a third Middle East war? Or do we let it become a Srebrenica and be a safe place in name only. Interventionists love this next one, arming the rebels early. But studies show that arming the rebels in that situation usually extends the war and makes it bloodier. It does not make it shorter. Arming the rebels even successfully does not always end up well for us. Just look at the Taliban, which got weapons from the US when they were part of the mujaheddin fighting the Soviets (something he failed to mention in his bringing up Afghanistan). You know what jihadis love more than a vacuum? American invaders and American weapons to shoot them with.
1
Congress is never mentioned when critiquing foreign policy decisions. After
approving the removal of Qaddafi, Congress refused money to train and arm Libyan police and military, contributing to a failed state. In hindsight, some Libyans would have dies but maybe the Middle East would not be so chaotic had Qaddafi remained.
approving the removal of Qaddafi, Congress refused money to train and arm Libyan police and military, contributing to a failed state. In hindsight, some Libyans would have dies but maybe the Middle East would not be so chaotic had Qaddafi remained.
Mr Cohen you still have not satisfied my question? Why is Syria America's problem to solve. Why did we ever decided "Assad has to go". If his people want him out, so let it be. However I am convinced that agents external to Syria started this whole thing and now that disaster has resulted are now backtracking and acting innocent. I have no dog in this fight so don't get me wrong, however Syria and its leadership should have been very well left to the Syrian people to decide.
1
i support your opinion Mr. Cohen and believe that Obama should have used air power to enforce no fly zones and prevented barrel bombs and chemical weapons. He was passive and should have used the support of the European community to find a solution to the problem which has gotten worse with the Russian forces getting involved in the conflict. Now the situation gets messy and more prolonged while more and more people die and more become refugees and destitute. Now the situation defies an easy solution.
Interventionists always overestimate the power of the US to solve conflicts and shape countries' behavior and underestimate the costs of doing so. They are particularly afflicted with the "Here's a problem. Here's something. Let's do something" approach to punditry. When that something fails as skeptics predicted, they do not say we were wrong. They say we should do this next something which will definitely work this time. If the powers that be do not ignore them, this sooner or later becomes boots on the ground occupation, which as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan does not solve the underlying conflicts in the country. When we ignore them and things get ugly, they say if you just did the something, everything would be fine. When you ask about risks, they say "oh yeah there are risks but whatever. We need to do something". You can see this behavior even in this article. He says we should have bombed Syria, but after that didn't work in Libya, he says we abandoned them, which if we were to do enough to stop the civil war and jihadists would require, again, boots on the ground occupation. In contrast, in this page, Friedman isn't afraid to mention solving the Middle East's problems for them would require decades of boots on the ground occupation. Once upon a time, I too believed in R2P and the Libyan intervention. But after our intervention, Libya is no better and in someways worse off. And the costs of avoiding them would be too high, namely boots on the ground occupation.
1
Mr. Cohen:
The best thing for you to do is to raise a private army and invade Syria and simultaneously get rid of Assad and ISIS.
That would solve this unsolvable problem.
The best thing for you to do is to raise a private army and invade Syria and simultaneously get rid of Assad and ISIS.
That would solve this unsolvable problem.
"American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates."
My God, the left is really going to go with the right on this insanity.
You do realize that this entire mess was created by our intervention IN SYRIA? Who do you think armed and trained the rebels to overthrow Assad? Who do you think made ISIS what it is?
The Obama Administration (and the Bush for Iraq, and back and back through one intervention after another from arming Hussein to planting the Shah etc).
No, it is ONCE AGAIN our intervention which is raising the fiends from the pit of hell.
My God, the left is really going to go with the right on this insanity.
You do realize that this entire mess was created by our intervention IN SYRIA? Who do you think armed and trained the rebels to overthrow Assad? Who do you think made ISIS what it is?
The Obama Administration (and the Bush for Iraq, and back and back through one intervention after another from arming Hussein to planting the Shah etc).
No, it is ONCE AGAIN our intervention which is raising the fiends from the pit of hell.
1
The coming day, of course, is a 14th anniversary of why we must continue to "meddle" in certain volatile hot spots until we are sure no tragedy spawned there sneaks around this small globe and murders our citizens.
In a funny sort of way, Obama is hiring Russian mercenaries to fight ISIS. Iran and Russia would love to intervene earlier and help their friend President Assad in Syria, but neither had much money and war takes lots of money.
By doing the Iran deal, Obama will be handing the militant-minded leaders of Iran $150 billion, and fairly soon. Of this amount, the Iranians will invest about $140 billion on war or readiness for war.
Russians are already flowing into Syria and setting up a Russian base. Just in time, too, because ISIS has not been seriously degraded by Obama's style of war-making. Annoyed maybe, but not degraded. In fact, ISIS has been advancing towards Damascus like lava flowing slowly but unstoppably down a mountain.
Can the Russians save the Syrian capital of Damascus from being the scene of gruesome mass killings, to be followed by hate crimes against archeology? I hope so. Putin sets the table before he starts the shooting, which is why Moscow achieved exactly what it wanted in Ukraine and will not be rooted out by any NATO or American disapproval.
But maybe the Russians have a hurry-up to catch up way of going to war as well. They certainly won't be shy about using whatever nasty weapons they need to use to defend the Assad regime.
In a funny sort of way, Obama is hiring Russian mercenaries to fight ISIS. Iran and Russia would love to intervene earlier and help their friend President Assad in Syria, but neither had much money and war takes lots of money.
By doing the Iran deal, Obama will be handing the militant-minded leaders of Iran $150 billion, and fairly soon. Of this amount, the Iranians will invest about $140 billion on war or readiness for war.
Russians are already flowing into Syria and setting up a Russian base. Just in time, too, because ISIS has not been seriously degraded by Obama's style of war-making. Annoyed maybe, but not degraded. In fact, ISIS has been advancing towards Damascus like lava flowing slowly but unstoppably down a mountain.
Can the Russians save the Syrian capital of Damascus from being the scene of gruesome mass killings, to be followed by hate crimes against archeology? I hope so. Putin sets the table before he starts the shooting, which is why Moscow achieved exactly what it wanted in Ukraine and will not be rooted out by any NATO or American disapproval.
But maybe the Russians have a hurry-up to catch up way of going to war as well. They certainly won't be shy about using whatever nasty weapons they need to use to defend the Assad regime.
1
In terms of foreign policy the Obama administration will be remembered for alienating our allies, befriending our enemies and our loss of status as the world's only superpower. His repeated lack of action has emboldened Putin and puts us in a position where we are likely headed for another cold war if not a real one. (Ironic that only 3 years ago he mocked Mitt Romney for thinking that Putin was a serious threat - bet he feels stupid now) The mess in Syria is going to now land 10,000 additional refugees at our doorstep not to mention the tens of thousands flocking into Europe. People who wanted nothing more than to live at home in peace. We have allowed ISIL to move unchecked further and further into the mideast not only putting our futures at risk but reducing the sacrafice of all those who lost their lives serving in Iraq in hopes of improving the lives of others and securing American safety. Lastly with his Iranian deal he likely just handed billions of dollars to a government who openly fantasizes about the destruction of the US and Israel, one of our closest allies but thanks to sanctions has not had the funds to carry out these fantasies. In all my life I have never feared for the safety of my children and my country as I do now. If Obama hadn't made such a mess you would never see a man like Donald Trump polling higher than Hillary Clinton based solely on his desire to stand up and put the safety of this county first and make American great again
What we are seeing is simply the result of the "great American divide". It also is a reflection of a "super"power multi-polar world. Those who support the multi polar approach to international situations,such as Iraq,Syria,etc,etc, do so with "great intentions" yet,as we see,the results are disastrous! The vacuum created by the vacancy the USA has forced the rest of the world to accept,has allowed the "spoils" to become a huge magnet to the "wannabees" super nations,in their quest to fill that vacancy. China, Russia and others are simply "jockeying" for supremacy and influence through their proxies,and all because there is not anyone nation strong enough,with enough character and resolve to strongly say ,as we did in WW2,"this (war) stops right now".It was yes costly,in all facets of life yet the "disorder" became order and the willingness to see it through was the glue that held strong against tyranny. Our nation paid a great price, even with the lives of our brave and being the "winners" for the most part, was not taken to be a license to abuse but rather to teach. Now the world once again faces an existential threat with Radical Islamism using the "wannabees"nations to expand their power and this time unfortunately,the vacancy will be filled, unfortunately again,by the wrong people. People bent in the destruction of any and all opposed to their desire and belief. Add to this, the future possibility of a nuclear armed Radical Islamist nation and here we go again!
I read all of Roger Cohen's columns and most often find agreement with his point of view. But not this time. Prior to reading today's column I was watching a national evening news show about Syria and the Syrian refugee crisis and it stuck me - hard - how correct the Obama administration has been with its Syria policy. If United States had stepped into this quagmire 4 or more years ago it would have been the United States' problem. We would have owned it. But, prudently, we [the U.S/Obama administration] did not go there. Had we done so, Europe. and everywhere else too, would have pointed fingers at this U.S. saying "see there, it's all the United States fault. Look at the mess they've again created." And, now there are all these refugees, etc., etc., etc." By holding back on Syria, the rest of the world now understands that the U.S. is not going to go rushing in the rescue the world in from crisis that is 100% not rescuable. Finally, hopefully, and thankfully, President Obama has taken the first steps toward weaning the rest of the world from U.S involvement in unresolvable crisis.
I do agree that Europe cannot, by itself, accommodate the refugee crisis as it is unfolding. However, if the United States had been at the front of this, Europe would have stepped back entirely, folded it's arms and would not have accepted any responsibility. Many thanks to President Obama for his prudent management. Now, yes, please let us share the Syrian refugee crisis burden.
I do agree that Europe cannot, by itself, accommodate the refugee crisis as it is unfolding. However, if the United States had been at the front of this, Europe would have stepped back entirely, folded it's arms and would not have accepted any responsibility. Many thanks to President Obama for his prudent management. Now, yes, please let us share the Syrian refugee crisis burden.
1
This all makes sense only in the context of President Obama's view that his legacy will be the Iran deal, and everything else was pushed aside in order for that deal to become a reality. Syria has always been a client state of Iran, so all Mr. Obama's red lines got erased in order to appease the Iranians. Only history can decide whether his legacy will be more tarnished by the images of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees trying to find safe havens than burnished by a deal with Iran that will make the mullahs rich, and may...just may...actually delay for a few years the development of Iranian nuclear weapons.
Members of my family have served in every war fought by the USA all the way back to the Revolutionary War. I hate people who write sentences like the one I just wrote. Please forgive me.
Some of my ancestors sided with the Confederacy. I don't know what they were thinking.
Two of my uncles--my mother's two oldest brothers--served in WWII. The Younger was a belly-gunner in a B-17 shot down somewhere near Berlin. The Older returned from the Philippines an emotional wreck. His mother, the grandmother that I never knew, died later that same year.
My father's only brother served in North Africa and Italy. All he ever told me about the war was about feeling terrified....a train with no lights...rocketing through the Sahara with ammunition and dying soldiers...praying that a precocious German pilot hadn't hit one of the rails upon which they traveled. He hated Patton.
I never experienced anything like that. Things were peaceful when I graduated from high school (Fast Times @ Ridgemont...ish).
But I would have gone to war in a heartbeat had I been asked to do so. Unlike my father, who went to college during the Vietnam draft, I took ROTC classes as electives rather than as requirements. I had the same rifle instructor as my father!
Now I have a teenage son. I love him more than life itself. He's young and idealistic. I fear that he might fall prey to the likes of Bush and Cheney. He loves his country. He's a good kid.
No War!
Some of my ancestors sided with the Confederacy. I don't know what they were thinking.
Two of my uncles--my mother's two oldest brothers--served in WWII. The Younger was a belly-gunner in a B-17 shot down somewhere near Berlin. The Older returned from the Philippines an emotional wreck. His mother, the grandmother that I never knew, died later that same year.
My father's only brother served in North Africa and Italy. All he ever told me about the war was about feeling terrified....a train with no lights...rocketing through the Sahara with ammunition and dying soldiers...praying that a precocious German pilot hadn't hit one of the rails upon which they traveled. He hated Patton.
I never experienced anything like that. Things were peaceful when I graduated from high school (Fast Times @ Ridgemont...ish).
But I would have gone to war in a heartbeat had I been asked to do so. Unlike my father, who went to college during the Vietnam draft, I took ROTC classes as electives rather than as requirements. I had the same rifle instructor as my father!
Now I have a teenage son. I love him more than life itself. He's young and idealistic. I fear that he might fall prey to the likes of Bush and Cheney. He loves his country. He's a good kid.
No War!
Oh yes let's find some human suffering that we can pin on the President to blot his legacy of peaceful achievements. He extracted the US fro ano-win civil war in Iram after 21 years of US military combat and intervention with Iraq. He established relations with Iran to counter balance the Wahabi jihadism emanating from Saudi clerics throughout the world including the US. Due to Reagan, Hezbollah and Iran took control over Lebanon. Due to W , Shiites and Iran took over control of Iraq. So what do the Cons do but blame the President for Iranian hegemony.
I can assure you Mr. Cohen that Israel is happier with Assad still in power on their Northern border rather than some of the crazies in the opposition.
Left out in Cohen's justification of the Neocon's fervent desire for a new Mideast ground war in Syria is the factor of Russian domination of Syria and confrontation with Russia versus a peaceful negotiated resolution. Obama's ability to negotiate a surrender of Syrian chemical weapons and the Iranian 6 power accords with Iran give hope of Russia taking an active part in the solution. Getting Sunnis to join if fighting ISIL is also a major accomplishment. There are millions of refugees worldwide with 5.4 million Palestinians who are permanent refugees protected. Housed and fed by UNWRA / Refugees are fleeing Cuba and Central America and given asylum daily in the US, How does Mr. Cohen justify the Syrian refugees as being top priority? He doesn't.
I can assure you Mr. Cohen that Israel is happier with Assad still in power on their Northern border rather than some of the crazies in the opposition.
Left out in Cohen's justification of the Neocon's fervent desire for a new Mideast ground war in Syria is the factor of Russian domination of Syria and confrontation with Russia versus a peaceful negotiated resolution. Obama's ability to negotiate a surrender of Syrian chemical weapons and the Iranian 6 power accords with Iran give hope of Russia taking an active part in the solution. Getting Sunnis to join if fighting ISIL is also a major accomplishment. There are millions of refugees worldwide with 5.4 million Palestinians who are permanent refugees protected. Housed and fed by UNWRA / Refugees are fleeing Cuba and Central America and given asylum daily in the US, How does Mr. Cohen justify the Syrian refugees as being top priority? He doesn't.
Roger Cohen describes himself on his Facebook page as a "Zionist". -nothing wrong with that but, we will all understand that "where you stand depends on where you sit" in the Middle East conflicts. Mr. Cohen's profound discomfiture at the events in Syria and President Obama's putative failings would likely be easier to understand in the context of his own personal loyalties. Why would he not make those loyalties transparent when offering an opinion? Not only that but, he is encouraged to compare and contrast how the policy he advocates as a "Zionist" benefits or risks the interests of both Israel and or the U.S. lest he be accused of trying to have the tail wag the dog. As with so many other pundits, he offers military bromides such as we should "take out" Syrian aircraft that are dropping bombs. Well, maybe but ,does that not involve, per military protocol, the virtual elimination of the countries air defense system so U.S. air assets can operate safely in Syrian airspace and does that not mean a wide ranging air campaign? What would be the secondary and tertiary effects of such an air campaign for the Syrian people, for ISIS, for Russia, for Turkey, for Jordan, for Israel and for the U.S.? There are over one billion muslims in the world and the Middle East conflicts are very much on their minds. I am looking to the Times editorial staff to give all points of political and religious view equal time and attention in the pages of this fine newspaper.
I agree that Mr. Obama miscalled the Syrian situation, but not in the way suggested by Roger. If the U.S. had acted more concretely to support one of the many rebel factions as Roger wishes and had toppled Assad all we would have is more of what we have now. ISIS was one of those rebel factions and they were coming no matter what.
Like Iraq and most of the Arab world, Syria has demonstrated an inability to function without a strongman at the helm. This is presumably merely a developmental stage in the region, but too large a proportion of the people in these lands are not equipped for more consensual forms of government. Iraq and Syria (and Saudi Arabia and Yemen, etc.) are probably at least 50 to 100 years away from readiness to rule themselves by democratic means. What Mr. Obama (and the EU) should have done was join with Mr. Putin in supporting Mr. Assad, using our soft power to dissuade him from the use of chemical weapons against his people while reinforcing his efforts to eradicate any and all backward-looking fundamentalist movements. It is beyond realistic argument that whatever Mr. Assad was doing in Syria is not nearly as bad as what ISIS is doing.
Like Iraq and most of the Arab world, Syria has demonstrated an inability to function without a strongman at the helm. This is presumably merely a developmental stage in the region, but too large a proportion of the people in these lands are not equipped for more consensual forms of government. Iraq and Syria (and Saudi Arabia and Yemen, etc.) are probably at least 50 to 100 years away from readiness to rule themselves by democratic means. What Mr. Obama (and the EU) should have done was join with Mr. Putin in supporting Mr. Assad, using our soft power to dissuade him from the use of chemical weapons against his people while reinforcing his efforts to eradicate any and all backward-looking fundamentalist movements. It is beyond realistic argument that whatever Mr. Assad was doing in Syria is not nearly as bad as what ISIS is doing.
3
First, let me state emphatically that we should support the Iran Nuclear Accord.
It would avoid getting into another major war in the region for five, ten, fifteen years or longer. Apparently Prime Minister B. Netanyahu, Likud Party, or right-wing Zionists in Israel, and their US. neoconservative allies and supporters want to wage war against Iran -- see essays by Joshua Muravchick "War with Iran is Probably the Best Option," John R. Bolton, "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran."
The horrendous consequences of Israel-US war against Iran would be much worse than the "Syrian nightmare" and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The turmoil and the humanitarian refugee crises in Syria are not a blot on the Obama presidency. These are "causes" behind the tumultuous Middle East:
centuries of Sunni-Shiite conflicts. European imperialism, Pax Americana (blow backs of US imperialism), Israel-Arab-Muslim Darwinian struggle for survival and dominance, US military-industrial complex, Evangelical Christians support for the State of Israel.
It would avoid getting into another major war in the region for five, ten, fifteen years or longer. Apparently Prime Minister B. Netanyahu, Likud Party, or right-wing Zionists in Israel, and their US. neoconservative allies and supporters want to wage war against Iran -- see essays by Joshua Muravchick "War with Iran is Probably the Best Option," John R. Bolton, "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran."
The horrendous consequences of Israel-US war against Iran would be much worse than the "Syrian nightmare" and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The turmoil and the humanitarian refugee crises in Syria are not a blot on the Obama presidency. These are "causes" behind the tumultuous Middle East:
centuries of Sunni-Shiite conflicts. European imperialism, Pax Americana (blow backs of US imperialism), Israel-Arab-Muslim Darwinian struggle for survival and dominance, US military-industrial complex, Evangelical Christians support for the State of Israel.
"We are about half way through, since the end of the cold war, a 50 year struggle to define the terms of our interdependence. We do know this: we are interdependent.... The only thing that works in the modern world is cooperation... ... inclusion works, unilateralism doesn't." - Bill Clinton, Daily Show 2014.
I recall early in the Afghan war an American general, or some such thing, suggest that the war there was an ideological war and further suggested: "you have to make sure your idea is better than their idea."
The cold war was an ideological war too. Then we had a very good ideology all hammered out. It was the mixed economy: capitalism with strong bargaining rights & safe guards for ordinary people. Using containment strategy over long term we won.
Ultimately what impels all humans is the desire for traction against entropy and a hostile universe.
After the cold war we threw out the social contract. My father with a fraction of my education earned 4 times what I do. We have wealth concentration phenomena, both local and global. That drives humanity into identity politics today as it did in the early 1930s.
We can't solve the problems in the MidEast w/out social cohesion in society and with our would be allies for any MidEast action. We need a just and fair social contract here at home that is shared with our allies and represents what would be delivered to the MidEast.
Its no coincidence that the refugees head to a country that still has a sound mixed econ system.
I recall early in the Afghan war an American general, or some such thing, suggest that the war there was an ideological war and further suggested: "you have to make sure your idea is better than their idea."
The cold war was an ideological war too. Then we had a very good ideology all hammered out. It was the mixed economy: capitalism with strong bargaining rights & safe guards for ordinary people. Using containment strategy over long term we won.
Ultimately what impels all humans is the desire for traction against entropy and a hostile universe.
After the cold war we threw out the social contract. My father with a fraction of my education earned 4 times what I do. We have wealth concentration phenomena, both local and global. That drives humanity into identity politics today as it did in the early 1930s.
We can't solve the problems in the MidEast w/out social cohesion in society and with our would be allies for any MidEast action. We need a just and fair social contract here at home that is shared with our allies and represents what would be delivered to the MidEast.
Its no coincidence that the refugees head to a country that still has a sound mixed econ system.
1
"Bombing" clearly is not going to fix anything in the Middle East. The fact that anyone is still talking about "arming moderates" is risible. We could probably at least temporarily get rid of ISIS and Assad by sending in 500,000 plus US troops and spending several trillion dollars to do so - the long term consequences of this would be unpredictable and probably bad. Historically, every single intervention we have made in that area of the world for the last 60 years has had unpredictable and generally poor results. I think there are 2 options here: 1) hands off, let what happens happen 2) true international coalition (not 30 troops from Poland, 30 from Qatar, 30 from Saudi Arabia, 500 from Britain, 500,00 from US) going in to clean up the mess. The idea that we are so "exceptional" that we can do it ourselves simply is not realistic. If we are to do so solo, we need to bring back the draft so that Dick Cheney's family, Paul Wolfowitz's family, Rick Santorum's kids, are all standing side by side in the desert with the farm boys from Nebraska and the inner city kids from Baltimore.
8
Sorry mate, got to put you right on one thing ( at least ). There were 45,00o British military personnel involved in propping up Bush the idiot not 500. What a blinkin' mess that was .
I detest the fact the only big government spending Republicans are in favour of is the big government spending of trillions of dollars to produce death and destruction.
I detest the fact the only big government spending Republicans are in favour of is the big government spending of trillions of dollars to produce death and destruction.
We have two choices in this fight.
1. Body bags filled with the remains of American boys and girls flown into Dover each day with massive tax increases to pay for their services in trying to clean out an endless swamp of pre-enlightenment nonsense and futility.
2. Isolationism, high-fives to the moms and dads who still have their kids, and four more years of waiting for the Mideast to solve its own civil wars, after all, they didn't interfere in ours.
Obama deserves a NPPrize for having the audacity to steer clear. Thank you.
1. Body bags filled with the remains of American boys and girls flown into Dover each day with massive tax increases to pay for their services in trying to clean out an endless swamp of pre-enlightenment nonsense and futility.
2. Isolationism, high-fives to the moms and dads who still have their kids, and four more years of waiting for the Mideast to solve its own civil wars, after all, they didn't interfere in ours.
Obama deserves a NPPrize for having the audacity to steer clear. Thank you.
7
Our ability to intervene in Syria disappeared with the British vote in the House of Commons. George Bush and Tony Blair are entirely to blame.
1
While foreign policy wonks, humanitarian moralizers and war profiteers all want more involvement, the Main Street American citizen wants no more American lives and treasure wasted in that hopeless region of the world except to save Israel if she is attacked. Our only goal now should be protecting our own people in our own homeland while the Syrians and their immediate neighbors settle that conflict with their own lives and treasure. And nobody has mentioned the threat that offering asylum to Syrian refugees poses even on the anniversary of 9/11. Politically incorrect as it may be to say so, wouldn't it be a golden opportunity for ISIL or Al Qaeda or a new kid on the terrorist block to send us some of their trained operatives among the legitimate desperate refugee families? If a future attack on US soil was ever connected, rightly or wrongly, to one of the Syrians granted asylum here, no law-abiding Muslim American citizen would be safe from the backlash. Europe faces the same threat.
1
Our biggest intervention left buses of Iraqis now flowing into Europe. Our off and on intervention has Afghani's moving steadily into Germany. Syria, our little or nothing, has delivered up a flood of humanity.
But that's not to say large scale, largely military intervention can't have an effect, just that we're not the ones for this job. These places are too far away, too removed from us and our essential interests. This is not our back yard - as the old Irish ballad goes, thank God we're surrounded by water. This is for Europe and the Russians.
If only Europe had an ounce of Israel's assertiveness, their stations and roads wouldn't be filled with thousands of desperate people. Let the Europeans send their young people and their weaponry to stem their jihadi problem.
But that's not to say large scale, largely military intervention can't have an effect, just that we're not the ones for this job. These places are too far away, too removed from us and our essential interests. This is not our back yard - as the old Irish ballad goes, thank God we're surrounded by water. This is for Europe and the Russians.
If only Europe had an ounce of Israel's assertiveness, their stations and roads wouldn't be filled with thousands of desperate people. Let the Europeans send their young people and their weaponry to stem their jihadi problem.
3
The Obama doctrine in foreign policy is an abject failure. Mr. Cohen ably summarizes why, and it is time for Democrats and liberals to admit it. The two bleeding sores of Libya and Syria are the two primary sources of this astounding migration we are now witnessing; these are sores that could have been cauterized by an adept application of American military might. Those are the facts, like it or not. We'll now see the extent to which these foreign policy failures help the GOP capture the White House.
3
Praise the Bush-Cheney-Rice doctrine in the Middle East:
. 3,000 dead in US Homeland, 9/11/01
. 4,500 dead Americans in Iraq
. 2,500 dead Americans in Afghanistan
. ISIS
. Destabilized Middle East
. 3,000 dead in US Homeland, 9/11/01
. 4,500 dead Americans in Iraq
. 2,500 dead Americans in Afghanistan
. ISIS
. Destabilized Middle East
"But American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates."
What is this non-intervention that Roger Cohen is carefully crafting? Haven't deadly weapons been provided to 'so called freedom fighters' to bring down a regime, which has eventually destroyed Syria?
What is this non-intervention that Roger Cohen is carefully crafting? Haven't deadly weapons been provided to 'so called freedom fighters' to bring down a regime, which has eventually destroyed Syria?
2
Probably the biggest mistake in Syria was Assad must go.A better way was some form of long term transition. Limited intervention. In Iraq we should have used an international UN force. On our own with reluctant coalition partners we mismanaged it. That was the lesson from Iraq we applied to Libyia and Syria. We had such romantic notions of Arab democratic governments. Did not work.We swing from one extreme to another in these interventions and mess them up.We still have a lot of growing up to do as a major world power.Look at Vietnam today.
2
The least USA can do is to accommodate thousands of Syrian refugees.
2
How many refugees is India accepting?
So, damned if we do (Iraq), damned if we don't (Syria)?
4
How precisely BHO should accomplish principled-decency if not rational pacification in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and elsewhere is for Roger Cohen to constructively propose with specification.
A critique of Dick Cheney's new book being reviewed in the NYT is that DC is bashing BHO in broad bad faith, and that's also my reaction to the constant malicious criticisms of BHO.
Well-intentioned POTUS is semi paralyzed by propagandistic opponents, and it is extremely ambiguous to decipher where the bad faith leaves off and intellectual honesty begins. because they behave so wretchedly.
The opposition is forever crying wolf.
Their constant barrage of partisan animosities has been effective, and Senator McConnell is not ashamed, nor are the other active GOP stars/names/players.
Reasonable GOPers seem to take leaves of absences, and they're duly getting Trumped-on for their astute negligence.
I am not jumping on any anti Obama bandwagon, at the least until it's probable (to me) that McCain-Palin or Romney-Ryan would have been better.
A critique of Dick Cheney's new book being reviewed in the NYT is that DC is bashing BHO in broad bad faith, and that's also my reaction to the constant malicious criticisms of BHO.
Well-intentioned POTUS is semi paralyzed by propagandistic opponents, and it is extremely ambiguous to decipher where the bad faith leaves off and intellectual honesty begins. because they behave so wretchedly.
The opposition is forever crying wolf.
Their constant barrage of partisan animosities has been effective, and Senator McConnell is not ashamed, nor are the other active GOP stars/names/players.
Reasonable GOPers seem to take leaves of absences, and they're duly getting Trumped-on for their astute negligence.
I am not jumping on any anti Obama bandwagon, at the least until it's probable (to me) that McCain-Palin or Romney-Ryan would have been better.
2
What the writer has failed to explain is what goals can America achieve through military intervention. Let's see, we tried regime change in Iraq, occupied the country and elected a new Government. Good move? Nope. We helped changed Government in Libya but no occupation. Good move? Guess no, like you said we abandoned the country and Libya is still in a mess. So?
2
The biggest blot on Obamas record is his failure to go after Wall St after the meltdown in 2008. Cohen is way off base here.
3
Maybe he listened to this NY opinionator: "There are no fixed doctrinal answers — a successful Libyan intervention does not mean one in Syria is feasible "
Who was that anyway? Oh, it was you - AUG. 29, 2011 !!!!
Who was that anyway? Oh, it was you - AUG. 29, 2011 !!!!
6
I generally feel Obama erred when he took a rhetorical stance against Assad--we should never have halfheartedly backed rebel groups, nor should we have been as quick to abandon Iraq.
That said, let is indulge in the counterfactual thought exercise entertained in passing by Cohen, and pretend that Obama had taken a strong stance on Syria, somehow picked the right rebel groups to arm and train, and maintained a military presence in Northern Iraq (with strong military action against the Islamic State). None of these things would be guaranteed to help us in Syria or against the IS, and all would require investment in blood, money and a clear-eyed moral fortitude. In the post-Iraq debacle these are pretty tall orders for the American people, who all but voted for the abandonment of Iraq in electing Obama to office, someone who I personally supported for his non-military-interventionist and pro-diplomacy positions.
So let's imagine the US bogged down in the Syrian Civil War, backing two or three factions in a gritty standoff, with heavy U.S. casualties, quite possibly militarily engaging Russian proxy forces. Let us imagine that we placed soldiers on the ground in Iraq to destroy IS positions in Iraq and Syria, and were now bogged down in northern Iraq. Would the American people support such a scenario? Would we be guaranteed success? Would it help us in pursuing diplomacy with Iran? If you say yes, may have a moral argument, but you don't have a practical one.
That said, let is indulge in the counterfactual thought exercise entertained in passing by Cohen, and pretend that Obama had taken a strong stance on Syria, somehow picked the right rebel groups to arm and train, and maintained a military presence in Northern Iraq (with strong military action against the Islamic State). None of these things would be guaranteed to help us in Syria or against the IS, and all would require investment in blood, money and a clear-eyed moral fortitude. In the post-Iraq debacle these are pretty tall orders for the American people, who all but voted for the abandonment of Iraq in electing Obama to office, someone who I personally supported for his non-military-interventionist and pro-diplomacy positions.
So let's imagine the US bogged down in the Syrian Civil War, backing two or three factions in a gritty standoff, with heavy U.S. casualties, quite possibly militarily engaging Russian proxy forces. Let us imagine that we placed soldiers on the ground in Iraq to destroy IS positions in Iraq and Syria, and were now bogged down in northern Iraq. Would the American people support such a scenario? Would we be guaranteed success? Would it help us in pursuing diplomacy with Iran? If you say yes, may have a moral argument, but you don't have a practical one.
3
This situation is a sad, tragic symptom of the failure of international cooperation, planning, humanitarianism, and basic backbone. No one country, save Syria, is to blame, yet all countries are culpable.
We collectively, as a species, willingly innovate in all ways but in pushing forward meaningful human justice, we will fight to no end for economic gain, but will do nothing of meaning for humanitarian gain unless absolutely forced to by the horrors of war and genocide.
We don’t pursue the common threads that run through all such tragedies, we do not look inward for any responsibility, we treat each tragedy as a discreet event, and we do not put real effort into innovating a suite of social tools and political policies to deal successfully with these recurring events. This is not rational.
This type of situation should be met with overwhelming international force and persistence to remove bad governance, bad leaders, and bad laws and install good governance, good leaders, and good laws (perhaps we could practice this here, in the USA). No one or two countries should be burdened with policing the world, nor should they be allowed to; there should be overwhelming international support, commitment, and responsibility. Not a global government, but a federation of independent nations standing resolutely together against this type of human travesty.
How dare we call ourselves civilized until we get a handle on this type of tragedy?
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
We collectively, as a species, willingly innovate in all ways but in pushing forward meaningful human justice, we will fight to no end for economic gain, but will do nothing of meaning for humanitarian gain unless absolutely forced to by the horrors of war and genocide.
We don’t pursue the common threads that run through all such tragedies, we do not look inward for any responsibility, we treat each tragedy as a discreet event, and we do not put real effort into innovating a suite of social tools and political policies to deal successfully with these recurring events. This is not rational.
This type of situation should be met with overwhelming international force and persistence to remove bad governance, bad leaders, and bad laws and install good governance, good leaders, and good laws (perhaps we could practice this here, in the USA). No one or two countries should be burdened with policing the world, nor should they be allowed to; there should be overwhelming international support, commitment, and responsibility. Not a global government, but a federation of independent nations standing resolutely together against this type of human travesty.
How dare we call ourselves civilized until we get a handle on this type of tragedy?
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
2
Excellent, Mr.Bain.
1
The destruction of Syria's chemical weapons was significant, since they no longer are at risk of becoming the terror weapons of ISIS.
Cohen too easily discounts for that achievement.
Cohen too easily discounts for that achievement.
2
"...although Americans have not been very happy with Obama’s pivot to prudence"
Your parenthetical placement of this comment is unfortunate since this issue merits further serious analysis. Beyond all Republicans seemingly against everything President Obama is for, any intervention in the Middle East is staggeringly complex subject for most Americans. Sure enough when the media coverage veers toward terrorists beheading innocent civilians or dead refugee children lying face down in shallow water, it is very difficult to shrug these images off. However, mention American military boots on the ground engaged in fighting the amorphous enemy of terrorism and I suspect nightmarish memories of the endless, unwinnable. costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the countless dead and wounded American soldiers will have nearly all Americans lining up behind President Obama's policy of prudence in the Middle East.
Your parenthetical placement of this comment is unfortunate since this issue merits further serious analysis. Beyond all Republicans seemingly against everything President Obama is for, any intervention in the Middle East is staggeringly complex subject for most Americans. Sure enough when the media coverage veers toward terrorists beheading innocent civilians or dead refugee children lying face down in shallow water, it is very difficult to shrug these images off. However, mention American military boots on the ground engaged in fighting the amorphous enemy of terrorism and I suspect nightmarish memories of the endless, unwinnable. costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the countless dead and wounded American soldiers will have nearly all Americans lining up behind President Obama's policy of prudence in the Middle East.
6
I cringe seeing huge messes that unfold before our eyes, but maybe we are not completely impotent. Pax Americana is impossible, but maybe we still have a role to play.
I am thinking of Bush 1 and Bush 2.
Bush 1 assembled an international coalition, prevented Saddam Hussein from annexing Kuwait, and effectively made it clear that there were limits on his behavior. But, Hussein was left in power. Things remained sort of 'as they were'...not pretty to our eyes maybe, but not Chaos.
Then we have Bush 2 deciding to smash the whole thing without valid cause, under the delusion that a western style democracy was sure to emerge.
One intervention was a success, one was not.
Perhaps the lesson is that we can try to place limits on behavior within a sovereign state, if we have the help and support of a multitude of allies.
But it is orders of magnitude more dangerous to try to overthrow a state. And it is insane to presume democracy will blossom in it's place if we do.
I am thinking of Bush 1 and Bush 2.
Bush 1 assembled an international coalition, prevented Saddam Hussein from annexing Kuwait, and effectively made it clear that there were limits on his behavior. But, Hussein was left in power. Things remained sort of 'as they were'...not pretty to our eyes maybe, but not Chaos.
Then we have Bush 2 deciding to smash the whole thing without valid cause, under the delusion that a western style democracy was sure to emerge.
One intervention was a success, one was not.
Perhaps the lesson is that we can try to place limits on behavior within a sovereign state, if we have the help and support of a multitude of allies.
But it is orders of magnitude more dangerous to try to overthrow a state. And it is insane to presume democracy will blossom in it's place if we do.
3
Mr. Cohen emphasizes action, but not consequence. What would Syria have looked like had we intervened? What would it look like after we displaced Assad? Who would establish stability? The overriding problem in the region is the lack of stability, and we have shown that while we can topple regimes--and they indeed may need toppling--we are completely impotent when it comes to establishing stability.
Cohen is correct when he states that Obama lacked the will to establish policy for the region, but without policy aimed toward stability, the use of military force is like punching someone who has cancer, expecting that the punishment will make them well. Alliances among the regional powers is the only way to bring stability, and that requires cooperating with some--in our view--undesirable actors.
We had a chance to make a deal with Assad to oppose ISIS and at that time could have extracted a power sharing arrangement with him, and possibly avoided the exodus. But Obama's absolutism nixed that possibility. We should get used to the idea that not every government can or will be a US sycophant, and that some people who are at their core evil-doers must sometimes be included in policy and strategy to establish stability. In other words, realpolitik.
Cohen is correct when he states that Obama lacked the will to establish policy for the region, but without policy aimed toward stability, the use of military force is like punching someone who has cancer, expecting that the punishment will make them well. Alliances among the regional powers is the only way to bring stability, and that requires cooperating with some--in our view--undesirable actors.
We had a chance to make a deal with Assad to oppose ISIS and at that time could have extracted a power sharing arrangement with him, and possibly avoided the exodus. But Obama's absolutism nixed that possibility. We should get used to the idea that not every government can or will be a US sycophant, and that some people who are at their core evil-doers must sometimes be included in policy and strategy to establish stability. In other words, realpolitik.
2
America no longer stands up for what is right.
1
If we could only figure out what was right.
We just hammered out a reasonable nuclear deal that greatly reduces the possibility of a large war in the MidEast, and nearly half the nation was against it.
We just hammered out a reasonable nuclear deal that greatly reduces the possibility of a large war in the MidEast, and nearly half the nation was against it.
Thank God that we stayed out of Syria's civil war. I am old enough to have had a husband that was in Viet Nam who later died from Agent Orange. A father who fought in WWII on an aircraft carrier in the South Pacific. I remember the Korean war, the Gulf War and the Iraq invasion and fighting in Afghanistan. Our entire nation is war weary. Some of our soldiers have been deployed four, six, eight times. Enough is enough.
5
Disagree, as a 20-year USAF special ops and intel officer. The tragedy in Syria, and indeed that region is horrific. US military force in the Middle East has been, is, and will be counter-productive. For us; for them.
Diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, and goodwill can make things better over time; more weapons makes them worse. There are far too many self-serving armed factions. And we have demonstrated that we have little knowledge of, or control over the long-term consequences of US interventions.
The larger threats:1) population explosion, 2) desertification, 3) endemic corruption, and 4) the many failed and failing governments are the problems that must be solved. We can help.
And we can use leverage with Israel to pressure them to make things better, not worse - if US politicians had wisdom and the moral courage to use it.
Diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, and goodwill can make things better over time; more weapons makes them worse. There are far too many self-serving armed factions. And we have demonstrated that we have little knowledge of, or control over the long-term consequences of US interventions.
The larger threats:1) population explosion, 2) desertification, 3) endemic corruption, and 4) the many failed and failing governments are the problems that must be solved. We can help.
And we can use leverage with Israel to pressure them to make things better, not worse - if US politicians had wisdom and the moral courage to use it.
1
So Roger Cohen wanted us to bomb Assad's troops. Who was going to win in Syria then? ISIS would have cake walked in. Then we bomb ISIS, who is left? The Free Syrian Army is supposed to be the good guys?
Maybe we couldn't figure out who the good guys were. I'm sure no one would have been an ally with us, because to be our ally would have been suicide in that part of the world. The good guys in the Muslim Arab world have no power or will to fight. They are handicapped by their ideology. We expect this kind of article from Fox and not the op-ed of the New York Times.
Maybe we couldn't figure out who the good guys were. I'm sure no one would have been an ally with us, because to be our ally would have been suicide in that part of the world. The good guys in the Muslim Arab world have no power or will to fight. They are handicapped by their ideology. We expect this kind of article from Fox and not the op-ed of the New York Times.
1
Tired tired TIRED of this mind-set that in a region where it is in so many places a deadly loathsome tar pit, somehow our government is on the hook to solve the quagmire of places such as Syria. As far as 'blots' on the Obama administration, I'd choose certain domestic matters, or Guantanamo still being in operation, but even in the cases I'd cite, there's plenty of culpability that goes far beyond this President's doorstep.
1
Bull. Western countries can no longer intervene in conflicts with impunity. It's an anachronism. Your verdict on Libya is that Obama bombed and then ran: What, the US should have tried nation building in Libya? Great idea. The truth is NATO should have bombed to protect Benghazi and then forced the tribes and Ghaddafi to the negotiating table, instead of killing Ghaddafi because they could.
The West was blinded to the potential consequences by their hatred of mad Muammar, maybe rightly, but petulance in the exercise of foreign policy is always a mistake. Syria has become a proxy for what appears to be a multi generational war between Sunni and Shi'aa Islam; a War we helped stoke by promoting the Shi'ites in Iraq at the expense of both the Sunnis and Arab Nationalism.
Epic world-historical mistake.
Arab Nationalism was the glue that held the colonial constructs (English and French) of Iraq and Syria together. Maybe Mr. Cohen's got some superglue in his back pocket but otherwise there is no putting this genie back in the bottle, save a pan Middle Eastern peace conference, AND cutting a deal with your buddy Putin. That's what Roosevelt— and Marshall, Kenan, Churchill, Bevin, Atlee and . . . wait for it, Stalin, would have done.
I actually think Kerry's got it in him, but he needs partners at the table, not war mongering columnists at home ready to stab him in the back.
The West was blinded to the potential consequences by their hatred of mad Muammar, maybe rightly, but petulance in the exercise of foreign policy is always a mistake. Syria has become a proxy for what appears to be a multi generational war between Sunni and Shi'aa Islam; a War we helped stoke by promoting the Shi'ites in Iraq at the expense of both the Sunnis and Arab Nationalism.
Epic world-historical mistake.
Arab Nationalism was the glue that held the colonial constructs (English and French) of Iraq and Syria together. Maybe Mr. Cohen's got some superglue in his back pocket but otherwise there is no putting this genie back in the bottle, save a pan Middle Eastern peace conference, AND cutting a deal with your buddy Putin. That's what Roosevelt— and Marshall, Kenan, Churchill, Bevin, Atlee and . . . wait for it, Stalin, would have done.
I actually think Kerry's got it in him, but he needs partners at the table, not war mongering columnists at home ready to stab him in the back.
5
I fully agree with you, Mr Cohen. And it is very depressing to see through the many comments to your article, that the American people have not understood the essential role of their own country in the present disaster.
1
There are many problems that would have manifested if the President had helped take out the Assad regime - whether through troops, air strikes, or any military action. One in particular, though, would be the (probable) slaughter of the Aliwite minority by the group(s) who would take over post-Assad. That horror would be blamed on the U.S., rightly or not, in a situation similar to what happened in Iraq. There's also the Russian problem. It is Assad's ally, and military action could involve Russian casualties and Russian escalation. The Syrian problem is not our fault, nor is solving it our responsibility, because no matter which of the many groups fighting for supremacy wins, all of them will use it to justify their blame and hatred of us.
4
Roger, looking back is useful. What would you have us do now?
1
Charles Blow eloquently writes, "American interventionism can have terrible consequences, as the Iraq war has demonstrated. But American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates."
Under these circumstances, the President decided not to intervene in Syria because (a) the possibility of an acceptable outcome was slim to none (as Blow himself acknoweldges), (b) the Syria situation was allowed to develop and fester far more by Europe more than by our country, and (c) countless American lives would be spared if we refrained from intervention or war. Without core national interests at stake, I would respectfully suggest that, the miseries of the current influx into Europe notwithstanding, and fully acknowledging that it was the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 that let the genie out of the bottle -- for which, unending shame on our nation -- the correct decision was made.
Under these circumstances, the President decided not to intervene in Syria because (a) the possibility of an acceptable outcome was slim to none (as Blow himself acknoweldges), (b) the Syria situation was allowed to develop and fester far more by Europe more than by our country, and (c) countless American lives would be spared if we refrained from intervention or war. Without core national interests at stake, I would respectfully suggest that, the miseries of the current influx into Europe notwithstanding, and fully acknowledging that it was the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 that let the genie out of the bottle -- for which, unending shame on our nation -- the correct decision was made.
How very American to think that we can solve all the problems of the world with military power after the stunning experiences in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Isis is a Saudi backed enterprise that was allowed to gain a foothold through our debacle in Iraq. American lives and treasure are once again being used to support our 'Saudis Allies' and their oil fields from the fanatics they created and support.
It is only a naive and misplaced belief in "American exceptionalism" that would even consider Syria and Lebanon an American problem.
It is about time to realize that the problems in the Middle East are caused by blind American reliance on military power as we desperately try to control the oil and prop up two of the world's most repressive regimes, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Both the Saudis and the Israelis create the conditions for, and augment the problems, in the Middle Easy. They allow America to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to prop up their regimes. They sit on the sidelines and watch as America destroys lives and countries in a pathetic attempt to appease these "Allies". They refuse to lift a finger to help the millions of refuges they helped create.
The saddest thing of all is that after more than 50 years of failed US Exceptionalism and Militarism, all Mr. Cohen can suggest is more of the same.
Perhaps it is time to understand that one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.
Isis is a Saudi backed enterprise that was allowed to gain a foothold through our debacle in Iraq. American lives and treasure are once again being used to support our 'Saudis Allies' and their oil fields from the fanatics they created and support.
It is only a naive and misplaced belief in "American exceptionalism" that would even consider Syria and Lebanon an American problem.
It is about time to realize that the problems in the Middle East are caused by blind American reliance on military power as we desperately try to control the oil and prop up two of the world's most repressive regimes, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Both the Saudis and the Israelis create the conditions for, and augment the problems, in the Middle Easy. They allow America to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to prop up their regimes. They sit on the sidelines and watch as America destroys lives and countries in a pathetic attempt to appease these "Allies". They refuse to lift a finger to help the millions of refuges they helped create.
The saddest thing of all is that after more than 50 years of failed US Exceptionalism and Militarism, all Mr. Cohen can suggest is more of the same.
Perhaps it is time to understand that one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.
2
I don't actually buy Cohen's tenet on which he builds this argument that Obama failed in Syrian he allowed his "red line" of chemical warfare to be crossed. Obama was poised and ready to use military intervention when it was leaked that there was a negotiation in place via the Russians to remove chemical weapons from the hands of Assad's military. That negotiation succeeded and Obama did not need to resort to military force. He won through preventative diplomacy once the red line as breached and he stepped up to the confrontation . Does anyone really believe that bombing chemical facilities in Damascus was going to result in a successful intervention?
Maybe if the powers had drawn up the Ottoman empire into just three countries ,Sunnistan,Shiastan and Kurdistan.... conflicts that are going on now would make more sense to everyone and we could just pick a side if we wanted to fight someone..... or not!
1
I too have a high regard for Roger Cohen and I too disagree. As a practical matter had we intervened in Syria we would have not have ended up with the same mess perhaps, but we would have ended up with a mess of equal messiness. In all cases the critical issue is not what if any forces, weapons we employ, but how accurate our understanding is of the underlying realities. When did you hear one of the war hawk clan, most of whom were draft dodgers, complain of the alienation of the sunnis, although military personnel made it very clear? So the surgeon's instrument in this case is not equal to the deftness required. Maybe Cohen could have done it. But the US Senate?
It is such an interconnected world. Obama is kinda getting his Iranian Nuclear non-treaty past Congress and will soon by his own authority start releasing $150 billion in frozen funds back to Iran.
Russia now becomes seriously interested in protecting Syria, because (A) the Assad regime is on the ropes and ISIS (not too bothered by the way Obama makes war) is poised take over Damascus and show to the world their familiar tragic victory antics, (B) Assad is Russia's old friend, (C) Iran is highly interested in Syria avoiding being conquered by ISIS, and (D) Iran is likely to spend part or most of that $150 billion on Russian armaments to defeat ISIS.
So, Putin is all smiles. Russia gets to be the only superpower with the balls to fight ISIS on the ground, plus Russia will get generous financing courtesy of Obama to pay for it all. This is really excellent, because Russia is not actually a superpower and could not afford this great adventure otherwise.
Is Obama a genius for finding a means to put Russian boots on the ground almost as hired mercenaries to fight Jihadist extremists before they start executing people in the streets of Damascus and blowing up precious archeology?
Will the Republicans be villains if they find a last-ditch procedural way to stop the genius president regards at least part of his Syrian/Iranian agenda?
Russia now becomes seriously interested in protecting Syria, because (A) the Assad regime is on the ropes and ISIS (not too bothered by the way Obama makes war) is poised take over Damascus and show to the world their familiar tragic victory antics, (B) Assad is Russia's old friend, (C) Iran is highly interested in Syria avoiding being conquered by ISIS, and (D) Iran is likely to spend part or most of that $150 billion on Russian armaments to defeat ISIS.
So, Putin is all smiles. Russia gets to be the only superpower with the balls to fight ISIS on the ground, plus Russia will get generous financing courtesy of Obama to pay for it all. This is really excellent, because Russia is not actually a superpower and could not afford this great adventure otherwise.
Is Obama a genius for finding a means to put Russian boots on the ground almost as hired mercenaries to fight Jihadist extremists before they start executing people in the streets of Damascus and blowing up precious archeology?
Will the Republicans be villains if they find a last-ditch procedural way to stop the genius president regards at least part of his Syrian/Iranian agenda?
1
I sincerely hope that the American people will finally realize that all this Middle East turmoil has one root cause: the utterly incompetent and unrealiable Bush jr administration. This is the fall out. And now Europe has to pay the price, coping with the invasion of impoverished, traumatized muslims. And Europe warned the Bush administration about this risk, but the US wouldn't listen. The US has completely forfeited its moral leadership in this world, nobody takes the US government serious anymore after all its screw-ups in foreign politics. The best policy for the US is to get out and stay out of these kind of complicated and hostile environments for it lacks the intelligence to deal with it.
2
The writer laments about western non-intervention. Presumably, he is lamenting the observable kind. What abut any undercover efforts by covert agencies to destablize the country in the name of promoting democracy and topple a leader undesirable in the eyes of the west? Any regrets by spy chiefs over this disastrous outcome?
1
Obama and the left refused to stand up to the tyrant, and millions will die because of that decision.
1
Here we go again with the use of military force. How many disastrous failures will it take before the "bombing solves everything" crowd learns that our military adventurism leads to mass suffering and increased terrorism? These bombing enthusiasts must be required to name an occasion where their philosophy actually worked in the region under consideration before they are allowed to go into their "death from above" spiel. Our military incursions are the driving factor in the Middle East becoming the humanitarian hellhole that it is. These "support Democracy or we'll kill you" fanatics have been wrong too many times to be taken seriously any longer. Also, note how eager these brave souls are to volunteer our young people to kill and die on foreign shores. They'll fight to the last drop of someone else's blood - just ask them! Men of action, indeed!
1
It is not enough, as many have suggested, to let the Syrians duke it out by themselves unless you are also prepared to turn your back on the humanitarian crises that results.
1
I like Roger Cohen's column.
The best presidents - not the smartest ones - have experts around them who are smarter and more experienced than they are and are willing to listen to them.
I believe that this has been a problem for Obama. He still believes that he's the smartest guy in the room. Sometimes it's worked - and other times it's backfired - to disasterous results.
The best presidents - not the smartest ones - have experts around them who are smarter and more experienced than they are and are willing to listen to them.
I believe that this has been a problem for Obama. He still believes that he's the smartest guy in the room. Sometimes it's worked - and other times it's backfired - to disasterous results.
1
While I was reading the article, I thought why U.S has to take the blame for not meddling in. Then it just occurred to me that when we live on the same community, which is Earth, people expect the powerful one and other same-minded forces to take out the bad guys. The world is more interconnected, adopting inaction when one should do the otherwise will surely come back to you someday. But we should understand it needs agreement and joint efforts to make a difference.
1
I completely agree with this assessment. I guess the problem is, that president Obama, as very smart as he is, is a lawyer, and not enough a student of history. (and by history I don't mean going back only to the catastrophic invasion of Iraq.)
1
Can't stop coming back to this alarmingly neocon-like article written by Roger Cohen. I know that foreign-born neocons exist (Niall Ferguson, for example) but I'm still surprised Cohen wrote this.
Look, go to Congress and ask each member the religious background of Bashar Assad. I'll bet you a huge majority of Republicans and probably a large number of Democrats have no clue. To the ones who don't know, then tell them that Assad is an Alawite and ask them to describe who the Alawites are. Bet you very few could get it right.
The USA is not a country that should be intervening in Syria's affairs.
Look, go to Congress and ask each member the religious background of Bashar Assad. I'll bet you a huge majority of Republicans and probably a large number of Democrats have no clue. To the ones who don't know, then tell them that Assad is an Alawite and ask them to describe who the Alawites are. Bet you very few could get it right.
The USA is not a country that should be intervening in Syria's affairs.
5
"But American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates."
***
Unfortunately, there are consequences to the Obama Doctrine. As with everything else, those who supported him unquestionably had to learn this the hard way.
Calling something an "achievement" is a far cry from an actual accomplishment. Turns out doing nothing is actually something, and it can go very bad.
***
Unfortunately, there are consequences to the Obama Doctrine. As with everything else, those who supported him unquestionably had to learn this the hard way.
Calling something an "achievement" is a far cry from an actual accomplishment. Turns out doing nothing is actually something, and it can go very bad.
2
AACNY, there were consequences to Bush doctrine as well, including:
. 3,000 dead in USA homeland, 9/11/01
. 7,000 Americans dead in Iraq, Afghanistan
. Destabilized Middle East
. 3,000 dead in USA homeland, 9/11/01
. 7,000 Americans dead in Iraq, Afghanistan
. Destabilized Middle East
An evocation principled on "doing something" particularly in the absence of any viable alternatives (none were offered by either party in our government, our military, or our allies) should not be used to establish a perceived "cause and effect" regarding the results where one chooses to do nothing.
Similarly, Mr. Obama (or his "supporters" whom you interestingly reference) need not wring their hands with guilt particularly when one is reminded of the nature and consequences of Type 1 vs Type 2 errors. This is not a "gotcha" moment.
The Russians, after a heavy toll in loss of life and limb in Afghanistan, ironically, seem interested in taking on both the Syrian rebels and, perhaps, ISIS as they choose to inject themselves into the "Arab spring" (whatever that is) and the unstable politics of the region. With the number of the Syrians leaving, I suspect the Russians will find few allies and little support remaining in their effort. In short, they will find Syria very different from the situation in Ukraine and, we would do well to stay out of it.
You are correct, bad things do happen. "Wisdom" is recognizing the true ability one has to mitigate the effects.
Similarly, Mr. Obama (or his "supporters" whom you interestingly reference) need not wring their hands with guilt particularly when one is reminded of the nature and consequences of Type 1 vs Type 2 errors. This is not a "gotcha" moment.
The Russians, after a heavy toll in loss of life and limb in Afghanistan, ironically, seem interested in taking on both the Syrian rebels and, perhaps, ISIS as they choose to inject themselves into the "Arab spring" (whatever that is) and the unstable politics of the region. With the number of the Syrians leaving, I suspect the Russians will find few allies and little support remaining in their effort. In short, they will find Syria very different from the situation in Ukraine and, we would do well to stay out of it.
You are correct, bad things do happen. "Wisdom" is recognizing the true ability one has to mitigate the effects.
1
His doctrine has been a lot less costly and much more safer than his predecessor, by many leagues.
The usual fallacy is at play here. The fallacy prescribes that we can control everything and should do so when world problems arise. One thing is certain: one cannot overcome in a guerrilla war if the combatants are willing to sacrifice themselves and persist. We have seen it in Vietnam, with the mujadins fighting the Russian in Afghanistan and now ISIS and whatever other group is around. When things like the Syrian migration happen, we falsely, or perhaps naively, think that if we had done this or that, we would have prevented the catastrophe from occurring. Nevertheless,the situation is now so dire that something both drastic and uncertain must be tried. Europe has two options, keep on receiving waves of refugees or create a coalition force to clear a swath of land in Syria where the refugees can be safe. The choice is disorder at home or risk abroad.
7
Europe has a third option, closing its borders to unwelcomed migrants.
1
Closing the borders might work on an orderly flux of immigrants but it does not work against waves of desperate people trying to save their lives. Can you imagine millions of people clamoring at the borders and rushing the guards. What would they do, shoot them?
Vulgar. Stupid . Wrong.
For the first time in a long time we have a President who appreciates the lunacy of sticking our nose in the affairs of the middle east where many/most hate us and would like to see us burn and you want to fire up the war machine again.
Worst op-ed ever in the Times.
For the first time in a long time we have a President who appreciates the lunacy of sticking our nose in the affairs of the middle east where many/most hate us and would like to see us burn and you want to fire up the war machine again.
Worst op-ed ever in the Times.
9
What happens next? That's the quintessential question that needs to be fully debated and unequivocally answered before involving ourselves in any foreign conflict. We got the question disastrously wrong with Iraq and Libya. And we are simply afraid of the answer in Syria. We simply don't know for sure what happens to Syria post-Assad. How much can we trust the rebels? How do we keep ISIS and Russia at bay? What's time timetable? How much help can we realistically get from Europe? Will they put any skin in the game? We have to be sure that our involvement won't make the situation worse. And, yes, it could be much worse.
1
This debate over escalation of U.S. force in Syria brings to mind an old governmental reflex on Vietnam: this isn't working so we should do more of it. The U.S. militarization of the Middle East, the vast U.S. support for Gulf dictatorships, and the destruction of Iraqi society in particular, have, more than anything else, accelerated the rise of Islamist militancy throughout much of the Middle East and Northern Africa. So let's do more of the same against this most recent manifestation of brutal Islamist militancy.
2
I have to disagree with Roger. We have no business starting ANOTHER conflict in the Middle East. I do think it was a mistake for Obama to declare the 'red line', but I am glad he has not used force in Syria. We cannot continue to be the 'police force' of the Middle East. Other Middle Eastern countries need to start doing more to take care of their own neighborhood. Have we EVER gone into conflict there and made things better? Absolutely not. Every time we stick our necks and put troops on the ground we end up making the situation worse in the long run. We provide a temporary band-aid at best. Another article mentioned the idea of trying to setup a 'no-fly' zone in southern Syria which may at least halt the barrel bombs and force some kind of diplomatic compromise. The U.N. could also send in more humanitarian aid. I'm all for that if that even though I do not believe the Assad regime will ever compromise or cease fire for any length of time.
3
Huh? The situation is Syria is deplorable and heart rending. Who is responsible? Who can end the Syrian nightmare? The answer, despite Mr. Cohen's assertion to the contrary, is not the U.S. America cannot do the right thing for two reasons. No one can define the military objective for America intervention and most Americans are unwilling to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve such a goal if it were even possible. It is high time for Americans to take a step back and realize that we cannot assume responsibility for other people’s bad choices. Those bad choices include situation after situation in the Middle East where different groups are unwilling to tolerate ethnic and religious diversity resulting in an ending number of conflicts between those whose geopolitical imperative necessitates getting along with those who are different.
7
It is common to think that actions have consequences but it is also true that inaction can have serious consequences, as well. Mr. Obama's dismal back peddling after Syria used chemical weapons on his people, will long be remembered as an example of inaction leading to horrific tragedy.
The death of more Syrians occurred immediately, as did the displacement of millions. The vacuum resulting from our withdrawal of immediate action gave throat to ISIL and the murderous actions which have sickened the world.
Mr. Obama has confused Syria and US response of our misadventures in Iraq. The cost of American withdrawal of support for Middle East barbarity will be remembered in the region as new alliances and coalitions are formed. The new Middle East that our President foresaw, by his own actions, has been irretrievably damaged for decades to come.
The death of more Syrians occurred immediately, as did the displacement of millions. The vacuum resulting from our withdrawal of immediate action gave throat to ISIL and the murderous actions which have sickened the world.
Mr. Obama has confused Syria and US response of our misadventures in Iraq. The cost of American withdrawal of support for Middle East barbarity will be remembered in the region as new alliances and coalitions are formed. The new Middle East that our President foresaw, by his own actions, has been irretrievably damaged for decades to come.
5
No one, either in the U.S. nor any of our allies, or even more estranged allies (Russia) wanted any part of enforcing Obama's red line.
One of the consequence of exercising coercive authority is that it undermines moral authority/perceived legitimacy. Another consequence is that the more coercive authority you use, the less coercive authority you have. Finally coercive authority is extremely expensive - which is why one should have allies to defray the cost.
First Gulf War we had so much Moral Authority/Perceived Legitimacy we actually made a profit. The Afghan war cost money but we still had lots of allies. The 2nd Gulf War drained the treasury and our Moral Authority - so that when time for consideration of Syria came along NO ONE WANTED IN. NO ONE.
It was time to re-charge our moral authority. Some of it came back quick too. A year later when the U.S. needed a coalition to penalize Putin for his actions against Ukraine, he was able to find it.
A wise prince avoids using coercive force, and when he can, employs others to do it for him. When that fails, he employs the use of allies. etc...
The U.S. in the Revolutionary War was so weak that it could not avoid this kind of logic. We had to enlist allies just to fight it. By the end of the war, nearly ever country in Europe was our ally or was hostile to England, our adversary, England, was isolated and bleeding money, This drove them to the peace table and won us our independence.
One of the consequence of exercising coercive authority is that it undermines moral authority/perceived legitimacy. Another consequence is that the more coercive authority you use, the less coercive authority you have. Finally coercive authority is extremely expensive - which is why one should have allies to defray the cost.
First Gulf War we had so much Moral Authority/Perceived Legitimacy we actually made a profit. The Afghan war cost money but we still had lots of allies. The 2nd Gulf War drained the treasury and our Moral Authority - so that when time for consideration of Syria came along NO ONE WANTED IN. NO ONE.
It was time to re-charge our moral authority. Some of it came back quick too. A year later when the U.S. needed a coalition to penalize Putin for his actions against Ukraine, he was able to find it.
A wise prince avoids using coercive force, and when he can, employs others to do it for him. When that fails, he employs the use of allies. etc...
The U.S. in the Revolutionary War was so weak that it could not avoid this kind of logic. We had to enlist allies just to fight it. By the end of the war, nearly ever country in Europe was our ally or was hostile to England, our adversary, England, was isolated and bleeding money, This drove them to the peace table and won us our independence.
Why can't the US set up refugee camps in Syria and defend the camps with Western troops? Why does the US need to support *anyone* other than the civilians?
7
We are now living the consequences of encouraging the Arab Spring to take place while not being willing to put the real resources of blood and treasure to allow them to have a realistic chance to affect true change. If we (the collective West - Pres Obama and Europe) were not really willing to commit the appropriate resources, why in the world did we encourage these civil wars to start in the first place?
So, to paraphrase Colin Powell (I believe) after the invasion of Iraq, we helped break the places, so now we own the consequences. I hope all the western nations that supported the various activities uprising around the Arab Spring are now fully willing to accept refugees from the different nations.
It that is the case, then at least we are attempting to provide some solace to the peoples of these nations that have been displaced by our misguided nudges.
So, to paraphrase Colin Powell (I believe) after the invasion of Iraq, we helped break the places, so now we own the consequences. I hope all the western nations that supported the various activities uprising around the Arab Spring are now fully willing to accept refugees from the different nations.
It that is the case, then at least we are attempting to provide some solace to the peoples of these nations that have been displaced by our misguided nudges.
7
I remember how Chalabi (who was allied with Iran) and others from the M.E. said what they needed to say, so that Cheney heard what he strongly wanted to hear, to support his own corrupt agenda, to bolster the deception for the invasion of Iraq.
Cheney got his war; Iran was strengthened. And Iraq has been overrun with theocrats and religious extremists. The US was played for the sucker and manipulated for both corrupt domestic and foreign agendas.
Libya was sold to the American people as a humanitarian cause. The NYTimes ran stories highlighting rude un-humanitarian treatment to journalists. Now that Libya is overrun with religious extremists, apparently the even worse humanitarian consequences there don't matter.
Syria doesn't appear to be different from the pattern. Islam radicalism and theocracy is poised to gain.
And here the foreign governments & factions in the region, playing the "Great Game" for regional domination appear again to be using the US, for motives that are obviously, truly not, humanitarian. They are chess masters in comparison to our checkers players in charge of foreign policy.
Are our foreign policy leaders also in on the "game" for some inpenetrable benefit to the US? Or they are being played (again) so that the consequences would again burden and damage the US?
The question is, when will we learn?
Cheney got his war; Iran was strengthened. And Iraq has been overrun with theocrats and religious extremists. The US was played for the sucker and manipulated for both corrupt domestic and foreign agendas.
Libya was sold to the American people as a humanitarian cause. The NYTimes ran stories highlighting rude un-humanitarian treatment to journalists. Now that Libya is overrun with religious extremists, apparently the even worse humanitarian consequences there don't matter.
Syria doesn't appear to be different from the pattern. Islam radicalism and theocracy is poised to gain.
And here the foreign governments & factions in the region, playing the "Great Game" for regional domination appear again to be using the US, for motives that are obviously, truly not, humanitarian. They are chess masters in comparison to our checkers players in charge of foreign policy.
Are our foreign policy leaders also in on the "game" for some inpenetrable benefit to the US? Or they are being played (again) so that the consequences would again burden and damage the US?
The question is, when will we learn?
2
Agree with you totally.
The real goal is perpetual war anywhere because it is a perpetual income stream for particular people.
A group of people wanted oil pipelines to cross Syria and Assad said no. Hence, all of this nightmare is the outcome of that no.
Those people still want that pipeline and Syria's offshore oil. They want what they want and the human catastrophe is irrelevant to them.
They will get what they want, and Cohen's article helps to manufacture consent to build up to the US war to get it.
All of these comments about religion is completely missing the point.
The real goal is perpetual war anywhere because it is a perpetual income stream for particular people.
A group of people wanted oil pipelines to cross Syria and Assad said no. Hence, all of this nightmare is the outcome of that no.
Those people still want that pipeline and Syria's offshore oil. They want what they want and the human catastrophe is irrelevant to them.
They will get what they want, and Cohen's article helps to manufacture consent to build up to the US war to get it.
All of these comments about religion is completely missing the point.
Well put. As a liberal who believes negotiation has become an even more important asset in our ever smaller and interconnected planet versus war and aggression I was disturbed and disappointed when there was no implementation of both a no fly/no go zone and creation of a safe haven. Following the First Gulf War Operation Desert Fox remarkably contained The strong man in Iraq for more than a decade. The proof was actually in the pudding. The President will bear the responsibility here. At the same time intervention exhaustion syndrome has an etiolology called Afghanistan and Iraq.
Roger is always worth reading. With regard to this piece, a couple of dissenting points:
1. When Obama used the term "red line" in Syria he said that if he saw chemical weapons being moved around or utilized "it would change his calculus." It did. He worked with Putin and got the chemical weapons out and he went to Congress and asked for an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUM). Congress, which has the power to declare war, dithered...demonstrating once again how they earn their 14% approval rating.
2. Roger says Obama is "uncomfortable with American military power." I think he is cautious with the USE of military power and that's a good thing. Eisenhower and Bush l and Scowcroft felt the same way. Cheney and Bush ll and Wolfowitz were perfectly willing to put other people or their children into harms way...ad infinitum.
3. In Lybia, Roger tells us "Obama bombed and abandoned." Would Roger have preferred it if we had left 50,000 troops as an occupying force? Probably not.
4. Roger's piece clearly implies we should be more active in the use of military. He has nothing to say about what we should do AFTER we win. With our military we can clearly win wars. Winning is really just the admission ticket to solving the real problem. WHAT NOW?
Like I said, Roger is always worth reading.
1. When Obama used the term "red line" in Syria he said that if he saw chemical weapons being moved around or utilized "it would change his calculus." It did. He worked with Putin and got the chemical weapons out and he went to Congress and asked for an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUM). Congress, which has the power to declare war, dithered...demonstrating once again how they earn their 14% approval rating.
2. Roger says Obama is "uncomfortable with American military power." I think he is cautious with the USE of military power and that's a good thing. Eisenhower and Bush l and Scowcroft felt the same way. Cheney and Bush ll and Wolfowitz were perfectly willing to put other people or their children into harms way...ad infinitum.
3. In Lybia, Roger tells us "Obama bombed and abandoned." Would Roger have preferred it if we had left 50,000 troops as an occupying force? Probably not.
4. Roger's piece clearly implies we should be more active in the use of military. He has nothing to say about what we should do AFTER we win. With our military we can clearly win wars. Winning is really just the admission ticket to solving the real problem. WHAT NOW?
Like I said, Roger is always worth reading.
6
We tried peacekeeping in the midst of an ongoing civil war with terrible results in Lebanon and Somalia. We tried militarily overthrow of enemy regimes with a resulting failure to secure the peace, with terrible results in Afghanistan and Iraq. We tried military overthrow of enemy regimes with modest involvement on the ground, with terrible results in Libya. We tried arming proxy forces without further involvement, with terrible results in Afghanistan, Angola and elsewhere in the 1980's. We tried a no-fly zone in Iraq in the 1990's until 2003, with ultimately unsatisfactory results. Sounds like most of the "solutions" that Roger Cohen has in mind for Syria have been tried by the US with bad results before. Why think they could work today?
2
Sorry Roger, but I must disagree with your premise- that the US should have gotten more involved in yet another endless civil war in the ME.
First of all, Putin and China vetoed action by the UN. Putin is a blatant supporter of Assad which complicates matters. Second, the idea of arming the rebels was seriously criticized at the time because as all things in the ME- you have no real allies or friends and you have no idea or control where those weapons would end up- in the hands of ISIS of course. How else do you explain how ISIS is armed with western military equipment? So, Obama was correct is not arming the so called rebels even more to the teeth with our guns which would then be used against us.
Thirdly, why are all the young Syrians leaving their own country to Assad while fleeing to Europe? Why aren't they continuing the fight to rid themselves of Assad? Why do they expect the US to do it while leaving their own country? And now the rest of the world has to handle the millions of refugees because they've given up on their own country?
It was dubbed the Arab Spring a few years ago... because the ME young people were finally rising up- but they gave up too easily and now want the world to take them in. I don't see how the US could have controlled the outcome when their own people are deserting the struggle and leaving their country to ISIS and Assad.
Finally and most importantly- the American people DO NOT want any further military or financial involvement in the ME.
First of all, Putin and China vetoed action by the UN. Putin is a blatant supporter of Assad which complicates matters. Second, the idea of arming the rebels was seriously criticized at the time because as all things in the ME- you have no real allies or friends and you have no idea or control where those weapons would end up- in the hands of ISIS of course. How else do you explain how ISIS is armed with western military equipment? So, Obama was correct is not arming the so called rebels even more to the teeth with our guns which would then be used against us.
Thirdly, why are all the young Syrians leaving their own country to Assad while fleeing to Europe? Why aren't they continuing the fight to rid themselves of Assad? Why do they expect the US to do it while leaving their own country? And now the rest of the world has to handle the millions of refugees because they've given up on their own country?
It was dubbed the Arab Spring a few years ago... because the ME young people were finally rising up- but they gave up too easily and now want the world to take them in. I don't see how the US could have controlled the outcome when their own people are deserting the struggle and leaving their country to ISIS and Assad.
Finally and most importantly- the American people DO NOT want any further military or financial involvement in the ME.
2
Syria would have been a devastating graveyard for US troops, fighting Assad's troops and hardened jihadis alike; we know from experience how quickly "allies" turn after a few wrong moves.
Furthermore, it has always seemed like a liberal pipe-dream that there was a substantial force of moderate fighters against Assad; we would have been aiding the very fanatics who would later come after us, just as happened with the Muj in Afghanistan.
I think that Cohen, like other 'internationalist' pundits, deeply underestimates the power and effect that Islam has on its practitioners. True moderates or agnostics are very rare, just as they were among Christians 200 years ago.
Furthermore, it has always seemed like a liberal pipe-dream that there was a substantial force of moderate fighters against Assad; we would have been aiding the very fanatics who would later come after us, just as happened with the Muj in Afghanistan.
I think that Cohen, like other 'internationalist' pundits, deeply underestimates the power and effect that Islam has on its practitioners. True moderates or agnostics are very rare, just as they were among Christians 200 years ago.
2
If what you're saying about Islam is true, shouldn't the Europeans be doing their utmost to prevent such potential fanatics from entering their societies?
1
How foolish it is to blame President Obama for not intervening in a conflict involving hideous forces on almost all sides. Had the U.S. 'taken out' those barrel bombs, as Mr. Cohen suggests, it would only have paved the way for more ISIS victories. And yes, Mr. Obama abandoned Libya. Does Mr. Cohen have any idea what a huge commitment it would take to put the Libyan pieces into coherent order?
3
I deeply disagree with Mr. Cohen's policy prescriptions here. Had we bombed Syrian forces two years ago, we would have only have hastened the region's descent into utter chaos. How many more examples do we need before we learn that whenever we destabilize a strongman in the Middle East--no matter how abhorrent he may be--what follows in his wake is always, always worse? We simply cannot afford to make this mistake again. Mr. Cohen's failure to learn from the past is troubling.
12
How is Syria Obama's debacle and not Europe's?
We just incurred a major disaster in invading Iraq.
With Syria, the least worst approach was the best and that's the approach Obama took.
We just incurred a major disaster in invading Iraq.
With Syria, the least worst approach was the best and that's the approach Obama took.
2
Obama didn't do more because he was trying to appease the Iranians and the Russians (Assad's two major backers) with whom he was negotiating a nuclear deal. That the writer ignores this once again, is disturbing. He has been trumpeting the Iran deal for months and yet no mention of the relationship between the slaughter in Syria and the propping up of the Assad by Iran, who, without Iran, would have fallen long ago.
7
And I suppose the fall of Assad would have been just a fine and dandy thing, right? The Assads are awful, but a cursory glance at how Syria governed itself prior to Hafez Assad's seizure of power in 1970 shouldn't make anybody feel optimistic about Syria without Assad at the helm.
2
Your choice is Assad or ISIS. It's that simple.
"A Peace to end All Peace". Read it.
Iran and Cuba were not foreign policy triumphs born of courage- more of convenience with a nod to the legacy of the feckless one. Low hanging fruit- easy pickings. And regarding Iran, he won't be around when that next time-bomb explodes. A Photo op foreign policy.
When heavy lifting was required such as with Assad or Putin, Obama was nowhere to be found , or maybe he was attempting to "lead from behind." The US is not alone in blame for the refugee crisis. He had equally absent western partners who now are falling all over themselves trying to line up deals with Iran.
Just remember when 2016 rolls around that HRC was complicit in the fiasco, even castigating Romney in 2012 for calling Russia a grave problem. We know how that worked out.
When heavy lifting was required such as with Assad or Putin, Obama was nowhere to be found , or maybe he was attempting to "lead from behind." The US is not alone in blame for the refugee crisis. He had equally absent western partners who now are falling all over themselves trying to line up deals with Iran.
Just remember when 2016 rolls around that HRC was complicit in the fiasco, even castigating Romney in 2012 for calling Russia a grave problem. We know how that worked out.
6
And the above just outlined the National Republican Party platform on foreign policy-i.e. More War!
Cohen may be partly right in asserting that Obama has shifted demonstrably the American foreign policies from 'strategic action to strategic inaction' in Syrian crisis. But, was He apathetic? No, it was a Hobson's choice offered repeatedly to the American president by rigid Chinese and Russian counterparts. Hence, it is inappropriate to blame one person; world leaders must share the collective guilt. I hope world leaders are capable of guilt. Unlike shame, guilt is regenerative!
3
"The pendulum swings endlessly between interventionism and retrenchment because the United States is hard-wired to the notion that it can make the world a better place".
Are you serious?! Is that the reason why we intervened in Iran in 1954, Chile in 1973, Central America (with death squad regimes) in the 80's, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia......it goes on and on.
No imperial power - in recorded history - has the "notion that it can make the world a better place". It is all about power and domination
Are you serious?! Is that the reason why we intervened in Iran in 1954, Chile in 1973, Central America (with death squad regimes) in the 80's, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia......it goes on and on.
No imperial power - in recorded history - has the "notion that it can make the world a better place". It is all about power and domination
4
Unfortunately, Americans are generally too ignorant to get more deeply involved in the Syrian war. Try to imagine buddy of Benjamin Netanyahu and all around belligerent bloodthirsty neocon Tommy Cotton of Arkansas--his Harvard degrees mean nothing and he'd probably spell "Iran" as E-Y-E-R-A-N if asked to do so without looking it up--playing a leading role in formulating Syria strategy for the USA. He'll undoubtedly get that role if the USA gets more heavily involved and a GOP president takes office in January 2017.
For me, the lasting image that speaks to general American cluelessness about what to do in Syria is John McCain smiling for the camera in that country with a bunch of anti-Assad militants who have probably gone on to commit gruesome acts of violence.
For me, the lasting image that speaks to general American cluelessness about what to do in Syria is John McCain smiling for the camera in that country with a bunch of anti-Assad militants who have probably gone on to commit gruesome acts of violence.
2
No doubt bloodthirsty neocon Cotton could use some help in spelling "Iraq" too ....E-Y-E-R-A-K, when he tries to find it on the world atlas.
Climate change has reduced Syria's ability to feed its population, and this will only get worse in coming decades. People were willing to put up with Assad until the crops started failing.
If the US were to remove the current government, the onus would be on them to fix the country - difficult, when the agricultural basis of its economy is gone.
If the US were to remove the current government, the onus would be on them to fix the country - difficult, when the agricultural basis of its economy is gone.
1
The problems of The Middle East started almost a century ago when Sykes, Picot, Balfour, et al. carved up what had been the Ottoman and Persian Empires into what the European victors of WW-I thought made sense, or at least what worked for their interests. In the decades following, the western nations tinkered with all of these nation-states, supporting one monarch or dictator, creating tension, shifting borders, changing alliances, and generally dismissing the general population of the nations they created.
Now, with almost a century of manipulation, invasion, and occupation the whole region is ready to explode and the people we have generally ignored are running for their lives.
This is Obama's fault? Let's get real. The list of western national leaders and Soviet leaders who prolonged the mess is very long and Obama's contribution to the problems is very small.
"...the United States is hard-wired to the notion that it can make the world a better place." Really? While the USA contributed to the mess, it was hardly alone and why is it that the USA and their taxpayers are expected to fix all of the problems and turn this region of the planet into utopia?
Yes, the western nations and former soviets all contributed to the problem and we should all take responsibility but Obama did not do all of the damage and cannot fix a century of wrong in eight years.
Now, with almost a century of manipulation, invasion, and occupation the whole region is ready to explode and the people we have generally ignored are running for their lives.
This is Obama's fault? Let's get real. The list of western national leaders and Soviet leaders who prolonged the mess is very long and Obama's contribution to the problems is very small.
"...the United States is hard-wired to the notion that it can make the world a better place." Really? While the USA contributed to the mess, it was hardly alone and why is it that the USA and their taxpayers are expected to fix all of the problems and turn this region of the planet into utopia?
Yes, the western nations and former soviets all contributed to the problem and we should all take responsibility but Obama did not do all of the damage and cannot fix a century of wrong in eight years.
I'm surprised at the absolute certainy and conviction with which Roger Cohen -- who is believable because he is among the most nuanced of columnists, another way of saying he gets complexity -- asserts his argument even though, as he acknowledges, "Counterfactuals, of course, don't carry much weight." Even if I was more convinced that American air or military power could have stopped Assad's barrel bombs or created safe havens for Syrians inside their own country, what about the unintended consequences of these actions? I haven't been vouchsafed those answers, but apparently Mr. Cohen has despite the emergency brakes the calamity of Iraq finally and at long last triggered.
Syria has today and has had for years thousands of Russian advisors in country with the latest Russian radar equipment and anti-aircraft weapons. An air war over Syria would be a major, major undertaking with the risk of indirect and possibly direct Russian involvement . Someday we will know the extent of intelligence about Russian influence in Syria but we know enough today to know it is extensive. For Roger Cohen to say the Syrian aircraft dropping barrel bombs could have been taken out is overly simplistic in light of the intelligence about Russian anti-aircraft weapons.
Situations of any sort which require a decision are made worse by making no decision at all. This is a fundamental tenant of leadership. However, Obama's "lead from behind" style rarely, if ever, works. Allowing Syria to cross the so-called "red line", and/or handling the ISIS/ISIL situation using a minimal military footprint, have only resulted in more difficult tasks for those who eventually will have to deal with them. A president can only go so far to protect his legacy, especially when it's others who must pay the price of doing so.
Our military advisors now are calling for a badly needed re-boot of our strategies...a day late and many dollars short. To complicate matters, the Russians are stepping-in to fill the void. All of this in the face of Obama's deliberate efforts to shrink our military to pre-WWII levels, supposedly because he fears its power.
Obama now is calling for the United States to take-in Syrian refugees, some of whom may even be ISIS operatives, with no way of properly vetting them, getting them here, paying for their transportation, or housing them once they are. Yet, he has done nothing to procure a path to citizenship for legal immigrants already in the country.
Does any of what this president does regarding foreign policy make sense? I don't care which political stripe you wear, some of this should come under question. The only actions he seems to favor are those that benefit the other side. Why? Your guess is as good as mine.
Our military advisors now are calling for a badly needed re-boot of our strategies...a day late and many dollars short. To complicate matters, the Russians are stepping-in to fill the void. All of this in the face of Obama's deliberate efforts to shrink our military to pre-WWII levels, supposedly because he fears its power.
Obama now is calling for the United States to take-in Syrian refugees, some of whom may even be ISIS operatives, with no way of properly vetting them, getting them here, paying for their transportation, or housing them once they are. Yet, he has done nothing to procure a path to citizenship for legal immigrants already in the country.
Does any of what this president does regarding foreign policy make sense? I don't care which political stripe you wear, some of this should come under question. The only actions he seems to favor are those that benefit the other side. Why? Your guess is as good as mine.
1
Blaming President Obama for a failure of foreign policy in Syria is ridiculous.
They do have, somewhere among them, grown up people in Syria. They have grown up people in Turkey and in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and even in Iran and Iraq. Why not blame them? They deserve most of the blame for sowing the seeds of religious hatred or economic envy among themselves. And they are the ones who speak the language. They are the ones who can actually do something about it. They can put boots on the ground without needing translators.
Why not blame President Putin in Russia? But he isn't primarily to blame because this is to a great degree a religious war, or a religiously fostered tribal and economic war. He just favors one tribe more than the others.
What good would it do to put more Americans or any other brand of troops on the ground to get wounded or killed if the existing participants insist on "jihad"? And I mean "jihad" in its most irresponsible sense, namely, killing other people because they are not true believers of one's particular ideology.
At this stage, the best you can really do is help the bulk of refugees by re-settling them somewhere near their original homelands. There's a lot of empty space there if you move east. And then there are all those hotel rooms in Dubai.
Let the teenagers and young people fight it out in Syria as that's what they seem to want to do. The only thing you can do about that is to limit their access to heavy weapons.
They do have, somewhere among them, grown up people in Syria. They have grown up people in Turkey and in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and even in Iran and Iraq. Why not blame them? They deserve most of the blame for sowing the seeds of religious hatred or economic envy among themselves. And they are the ones who speak the language. They are the ones who can actually do something about it. They can put boots on the ground without needing translators.
Why not blame President Putin in Russia? But he isn't primarily to blame because this is to a great degree a religious war, or a religiously fostered tribal and economic war. He just favors one tribe more than the others.
What good would it do to put more Americans or any other brand of troops on the ground to get wounded or killed if the existing participants insist on "jihad"? And I mean "jihad" in its most irresponsible sense, namely, killing other people because they are not true believers of one's particular ideology.
At this stage, the best you can really do is help the bulk of refugees by re-settling them somewhere near their original homelands. There's a lot of empty space there if you move east. And then there are all those hotel rooms in Dubai.
Let the teenagers and young people fight it out in Syria as that's what they seem to want to do. The only thing you can do about that is to limit their access to heavy weapons.
This is Europe's problem more than the US. the EU needs to take much more responsibility for policing the problem areas that affect its own interest. The EU spends much less than the US does on military, and by ideology is much less willing to be proactive in confronting problem areas with military force. There is nothing inherent about the EU that requires this to be the case. It's economy as essentially as large as the US; it has broad technical and manufacturing capabilities, and it consists of stable democracies. Germany, the UK, and France, alone of collectively, could have toppled Assad and his third rate military, and confronted ISIS, without any US support at all. Russia is not going to war against the EU over Syria. The bottom line is if the EU wants to prevent catastrophe's like this in the future, it needs to step up to the plate and lead, rather than leaving the US to do all the dirty work. It is fairly certain that if Mexico or Panama were collapsing leading to a mass exodus across US borders, the US would not be asking the EU to handle it and intervene.
The argument is that "can implies must". America has the power to defeat Assad, therefore we must. We can help the Syrians, therefore it is a moral imperative that we do so.
The problem with that argument is that there's no logical end to the moral obligation. It entails an infinite imperative to intervene where ever and whenever our superior wealth or military power would allow us to end suffering. That's a fine ideal, but simply an unrealistic principle upon which to base a foreign policy.
The problem with that argument is that there's no logical end to the moral obligation. It entails an infinite imperative to intervene where ever and whenever our superior wealth or military power would allow us to end suffering. That's a fine ideal, but simply an unrealistic principle upon which to base a foreign policy.
This simply seems like a party-line statement of opposition to the other side. Darned if you do: darned if you don't. Iran is still a mess: we cannot and should not try to the police of the world, specifically with troops. I agree with pinpoint use of force.
I know these people need help. But I also remember the 1990s when the US "waged peace" to feed the people of Syria. Before we had withdrawn, those same people (having been fed) bloodied our troops in their streets.
I know these people need help. But I also remember the 1990s when the US "waged peace" to feed the people of Syria. Before we had withdrawn, those same people (having been fed) bloodied our troops in their streets.
It's interesting that the Left is quick to call George Bush a war criminal because his decision to depose a genocidal dictator who started two wars including one that cost a million lives plus the murders of thousands of Kurds by poison gas bombs -- however naive, well-meaning, or duplicitous you want to make it -- ended up in the post-overthrow chaos in Iraq in which various Arab factions slaughtered each other to the tune of 100,000 lives. But Obama -- the un-George Bush -- decided to promote a policy of "not doing stupid stuff" which meant getting out of Iraq quickly, treating ISIS as a "junior varsity terrorist group" not to be taken too seriously, not arming any faction in the Syrian war even if they are secular and lean towards the West, and of course miraculously turning red lines in the sand into no lines despite the overwhelming evidence that Assad is still using poison gas weapons. The result has been the slaughter of an additional 200,000 lives and hundreds of thousands of desperate refugees flooding into Europe and neighboring countries. Yet, somehow I don't expect to hear anyone on the Left accusing Obama of war crimes.
"not arming any faction" - which one would you have armed?
The United States is party to treaties that obligate it and other nations to intervene to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity. The Administration offered to draw a "red line," but when it was crossed again long after Assad murdered thousands of his people, the Administration and Congress failed to act. Since World War II, we have picked our battles poorly, intervening in civil strife we had no business in, initiating wars we could not win, wasting huge resources that could have been used to lift civilian societies up on battles and defense budgets that have torn people down. We have stood by and watched genocide take place in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East since 1990, and this ostrich approach cannot be laid only at Obama's feet. Unless we regain our moral compass, intervene with our allies when we must, and have the spine to stop the commission of atrocities when they start, order in the world will continue to unwind.
During Arab Spring, Putin backed Assad's murderous repression of pro-democracy Syrians marching for free elections. Assad slaughtered civilians, escalating civil disobedience to civil war. ISIS moved into the ruins. Two hundred thousand deaths later, Assad is still in power. Putin is moving Russian armaments and troops into Syria.
What is Putin's grand strategy?
Putin's grand strategy is to reclaim Soviet Empire and destabilize European democracy. The Eastern prong is to retake Ukraine. The Southern prong is to force Syrian refugees into Europe.
Has Russia taken in any Syrian refugees? No.
America and Europe must take in refugees on humanitarian grounds.
But the root cause is Putin. Who has the guts to stand up to him? Hillary Clinton.
What is Putin's grand strategy?
Putin's grand strategy is to reclaim Soviet Empire and destabilize European democracy. The Eastern prong is to retake Ukraine. The Southern prong is to force Syrian refugees into Europe.
Has Russia taken in any Syrian refugees? No.
America and Europe must take in refugees on humanitarian grounds.
But the root cause is Putin. Who has the guts to stand up to him? Hillary Clinton.
I am sorry but this column must be very nearly classified as ahistorical, certainly ageographical, if there is such a term. When you look for "Sykes-Picot" using the search function of this publication, only Friedman and Douthat seem to have mentioned it, and that in 2014. Thanks to the Brits and the French who designed the borders in the Middle East, Iraq is not stable, Syria is not stable, Libya is not stable. These countries were designed like that, a minority (in Iraq: Sunnis) that was weaponaized to oppress a majority (in Iraq: Shia), minimizing the probability of success and further dependence on the Empires (and also: oil companies). These countries can only exist when a there's a strongman. The strongman was removed for no reason by the last administration, civil war broke out, the Iraqi army was dissolved with the blessing of West Point and Annapolis and the Iraqi army of Saddam's time now constitutes the heart of ISIS. Mr. Obama's mistake, if any, was that he didn't make Malaki at least integrate the former Iraqi army into his batallions of uselessness. There is only one stable solution: redraw the borders.
1
I respect and usually agree with Mr. Cohen. But this is Monday morning quarter-backing at its finest. What Mr. Cohen does not remember or chooses not to mention are the following facts.
1. President Obama did actually seek from Congress a resolution to bomb Syria. Congress was too timid to take a vote. (For that matter, Congress is yet to approve the war with ISIS, and has not bothered to vote for over 6 months).
2. The British House of Commons voted not to bomb Syria, leaving America to go it alone.
3. Russia agreed to remove all chemical weapons, which at that time was hailed as a significant compromise.
1. President Obama did actually seek from Congress a resolution to bomb Syria. Congress was too timid to take a vote. (For that matter, Congress is yet to approve the war with ISIS, and has not bothered to vote for over 6 months).
2. The British House of Commons voted not to bomb Syria, leaving America to go it alone.
3. Russia agreed to remove all chemical weapons, which at that time was hailed as a significant compromise.
2
There is simply no reason for us to become embroiled in another tribal conflict. We would simply waste manpower and resources. As the British and French started this mess in 1919, let them help out with the refugee crisis. The only thing we should be doing is helping out the Germans and Austrians financially to help allay the cost of housing and feeding the refugees.
Mr. Cohen is forgetting that Putin may have saved America from jumping into another quagmire. He fails to note that removing Syria's chemical weapons was a success. He also removes from consideration the possibility that American military involvement in Syria might result in further chaos, displacement and loss of life.
We have nothing less than a nightmare for the innocents in the region, produced by the people who lied our way into invading Iraq in the name of saving us from weapons that did not exist and promising to bring stability and democracy to the region. They now advocate military intervention in a civil war between many sides.
Where are the regional powers whose military we helped train and equip? Where are the wealthy oil rich Gulf States whose stake in suppressing ISIS is far greater that the danger a lone home grown misfit could create in the West?
It wasn't for humanitarian reasons we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and I suspect it would not be the root cause of an American invasion of Syria?
If we want to help the innocent, let us open the doors to refugees from Syria as we did so eagerly to Hungarians in 1956 and Cubans in 1960.
We have nothing less than a nightmare for the innocents in the region, produced by the people who lied our way into invading Iraq in the name of saving us from weapons that did not exist and promising to bring stability and democracy to the region. They now advocate military intervention in a civil war between many sides.
Where are the regional powers whose military we helped train and equip? Where are the wealthy oil rich Gulf States whose stake in suppressing ISIS is far greater that the danger a lone home grown misfit could create in the West?
It wasn't for humanitarian reasons we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and I suspect it would not be the root cause of an American invasion of Syria?
If we want to help the innocent, let us open the doors to refugees from Syria as we did so eagerly to Hungarians in 1956 and Cubans in 1960.
1
U.S. international strategy has been to support regional stability. This interest occasionally collides with a desire to "help" others enjoy the political and social benefits most of us in the West take for granted and assume they too crave beyond all else. It is a difficult balancing act to pull off and we mostly fail, as Cohen aptly describes the chaotic Middle East - minus, as always, that regional outlier with strong Western values, Israel.
"Diplomacy" according to the French is the art of making the inevitable occur sooner. We know what happened after Saddam Hussein was deposed, though why the subsequent violence perpetrated entirely by sectarian Muslims is accepted either as a given (along the "who are we to judge other cultures" school of post-colonial thought) or as inevitable is never adequately explained if it is true that people yearn for freedom in its Western formulation.
Here's a test of the French view: what do you suppose would happen in Iraq had Saddam Hussein been assassinated by one of his many opponents or even died peacefully in bed? Would his two psychopathic sons have succeeded him and ruled together? Would others have grabbed for power? Would we not be seeing the equivalent chaos we've been witnessing in Syria these past four years? And then, wouldn't we be excoriating the West for not having removed Saddam Hussein when we had the chance in the early years of the 21st Century? There are no good answers or guaranteed happy outcomes.
"Diplomacy" according to the French is the art of making the inevitable occur sooner. We know what happened after Saddam Hussein was deposed, though why the subsequent violence perpetrated entirely by sectarian Muslims is accepted either as a given (along the "who are we to judge other cultures" school of post-colonial thought) or as inevitable is never adequately explained if it is true that people yearn for freedom in its Western formulation.
Here's a test of the French view: what do you suppose would happen in Iraq had Saddam Hussein been assassinated by one of his many opponents or even died peacefully in bed? Would his two psychopathic sons have succeeded him and ruled together? Would others have grabbed for power? Would we not be seeing the equivalent chaos we've been witnessing in Syria these past four years? And then, wouldn't we be excoriating the West for not having removed Saddam Hussein when we had the chance in the early years of the 21st Century? There are no good answers or guaranteed happy outcomes.
1
"Arming the rebels early and massively might have changed the course of the war."
Yes, it might have changed things, but only for the worse. That's why Syrian Christians have begged us not to do so. They've seen the awful consequences of our bumbling interventions in Iraq, Egypt, and Libya, and our indifference to the existential threats we've unwittingly unleashed upon their 2000 year old communities.
If we can't tell the good guys from the bad guys, does it make sense to get involved at all?
Yes, it might have changed things, but only for the worse. That's why Syrian Christians have begged us not to do so. They've seen the awful consequences of our bumbling interventions in Iraq, Egypt, and Libya, and our indifference to the existential threats we've unwittingly unleashed upon their 2000 year old communities.
If we can't tell the good guys from the bad guys, does it make sense to get involved at all?
1
From Mr. Cohen I have learned that President Obama should have done--something. If only Obama had Cohen's power of hindsight, he might have done whatever it is that he should have done. It's interesting that Cohen criticizes Obama for not doing--something--but happily criticizes him for some of the things he did do, which were clearly blunders. I would guess that if Obama could retroactively take Cohen's advice and do--something--that he would now be criticizing Obama for doing something that didn't work, since it is unlikely that anything short of regime change could have made a difference, and we saw how that worked out in Iraq. Why do we assume that the US can solve every problem in the world?
50
In hindsight, Bush would not have invaded Iraq and would have taken the 9/11 terrorists before they struck the WTC.
"Obama walked away at the last minute from upholding his “red line” on the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons. In so doing, he reinforced Assad, reinforced Putin, declined to change the course of the Syrian war, and diminished America’s word in the world"
The New York Times and The Washington Post had numerous articles released about what Obama's "Red Line" would conclude for the country of Syria. A significant possibility of human casualties without any real evidence of subduing the Assad regime. Some options, like promoting safe zone for refugees, could of been considered, but there is no reason to believe that the missile strikes and other military options available to the president would even solve any underlying issue. Rather, the calculated number of potential human victims from the strikes would simply add a new statistic to the already heart wrenching number of about 200,000. There is no reason for the American public to believe that a united, centrally ordered Syria is simply right around the corner, after a limited or full military intervention by the United States. Clearly, if the president is more cautious about initiating large scale military efforts in Syria, it is because the intelligence community and military advisers see that country as incredibly abstract in it's problems and see no real solution offered by a new full scale war.
The New York Times and The Washington Post had numerous articles released about what Obama's "Red Line" would conclude for the country of Syria. A significant possibility of human casualties without any real evidence of subduing the Assad regime. Some options, like promoting safe zone for refugees, could of been considered, but there is no reason to believe that the missile strikes and other military options available to the president would even solve any underlying issue. Rather, the calculated number of potential human victims from the strikes would simply add a new statistic to the already heart wrenching number of about 200,000. There is no reason for the American public to believe that a united, centrally ordered Syria is simply right around the corner, after a limited or full military intervention by the United States. Clearly, if the president is more cautious about initiating large scale military efforts in Syria, it is because the intelligence community and military advisers see that country as incredibly abstract in it's problems and see no real solution offered by a new full scale war.
The problem with Syria, in a nutshell, is that Putin is not a stable person. He is probably literally crazy. Why should Assad back down when he had Putin's weapons? How could the U.S. force a peace in Syria without Assad's participation?
Only now, when the whole nation is destroyed, is Putin saying that maybe Assad should come to the table. One unstable world leader makes the whole balance of the world suffer, and it's not Obama.
Only now, when the whole nation is destroyed, is Putin saying that maybe Assad should come to the table. One unstable world leader makes the whole balance of the world suffer, and it's not Obama.
1
Mr. Cohen:
Pres. Obama is not the only one uncomfortable with the use Of American military power. Why you are not only conscious can answer. This column reads more like a Republican campaign ad than a serious consideration of the Syria
situation.
Most reasonable people would agree that military intervention should be the last choice on any list of options. We've been trudging our way through one foolish "intervention" after another ever since and including Vietnam. The plain fact of the matter is that our foreign policy is based on wholly misunderstanding one situation after another. This column is yet another example of that attitude.
Attempting to besmirch Pes. Obama's efforts to break this wrongheaded world view paints you as nothing more than another war monger who would rather act than think. The whole world is not some Gordian knot to be unbound by violence. Alexander died young, I might add. I thought better of you until this column.
Pres. Obama is not the only one uncomfortable with the use Of American military power. Why you are not only conscious can answer. This column reads more like a Republican campaign ad than a serious consideration of the Syria
situation.
Most reasonable people would agree that military intervention should be the last choice on any list of options. We've been trudging our way through one foolish "intervention" after another ever since and including Vietnam. The plain fact of the matter is that our foreign policy is based on wholly misunderstanding one situation after another. This column is yet another example of that attitude.
Attempting to besmirch Pes. Obama's efforts to break this wrongheaded world view paints you as nothing more than another war monger who would rather act than think. The whole world is not some Gordian knot to be unbound by violence. Alexander died young, I might add. I thought better of you until this column.
I have yet to read a single opinion piece about Syria that goes into the past half-century of Syrian-US relations. Syria's policies have borne fruit with regard to US involvement in this conflict. We have no business trying to take control of the remnants of this country. Furthermore, the US is not ruled by a king who summons his armies to battle. It is inconceivable that the Congress would provide any support for a military venture. And Mr. Cohen exaggerates US public support for further US inveolvement.
Are Russia and the other military supporters of Assad doing their bit to take in refugees from this unwinnable war?
1
Mr. Cohen writes: "American interventionism can have terrible consequences, as the Iraq war has demonstrated. But American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates. Not doing something is no less of a decision than doing it." I take this as a requirement to not start something unless we know we can finish it and reach a favorable outcome. We did not intervene aggressively in Syria because it was never clear that we could finish what we start without further complicating the situation.
In Syria, a secular dictatorship is defending against religious fundamentalism paid for by Saudis, Qataris, and Turkey! We lost any chance of positive intervention when we chose the religious side. In Libya we helped to topple a secular dictator and inevitably religious militia filled the vacuum. The best that could happen in Syria if we did everything right would be something close to what is going on in Libya today - hardly worth any regrets!
In Syria, a secular dictatorship is defending against religious fundamentalism paid for by Saudis, Qataris, and Turkey! We lost any chance of positive intervention when we chose the religious side. In Libya we helped to topple a secular dictator and inevitably religious militia filled the vacuum. The best that could happen in Syria if we did everything right would be something close to what is going on in Libya today - hardly worth any regrets!
2
Go back a little further... instability in Syria has American fingerprints all over it in two ways:
1. Climate change destabilized the Syrian economy and contributed to rising food prices, scarcity, and unemployment in the agrarian sector. Who put most of the CO2 in the atmosphere? Why aren't the neo-cons clamoring to stop it before even more global unrest results from damaged ecosystems? The US military knows it is coming.
2. The Bush Administration was complicit in the purge of Baathist party military members and anti-Sunni policies that directly created ISIS in Iraq.
That said, interjecting our military once again into Middle East chaos is simply pouring gasoline on the fire. We have a long string of failures in the ME and North Africa, why expect anything different this time around?
1. Climate change destabilized the Syrian economy and contributed to rising food prices, scarcity, and unemployment in the agrarian sector. Who put most of the CO2 in the atmosphere? Why aren't the neo-cons clamoring to stop it before even more global unrest results from damaged ecosystems? The US military knows it is coming.
2. The Bush Administration was complicit in the purge of Baathist party military members and anti-Sunni policies that directly created ISIS in Iraq.
That said, interjecting our military once again into Middle East chaos is simply pouring gasoline on the fire. We have a long string of failures in the ME and North Africa, why expect anything different this time around?
So here's the deal. Intervening in Middle East affairs has bad outcomes. Not intervening in Middle East affairs has bad outcomes. Just kind of intervening ub Middle East affairs has bad outcomes. Intervening in Middle East affairs but not seeing it though to the end has bad outcomes.
Of course, it's all President Obama's fault.
Of course, it's all President Obama's fault.
1
You are kidding, right? This is a sarcasm column? If you are to criticize Obama for failing to intervene in Syria, then you must criticize him for failing to return to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, failing to intervene in Nigeria, Yemen, Myanmar, South Sudan, and Somalia. The problem with Cohen's complaint is that it contains no principles for deciding where, when, and how to intervene. Are we to intervene militarily in every conflict? In every conflict that creates a human rights crisis? If so, what constitutes a human rights crisis? Should we have invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia? Cohen ignores unintended consequences. He's an armchair commander-in-chief.
3
"But American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates. Not doing something is no less of a decision than doing it."
This is not true. The US, by supporting the Sunni Arab States in their meddling and supporting of opposition forces in Syria, was involved in the disintegration of Syria from the beginning. By its insistence that Assad relinquishes power and by training and supplying weapons to the rebels, the US has been actively involved in the Syrian civil war. Cohen narrowly defines involvement as "having boots on the ground" is simply at best naive and at worse dishonest.
This is not true. The US, by supporting the Sunni Arab States in their meddling and supporting of opposition forces in Syria, was involved in the disintegration of Syria from the beginning. By its insistence that Assad relinquishes power and by training and supplying weapons to the rebels, the US has been actively involved in the Syrian civil war. Cohen narrowly defines involvement as "having boots on the ground" is simply at best naive and at worse dishonest.
The final result of any policy choice is determined by the strategy one selects and the tactics one employs. So, did Bush and Cheny's Iraq War become a disaster because their Strategy was insane or because their execution was infantile? Or both? Mr Cohen presumes Obama had military tactical choices in Syria to overthrow Assad that would produce an outcome different than Iraq. Yet, he does not tell us what those tactics were or could now be. Apparently, the very act of choosing non intervention makes him morally responsible for Europe's and the Syrian refugee's agony. And we're the Europeans, Russians, Turks, Iraqies, Saudis screaming for a Syrian War? And we're they ready to fund the war and accept the refugees? I think not. Mr Cohen, in his moral outrage needs to think a little harder about the stubborn facts of reality.
1
Roger it is heart wrenching what is happening with once a stable secular country with effective law and order.
What started as a peaceful call for better services in Homs was quickly hijacked by self serving foreign powers resulting in today's mass exodus to Europe. And now suddenly we are all ears to their plight. There are many more refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey.
We would be intellectually dishonest if we also do not include the foreign parties that hijacked the protest to their own agendas. Such as the GCC countries particularly Saudi Arabia, Turkey did not play any constructive role either. The partition of Syria and removal of Assad had been the bedrock of all foreign interventions. It is time we call a spade a spade.
BTW I do feel for the people of Syria but I am not ready to just blame our government for inaction, look at Libya what we with France, England, and some Arab countries have done just because we did not like Qaddafi.
What started as a peaceful call for better services in Homs was quickly hijacked by self serving foreign powers resulting in today's mass exodus to Europe. And now suddenly we are all ears to their plight. There are many more refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey.
We would be intellectually dishonest if we also do not include the foreign parties that hijacked the protest to their own agendas. Such as the GCC countries particularly Saudi Arabia, Turkey did not play any constructive role either. The partition of Syria and removal of Assad had been the bedrock of all foreign interventions. It is time we call a spade a spade.
BTW I do feel for the people of Syria but I am not ready to just blame our government for inaction, look at Libya what we with France, England, and some Arab countries have done just because we did not like Qaddafi.
2
A "stable and secular country with effective law and order" is a pretty bloodless way to describe a dictatorship controlled by a religious minority that cynically played off all other religious groups against each other to stay in power. As for "effective," I suppose the murder of 20,000 civilians in Hama did provide Assad's father a couple of additional decades of rule.
That you would blame Syria's chaos on outside powers rather than on the inevitable result of Assad's intentionally brutal repression of a non-violent Arab Spring inspired protest for greater civil rights is, to be charitable, the grossest of apologetics for a tyrant.
That you would blame Syria's chaos on outside powers rather than on the inevitable result of Assad's intentionally brutal repression of a non-violent Arab Spring inspired protest for greater civil rights is, to be charitable, the grossest of apologetics for a tyrant.
Disagree. Disagree. Disagree. The "varying array of forces and interests in Syria" was not a mere challenge for the Obama administration to overcome. It was THE defining issue. To this day we still don't know who we should (or shouldn't) support in Syria. How does throwing American weaponry or airpower into that hornet's nest make matters better? Mr. Cohen never explicitly says it but the ONLY thing that may have made a lasting difference was the deployment of (and continued presence of) a significant number of U.S. troops. Like hell Obama was going to do that after the debacle of the Iraq war. Just wasn't gonna happen and he probably has the support of the vast majority of Americans on that decision. The trickle of refugees from Syria to Europe is tragic and heartbreaking and we (the West) should do all we can to help them (to include letting thousands of Syrians resettle in the U.S. -- even if Trump wants to send them all back). But even superpowers couldn't prevent the breakup of Syria...or Iraq. Now we just manage the fallout.
38
This "trickle" of refugees from Syria has already overwhelmed the international community, and will continue to blossom into a mass migration, substantially threatening the European Union. The "winners" will be ISIS, Iran and Russia.
A super power broke up Irag - us!
So if the US is to intervene, which side do we attack: the Islamic State or Assad? There are a lot of Syrian civilians caught in between but the truth is that nearly every armed party in Syria is fighting for one of those two sides. Anything that hurts one side helps the other.
Cohen's optimistic counterfactuals range from unrealistic to horrifying. If we'd armed the rebels early and massively, the Islamic State would rule all of Syria right now and would probably be looking at what country they can expand into next with their new American weapons.
We can (1) invade and impose the kind of government we want them to have (the Iraq model), (2) we can use airstrikes to eliminate certain assets and individuals without resolving the civil war (the Libya model), or (3) we can sit back and deal with the fallout (the current Syria model). America's choices simply are not very appealing, but that's not Obama's doing. America is neither the cause of nor the answer to Syria's problems.
Cohen's optimistic counterfactuals range from unrealistic to horrifying. If we'd armed the rebels early and massively, the Islamic State would rule all of Syria right now and would probably be looking at what country they can expand into next with their new American weapons.
We can (1) invade and impose the kind of government we want them to have (the Iraq model), (2) we can use airstrikes to eliminate certain assets and individuals without resolving the civil war (the Libya model), or (3) we can sit back and deal with the fallout (the current Syria model). America's choices simply are not very appealing, but that's not Obama's doing. America is neither the cause of nor the answer to Syria's problems.
58
We have caused this by starting the Iraq war.
The Syrian civil war started as a result of protests against Assad during the Arab Spring. Demonstrations were brutally repressed but this led to open fighting and Assad, seemingly fearing the potential to lose his power, deliberately turned the conflict into a sectarian fight between Sunnis and Alawites/Shiites. The connection to Iraq is mainly that, with two neighboring countries (Iraq and Syria) with politically marginalized Sunni populations, they made common cause in fighting to overthrow their respective governments primarily under the banner of the Islamic State.
I opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and still think it was a huge mistake, but it's still not at all clear that it caused the Syrian civil war. The tension between Sunnis and Shiites existed independently of anything taking place in Iraq and the proximate cause was the Arab Spring, so the link to the American invasion toppling Saddam Hussein is tenuous.
I opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and still think it was a huge mistake, but it's still not at all clear that it caused the Syrian civil war. The tension between Sunnis and Shiites existed independently of anything taking place in Iraq and the proximate cause was the Arab Spring, so the link to the American invasion toppling Saddam Hussein is tenuous.
This reticence on the part of Obama's administration is a result of Bush's over reach in Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans have been burned out on military intervention from tragic past results....hence Obama's fear of going against the wishes of American popular opinion.
A solution would have been for Obama to give a televised speech bluntly explaining that the world can not afford to acquiesce to aggression despite past mistakes by Bush, and NATO must move forward. The red line drawn for Syria should have been held.
Putin has an agenda. He detests the USSR breakup and intends to rebuild what he can and push back NATO in former Soviet satellites. Unless the West stands firm, Putin will persist with his patient but aggressive incursions.
This is what happens when a veteran KGB operative becomes a head of state. Boris Yeltsin's choosing Putin was a tragic outcome for the West.
A solution would have been for Obama to give a televised speech bluntly explaining that the world can not afford to acquiesce to aggression despite past mistakes by Bush, and NATO must move forward. The red line drawn for Syria should have been held.
Putin has an agenda. He detests the USSR breakup and intends to rebuild what he can and push back NATO in former Soviet satellites. Unless the West stands firm, Putin will persist with his patient but aggressive incursions.
This is what happens when a veteran KGB operative becomes a head of state. Boris Yeltsin's choosing Putin was a tragic outcome for the West.
2
I agree that Obama, like his two immediate predecessors, have reponsibility for the current chaotic state of the world. But it is incorrect to say we did not intervene in Syria; perhaps not with an invasion but we had abundant rhetoric encouraging rebellion, support (by proxy - Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc) and perhaps money.
Neo-libs can be as toxic as neo cons: Clinton cracked Belgrade to bits in order to create a phantom state - Kosovo - which immediately set out to purge Christian Serbs and destroy churches.
What is the difference - for the recipients - between a barrel bomb and an industrially produced cylindrical one? Does the writer thinks they care or even notice? This is idiotic.
Daesh is set to conquer the entire Levant and the only thing stopping them are Assad's army and his allies. We better stop posturing and at least get out of their war - if we don't want to seriously help - before it is too late.
Neo-libs can be as toxic as neo cons: Clinton cracked Belgrade to bits in order to create a phantom state - Kosovo - which immediately set out to purge Christian Serbs and destroy churches.
What is the difference - for the recipients - between a barrel bomb and an industrially produced cylindrical one? Does the writer thinks they care or even notice? This is idiotic.
Daesh is set to conquer the entire Levant and the only thing stopping them are Assad's army and his allies. We better stop posturing and at least get out of their war - if we don't want to seriously help - before it is too late.
Liberals accusing Republicans of beating the drums of war on Syria are leaving out an important detail:
It's Obama's drum.
Who drew the red line? Where does the buck stop?
It's Obama's drum.
Who drew the red line? Where does the buck stop?
1
It stops with the Republican congress who refused to act on an Authorization for the Use of Military force.
1
Our most closest and most trusted alley in the Mideast has a common border with Syria. Our alley operates the largest air force in the Mideast with of American supplied and paid attack aircrafts capable of dropping 2 ton bombs. Aircrafts that have repeatedly shown that they can bomb any target in Syria at will without loss of kit.
Of course, we could have intervened. That is what you have alleys for. An alliance is not a one way street where one party comes repeatedly to the rescue of an other, without payback.
That it has not happened, is most interesting.
Of course, we could have intervened. That is what you have alleys for. An alliance is not a one way street where one party comes repeatedly to the rescue of an other, without payback.
That it has not happened, is most interesting.
Good analysis, the real culprit being the new Cold War playing out in the Security Council, with Russian and Chinese vetoes blocking any international intervention in Syria, Darfour, etc. Obama misread that evolution and the next president will have to take a new stand.
Russian and Iranian troops are slowly building up in Syria, in the hope of inheriting the spoils of the disaster they have fostered. The new Cold War is between countries that function within a culture of the Rule of Law and the Dictator's Club of kleptocrats who do not mind decimating vast populations to maintain their privileges. These of course include the Gulf sponsors of Islamist mayhem.
Russian and Iranian troops are slowly building up in Syria, in the hope of inheriting the spoils of the disaster they have fostered. The new Cold War is between countries that function within a culture of the Rule of Law and the Dictator's Club of kleptocrats who do not mind decimating vast populations to maintain their privileges. These of course include the Gulf sponsors of Islamist mayhem.
Show me where an American invasion has resulted in desired results since WWII. Our military actions in the world must be viewed historically in order to take the right steps to protect lives, environments and the future of mankind. As we have learned, arming rebels can lead to a group like the Talliban. Bombing and invading other countries can lead to destabilization and refugees. Appointing leaders in other countries through money, arms and coercion brings about the likes of Sadam Hussein. History can not be denied.
1
I disagree with Mr. Cohen about the red line and chemical weapons in Syria. The truth is that President Obama threatened Syria with military action if it continued to use chemical weapons. This forced Russia to get involved and tell Bashar al-Assad to get rid of his chemical toys. Thus President Obama achieved his goal without firing a shot. I call that a success.
Furthermore, I do not see how America can improve matters in Syria by getting involved militarily. None of the powerful fighting entities in Syria is a good guy. Even the Kurds can't be trusted, what with their hate of Turkey and ultimate goal of creating an independent Kurdistan. Mr. Cohen says America should create a free zone. How will we keep the Islamic State or the al-Nusra Front out of such a zone? If we stop Bashar al-Assad's bombing, we help his enemies who are also our enemies.
I feel sorry for the refugees. I deplore the numbers killed. But to blame it all on President Obama is outrageous. This is a civil war out of control. America has done the right thing by staying out of it. Getting involved would simply have made matters worse, and that is still the case.
Furthermore, I do not see how America can improve matters in Syria by getting involved militarily. None of the powerful fighting entities in Syria is a good guy. Even the Kurds can't be trusted, what with their hate of Turkey and ultimate goal of creating an independent Kurdistan. Mr. Cohen says America should create a free zone. How will we keep the Islamic State or the al-Nusra Front out of such a zone? If we stop Bashar al-Assad's bombing, we help his enemies who are also our enemies.
I feel sorry for the refugees. I deplore the numbers killed. But to blame it all on President Obama is outrageous. This is a civil war out of control. America has done the right thing by staying out of it. Getting involved would simply have made matters worse, and that is still the case.
Roger Cohen usually writes something that makes me pay attention and appreciate his insight into world affairs.
Not this time. We the people of the United States are fed up up with our elected officials pushing us off the edge into wars that cannot be won. We are not the police of the world. The Syrian situation is sad and unfortunate. But the US in not the only country that should step into that mess.
Not this time. We the people of the United States are fed up up with our elected officials pushing us off the edge into wars that cannot be won. We are not the police of the world. The Syrian situation is sad and unfortunate. But the US in not the only country that should step into that mess.
1
Why the US and not Europe? Why not China or Japan? Nobody ever talks about South American countries helping. Why just the US? The history of the region reflects Europe's colonialism and influence more than the US. Their economy is very large as is their military force, so why, Mr. Cohen, is the onus on us? Perhaps the European Union needs to step up and deal with the problems. Or how about the regions own population. Clearly the majority of the migrants traveling to Europe are young men. What if all these men returned to their own country to do what they could to improve their own country? Might they make a difference? What if hundreds of thousands men decided the wars needed to end? Could they tip the scales? It was wrong to invade Iraq, but it did not create all the problems in the Middle East. But again and again we are told the US needs to intervene militarily when the country's affected own population will not fight for it. And the media needs to stop using quilt to push the country into more foreign adventures. I am so very tired of the Middle East.
It is hubris to think that the United States is responsible for every bad thing that happens in the Middle East. The mistake that President Obama made was to draw the red line regarding Syria and chemical weapons in the first place. I refer you to the letter written by the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey to the Senate Armed Services Committee on the costs in blood and treasure of various US military options in Syria. They were all bad choices that would have at the very least put weapons in the hands of people we could not properly vet and at worse establishing a no fly zone which is an act of war against a sovereign state.
The United States Congress was not ready to support military action in Syria, and the diplomacy that led to a significant decrease in chemical weapons in Syria is no small achievement. Think of Daesh a.k.a. ISIS with chemical weapons. This is a post-colonial world. When sovereign nations cannot or will not protect their people, the entire world has a responsibility to act. The burden is not and ought not be on the shoulders on the United States alone.
The United States Congress was not ready to support military action in Syria, and the diplomacy that led to a significant decrease in chemical weapons in Syria is no small achievement. Think of Daesh a.k.a. ISIS with chemical weapons. This is a post-colonial world. When sovereign nations cannot or will not protect their people, the entire world has a responsibility to act. The burden is not and ought not be on the shoulders on the United States alone.
You break it, you own it. That would've been the result of US intervention in Syria. I'm heartbroken every time I read about Assad's murder of civilians and the millions risking everything to find a safe haven elsewhere. But I don't agree with the assumption that this would've ended any differently had we gotten involved. Yes we could have taken out Assad's airforce, but it's likely doing so would have just paved the way for ISIS to fill the vacuum (more quickly). Yes we could have armed the rebels "massively" but which rebels? Many of the groups opposed to Assad are just as opposed to US interests and when they aren't fighting the regime, they are fighting each other. I really don't know what the answer is, but it isn't that simple. For now, let's focus all our energy on helping the refugees - we can still have an impact on that.
1
Just what we need is another war. Why is it that just about every time we have intervened, the situation has gotten so much worse. We have learned nothing from Vietnam.
We are faced with two enemies, each enemies of each other. One (Daesh) poses a grave threat to the entire region and, really, to the entire world; the other (Assad) poses a grave threat to the people of Syria. The US has committed itself to the defeat of both of them, but cannot do it alone. Unfortunately, many potential allies against Daesh support Assad, and many potential allies against Assad support Daesh. In addition, there are other critical oppositions in the region: for example, almost every potential ally against either Daesh or Assad is strongly against one of our strongest allies in the region (Israel), which has (perhaps wisely) refused to join the fight. Another example: our most valiant and effective ally (PKK) in the fight against Daesh is a deadly enemy of our another strong ally in the region (Turkey), and this deadly enmity limits their mutual effectiveness against Daesh.
What's a superpower to do?
I hope there are fervent back-channel negotiations going on with Bashar al-Assad. If he were willing to make even symbolic concessions (such that, for example, he would agree to future discussions regarding a possible demission once the threat of Daesh has been resolved), then I believe President Obama is one of the few US presidents who would be man enough to say that the US commitment against Assad was premature, and that for the time being, we will put that fight into abeyance and join with the Syrians (and Russians and Iranians) in the battle against Daesh.
What's a superpower to do?
I hope there are fervent back-channel negotiations going on with Bashar al-Assad. If he were willing to make even symbolic concessions (such that, for example, he would agree to future discussions regarding a possible demission once the threat of Daesh has been resolved), then I believe President Obama is one of the few US presidents who would be man enough to say that the US commitment against Assad was premature, and that for the time being, we will put that fight into abeyance and join with the Syrians (and Russians and Iranians) in the battle against Daesh.
1
Obama's primary mistake was the talk about the "red line." Don't talk tough if you have no plan to act tough. Obama was probably right in thinking that U.S. intervention in Syria would do at least as much harm as good in the long term. He should have made that case rather than trying to appease right wing with belligerent verbiage. His critics had no more of a plan than he had. He could have just let them hang themselves out to dry.
33
That's hard to understand. The "red line" was crossed, and what was the result? The result was Russia having been backed into the unsavory corner of siding with a regime that used chemical weapons against its own defenseless civilian population. That was the iron fist within the U.S.'s velvet glove of diplomacy, and Putin knew it.
The result? Where is Assad's chemical arsenal now? At the bottom of the Mediterranean as a result of a joint Russian/American enterprise.
Judge a victory - military or diplomatic - by the achievement of the objective, not by how many pointless holes are left in the ground, how many buildings toppled and how many people killed. In this case, without a bomb dropped or a missile fired, America won, Assad lost, and Russia merely escaped embarrassment.
The result? Where is Assad's chemical arsenal now? At the bottom of the Mediterranean as a result of a joint Russian/American enterprise.
Judge a victory - military or diplomatic - by the achievement of the objective, not by how many pointless holes are left in the ground, how many buildings toppled and how many people killed. In this case, without a bomb dropped or a missile fired, America won, Assad lost, and Russia merely escaped embarrassment.
It is congress' job to declare war!
For all of Assad faults he is like Saddam when in power they kept a lid on terrorism groups which didn't flourish under a iron fist. ISIS flourished over there because there isn't strong central government and the military especially in Iraq lacks the will and coordination to fight as a cohesive force to drive out them out. The folks prefer an iron fist from a benign despot than a messy democracy. Ask me how I know because I did three tours over there.
37
Damon is right. I served in Iraq as well. My Iraqi interpreter used to say that what Iraq needs is "a good Saddam Hussein." He always lamented the fact that the Iraqis had not taken out Saddam on their own. It's time we got the idea that democracy works everywhere and that everyone is clamoring for it out of our heads. Instead of democracy, we should be working for stability, order, human rights, the rule of law and engagement. These things can work in a relatively authoritarian government. The Middle East is a bad place for the neo-con democracy experiment.
This is nonsense. The culture of the Arab Middle East is the progenitor of this tragedy, and American intervention or non-intervention cannot resolve the fanatical mass movements that have been spawned by tyrants hawking religious or ideological raisons d’êtres for a century. We can neither persuade nor kill our way out of this quagmire. Could one imagine the Saudi monarchy finally acquiring the moral decency to reject its own religious fanaticism and relieve the misery of Syrians by taking them in? Preposterous. They promulgate this sectarian nightmare while the rest of the world is cowed. And as Jordan groans under the weight of this flood of refugees, Saudi Arabia fights its Houthi neighbors with advanced weaponry provided by the West. What naked hypocrisy and unspeakable evil.
President Obama recognized in the nick of time that “red lines” in the context of this conflict represent nothing but quicksand for American interests because the Islamic world will indeed perpetuate its “bloody borders” regardless of with which side the West aligns itself.
President Obama recognized in the nick of time that “red lines” in the context of this conflict represent nothing but quicksand for American interests because the Islamic world will indeed perpetuate its “bloody borders” regardless of with which side the West aligns itself.
1
What is going on here? Is the sight of Syrian refugees pouring into Germany suddenly being used by bloodthirsty neoconservatives in America as a pretext for action? Millions of Syrians have poured into Turkey and Jordan over the last 4 years--two moderate Muslim-majority countries (far better places for women to live in than American "ally" Saudi Arabia, where crazed, fanatical, intolerant Wahhabists reign) more deserving of some credit for dealing with the influx and not imploding as a result.
I just don't buy these expressions of compassion for Syrians by the belligerent, militaristic, warmongering, anti-Obama crowd. From 1991 to 2003, economic sanctions imposed on Iraq inflicted terrible suffering on the people of that country and indirectly killed maybe a half million children. Was that EVER cited as justification by that sonofaBush for his decision to unilaterally invade Iraq in 2003? No, he just played up the fake narrative about WMDs instead.
I just don't buy these expressions of compassion for Syrians by the belligerent, militaristic, warmongering, anti-Obama crowd. From 1991 to 2003, economic sanctions imposed on Iraq inflicted terrible suffering on the people of that country and indirectly killed maybe a half million children. Was that EVER cited as justification by that sonofaBush for his decision to unilaterally invade Iraq in 2003? No, he just played up the fake narrative about WMDs instead.
3
A couple of things are disturbing about the meme that Obama is responsible for the mess in Syria but the fact that really stands out, is that intervening in a civil war, never ends well and in this case, there is a religious conflict that increases the drama between the warring parties, ten fold.
When we got involved in Vietnam and when we invaded Iraq, the outcomes were depressingly similar, we ended up by inflicting a lot of unnecessary suffering on the people who lived there and we "lost" anyway. In the case of Vietnam, we not only prolonged the war between the North and South, we spread the war to Laos and Cambodia. In the later instance, US bombing of that country sowed the seeds of the insurgent group, the Khmer Rouge - the ISIL of its day. The Invasion of Iraq had a similar destabilizing outcome and voila! chaos, violence and civil war appeared.
When we got involved in Vietnam and when we invaded Iraq, the outcomes were depressingly similar, we ended up by inflicting a lot of unnecessary suffering on the people who lived there and we "lost" anyway. In the case of Vietnam, we not only prolonged the war between the North and South, we spread the war to Laos and Cambodia. In the later instance, US bombing of that country sowed the seeds of the insurgent group, the Khmer Rouge - the ISIL of its day. The Invasion of Iraq had a similar destabilizing outcome and voila! chaos, violence and civil war appeared.
3
It is a nightmare of our making. Obama under pressures of the Israeli and Saudi lobbies decided to facilitate the movement of terrorists and weapons unto Syria. His goal was to get rid of the Assad government because it does not agree with the design to make Syria a hub for terrorism. Thus, a beautiful middle class and peaceful country has been transformed since mid 2011 unto a backward fragmented society. Obama should be congratulated!
4
Please remind me why we originally wanted to remove President Bashar al-Assad? May he be the answer to ISIS? Reversing, or even discussing reversing, decisions in US policy is almost impossible.
1
We got rid of Gaddafi, Sadam Hussein and created a vacuum and total chaos.
A lot of the refugees are from Libya and Iran.
Now we want to depose Assad, in ideal circumstances that would be the solution.
However all we will do is create a vacuum for ISIS to take over the country
I do not know the answer but I do know it is not American boots on the ground.
A lot of the refugees are from Libya and Iran.
Now we want to depose Assad, in ideal circumstances that would be the solution.
However all we will do is create a vacuum for ISIS to take over the country
I do not know the answer but I do know it is not American boots on the ground.
2
"In 2013, with France poised to join the United States in military strikes on Syria, Obama walked away at the last minute from upholding his “red line” on the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons."
When will this tired falsehood stop being repeated? It's bad enough when the GOP and Fox News trot it out, but it's worse when the NY Times repeats it.
Obama did not walk away from the 'red line'. He found he had no support in Congress to authorize air strikes so he wasn't able to follow through.
However, the mere threat of those air strikes was enough for the Syrians to give up their chemical weapons.
Another Obama 'failure' that in fact was a success.
When will this tired falsehood stop being repeated? It's bad enough when the GOP and Fox News trot it out, but it's worse when the NY Times repeats it.
Obama did not walk away from the 'red line'. He found he had no support in Congress to authorize air strikes so he wasn't able to follow through.
However, the mere threat of those air strikes was enough for the Syrians to give up their chemical weapons.
Another Obama 'failure' that in fact was a success.
4
Enough destruction of other countries. We did more than enough to create terrorism and subordinating our national interest to that of Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Attacking people and violating their sovereignty is aggression that violates international law.
1
What President Obama did in setting his notorious "red line" was to speak off the cuff. That he only later discovered he had no Congressional support for his position, and had not thought to do anything in the interim to gather support, is not a great reflection on his style of leadership.
Mr. Cohen, while what is happening in Syria is tragic from a human suffering perspective, it is still a civil war in which there are no clear "good" sides. And your suggestions that there is something - beyond trying to alleviate the suffering of the refugees - that our country or president can do is irresponsible at best.
What are we to do, go in and occupy a country whose inhabitants can't get along and have no chance of living together ever again, and in fact only lived together as long as they did because they were ruled by an iron fist? Assad is an evil man, but what are the realistic alternatives? Al Nusra front? ISIL? The Kurds (who have no sway over their Arab neighbors, whether Sunni or Shia)?
Obama has made a number of mistakes - particularly in seeming to want to remove Assad the way his predecessor removed Saddam (and how did that work out, by the way?). However, again, it all comes back to viable options. We can talk the talk, but unless you're willing to send more American (and your own) sons and daughters to die and get maimed in yet another god-forsaken desert, then your talk is just empty, meaningless words.
Do you think that some of the same folks running from Syria would hesitate to turn on American occupying forces on a dime if we intervened? And what do you think would happen the first time a captured American serviceman or woman is burned alive on live TV by ISIL? How much are their lives worth to you? Intervene in Syria? NO THANKS.
What are we to do, go in and occupy a country whose inhabitants can't get along and have no chance of living together ever again, and in fact only lived together as long as they did because they were ruled by an iron fist? Assad is an evil man, but what are the realistic alternatives? Al Nusra front? ISIL? The Kurds (who have no sway over their Arab neighbors, whether Sunni or Shia)?
Obama has made a number of mistakes - particularly in seeming to want to remove Assad the way his predecessor removed Saddam (and how did that work out, by the way?). However, again, it all comes back to viable options. We can talk the talk, but unless you're willing to send more American (and your own) sons and daughters to die and get maimed in yet another god-forsaken desert, then your talk is just empty, meaningless words.
Do you think that some of the same folks running from Syria would hesitate to turn on American occupying forces on a dime if we intervened? And what do you think would happen the first time a captured American serviceman or woman is burned alive on live TV by ISIL? How much are their lives worth to you? Intervene in Syria? NO THANKS.
4
I guess FDR & Churchill have the blot of giving Eastern Europe to the Soviets, a debacle of staggering proportions far exceeding that of Syria. That was the price to defeat Nazi Germany.
Why don't you ponder why W & Cheney thrust Maliki, an Iranian stooge, on Iraq who then began the civil/religious war between the Shia & Sunnis. That is what created the opening for Al Qaeda & ISIS in Iraq & Syria. Of course the foundation for that was laid by Bremer who disbanded the Iraqi army & banned all Baath party members from public life & employment; also a W & Cheney decision. The U.S. was correct not to intervene until Maliki was forced out of office but you fail to address that even though that is directly connected to what should have been done in Syria.
So what is your good option for Syria? Perhaps you would have pressured Turkey to allow more water to flow into Syria so the rural population would not have been forced into Syria's cities that created the conditions for revolt in the first place.
As to Putin, why did McCain & Graham go to Ukraine to support overthrowing the democratically elected president of Ukraine? What purpose was to be served by bringing Ukraine into NATO? Clearly Russia has an extremely strong national interest on what is happening on its borders but somehow Putin is a threat when Russia took steps to protect its largest warm water naval base, which is in Crimea.
Perhaps you can predict what would happen if Assad is overthrown. Will it be a better world?
Why don't you ponder why W & Cheney thrust Maliki, an Iranian stooge, on Iraq who then began the civil/religious war between the Shia & Sunnis. That is what created the opening for Al Qaeda & ISIS in Iraq & Syria. Of course the foundation for that was laid by Bremer who disbanded the Iraqi army & banned all Baath party members from public life & employment; also a W & Cheney decision. The U.S. was correct not to intervene until Maliki was forced out of office but you fail to address that even though that is directly connected to what should have been done in Syria.
So what is your good option for Syria? Perhaps you would have pressured Turkey to allow more water to flow into Syria so the rural population would not have been forced into Syria's cities that created the conditions for revolt in the first place.
As to Putin, why did McCain & Graham go to Ukraine to support overthrowing the democratically elected president of Ukraine? What purpose was to be served by bringing Ukraine into NATO? Clearly Russia has an extremely strong national interest on what is happening on its borders but somehow Putin is a threat when Russia took steps to protect its largest warm water naval base, which is in Crimea.
Perhaps you can predict what would happen if Assad is overthrown. Will it be a better world?
4
Certainly Syria is a blot.....whether more significant than Russia's adventures may be debatable...But I must ask....has there been a single foreign policy success that this administration can point to?
1
Yes, they have stayed out of the mess in Syria.
2
"In 2013, with France poised to join the United States in military strikes on Syria, Obama walked away at the last minute from upholding his “red line” on the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons. In so doing, he reinforced Assad, reinforced Putin, declined to change the course of the Syrian war, and diminished America’s word in the world — setbacks of far greater significance than ridding Syria of chemical weapons. This was a mistake."
The Times doesn't like it when you accuse their columnists of lying -- whoops! So I'll just say this paragraph is dishonest from beginning to end. I'll just comment on "Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons." In fact, intelligence agencies told Obama -- at that last minute -- that the case against Syria was getting weaker by the day. In fact, there was none.
Do your research, Rog. If you care to.
The Times doesn't like it when you accuse their columnists of lying -- whoops! So I'll just say this paragraph is dishonest from beginning to end. I'll just comment on "Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons." In fact, intelligence agencies told Obama -- at that last minute -- that the case against Syria was getting weaker by the day. In fact, there was none.
Do your research, Rog. If you care to.
1
If it was bad removing the regime in Iraq, then how can it be that removing Syria's would be any better a thing to do? (it being altogether unclear this could have been done in any way that would have actually benefited Iraq and its people.)
It does seem however that anyone here in the U.S., is complicit in subscribing to be do that!
No one seems to be considering letting Bashar al-Assad stay. And it is asking a lot, because they are demanding Syria agree he steps down almost immediately, even to restart peace talks.
Meanwhile everyone seems to be going along with doing this, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NEVER CLEAR why ... he should have to leave AT ALL!
The first protesters did ask for reforms. It doesn't seem common knowledge, the facts about that, because of purposeful misreporting and purposeful misrepresentation of any of those peaceful protesters' actual intentions.
It seems they DID NOT demand overthrow. This is something added on to their intentions, a total falsehood.
Knowing what trouble a war would have, they would not have asked for that. But the U.S., but Britain, but Israel, but Saudi Arabia, ...they all asked for that. AND, the way it's turning out, ...
isn't it really THEIR FAULT, not Assad's at all, what has been happening ? They keep demanding they agree he leave. They thus demand continued war. The sad thing is, the Republicans would be even worse about inflicting such a continuing tragedy. And we haven't even answered the question: WHY?
It does seem however that anyone here in the U.S., is complicit in subscribing to be do that!
No one seems to be considering letting Bashar al-Assad stay. And it is asking a lot, because they are demanding Syria agree he steps down almost immediately, even to restart peace talks.
Meanwhile everyone seems to be going along with doing this, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NEVER CLEAR why ... he should have to leave AT ALL!
The first protesters did ask for reforms. It doesn't seem common knowledge, the facts about that, because of purposeful misreporting and purposeful misrepresentation of any of those peaceful protesters' actual intentions.
It seems they DID NOT demand overthrow. This is something added on to their intentions, a total falsehood.
Knowing what trouble a war would have, they would not have asked for that. But the U.S., but Britain, but Israel, but Saudi Arabia, ...they all asked for that. AND, the way it's turning out, ...
isn't it really THEIR FAULT, not Assad's at all, what has been happening ? They keep demanding they agree he leave. They thus demand continued war. The sad thing is, the Republicans would be even worse about inflicting such a continuing tragedy. And we haven't even answered the question: WHY?
1
It is absurd to claim, that as many comments do, that we can not get militarily involved.
We are, as you read this.
American fighter aircrafts, taking of from carriers in the Persian Gulf, are bombarding, daily, Syrian territory, in order to get it back under Assad's control.
We are allies of Bashar al-Assad. And therefore we are responsible for his actions, like it or not.
That includes includes taking care of the refugees that the war in Syria generates.
We are, as you read this.
American fighter aircrafts, taking of from carriers in the Persian Gulf, are bombarding, daily, Syrian territory, in order to get it back under Assad's control.
We are allies of Bashar al-Assad. And therefore we are responsible for his actions, like it or not.
That includes includes taking care of the refugees that the war in Syria generates.
1
Syria is embedded in a problematic region, and its problems cannot be solved by themselves, since the country has become the locus of regional power struggles. The main struggle is the religious feud between Sunnis and Shiites, and we have been suckered into taking the Sunni side even though Sunni extremism and atrocities are just as bad as the Shiite versions, and far more widespread, reaching to Pakistan and Afghanistan thanks to Saudi and Gulf efforts to spread extremist Sunni theology.
If we want moderate Islam to prevail, then the holy places of Islam should be under the control of moderate Muslims rather than the Muslim equivalent of Branch Davidians.
If we want moderate Islam to prevail, then the holy places of Islam should be under the control of moderate Muslims rather than the Muslim equivalent of Branch Davidians.
2
There are deep roots underlying the tragedy of Syria and European refugee crisis, and much of it has to do with Europe and the United States' long history of imperialist expansion and exploitation of the Middle East's great natural resource of oil, its crucial trade routes between East and West, its use as a pawn in the Cold War. Following its imperialist retreat, Great Britain and France carved up region according to their self-interest, not that of the ancient tribes, religious affiliations and cultures.The CIA engineered the ouster of the democratically elected socialist Mossadegh, which paved the way for Iran's Islamic Revolution. We armed Saddam Hussein against Iran, emboldening his megalomania. We armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets, enabling the Taliban. The Iraq invasion. The Afghanistan debacle. The long backing of selected dictators (including Assad's father). American intervention in the region, however high-sounding it might have seemed, has arguably done
2
Cohen: "How those breakthroughs [Iran, Cuba] will play out remains to be seen, but they constitute a victory over sterile confrontation."
Hard to imagine a dumber statement as it regards Iran. We had sanctions in place in our "sterile confrontation" that kept a lid on their adventurism, and we had avenues for attacking them with our allies if it had come to that. We now have very little ammo to use against them, and they will most likely become Israel's headache... at which time, Israel will be calling the shots in the Middle East, and the US will continue to become even more irrelevant over there.
Hard to imagine a dumber statement as it regards Iran. We had sanctions in place in our "sterile confrontation" that kept a lid on their adventurism, and we had avenues for attacking them with our allies if it had come to that. We now have very little ammo to use against them, and they will most likely become Israel's headache... at which time, Israel will be calling the shots in the Middle East, and the US will continue to become even more irrelevant over there.
Democracy is a laudable goal; however, it cannot be imposed at the point of a gun—the United States has repeatedly made the mistake of installing leaders that, though favorable to U.S. interests, are opposed by large segment of the population. If the U.S. gets involved in nation-building in Syria, there is every reason to believe that history will repeat itself.
Likewise, if Assad falls, and the U.S. does nothing, the so-called Syrian rebels are likely to devolve into various factions and start killing each other, vying for power. A new Assad-like figure could rise to power in the power vacuum by promising to prove security to a lawless state.
Non-intervention may be the least bad option
Likewise, if Assad falls, and the U.S. does nothing, the so-called Syrian rebels are likely to devolve into various factions and start killing each other, vying for power. A new Assad-like figure could rise to power in the power vacuum by promising to prove security to a lawless state.
Non-intervention may be the least bad option
1
date corrected
Why does the U.S., together now with Saudi Arabia, & other states, in the Middle East, want to continue inflicting this damage ... which Mr. Cohen says has already almost completely ruined Syria ?
There is much more damage they could do. Damascus, has not suffered as much destruction as some other cities. There remain some archaeological treasures: temples, etc.
Mr. Cohen does not answer this.
In fact he implies almost what amounts to exact opposite. We need TO LEAVE Syria, mostly: for Iran, Russia ... to help.
He wrote:
" ...More than 200,000 people have been killed.... This evisceration of a state is a consequence of many things, among them Western inaction." Western inaction indeed!
It was ONLY Western ACTION that led to this war getting escalated to its gruesome proportions, and then, incomprehensibly, continued. There was Obama's speech (Aug. 18, '11), denouncing Assad.
Chances for peace have been ruined, by consistent demands that he agree to resign first, before peace talks can start. THEN, they try to blame this war, and the rise of ISIL, on Syria's govt., for refusal to capitulate to this Western demand.
It is unanswered: why that demand arose in the first place. Syria's people would not have asked for the ruination of their country. It's just not true they ever really asked for help in regime change as such. In most part, it's been fallaciously attributed to them.
Why has the West never wanted to reveal any REAL reasons for it.
Why does the U.S., together now with Saudi Arabia, & other states, in the Middle East, want to continue inflicting this damage ... which Mr. Cohen says has already almost completely ruined Syria ?
There is much more damage they could do. Damascus, has not suffered as much destruction as some other cities. There remain some archaeological treasures: temples, etc.
Mr. Cohen does not answer this.
In fact he implies almost what amounts to exact opposite. We need TO LEAVE Syria, mostly: for Iran, Russia ... to help.
He wrote:
" ...More than 200,000 people have been killed.... This evisceration of a state is a consequence of many things, among them Western inaction." Western inaction indeed!
It was ONLY Western ACTION that led to this war getting escalated to its gruesome proportions, and then, incomprehensibly, continued. There was Obama's speech (Aug. 18, '11), denouncing Assad.
Chances for peace have been ruined, by consistent demands that he agree to resign first, before peace talks can start. THEN, they try to blame this war, and the rise of ISIL, on Syria's govt., for refusal to capitulate to this Western demand.
It is unanswered: why that demand arose in the first place. Syria's people would not have asked for the ruination of their country. It's just not true they ever really asked for help in regime change as such. In most part, it's been fallaciously attributed to them.
Why has the West never wanted to reveal any REAL reasons for it.
4
What would it have been like if US had intervened? Perhaps Iraq 2? Probably more killed and more extension of conflict. How do you think Libya intervention has gone. Unfortunately Obama will be blamed for this conflict and will never be given credit for making peace with Iran and with Cuba, the extreme right media control the narrative of history for now.
2
What does Mr. Cohen suggest, another misadventure like 2003.
5
Obama has been President for almost seven years. For his first two years he had almost dictatorial powers. So the headline is correct: It's Obama's Syrian nightmare. But let's don't forget the real source of the nightmare: the Syrians themselves.
1
It seems that anything that happens in the world ultimately is blamed on the United States.
When, after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars ended, and the Arab Spring imploded, and some leaders were removed or killed, and the populations revolted, where in all of that violence and mayhem and struggle could the US have intervened?
They may be Al Queda or they may be ISIS, but there was certainly no way to differentiate between "bad" and "good" fighters in Syria.
Meanwhile the wealthiest Arabs do nothing but support the financing and terrorism they have lavished for years on Sunni Al Queda, spreading the misery that has overtaken Iraq and Syria. Turkey plays its part by warring on the burgeoning nation of Kurdistan, and Iran backs Hizbollah who rules without election in parts of Lebanon.
We never have asked or demanded of the Arabs that they adhere to human rights, that they allow freedom of religion and freedom of speech, that they stop torturing and bombing their citizens. We call the most medieval and ignorant nation, Saudi Arabia, our "ally" when they alone have invested billions in lighting the fires of war and destruction that surround them.
We now are the babysitters and parents for millions of Arabs fleeing their lands to come and settle in the West. Will they bring their honor killings, their burkas, their anti-semitism, misogyny, rape culture, and their love of terror along? Or will they eventually become Westernized?
Only time will tell.
When, after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars ended, and the Arab Spring imploded, and some leaders were removed or killed, and the populations revolted, where in all of that violence and mayhem and struggle could the US have intervened?
They may be Al Queda or they may be ISIS, but there was certainly no way to differentiate between "bad" and "good" fighters in Syria.
Meanwhile the wealthiest Arabs do nothing but support the financing and terrorism they have lavished for years on Sunni Al Queda, spreading the misery that has overtaken Iraq and Syria. Turkey plays its part by warring on the burgeoning nation of Kurdistan, and Iran backs Hizbollah who rules without election in parts of Lebanon.
We never have asked or demanded of the Arabs that they adhere to human rights, that they allow freedom of religion and freedom of speech, that they stop torturing and bombing their citizens. We call the most medieval and ignorant nation, Saudi Arabia, our "ally" when they alone have invested billions in lighting the fires of war and destruction that surround them.
We now are the babysitters and parents for millions of Arabs fleeing their lands to come and settle in the West. Will they bring their honor killings, their burkas, their anti-semitism, misogyny, rape culture, and their love of terror along? Or will they eventually become Westernized?
Only time will tell.
3
I remember that Obama wanted to do something about Syria, but, as always, the Republicans were eager to obstruct him at every step. The Republicans were going to vote against it. Now, they are attacking him for not haven't done something that they were going to obstruct anyway. Everything that Obama accomplished had to be done under a barrage of attacks, before, during, and afterwards. Facts don't matter to Republicans, opposing Obama is their reason to exist. Syria is a nightmare, I feel very sorry for them, but to say that the bucket stops with Obama, that is a stretch. where is Putin's responsibility? The Country wouldn't have supported another war, no matter how noble, and things can go wrong very quickly. The right question is, what we are going to do about it now?
3
Taking out the aircraft dropping barrel bombs, creating a safe area for refugees - these would not have prevented Syria's disintegration. They would have reduced the suffering of Syrian refugees, and for that reason I agree that we should have done them. But Syria would still be a failed state locked in civil war today.
"Arming the rebels early and massively" would have been insane. This is classic "good guy, bad guy" thinking--if we can identify the bad guy, whoever's fighting him must be the good guy and worthy of our help. In reality, a lot of those heroic anti-Assad rebels ended up forming ISIS.
"Arming the rebels early and massively" would have been insane. This is classic "good guy, bad guy" thinking--if we can identify the bad guy, whoever's fighting him must be the good guy and worthy of our help. In reality, a lot of those heroic anti-Assad rebels ended up forming ISIS.
3
Obama's intellectual arrogance has always been a problem particularly in foreign policy. Added, he has shown a remarkable ignorance about the issues at stake. Finally, both the Left and the Right live in a fantasy about when the United States should get involved and what they are willing to tolerate.
2
As most American presidents realize, you can't have it both ways on foreign policy. One either jumps in with both feet or simply stay out of the water. Yes there is even limits on American military interventionism. We have to set priorities on when and where to send our troops. If we want to be a modern day Rome with Pax Americana as our banner, we must beef up our military to maintain our qualitative edge. If we don't others like Russia and China would love to step in and fill the role. And it won't be as the world's policeman but as the world's enforcer.
1
Hi Roger, greetings from Beirut!! Life looks a lot different over here than from where you sit apparently. Although Lebanon is chock full with Syrian refugees and the situation there is as bad as ever, it's hard to see how the US getting involved would have helped. A very astute friend here, a Lebanese Christian, told me "the smartest thing Obama ever did was not to get involved in Syria." Just like Iraq, in the medium and long-term we're not wanted there. And our soldiers will be the subjects of attacks, with loss of life and debilitating injuries just as in Iraq. I know it's heartbreaking to witness, but the powers in the Middle East themselves have to sort this out. The US can't do it for them and we are not wanted. Just because there's a problem doesn't mean it's our fault, or it's our duty to sort out. I know it's causing a lot of horrible strife, but all the countries in the region need to come to a new form of civil society, that includes respect for religion but also tolerates differences. The present conflicts are part of that process. Iraq really should have taught us that we can't come in, drop a political system into place, and expect it will lead to the same results we see in the West. Sorry. Let the Iranians, Saudis, Arab regimes in the Gulf, the Turks, the Iraqis, and everyone else here come to a better place. Unless they do it on their own, it won't work.
13
Let's see. After WWI, the British divided this territory as per their whim without giving any thought to the demographic nature of the society. So Iraq with a Shia majority was ruled by handful of Sunnis and Syria with Sunni majority was ruled by a handful of Shias.
3
Hey Roger, I got news for you because it seems like you're not paying attention. After the debacles in Iraq, in Egypt, in Libya, guess who the United States actually wants in power in Syria? That's right, Assad. Power vacuums in the Middle East are ugly things, and, as amply already demonstrated, require far too much effort to fill in an acceptable manner.
1
During the Cold War, the two major adversaries remained frozen in inaction under the threat of mutually assured destruction.
A variation of that is occurring in Syria where the US remains frozen in inaction by Russia and Iran who are not willing to surrender their client Assad. So the destruction continues because the principals are beyond America's reach.
A variation of that is occurring in Syria where the US remains frozen in inaction by Russia and Iran who are not willing to surrender their client Assad. So the destruction continues because the principals are beyond America's reach.
Perhaps Iran can be prodded to take in Shiite refugees fleeing Syria. Certainly the Saudis should house a sizable Sunni population, knowing it's temporary.
Why Iran? Why not? America and the EU have engaged them for years, and taken a huge, shaky step to try normalize relations. Because Obama wanted to engage them he refused to bomb out Assad when there was the opportunity to do so. So go one step further and insist they take in tens of thousands of refugees.
Let the US take in the Yazidis, Christians, and some Kurds, along with a mix of the other Syrians. As to creating a safe haven, let the US do this for the Kurdish part of Iraq. Even that, which is feasible, isn't happening because it apparently displeases the Iranians, and Turks. This is humanitarian policy?
Why Iran? Why not? America and the EU have engaged them for years, and taken a huge, shaky step to try normalize relations. Because Obama wanted to engage them he refused to bomb out Assad when there was the opportunity to do so. So go one step further and insist they take in tens of thousands of refugees.
Let the US take in the Yazidis, Christians, and some Kurds, along with a mix of the other Syrians. As to creating a safe haven, let the US do this for the Kurdish part of Iraq. Even that, which is feasible, isn't happening because it apparently displeases the Iranians, and Turks. This is humanitarian policy?
Obama's handling of ALL MIDDLE EAST affairs is not only a dismal flop but will haunt the USA for decades to come.
Syria is presently the major visible trouble spot in which he failed to act or acted wrongly.Of no less import is his acceptance of and acquisincence to Iranian de facto domination of Iraq.
However his foremost failure was, still is, his inability to see why things are the way they are and why do they head the way they do....now DAESH wise.
His blind adoption of standard American policies, first launched by President Truman, based on the desirability and profitability of a weak disjointed and threatened and insecure region, the Levant, as planned for and executed by Sykes Picot and the Balfour Declaration to which the USA belated regional entry added the protection of reactionary and corrupt regimes.
Despite it repeated efforts, none genune or sincere, the USA has dismally failed in the region popularity, standing and security wise because of its adoption and heart felf warm welcome of the Anglo French colonialist legacy ( Sykes=Picot, Balfour Declaration) adding to it a Zionist crucial dimension and a strategic USA/Israel alliance that has already irrevocably made the population of the region the bitter enemies of America and all that the USA stands for.
Syria is presently the major visible trouble spot in which he failed to act or acted wrongly.Of no less import is his acceptance of and acquisincence to Iranian de facto domination of Iraq.
However his foremost failure was, still is, his inability to see why things are the way they are and why do they head the way they do....now DAESH wise.
His blind adoption of standard American policies, first launched by President Truman, based on the desirability and profitability of a weak disjointed and threatened and insecure region, the Levant, as planned for and executed by Sykes Picot and the Balfour Declaration to which the USA belated regional entry added the protection of reactionary and corrupt regimes.
Despite it repeated efforts, none genune or sincere, the USA has dismally failed in the region popularity, standing and security wise because of its adoption and heart felf warm welcome of the Anglo French colonialist legacy ( Sykes=Picot, Balfour Declaration) adding to it a Zionist crucial dimension and a strategic USA/Israel alliance that has already irrevocably made the population of the region the bitter enemies of America and all that the USA stands for.
1
After acknowledging that US military intervention in the muddle east hasn't worked, the article advocates more military intervention. How dumb. We are not responsible for solving all the world's problems, and I, for one, think Obama is doing the right thing.
3
Mr. Cohen seems to assume that American military intervention in Syria could have effected positive results. Sounds good, but then one wonders, exactly how?
So, when the chemical-weapons "red line" was crossed by Assad, suppose we had eliminated Assad by concentrated bombing; then what? Was there any likelihood that a democratic opposition, as opposed to jihadis, would have filled the vacuum? Why would our eliminating Assad have made it any more difficult for ISIS? Not clear...
So, when the chemical-weapons "red line" was crossed by Assad, suppose we had eliminated Assad by concentrated bombing; then what? Was there any likelihood that a democratic opposition, as opposed to jihadis, would have filled the vacuum? Why would our eliminating Assad have made it any more difficult for ISIS? Not clear...
1
Yes, "Syria, broken, will be the rift that keeps on giving."
And maybe even the rift that keeps on riving.
And maybe even the rift that keeps on riving.
The real question is what should the EU be doing and ultimately NATO. North Africa and the middle East is Europe's one neighbor other than Russia and presents any kind of threat. While Bush's war has made a bad situation worse Europe can no longer ignore the countries around the Med. Now they are being directly affected. Militarily ISIS is trivial the real problem is the wider rivalries in the Middle East and despite burning many bridges the US remains the natural leader. Russia is a minor outlier. There are major problems that if not addressed will continue to plague the region including Europe and our ally Turkey. The US EU combination is massively more powerful on every level than foreseeable future competitor. Diplomatic pressure needs to be applied to achieve a Saudi(Sunni) Iranian(Shia) detent. Unless that is done you just end up playing whack an mole. Israel must be given a hard choice, if you want to be with us solve the Palestinian problem fairly or be left an minor country with many enemies. It would be painful and costly but what is the alternative the west continuing to act against its own interests for the next 200 years or more to support an Israel that does not share our values. Short term solutions should be combine EU US projects such as a possible large safe zone in Syria.
At multiple stages, if Obama could have mustered the will, the belief in American power, there were options. The Syrian aircraft dropping those barrel bombs could have been taken out. A safe area for refugees might have been created. Arming the rebels early and massively might have changed the course of the war.
This is the most important - and self evident - conclusion of this op ed. However, I disagree with your description of Obama when you opine that only if he 'could have mustered the will'. I don't believe it was 'will' that was lacking. I have come to the same conclusion you have in your last paragraph, but more so. Obama is not 'uncomfortable' with American Power, Obama's goal was to diminish American Power and he has succeeded. He was raised to believe American was a bully and Europe a colonizer. Perhaps true, but not a quality that does us any good in a President. Alienate our allies and diminish our military.
The worst of it is the human suffering, now spread through too many countries to count. And you list 'breakthrough' agreements with Cuba and Iran. Really? I agree they are breakthroughs, but not that they will play out well. They are the next disasters on our horizon. So post Obama, world turmoil will increase; America will be more vulnerable - and most likely, George Bush will still be to blame. You have to love the spin. Oh - and the Obama celebrity family will rake in millions is speech and book fees. Stay tuned.
This is the most important - and self evident - conclusion of this op ed. However, I disagree with your description of Obama when you opine that only if he 'could have mustered the will'. I don't believe it was 'will' that was lacking. I have come to the same conclusion you have in your last paragraph, but more so. Obama is not 'uncomfortable' with American Power, Obama's goal was to diminish American Power and he has succeeded. He was raised to believe American was a bully and Europe a colonizer. Perhaps true, but not a quality that does us any good in a President. Alienate our allies and diminish our military.
The worst of it is the human suffering, now spread through too many countries to count. And you list 'breakthrough' agreements with Cuba and Iran. Really? I agree they are breakthroughs, but not that they will play out well. They are the next disasters on our horizon. So post Obama, world turmoil will increase; America will be more vulnerable - and most likely, George Bush will still be to blame. You have to love the spin. Oh - and the Obama celebrity family will rake in millions is speech and book fees. Stay tuned.
We voted for the cerebral and professorial Obama in reaction to the know-nothing cowboy George W. Bush and Darth Vader Cheney. Obama restored the realist policies of a Bush I and Scowcroft and Powell and in many ways continued the Gates (even left him as Defense Secretary) and Condoleezza Rice policies of W's second term to challenge lunatic delusions of the Neocons Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz of W's first term. But by Obama's second term his prudence and caution started to look like analysis paralysis and lack of leadership. It looks like Obama can not challenge adversaries like Putin, the ayatollahs in Iran, a third-rate dictator like Assad. He cannot get the trust and respect from our allies like Netanyahu, Erdogan and the Saudi Kings (seriously Kings in the 21st century!) who openly disrespect our President. So for a disturbingly growing number, the reaction to no drama Obama is the ultimate drama queen Trump and his art of the deal, who claims he can out negotiate anyone because he made billions on real estate deals and is a TV reality star.
"The refugees do not care what 'Christian' Europe thinks."
Absolutely true. Only Roger Cohen and the Prime Minister of Hungary know it (though Cohen isn't bothered by it).
The Europeans will learn soon enough what it means to accept hundreds of thousands of refugees who "do not care."
Absolutely true. Only Roger Cohen and the Prime Minister of Hungary know it (though Cohen isn't bothered by it).
The Europeans will learn soon enough what it means to accept hundreds of thousands of refugees who "do not care."
It's all second guessing. With the emergence of ISIS we learn that Obama's reticence to fund rebels early in the war was probably wise. Obviously not wise enough to keep ISIS from growing, but do we really want to be in a proxy war with Russia? The reason we're broke and can't make good on education, Medicare and Social Security is that we insist on bankrolling wars all over the globe. The Arab Spring has been a hard lesson for the whole world, not just us. A measured approach, at the risk of letting a few despots maintain order, is better than nation re-building and endless war.
1
Syria is a perfect example of the wisdom of the Obama doctrine. Our top military strategists recognized that neither missile strikes, nor a sustained aerial bombing campaign, nor a US-enforced no-fly zone would change the course of the war. The only way that America's military power could ensure that the course of the war be changed would require a US occupation without end, and our experience in neighboring Iraq shows that such an occupation does not ensure a good outcome. Without any viable plan for how to put an end to the hostilities and restore order, the military would be operating without a clear, achievable objective for the mission ("preventing ruination" doesn't make the cut). This is a good way to set up the military for defeat.
It takes courage and conviction for Obama to do what's right instead of giving in to the pressure to do something - anything! - no matter how dumb and useless. While no one comes out ahead here, at least the US isn't adding to its problems by trying to achieve the unachievable. Since Cohen is at least honest enough not to pretend to have a better strategy, he should also recognize that the Syrian nightmare is not a failure of Obama's foreign policy but a reminder that sometimes the world produces situations so bad that even the best policies cannot prevent or end a catastrophe.
It takes courage and conviction for Obama to do what's right instead of giving in to the pressure to do something - anything! - no matter how dumb and useless. While no one comes out ahead here, at least the US isn't adding to its problems by trying to achieve the unachievable. Since Cohen is at least honest enough not to pretend to have a better strategy, he should also recognize that the Syrian nightmare is not a failure of Obama's foreign policy but a reminder that sometimes the world produces situations so bad that even the best policies cannot prevent or end a catastrophe.
1
The U.S. has really been proved to be the worst country to try to take charge and affect matters for the better in the Middle East.
In Iraq, the troops were supposed to gain the favor of the Iraqis. Instead they acted in ways most detrimental, like shoving their way into peoples' homes making demands.
AND, the U.S, just plain doesn't respect the kinds of values most people who live in the Middle East have. (Except of course, for Israel). There is basically, a serious conflict of values. It also explains why Israel as a country there, led to any problems.
When war starts, and Mr. Cohen incomprehensibly does not advocate for peace AT ALL today! ...
Americans are supposed to be patriotic and go along.
But any reason for war in Syria, is even more obscure than any reason for the Iraq war, Then Mr. Cohen never really questioned that either.
Only AFTER THE FACT, of Syria's actions in response to escalating protests, and subsequent blatant use of force by so-called rebels, ... was Pres. al-Assad denounced. (Feb. 18, 2011)
But he was not the primary cause for his being denounced.
It was only the West's actions, and actions of Middle East countries sending their terrorists into Syria, that even led to buildup to a large force of 'rebels' of diverse kinds, who by that time actually did intend to do regime change.
So it was only that Western support for that, and not mainly any native Syrians, who really wanted to go that far. They only wanted peaceful change.
In Iraq, the troops were supposed to gain the favor of the Iraqis. Instead they acted in ways most detrimental, like shoving their way into peoples' homes making demands.
AND, the U.S, just plain doesn't respect the kinds of values most people who live in the Middle East have. (Except of course, for Israel). There is basically, a serious conflict of values. It also explains why Israel as a country there, led to any problems.
When war starts, and Mr. Cohen incomprehensibly does not advocate for peace AT ALL today! ...
Americans are supposed to be patriotic and go along.
But any reason for war in Syria, is even more obscure than any reason for the Iraq war, Then Mr. Cohen never really questioned that either.
Only AFTER THE FACT, of Syria's actions in response to escalating protests, and subsequent blatant use of force by so-called rebels, ... was Pres. al-Assad denounced. (Feb. 18, 2011)
But he was not the primary cause for his being denounced.
It was only the West's actions, and actions of Middle East countries sending their terrorists into Syria, that even led to buildup to a large force of 'rebels' of diverse kinds, who by that time actually did intend to do regime change.
So it was only that Western support for that, and not mainly any native Syrians, who really wanted to go that far. They only wanted peaceful change.
1
Sorry Mr. Cohen, but Syria is not the question, but a pawn in the proxy war of Russia and Iran against the U. S. and Saudi Arabia, who has unleashed their hounds of Hell, ISIS. Putin's fingerprints are all over this crime scene and he has to be clapping in glee as refugees pierce the EU's Achilli's heel destabilizing an already wobbly West, probably ending in the collapse of the EU and the euro. There is no interim step to take here as Thomas Friedman's recent column says, we either invade, occupy and attempt to stabilize the entire Middle East or fortify ourselves against the blow back from its bloody collapse. Other than a few rabid Neocons, America has no stomach for such a thankless ordeal. Fall back, salvage what we can of Europe and let Russia and Iran bloody their hands and empty their treasuries in this black hole of hatred and despair. Yes, throw the Saudis under the bus. We should have done so years ago. If I have to pay more at the gas pump, I consider it a bargain.
1
So too is it a blot on Roger Cohen. Where has Roger been these last four (4) years as he championed Obama's foreign policy across the globe, but most, especially, in the Middle-East? Not just Syria, but, all of the Middle-East is a nightmare of genocide and despair, the worst genocide since WWII. And where was Roger? In addition to genocide, now there's a great Diaspora, which affects his beloved Europe, so Roger speaks out in measured tones of criticism regarding events long past, the full consequences of which are now fully felt, but, which should have been known about when they occurred. Too little, too late, Roger, too little, too late.
"The fault, dear Roger, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
"The fault, dear Roger, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
Syria has been a nightmare for Barak Obama and he, Barak Obama, has been a nightmare for a lot of Americans.
I voted for Obama twice much to my chagrin. When he said, "when they cross that red line..." and didn't back it up, he lost my support. His handling of Assad has been nothing less than disastrous. Why no fly zone? Why couldn't he see the diaspora of Syrians? He procrastinated and the results are very sad. Of course, some of the blame should be shared by the European countries. I appreciate his accomplishments here. But his handling of exigent foreign policy matters has been for me very disappointing and feckless.
Any idiot detractor of Bush's policies needs to come clean after Obama's disasters. Two vastly different policies- two similar results.
Smart people can easily split hairs and call Bush's results slightly better.
When Bush left office we were winning the war on terror. Now we are losing it.
When Israel gets nuked the Democratic party in America will cease to exist- like the Whig party.
Smart people can easily split hairs and call Bush's results slightly better.
When Bush left office we were winning the war on terror. Now we are losing it.
When Israel gets nuked the Democratic party in America will cease to exist- like the Whig party.
Why is every problem in the Middle East ours to solve? Kristof pays lip service to the notion of the harm we did with our invasion of Iraq but let's actually lay it out:
The Bush/Cheney invasion upended Iraq's Sunni-dominated ruling establishment which had made the country a regional foe and competitor of Iran and a check on its expansion and influence. We replaced it with a Shiite government that is not only a close ally of Iran but which proceeded to beat up on the Sunnis who had been crucial to our defeat of al-Qaida in Iraq (now ISIS) but who now are refusing to join that government in fighting ISIS. Iran's regional influence has never been stronger thanks to Saddam Hussein's fall.
And then there's ISIS which grew out of the chaos of the 2003 Iraq invasion and aftermath (entirely predictable BTW). We can say with some certainty that ISIS owes its very existence to the US under Bush and Cheney. You think they'd be grateful, huh?
Obama can certainly be faulted for loose talk of red lines but his reluctance to become involved in Syria's civil war was prudent and understandable. No doubt if we'd jumped in at the beginning and things developed as they did anyway without us, the world would be condemning us for stoking the fires.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Given the choice I'd rather we didn't.
The Bush/Cheney invasion upended Iraq's Sunni-dominated ruling establishment which had made the country a regional foe and competitor of Iran and a check on its expansion and influence. We replaced it with a Shiite government that is not only a close ally of Iran but which proceeded to beat up on the Sunnis who had been crucial to our defeat of al-Qaida in Iraq (now ISIS) but who now are refusing to join that government in fighting ISIS. Iran's regional influence has never been stronger thanks to Saddam Hussein's fall.
And then there's ISIS which grew out of the chaos of the 2003 Iraq invasion and aftermath (entirely predictable BTW). We can say with some certainty that ISIS owes its very existence to the US under Bush and Cheney. You think they'd be grateful, huh?
Obama can certainly be faulted for loose talk of red lines but his reluctance to become involved in Syria's civil war was prudent and understandable. No doubt if we'd jumped in at the beginning and things developed as they did anyway without us, the world would be condemning us for stoking the fires.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Given the choice I'd rather we didn't.
Obama, as Commander in Chief, has been even more disastrous than Obama as President.
The Iranian deal, even if we accept it as the least bad decision, is a constitutional abomination in the sense that he refuses to acknowledge that it is a treaty subject to a 2/3rds ratification vote. As a result, the 42 Senate Democrats who are voting for it have their heads under the guillotine hoping that the Iranians honor their commitments. But it is the Israelis who are most at risk while the Senate Democrats enjoy their comfortable DC life.
As for Libya, Hillary's 'war of choice' if ever there was one, it has become a disaster for the reasons Cohen mentions. Syria is Obama's Rwanda but with global repercussions.
The international damage wreaked by Obama and Hillary will harm even more people than his domestic misadventures.
The Iranian deal, even if we accept it as the least bad decision, is a constitutional abomination in the sense that he refuses to acknowledge that it is a treaty subject to a 2/3rds ratification vote. As a result, the 42 Senate Democrats who are voting for it have their heads under the guillotine hoping that the Iranians honor their commitments. But it is the Israelis who are most at risk while the Senate Democrats enjoy their comfortable DC life.
As for Libya, Hillary's 'war of choice' if ever there was one, it has become a disaster for the reasons Cohen mentions. Syria is Obama's Rwanda but with global repercussions.
The international damage wreaked by Obama and Hillary will harm even more people than his domestic misadventures.
Tomorrow is the anniversary of the 9/11 attack on the WTC. Or has everyone forgotten that? And the atrocious mess in the Middle East continues unabated. Obama appears to have reconciled himself with America's decline as the greatest nation on the face of the earth. He has admittedly tried a number of maneuvers but has failed to right the ship. It is a daunting task without a doubt. But whether we like it or not, we appear to be heading for a major confrontation with these head chopping maniacs and their leaders of ISIS/ISIL, Assad, Putin, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others. Throw Israel into the mix and we have an indescribable world conflict. Are we safe here in America? No way. We need great statesmen now. And where are they?
21
Jim we used our power in Iraq and look how swell that went.
Much of what Roger Cohen writes today about Syria is correct, but he and many other writers and pundits tend to overlook a couple things. Any step by President Obama back in 2011 to put American boots on the ground in Syria would have confirmed the ISIS narrative of American military intervention being at the heart of every problem in the Middle East. Such a step would also have required promptly submitting the issue to Congress, which undoubtedly would have seen Republicans attaching strings like ramping up – again – our military involvement in Iraq and elsewhere.
Obama was faced with no good choices back then, nor is he now. There is, however, now a clearer path to helping the Syrian people – regardless of their allegiance – as the leading force of an international program of emergency on-site assistance. That clear path did not exist in 2011 or 2012.
A year later, when France made an overture, there still was no likelihood that a humanitarian crisis would occur or, if it did, could be prevented without aid becoming merely a setoff against further bloodshed in the face of Russian and Chinese support for Bashar al-Assad.
Obama was faced with no good choices back then, nor is he now. There is, however, now a clearer path to helping the Syrian people – regardless of their allegiance – as the leading force of an international program of emergency on-site assistance. That clear path did not exist in 2011 or 2012.
A year later, when France made an overture, there still was no likelihood that a humanitarian crisis would occur or, if it did, could be prevented without aid becoming merely a setoff against further bloodshed in the face of Russian and Chinese support for Bashar al-Assad.
So Obama should have sent a few hundred thousands of troops to Libya and then after that to Syria after a bombing campaign that may or may not have ousted the leadership of said countries?
And then our troops would be again in the middle of the Shia/Sunni war that has been raging for centuries and a target for both groups.
How long do we stay? What would be our goals? When could we leave? And what of the human and financial costs?
The days of Imperial powers occupying and pacifying other countries are long gone.
And then our troops would be again in the middle of the Shia/Sunni war that has been raging for centuries and a target for both groups.
How long do we stay? What would be our goals? When could we leave? And what of the human and financial costs?
The days of Imperial powers occupying and pacifying other countries are long gone.
Don't blame Obama for his debacle in the Middle East?
The buck stops where????
200,000 dead Syrians. 1.5 million Syrian/Iraqi refugees.
The Obama Legacy.
The buck stops where????
200,000 dead Syrians. 1.5 million Syrian/Iraqi refugees.
The Obama Legacy.
1
Be specific, Roger. What does America do in Syria that does not involve committing on a scale approaching the Iraq intervention? How do you bomb just a little bit, set up refugee camps in Syria without boots on the ground, and avoid American flyers being taken prisoner (with all that that entails)? And as for arming the rebels early, massively, recall all the U.S. equipment that fell so easily into ISIS hands in Iraq. You've tried to go easy on Obama in your critique because you clearly like him, but you'll have to give him a pass on this one too. He's refused to embroil his country in another fruitless, endless war, the threat to the perceptions of American exceptionalism notwithstanding.
Has their been or is their a simple solution as Obama's critics do not show but presume? No. There are no players in the Syrian Civil War who are not sources of problems all by themselves except a few who have not been able to put down the killers on either side. It was this or an invasion which would inevitably lead to this unless the United States decided to be the new imperial power with legions like Rome's draw from conscripted Americans and mercenaries from all over the world. Syria was never a nation, neither one based upon an ancient unified people nor as a modern constitutional democracy governed by well developed laws, it was a fiction created by those imperialists of collapsed empires in the wake of World War I.
A disheartening aspect of the eagerness with which the elites have taken over the debate about opportunists coming from Turkey, Serbia, Macedonia among others where they had fairly decent lives, but would settle for nothing less than gaining access to the wealthy countries in the West, is the misuse of language--calling them refugees instead of migrants, and portraying them as having escaped harsh conditions, rather than understanding their true motives,which is upward social and economic mobility.They want what we have!If a poll were taken, in true democratic fashion,and all citizens participated, the decision to accept the migrants would be negative, at least that is my hunch.Recall these r all middle class folks with bank accounts, able to pay smugglers to help them get to the West.if you took a ballot, a poll in this country among African AMERICANS on whether to accept tens of thousands of these migrants, the result would be overwhelmingly negative. African Americans already face problems re poverty, lack of opportunity, discrimination inter alia, and the disembarkation of high numbers of new comers eligible to receive the whole card of welfare benefits would be another slap in the face for this community which has already endured so much humiliation over the years. And make no mistake, many of the "Syrian refugees", based on my experience, r anti-Semitic, anti Christian, anti-black. An influx of these migrants is one problem we don't need.
A country that brought you Viet Nam is supposed to know what to do in the Middle East?
Thank God for Obama. Mr. Cohen has admittedly given two bad options; doing something, and not doing something. Then accused him of not taking one of the bad options. Obama took the road less traveled in foreign policy. Sitting on the fence. If people in the Middle East, including in Syria, want to kill each other, there is nothing we can do. We tried. And sitting on the fence is the only place to shoot from and he’s done plenty of shooting and covert killing of known bad guys.
Should these people heading toward Europe have “won” they would be doing to the other “side” what is being done to them. Such is their way. And there are too many sides to keep track of anyway. How many times do we have to go through this. If you ignore enough facts and statistics then you are doomed to count up the truth in odd ways.
Thank God for Obama. Mr. Cohen has admittedly given two bad options; doing something, and not doing something. Then accused him of not taking one of the bad options. Obama took the road less traveled in foreign policy. Sitting on the fence. If people in the Middle East, including in Syria, want to kill each other, there is nothing we can do. We tried. And sitting on the fence is the only place to shoot from and he’s done plenty of shooting and covert killing of known bad guys.
Should these people heading toward Europe have “won” they would be doing to the other “side” what is being done to them. Such is their way. And there are too many sides to keep track of anyway. How many times do we have to go through this. If you ignore enough facts and statistics then you are doomed to count up the truth in odd ways.
The West continue to evaluate the goals of the region using a Western analytical algorithm. This type of evaluation fails to account for cultural, historical and regional divides that obfuscate true solutions. Western academics and policy-makers provide ideological narratives that fail to address root causes of conflict and in the name of political correctness abstain from identifying the true nature of the instability or flawed ideology.
Many pundits as does the author of this very well written article provide false narratives that if only the U.S. had acted in a different manner the present human condition might have been averted. The Assad regime serves as a model for the region if you follow recent events, and that is “the known is a lot better than the unknown”. The moderate rebels in Syria are touted as a possible solution, and here again demonstrates the lack of vision Westerners continually resolve themselves in trying to solve crises in the Middle East. That is, they are intellectually superior and better suited to select the next despot than Middle Easterners. In academic circles in which governance is studied, many are asking; who are the moderates in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen representing, and what experience do they have in governing? This has the potential to create ungoverned space and there are plenty of examples where this condition has given rise to extremism as demonstrated by ISIS(L).
Many pundits as does the author of this very well written article provide false narratives that if only the U.S. had acted in a different manner the present human condition might have been averted. The Assad regime serves as a model for the region if you follow recent events, and that is “the known is a lot better than the unknown”. The moderate rebels in Syria are touted as a possible solution, and here again demonstrates the lack of vision Westerners continually resolve themselves in trying to solve crises in the Middle East. That is, they are intellectually superior and better suited to select the next despot than Middle Easterners. In academic circles in which governance is studied, many are asking; who are the moderates in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen representing, and what experience do they have in governing? This has the potential to create ungoverned space and there are plenty of examples where this condition has given rise to extremism as demonstrated by ISIS(L).
At last! I must be dreaming. A liberal Times columnist criticizing President Obama! I didn' t think it was possible. Too bad this column didn't appear four years ago, before Libyans and Syrians fell victim to his diffidence.
As a moderate who leans liberal, I have sat open- mouthed each day as the debacles have unfolded. Now it's too late, with Russian boots on the ground, and millions displaced. Thanks for speaking out.
As a moderate who leans liberal, I have sat open- mouthed each day as the debacles have unfolded. Now it's too late, with Russian boots on the ground, and millions displaced. Thanks for speaking out.
I thjnk your comment are misplaced and naive.You sound like the senseless Obama-hating Republicans.We started all this by upsetting the power structure in our, FLOWERS AND SONGS wars from Bush-Cheyney.We can not undo a civil war that we have started.No amount of troops on the ground will keep these countries together without a ruthless strongman to play both ends against the middle which has been the cease since the end of ww2.You will not have a nation half filled with Aryan Nation and the other Black Panther PARTY AND EXPECT A CIVILIZED COUNTRY THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE IN. The only real solution is what ISIS is doing.We need a Balkaize 3 state solution, Sunni, Shite, and Kurd. None of this will be acceptable to th epowers in the region, and so be it, let them pay for the war and displacement. The first words out of Bushs' mouth were a LIE like so many other things h e would say, " I WILL NOT ENGAGE IN NATION BUILDING" perhaps he mean't , I will engage in nation destroying.
Roger, you are so far off in this. 1) we the people do not want to send our blood and treasure off to the mideast for yet another neocon disaster which will have the same result as Afghanistan and Iraq. 2) Obama at least, recognizes this. 3) Most of the mideast problems are of their own making-- relentless over-population; a compete denial of climate change and actions they should take as a result; an obsessive devotion to a war-mongering faith. 3) The west cannot and should not take these migrants in because they will not adapt to Western ways, they will overwhelm what will quickly (in Europe at least) become a native-born minority. See Paris for an example of this disastrous outcome. 4) you would serve your readers better if you would write about the Saudis role in all of this: why they don't take refugees; why obama hosted their ruler in DC, with their shameful takeover of an entire DC luxury hotel; why they are still our "friend" in spite of their destabilizing tactics in the mideast; why they are our Allie when we no longer need their carrot-- the oil. The Saudis are the real story and I for one would like to learn more about their role and how we can extricate ourselves from their evil clutches.
1
None of the "solutions" you mention are bold or even viable. Possibly a safe place in Syria for refugees, carried out with the shared responsibility of our allies, would and still could be an option. Name any US military action in the Middle East that has brought any real success. It is time to pivot away from the Middle east and a larger than necessary military and start spending the extra funds on rebuilding our 3rd world infrastructure, transportation and energy systems, schools, hospitals and other subpar institutions.
This is just so much "Monday-Morning Quarterbacking".
Those looking back and imagining how it "might" have gone better with more strident interventions, always ignore the very likely worse disasters such actions could have provoked: committing our youth to die in someone else's tribal war (one that simply can't be won . . . ever), tripling our debt, deepening the hostility many, if not most, in the Middle east already harbor for American "solutions", a surge toward a broader devolution of interactions with Russia and Iran. I could go on.
A multi-nation-enforced no-fly zone looks to be best immediate option.
Those looking back and imagining how it "might" have gone better with more strident interventions, always ignore the very likely worse disasters such actions could have provoked: committing our youth to die in someone else's tribal war (one that simply can't be won . . . ever), tripling our debt, deepening the hostility many, if not most, in the Middle east already harbor for American "solutions", a surge toward a broader devolution of interactions with Russia and Iran. I could go on.
A multi-nation-enforced no-fly zone looks to be best immediate option.
1
Your prescription for intervention isn't really defined beyond, " Do something" and that, Mr. Cohen, isn't enough to justify U.S. military intervention in a country with artificially drawn boundaries, including Syria and Iraq while adding to the chaos, a violent non-state actor like ISIS.
You don't say who we would put in power in Syria after we remove Assad. How about Sarah Palin or Donald Trump? Donald would not let crazy ideas like democracy hamstring him once he was in power. He would just fire everyone who questioned his actions, probably similar to Assad, actually. Sarah could just announce that she was shutting the country down and head off to another reality TV show. If you look at Iraq, we didn't expect the leaders there to not pay their own soldiers and pocket the money and watch the soldiers run away when attacked. Easy to talk about this area, hard to do anything that makes since. Maybe think of Europe's endless wars over hundreds of years. Maybe the Islamic world has to go through some growing pains like that before they learn to live with each other.
In the case of Iraq we intervened on the premise that violent regime change would lead to the blooming of democracy in the region, when the dictator Saddam Hussein was forcibly removed from power. What the neocons failed to tell George W at the time was that Iraq had profound confessional fissures, and Saddam was a secular Baath Socialist, who was an obstacle to Iran and the enemy of all jihadis. Jihadis sponsored by the Sunni Royals filled the vacuum.
When Saddam fell, Iraq disintegrated, the Shia got the upper hand by democratic vote. and 4.5 million people voted with their feet, to hit the road.
Not satisfied with destroying Iraq and liberating the Shia Crescent, the drum beat was sounded to take down another secular leader, the Shia President Assad, and the efforts to support the Sunni rebels by the tens of billions of dollars supplied by our allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar had the effect of amplifying the chaos by creating ISIS and terrifying even more natives into hitting the road.
Bush screwed up. Obama had continuity. We are responsible. Now what! Bomb I'd guess, but bomb whom?
WE have tried the muscular use of American Power, and it has turned out that it was simply the mindless use of American Power. Only if we can rein in the Sunni Royals and Israel is there a chance for peace in the MIddle East. The American War Party is determined that this shall not happen and their resistance to Obama's Iran Treaty is evidence of that determination to keep the pot boiling.
When Saddam fell, Iraq disintegrated, the Shia got the upper hand by democratic vote. and 4.5 million people voted with their feet, to hit the road.
Not satisfied with destroying Iraq and liberating the Shia Crescent, the drum beat was sounded to take down another secular leader, the Shia President Assad, and the efforts to support the Sunni rebels by the tens of billions of dollars supplied by our allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar had the effect of amplifying the chaos by creating ISIS and terrifying even more natives into hitting the road.
Bush screwed up. Obama had continuity. We are responsible. Now what! Bomb I'd guess, but bomb whom?
WE have tried the muscular use of American Power, and it has turned out that it was simply the mindless use of American Power. Only if we can rein in the Sunni Royals and Israel is there a chance for peace in the MIddle East. The American War Party is determined that this shall not happen and their resistance to Obama's Iran Treaty is evidence of that determination to keep the pot boiling.
1
Obama's Syrian strategy (or lack of one) is flawed and destructive. But the alternative most often recommended, the Bush strategy of aggessive use of American military power followed by occupation and installation of a friendly government, as it played out in Iraq was even more destructive, leading to years of internal chaos and death, an incompetent, corrupt and partisan government and a fertile region for the incursion of ISIS. In Libya we used military power to aid rebels, then let them run the country when they won and that didn't work either, leading to essentially a failed state. It's not too late for a new policy in Syria, but this one has to get outside of the box we (our politicians, military and NY Times columnists) always think in. Vladimir Putin has gotten Assad to agree to share his government and negotiate with his enemies. We have not even responded to his offer, instead insisting that "Assad must go" and seeing it as one more indication of Putin's bid for power in the region. Our intransigence on this means the war must go on. If Assad falls, it will be to ISIS, not to the few American-trained "good" rebels who are in the country. There is only one country that is directly engaging ISIS in Syria and Iraq and that is Iran. But again, our own intransigence forbids us to cooperate with them so we pursue a separate, and ineffectual effort of our own. A new policy requires rethinking our stances on Assad and Iran, not just more of the same failed strategies.
It seems like the two halves of this opinion piece were written by two different people: the first half, with its nuanced, achingly clear portrait of an intractable situation, the latter half, irresponsible in its use of what-ifs ('counterfactuals') and adrift in the understandable anger born of frustration.
Thank you for the first half. Unfortunately, the tragic snakepit that is Syria today defies well meaning nations at every turn. As Jews, you and I rightly feel sympathy for the massive refugee population, even in our biblical enemy. Never again, we are taught. But walking the tightrope between neo-con opportunism and neglect sadly leaves very few constructive options.
Thank you for the first half. Unfortunately, the tragic snakepit that is Syria today defies well meaning nations at every turn. As Jews, you and I rightly feel sympathy for the massive refugee population, even in our biblical enemy. Never again, we are taught. But walking the tightrope between neo-con opportunism and neglect sadly leaves very few constructive options.
1
I wouldn't send my sons to keep American hating Syrians from other killing American hating Syrians. If American troops were on the ground, both sides would be killing them. Just look at Iraq. There is one thing both sides agree upon; they hate Americans.
If the author wants this to end, and I believe he does, he should take it up with his Iranian friends. The nuclear deal, which the author strongly promoted, will result in Iran providing a massive arms buildup for both Assad's forces and Hezbollah. The result will be an expanded war, death on a scale not yet seen in this horrible conflict. I realize that this is not something which the author supports, but his lack of criticism of the Iranians, his refusal to call for sanctions against Assad's sponsors in Tehran show that he only wants American young men and women to fight Iran's colonial ambitions.
If the author wants this to end, and I believe he does, he should take it up with his Iranian friends. The nuclear deal, which the author strongly promoted, will result in Iran providing a massive arms buildup for both Assad's forces and Hezbollah. The result will be an expanded war, death on a scale not yet seen in this horrible conflict. I realize that this is not something which the author supports, but his lack of criticism of the Iranians, his refusal to call for sanctions against Assad's sponsors in Tehran show that he only wants American young men and women to fight Iran's colonial ambitions.
3
Why is Syria our problem? What national interest is there? Why should the refuges be Europe's problem?
More often than not when we interfer we make things worse. Remember Iraq, and Libya? Where are the Gulf States? They have more than enough resources to take care of the refugees? Our foreign policy must strike a balance between isolationism and being the world's policeman. If Obama's policies 'haven't worked' with respect to Syrian civil war, it's because no policy we could have pursued would have worked. This was an internal conflict that evolved in ways we had no way of controlling. Sending arms sooner? To who? The next incarnation of the Taliban or Islamic State? The fact is the most effective fighters against the Syrian government have always been Islamists. The Syrian government has always been the most secular player on the field. We can armchair quarterback to our heart's content but Obama has successfully kept us out of another war that we really have no business being involved in. Yes the Islamic State is bad. But they are not an existential threat to the US. In fact they are in many ways the creation of our 'ally' Saudi Arabia through their promotion of Wahhabism. The Islam practiced by the Islamic State is the natural and logical extention of Wahhabi beliefs and practice and intolerance. If my contention is correct, how can we fix that without addressing the root problem, the state religion of Saudi Arabia? The fix for this mess is in Riyadh, not Washington.
More often than not when we interfer we make things worse. Remember Iraq, and Libya? Where are the Gulf States? They have more than enough resources to take care of the refugees? Our foreign policy must strike a balance between isolationism and being the world's policeman. If Obama's policies 'haven't worked' with respect to Syrian civil war, it's because no policy we could have pursued would have worked. This was an internal conflict that evolved in ways we had no way of controlling. Sending arms sooner? To who? The next incarnation of the Taliban or Islamic State? The fact is the most effective fighters against the Syrian government have always been Islamists. The Syrian government has always been the most secular player on the field. We can armchair quarterback to our heart's content but Obama has successfully kept us out of another war that we really have no business being involved in. Yes the Islamic State is bad. But they are not an existential threat to the US. In fact they are in many ways the creation of our 'ally' Saudi Arabia through their promotion of Wahhabism. The Islam practiced by the Islamic State is the natural and logical extention of Wahhabi beliefs and practice and intolerance. If my contention is correct, how can we fix that without addressing the root problem, the state religion of Saudi Arabia? The fix for this mess is in Riyadh, not Washington.
1
I voted for Obama twice and I remain overall an Obama supporter. But, sadly, I have to agree with Roger Cohen's analysis of the failures of Obama doctrine on foreign policy especially in Syria. By large measure Obama became President in 2008 because he voted against the disasteous Bush/Cheney Iraq War and Hillary Clinton voted for it and McCain enthusiastically supported it. Obama won 2 elections in part by promising to wind down the increasingly unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to challenge the "do stupid stuff" of Bush/Cheney/Neocons with a much more thoughtful "don't do stupid stuff" strategy. But America is the world's superpower/hegemon and lack of American leadership has consequences. In many ways we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Obama inherited the mess left by Bush/Cheney and that certainly impacted Syria, but Syria and Libya happened on Obama's watch, and unlike Republicans, we should and can rise above the partisan divide and admit that a President we otherwise admire has failed in some areas such as Syria.
I disagree with you about Syria's chemical weapons. Remember the goal. The goal was for Assad to stop using them and get rid of them. The Russians gave us a way to accomplish that goal that was faster, better, and cheaper than attempting to bomb them into the Stone Age. Who cares if Obama adopted a different solution to get to that goal instead of sticking to his original plan? Being able to change your mind based on new evidence is a sign of strength and intelligence, not weakness.
2
So liberals argue Obama is never responsible for anything Obama gets wrong?
Or that Obama never gets anything wrong?
Which version of "totally nuts" are you guys going with?
Or that Obama never gets anything wrong?
Which version of "totally nuts" are you guys going with?
3
The reshaping of Middle East borders, that we are seeing now in the Middle East , was due at the end of World War I, but was eclipsed by the interference of the victorious Allied Powers and the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. This struggle for power and influence will completely remake the realpolitik of the area. Obama has simply recognized that any attempt to stop this disorder and the inevitable rearrangement would repeat the mistake that Britain and France made at the end of World War I with a significant cost in blood and treasure.
A lesson they first applied in order to avoid another terrible war by allowing Hitler to reoccupy the western Rhine (Ruhrgebeit) in contravention of the Versailles Treaty while looking the other way as he rebuilt Germany's military. How'd that work out?
i cant wait till america invades china to rescue its populace from its government,
dropping bombs and and raiding and destroying nations is a staple mark for this government not humanitarian aid
dropping bombs and and raiding and destroying nations is a staple mark for this government not humanitarian aid
2
China is not in chaos, it is not a festering sore costing hundreds of thousands of lives and refugees, it is not developing hardened terrorists animated by a death cult based on a religion who attack nations throughout the world, nor is it dropping poison gas bombs on civilians. What exactly is your point, then?
Assad obviously never read the Roman Historian Tacitus.."Solitudinem faciant; et pacem appellant" They make a wasteland..and call it peace. What exactly is his plan for Syria??? The full quote is even better than this brief quip.
First thing you learn in life as well as the military and business or any other area is never draw a line in the sand that you're not willing to fight for either physically emotionally intellectually or otherwise .
I understood that practice as having integrity .
Pundits wrote our president embarrassed himself and the United States by drawing a line in the sand and doing nothing about it when Assad crossed the line repeatedly a few summers ago (as well as every day since ).
Many leaders and citizens believe according to news reports , the over 4 million forgotten refugees are the result of Barack Obama's inadequacy in dealing with violent criminal type leaders.
Remember President Obama said ISIS was Junior League . His words .
Let's see how he deals with the Iranians who are probably giggling silly because of the concessions the US and others made with regard to their deal on this nuclear issue.
Will the Iranians cross the line? HA!
Have they ever kept their word?, is a real question to ask.
Do they want to see America destroyed ?
Yes, how so very sad, four million times sad, concerning the refugees from Syria .
I hope as a result of recent US foreign-policy actions, Arabic does not become our official language .
I understood that practice as having integrity .
Pundits wrote our president embarrassed himself and the United States by drawing a line in the sand and doing nothing about it when Assad crossed the line repeatedly a few summers ago (as well as every day since ).
Many leaders and citizens believe according to news reports , the over 4 million forgotten refugees are the result of Barack Obama's inadequacy in dealing with violent criminal type leaders.
Remember President Obama said ISIS was Junior League . His words .
Let's see how he deals with the Iranians who are probably giggling silly because of the concessions the US and others made with regard to their deal on this nuclear issue.
Will the Iranians cross the line? HA!
Have they ever kept their word?, is a real question to ask.
Do they want to see America destroyed ?
Yes, how so very sad, four million times sad, concerning the refugees from Syria .
I hope as a result of recent US foreign-policy actions, Arabic does not become our official language .
Bombing Syria over chemical weapons would, at best, have discouraged their further use by Assad but done nothing to eliminate them. Obama's threat was solely about the chemical weapons which, thanks to Russia's agency, are now gone from Syria (well, mostly), a better outcome than bombing would have brought. I'm with Obama on that one.
What's our vital interest in Syria? When did your supposed good guys have any chance of prevailing? Let's stay out of it. At least this time it's not us killing the children. These colors don't run the world.
What's our vital interest in Syria? When did your supposed good guys have any chance of prevailing? Let's stay out of it. At least this time it's not us killing the children. These colors don't run the world.
We need to be cognizant of the situation in Syria when these events were unfolding. "Arming the rebels" was a goal and would have been doable if there had been a monolithic force. There was not. Then the question became which rebel group to support and whether that group could hold long enough to prevent the US-supplied arms from falling into the wrong hands. There was never clarity in which group to support.
Al-Assad is clearly a thug and should go but lacking boots on the ground it is not clear how that could have been accomplished.
Al-Assad is clearly a thug and should go but lacking boots on the ground it is not clear how that could have been accomplished.
Re “Syria will be the biggest blot on the Obama presidency.” Absolutely! It’s long past time to toss more bombs in the general direction of Middle-East civilian populations and send more American kids to die there.
Hey, what’s the point of having the most expensive military capability in the world if we don’t use it now and then? Show them who’s boss, that’s what I say.
Hey, what’s the point of having the most expensive military capability in the world if we don’t use it now and then? Show them who’s boss, that’s what I say.
3
The issue with Syria has always been one of bad choices. Assad is a brutal dictator, but the groups fighting him are not pro-American. Some of the nations supporting ISIS are U.S. allies. Turkey is bombing Kurds who oppose ISIS, but they fear the Kurds will carve out a state in eastern Turkey and in parts of Iraq. Bush and Chaney were decisive about Iraq, but they unleashed a whirlwind that they little understood. Now they want to blame Obama....
2
The President deliberately chose his 'slow boil' and escalation policy with regard to Syria and Iraq. Not only is it immoral, it will result in more chaos and human suffering throughout the region.
Either go in with the full military might of the U.S. and vanquish ISIS, or don't go at all.
The President also chose to use NATO air power to take down Qaddafi, another Arab dictator who posed no threat to the U.S. The chaos and anarchy that followed has led to a humanitarian disaster on the Mediterranean.
One would have thought this President would have learned the lessons of Vietnam.
Either go in with the full military might of the U.S. and vanquish ISIS, or don't go at all.
The President also chose to use NATO air power to take down Qaddafi, another Arab dictator who posed no threat to the U.S. The chaos and anarchy that followed has led to a humanitarian disaster on the Mediterranean.
One would have thought this President would have learned the lessons of Vietnam.
1
Perhaps a more muscular approach to Syria would have made a difference but there is no way to be sure. What we do know is that the US has not been able to find a credible moderate opposition to Assad, and not for lack of trying. The only effective internal force have been the Kurds. They are indeed making progress against ISIS and they should be given all the means necessary to create the security zone that Cohen advocates. But nothing is simple in that region of world, the US needs the cooperation of Turkey (or more precisely Erdogan) whose priority seems to be to go after the Kurds rather than ISIS. There is no arguing that Obama's approach to Syria has not prevented a catastrophe. It does not follow though that a different approach would have yielded better results, even with hindsight. The sad fact is that the US does not understand the dynamics of that region.
10
An Obama supporter just attempted to blame Congress in an op-ed entitled "Obama's Syrian Nightmare" that lays out in detail Obama's incompetent, bumbling, fraidy cat foreign policy foibles.
Recall: Obama insisted for weeks he could take military action against Syria without Congress. Let me repeat. Obama insisted for weeks he could take military action against Syria without Congress.
When he couldn't (because here in Washington DC we remember that rare Sat meeting at the WH) because the military leaders were poised to refuse his orders (remember the pin prick Kerry comments?) then (and it was on Frontline told by WH advisors) Obama went for his famous walk with his Chief of Staff, came back inside the WH and told them he was punting Syria back to Congress.
Obama knew after years of thumbing his nose at Congress, after the Obamacare wars and the shutdown battles, and his arrogance that Congress would stall. So then Congress would get the blame right?
Wrong.
Obama drew the red line, and failed to lead the American people. Period. 200,000 Syrians died waiting for Obama to keep his word. 200,000. And millions more are fleeing to Europe.
Recall: Obama insisted for weeks he could take military action against Syria without Congress. Let me repeat. Obama insisted for weeks he could take military action against Syria without Congress.
When he couldn't (because here in Washington DC we remember that rare Sat meeting at the WH) because the military leaders were poised to refuse his orders (remember the pin prick Kerry comments?) then (and it was on Frontline told by WH advisors) Obama went for his famous walk with his Chief of Staff, came back inside the WH and told them he was punting Syria back to Congress.
Obama knew after years of thumbing his nose at Congress, after the Obamacare wars and the shutdown battles, and his arrogance that Congress would stall. So then Congress would get the blame right?
Wrong.
Obama drew the red line, and failed to lead the American people. Period. 200,000 Syrians died waiting for Obama to keep his word. 200,000. And millions more are fleeing to Europe.
2
An war propoganda reporter is conveying the idea that the US could have saved the world have they intervened from the beginning. Well here this out from a fleeing Syrian Mr. Cohen. I have been living the best life in my country until you democracy government started funding the "Moderate Rebels" and at the same time accusing Assad of bombing peaceful protestors. Then , as was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, these Moderate Rebels shrinked to 10% of their original size. The 90% became ISIS. So please, oh please just shut up. My only hope in life is that Putin can intervene and save the country in one piece unlike your alleged saviors.
4
Well said . More & thank you.
1
If Russia wants to increase its military support to President Assad, including by potentially deploying Russian troops, as the NYT is reporting, then the US should welcome Moscow's commitment to fighting terrorism in Syria. For the cost of Russia quitting its role in western Ukraine, the US can quit its efforts to train the 54 individuals identified as the moderate Syrian opposition. It seems a reasonable conversation for the two ambassadors in New York, Powers and Churkin, to explore.
I don't see the Russian army as capable of doing much other than joining up wth that loser Assad's forces in picking on civilians and manning a few checkpoints around the presidential bunker. They don't seem capable of pushing into the streets and hills and taking on ISIS or anyone with a combat capability. Even Israel seems afraid of tangling with ISIS. Too bad because someone has to do something over there to put an end to this.
The Refugee Crisis should be an easy matter for the Community Organizer in Chief to handle.He has demonstrated his expertise in addressing the "illegal alien" crisis in the US, or is it really a crisis?..Leading is a far different matter as the M O for this president is to "lead from behind". Is this not an oxymoron? How can a leader "lead from behind"?. Is this not known as following? How can his agreement with Iran be described as a "breakthrough" when Iran is the patron of the Assad regime and the protagonist for unrest in the ME? How is the "reset with Russia" working when Putin annexes Crimea, creates instability in Ukraine and has a naval base and military advisors in Syria. Why would Russia not pursue its own (inter)national interests?. Is BO merely demonstrating his "flexibility" vis a vis Russia?
Exactly what are the international interests of the US/BO/JK.."Don't do stupid stuff"!..How is that working out?. 500 days and counting.....
Exactly what are the international interests of the US/BO/JK.."Don't do stupid stuff"!..How is that working out?. 500 days and counting.....
1
The first decade of the 21st century saw the US squandering tremendous amounts of its political capital, both internationally and domestically, due to the follies of Bush 43's military adventures. This is a fact that cannot be debated.
The well was depleted. Obama inherited this domestic and global depletion. His attempt to rebuild our reputation abroad, and our will at home, has been difficult, but as Mr. Cohen notes, the breakthroughs on Cuba and Iran will -- I believe -- prove again the US can lead with wisdom.
But having said all of that re: the wreckage Mr. Obama inherited, I believe Mr. Cohen's analysis is spot on.
But the well is still low. We are still recovering from the fracturing of domestic and international faith due to Bush's invasions. I am not sure what Mr. Obama's options ever were, given that prior damage.
This needs to be a lesson for us. Never cowboy away the reputation or will of the US. For the next year, or the next decade, will certainly bring more conflict, more crisis, and we need to demand of our presidents, as we should have during the '00's, to make sure we are prudent with the exercise of our might. If Bush 43 had not so destabilized that region, and drained our people, and spoiled the good faith of our allies, I highly suspect action in this decade's troubles would have been more forthcoming.
Historical perspective is invaluable in analyzing what is currently happening in the Middle East. Obama inherited much ill wind.
The well was depleted. Obama inherited this domestic and global depletion. His attempt to rebuild our reputation abroad, and our will at home, has been difficult, but as Mr. Cohen notes, the breakthroughs on Cuba and Iran will -- I believe -- prove again the US can lead with wisdom.
But having said all of that re: the wreckage Mr. Obama inherited, I believe Mr. Cohen's analysis is spot on.
But the well is still low. We are still recovering from the fracturing of domestic and international faith due to Bush's invasions. I am not sure what Mr. Obama's options ever were, given that prior damage.
This needs to be a lesson for us. Never cowboy away the reputation or will of the US. For the next year, or the next decade, will certainly bring more conflict, more crisis, and we need to demand of our presidents, as we should have during the '00's, to make sure we are prudent with the exercise of our might. If Bush 43 had not so destabilized that region, and drained our people, and spoiled the good faith of our allies, I highly suspect action in this decade's troubles would have been more forthcoming.
Historical perspective is invaluable in analyzing what is currently happening in the Middle East. Obama inherited much ill wind.
1
The "red line in the sand" is owned by Obama. He made the comment and then did nothing to back it up, as usual. That is why Syrian refugees are bum rushing Europe right now. Democrats and liberals can't blame Bush, despite the usual attempts to do so. This is Obama's mess and he refuses to clean it up. No amount of double speak can undo what Obama has done with his mouth.
Let's for a moment stipulate that Mr. Cohen is right about the consequences of non-intervention early in the Syrian conflict. But why is this non-intervention America's failure alone? Yes, we have the most powerful military on earth. But does this mean, that we, the American taxpayers have to continue ad-infinitum to pay for the security of the rest of the world, with nothing to show in return, except disdain and hate from those we seem obligated to protect?
I thought we had a United Nations, and its Security Council, to deal with such events? Where are they? And, even discounting the U.N.'s ability to act because of potential Russian and Chinese veto powers, where is NATO?
To paraphrase the Fiddler on the Roof: "God! I know there must be a chosen people, but why us?"
I thought we had a United Nations, and its Security Council, to deal with such events? Where are they? And, even discounting the U.N.'s ability to act because of potential Russian and Chinese veto powers, where is NATO?
To paraphrase the Fiddler on the Roof: "God! I know there must be a chosen people, but why us?"
I disagree with the content and tone of this article. America is not the world's police force nor should it be. The Syrian disaster is horrific and tragic, but there are many other current catastrophes: genocide in multiple places in Africa; inhuman acts, sexual slavery, and other horrors perpetrated by ISIS; and even among some of our so-called "allies" (e.g., Saudi Arabia and Egypt) despicable disregard for human life. We clearly can't solve them all, so should we pick and choose?
How about an editorial on the blunder committed by this fake Iraq War ?
We are now living in a Country where streets are falling apart, airports are like a third world country . Schools have no money so they are elimination important programs .
And so on...so why again Syria is Obama`s problem ?
We are now living in a Country where streets are falling apart, airports are like a third world country . Schools have no money so they are elimination important programs .
And so on...so why again Syria is Obama`s problem ?
1
Here is a "counterfactual" the writer fails to mention...the many many thousands of Iraqis who were killed & maimed during the intial bombing of Iraq. Similar was bound to happen to deal with the mostly urbanly entrenched Assad forces. The irony also is that a large percentage of the current migrants are/were firm supporters of the Assad regime who now see the writing. They would likely have suffered most through a US bombing. Mr. Obama wished not to have blood on his hands and while excruciatingly sad to witness this migrant escape is a far "better" outcome for the Syrians.
Why does the U.S., together now with Saudi Arabia, other states ... in the Middle East, want to continue inflicting this damage ... which Mr. Cohen says has already almost completely ruined Syria ?
There is much more damage they could do. Damascus, has not suffered as much destruction as some other cities. There remain some archaeological treasures: temples, etc.
Mr. Cohen does not answer this.
In fact implies almost what amount to the opposite. We need to leave Syria: like for Iran ... to help. He wrote:
" In their homeland, more than 200,000 people have been killed.... This evisceration of a state is a consequence of many things, among them Western inaction.". Western inaction indeed!
It was actually only Western ACTION that led to this war getting escalated to gruesome proportions, and then, incomprehensibly, continued. There was Obama's speech (August 18, '11), denouncing Assad.
Chances for peace have been ruined, by consistent demands that he agree to resign first, before peace talks can start. AND, they try to blame this war, and the rise of ISIL, on Syria's govt., for refusal to capitulate to this Western demand.
It is unanswered why that demand arose in the first place. Syria's people would not have asked for the ruination of their country. And its just not true they ever really asked for help in regime change as such. It has in most part, been fallaciously attributed to them.
It's not clear, why the West didn't want to make clear any REAL reasons.
There is much more damage they could do. Damascus, has not suffered as much destruction as some other cities. There remain some archaeological treasures: temples, etc.
Mr. Cohen does not answer this.
In fact implies almost what amount to the opposite. We need to leave Syria: like for Iran ... to help. He wrote:
" In their homeland, more than 200,000 people have been killed.... This evisceration of a state is a consequence of many things, among them Western inaction.". Western inaction indeed!
It was actually only Western ACTION that led to this war getting escalated to gruesome proportions, and then, incomprehensibly, continued. There was Obama's speech (August 18, '11), denouncing Assad.
Chances for peace have been ruined, by consistent demands that he agree to resign first, before peace talks can start. AND, they try to blame this war, and the rise of ISIL, on Syria's govt., for refusal to capitulate to this Western demand.
It is unanswered why that demand arose in the first place. Syria's people would not have asked for the ruination of their country. And its just not true they ever really asked for help in regime change as such. It has in most part, been fallaciously attributed to them.
It's not clear, why the West didn't want to make clear any REAL reasons.
3
Mr. Cohen's skill in writing tightly-reasoned essays has abandoned him on this occasion. He argues for early intervention in Syria, while demonstrating that similar policies in other Middle Eastern countries failed without exception. The confusion arises, I think, from the real difficulty in devising an approach that will enable the U.S. or other western countries to have a positive impact in these countries whose culture and religion we do not understand.
No discussion of American policy in Syria makes sense without a prior analysis of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fear and frustration those wars generated not only corrupted our politics and weakened us economically. They also undermined our commitment to human rights and imposed impossible strains on our military, especially the army. Few Americans supported any policy that might lead to the use of American troops.
As for supporting Assad's opponents, we knew from bitter experience that picking the groups that would not contribute to chaos or become jihadists was a function of luck rather than skill. Our record in that regard did not inspire confidence.
George Kennan used to say that sometimes the wisest policy was to leave a country alone to sort out its own problems. Obama's greatest mistake may have been to issue threats he did not intend to carry out. His verbal intervention, unbacked by force, violated Kennan's suggestion while merely earning contempt for the U.S.
No discussion of American policy in Syria makes sense without a prior analysis of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fear and frustration those wars generated not only corrupted our politics and weakened us economically. They also undermined our commitment to human rights and imposed impossible strains on our military, especially the army. Few Americans supported any policy that might lead to the use of American troops.
As for supporting Assad's opponents, we knew from bitter experience that picking the groups that would not contribute to chaos or become jihadists was a function of luck rather than skill. Our record in that regard did not inspire confidence.
George Kennan used to say that sometimes the wisest policy was to leave a country alone to sort out its own problems. Obama's greatest mistake may have been to issue threats he did not intend to carry out. His verbal intervention, unbacked by force, violated Kennan's suggestion while merely earning contempt for the U.S.
If you don't have the answer to the question "then what" when you make a move in the Middle East. Don't do it. Saddam was removed from power and nobody asked "then what". "Then what" became a much stronger Iran and ISIS. M. Kaddafi was removed from power and "then what". Removing President Bashar al-Assad would lead to what? Among other things ISIS would be even stronger. The Obama "inaction" has been the best option.
It is clearly apparent that President Obama, has no understanding of the role of the US in foreign affairs. His absolute ban on using any force, under any circumstances, only presents a picture of weakness. If you want a real gauge of our perceived weakness, simply look to Putin, who knows he can run slip shod over any country he wants, and American will simply shake a finger at him.
No one, no one likes military intervention, but the ISSIS situation is akin to the Nazis, what with genocide and all that. Obama has failed to work like George HW Bush to put together a coalition to militarily wipe out this scourge. The countries of the Middle East have to be made to join, and we also have to stop ipso facto endorsing Iran as the chief sponsor of terrorism.
I do not think that a seasoned president, and not an amateur ideologue, would stand still and basically ignore the ISSIS threat, and take a position that it is a regional problem. Certainly the solution is not easy and the situation is complex. However, as the chief architect of the 'lead from behind' strategy, it will take a new stronger President to bring America back to its position as global leader, who have the guts to stand up and say like past presidents, "this will not stand', and take necessary action. Otherwise, ISSIS and their ilk will continue to run amok in the region, and eventually reach our shores with their demented fanaticism to radical Islam.
No one, no one likes military intervention, but the ISSIS situation is akin to the Nazis, what with genocide and all that. Obama has failed to work like George HW Bush to put together a coalition to militarily wipe out this scourge. The countries of the Middle East have to be made to join, and we also have to stop ipso facto endorsing Iran as the chief sponsor of terrorism.
I do not think that a seasoned president, and not an amateur ideologue, would stand still and basically ignore the ISSIS threat, and take a position that it is a regional problem. Certainly the solution is not easy and the situation is complex. However, as the chief architect of the 'lead from behind' strategy, it will take a new stronger President to bring America back to its position as global leader, who have the guts to stand up and say like past presidents, "this will not stand', and take necessary action. Otherwise, ISSIS and their ilk will continue to run amok in the region, and eventually reach our shores with their demented fanaticism to radical Islam.
1
Deception is one of the oldest arts in diplomacy and war. The function of a free press in a democracy is to see through the deception and dig to find the truth. We get very little of that these days, even from the well resourced NYTimes. I submitted a post on the Syria issue. The deception is that the US is concerned about human rights and democracy. The deeper truth is that those are reasons given the public as we wage "soft" war for control of energy in the region. Pull out a map, draw a line roughly northeast from Iraq up through Uzbekistan and this line will intersect 50-70% of the worlds natural gas reserves. Forget about shale. That's more deception. That line also interdicts the old silk trade route, one of the major proposed pipelines to China and the natural trade/energy rout between Russia and China.
This is the real story and you can't understand our actions in either iraq or Syria without this background. The detante with Iran via the nuclear deal is part of this strategic goal. Iran is itself strategically located between Russia and China and has considerable energy reserves. Obama wants to become the wedge between those two powers and realized that a war, which the neocons are pushing for would only drive Iran from neutral self interest to direct alliance with either Russia, China or both. The Israeli's know this and aren't worried about an attack from Iran. That's deception again. They are worried about loosing influence as the big powers make their plays.
This is the real story and you can't understand our actions in either iraq or Syria without this background. The detante with Iran via the nuclear deal is part of this strategic goal. Iran is itself strategically located between Russia and China and has considerable energy reserves. Obama wants to become the wedge between those two powers and realized that a war, which the neocons are pushing for would only drive Iran from neutral self interest to direct alliance with either Russia, China or both. The Israeli's know this and aren't worried about an attack from Iran. That's deception again. They are worried about loosing influence as the big powers make their plays.
1
One solution to the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics is the many-worlds theory: every time a decision point is reached, another universe snaps into being. In an alternate universe, Obama intervened in 2011. By 2015, the U.S. there is bogged down in an endless expanding Mideast war, as Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Al Quaeda, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Russia and other players get dragged into what starts to resemble World War III. The fury of the domestic left produces daily demonstrations across the country in what looks like a fiercer replay of the sixties. Europe bursts at the seams with 3 to 4 million displaced refugees and daily acts of terrorism. The Republicans win all three branches in 2016 and promise greater escalation. Tactical nuclear bombs are mentioned more frequently. The crisis mounts and mounts, yet this time, fleeing and running as from Vietnam does not seem to be an option.
The problem with intervening militarily in the Sunni versus Shia civil war which is engulfing not just Syria but also Iraq and Yemen is figuring out whose side we are on. In Syria we are against Assad who is barrel bombing civilians. Unfortunately, that puts us on the same side as ISIS which is chopping off heads and enslaving and raping young women and girls. In Iraq we are against ISIS. But so is Iran which at the same time is supporting Assad, Hezbollah and Hamas and until yesterday when passage of the nuclear deal was pretty much assured, was on the verge of having a nuclear bomb.
Putting the US military in the middle of this chaos would be worse than stupid. Our soldiers wouldn't know who they were supposed to shoot at. Han't the experience of Vietnam and Iraq taught us anything?
The only reasonable thing we can do at the moment is to do our bit in taking care of the innocents who are getting the hell out of there as fast as they can.
Putting the US military in the middle of this chaos would be worse than stupid. Our soldiers wouldn't know who they were supposed to shoot at. Han't the experience of Vietnam and Iraq taught us anything?
The only reasonable thing we can do at the moment is to do our bit in taking care of the innocents who are getting the hell out of there as fast as they can.
1
Obama's foreign policy, pointless, meaningless and dangerous. And the saddest part in all of this, Obama doesn't care.
1
Politics in the middle east hasn't changed since Britain displaced the Ottoman Empire and then cut and run. It's been a 100 years of strife with no end on the horizon.
1
I've thought the same, Roger. But what are you prescribing? Is it greater US intervention, alone or in concert with European states? Here's the bigger problem: The answer lies with the Arab states. This is their backyard and they have the greater responsibility to help their brothers. But if they sit on their hands, that doesn't leave us with many great options.
2
"Mr. President, are you prepared to apologize to the American people for what's happening in Syria right now, or are you just like Bush"
Asked NO journalist in Washington DC at the White House, ever.
Asked NO journalist in Washington DC at the White House, ever.
1
Mr. Cohen, You may be dead on target with your criticism of President Obama and his lack of action in Syria, but he doesn't now, now has he in the past had an iota of Congressional support and there is none to be found ahead.
In Obama's case, the President of the United States has not been allowed to be a world class leader. What has been done to the office of the President in the past eight years I see as the greatest tragedy of my generation.
In Obama's case, the President of the United States has not been allowed to be a world class leader. What has been done to the office of the President in the past eight years I see as the greatest tragedy of my generation.
Nonsense. Have you forgotten it was the Republican Congress who refused to authorize American force in Syria when President Assad used chemical weapons on his own people? That might have made a difference at the time. But Republican's hatred of President Obama is so deep they oppose anything he advocates, even when facts and morality would seemly compel them to do so.
And then there is the so-called 'Pottery Barn Rule'. Have you forgotten how well Iraq turned out? I recommend reading your colleague Tom Friedman's fine opinion piece recently on a Middle East overview. The place is a mess. And there's no amount of flower arranging on our part that will change that.
And then there is the so-called 'Pottery Barn Rule'. Have you forgotten how well Iraq turned out? I recommend reading your colleague Tom Friedman's fine opinion piece recently on a Middle East overview. The place is a mess. And there's no amount of flower arranging on our part that will change that.
1
"Syria will be the biggest blot on the Obama presidency, a debacle of staggering proportions." --Roger Cohen.
This sounds like a bit of ahistorical hyperbole to me. If it is a blot on anyone's presidency, it is a blot on the "presidency" of Dick Cheney and his fellow Neocons who lied us into invading Iraq which, in turn, led directly to the creation of ISIS and a destabilizing of the balance of power in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the "proportion" of the Syrian "debacle" seems relatively unstaggering when compared to the debacle of Iraq.
I would be interested in knowing what action Roger Cohen was advising the US to take against Saddam Hussein back in 2003. Did he favor the use of military force as so many of his NYT colleagues did?
This sounds like a bit of ahistorical hyperbole to me. If it is a blot on anyone's presidency, it is a blot on the "presidency" of Dick Cheney and his fellow Neocons who lied us into invading Iraq which, in turn, led directly to the creation of ISIS and a destabilizing of the balance of power in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the "proportion" of the Syrian "debacle" seems relatively unstaggering when compared to the debacle of Iraq.
I would be interested in knowing what action Roger Cohen was advising the US to take against Saddam Hussein back in 2003. Did he favor the use of military force as so many of his NYT colleagues did?
1
The Tv series, House of Cards, exemplified best leaders behaviors, betrayals, cunning games to achieved ones' party final goals from all sides of the island, weather right or left. And so by the same analogy, Mr. Obama will be condemn to a mere footnote in history by the serious political critics, while ideologically, his flaws action in the Middle East will be justified in the official history as "the right thing to do". Do not let this chapter full you, U.S. can change all of that, including Iran's deals with a a stroke of a pen as long as we have the-right men in the White House.
Excellent observations on the part of Roger Cohen on the need and obligation for the US to exercise it's power and fix every problem in the world wherever it may be, mostly by blowing things up and arming random groups of insurrectionists who will never ever turn into bad men. I look forward to Mr. Cohen's enlistment in the military as he enthusiastically commits himself to actively practicing what he preaches.
1
Will we ever see a discussion about the Obama presidency that isn't front loaded with excuses, fingerpointing and "b-b-but Bush did it too?" Ever?
When will we be mature enough in this country to say, you know what? Obama did screw this up, the red line was pretty stupid and ignoring ISIS really was a dumb idea.
I've never heard that from an Obama supporter. Ever.
When will we be mature enough in this country to say, you know what? Obama did screw this up, the red line was pretty stupid and ignoring ISIS really was a dumb idea.
I've never heard that from an Obama supporter. Ever.
2
Facts are stubborn things, my conservative friend. Neocon Bush removed Saddam, Bush dissolved the Iraqi army, Bush gave Iraq to the Shia without precondition, which directly led to the creation of ISIS. Together with the Arab Spring weakness of dictator Assad, this lead to the Syrian catastrophe. Let's send all the Bushies and their sympathizers down there to clean up the mess they've made.
If Assad "steps aside" what comes next? And will this be an improvement?
1
Obama is no doubt guilty of stating things he had little desire to back up. That is both dangerous and a failure of leadership…yet understandable in the context of a dysfunctional debate with a bellicose contingent (Mr. Cohen included) obsessed with the pornography of war. Syria is Obama's failure? Perhaps, but the hawks on the right suffer a learning disability - the lines from the Syrian catastrophe can be drawn straight to that enormously colossal mistake conducted by Cheney/Bush/Bremer/Rice. War doesn't just kill bad guys and multiple more civilians - it destroys infrastructure, culture, institutions, and entire societies. It reaches its apotheosis in the literal destruction of history as in Palmyra. Iraq has never recovered from the obscene instability American “action” wrought. And all those Baathists who chose not to fight have lived to fight another day under the ISIS banner. Rather than the consequence of American inaction, Syria is the result of the very action Mr. Cohen longs for. It is the calamity that radiates from the Iraq disaster, “action” that stemmed from the adolescent - dare we say naive - belief that there's no problem that can't be solved with a few cruise missiles, drone strikes, or when push comes to shove, the 5th Fleet. In the aftermath of Iraq, "doing nothing stupid" is the most brilliant insight I've heard from the political elites in decades. Obama's failure has been in not finding a more eloquent, powerful and convincing way of putting it.
3
Since the 1950s when the CIA ousted a duly elected President in Iran and ultimately replacing him with the Shah, the U.S. policy in the Middle East has been one big disaster after another never seeming to learn how the politics, religion and ideology intertwine in the region. Syria is only one in the long list of misguided endeavors that resulted in the current debacle.
It has been quite clear that, along with the oil requirement, the Middle East and its issues have just been cannon fodder to feed the never-ending needs of the giant military industrial complex in the U.S.
It has been quite clear that, along with the oil requirement, the Middle East and its issues have just been cannon fodder to feed the never-ending needs of the giant military industrial complex in the U.S.
It seems to me that fighting Assad would have largely benefitted Isis and other radical Islamic groups. I'm not sure there were easily recognizable "moderate" elements fighting in Syria that we could have helped. Look at Bush's actions. Iran and Iraq were fighting each other and then he essentially took Iraq out. Now Iran is a big problem. Perhaps if we could get Putin to back off his support of Assad, the field would be clearer and then eventually some diplomatic solution could be reached.
3
And when our intervention kills some Russian advisors? Will you be there to head off the start of a war with our new Cold War nemesis?
1
Syria is a place where U.S. wealth and power can't help much. You can't bomb or buy your way out of this one. It's too confused. How do you deal with Assad? The 'Arab Spring' stopped cold when it got to him. He has too much staying power. Do you try to force him out? With whom? How do you know that spending money and sending armaments won't help the killers and rapists, or even Assad himself. You're not there. How can you know?
You need Russia's cooperation to implement any policy. They're an Assad ally.
I have heard that as soon as Syria solved their internal problems, they would immediately go to war with ISIS.
There is nothing the U.S. can do without a physical presence there. We all know where that goes: body bags for U.S. soldiers.
You need Russia's cooperation to implement any policy. They're an Assad ally.
I have heard that as soon as Syria solved their internal problems, they would immediately go to war with ISIS.
There is nothing the U.S. can do without a physical presence there. We all know where that goes: body bags for U.S. soldiers.
4
yes-calling for assad to go was a mistake, but how would things have changed if he had not called for assad to go. the neighboring countries have sufficient military capability to solve this problem. they just don't want to because they have other priorities. the gulf states want to keep feeding the sunni extremists and get rid of assad, turkey wants to keep the kurds from slicing off part of turkey for their own country. iran wants to defeat ISIS but keep assad in power. think back to Cambodia and the Khmer rouge after the Vietnam war-a brutal regime if there ever was one. Vietnam got rid of it. there are 2 lessons to be learned here: 1. bad, even brutal government is better than no government and 2. unconditional sufficient humanitarian assistance should be given as soon as possible. the Syrian conflict started with a 4 year drought. the west should have been providing food assistance and funds at the beginning. it also should be meeting its commitments to provide funds for Jordan and Lebanon to support the refugees living in their countries. my question for mr. cohen is-what would you have us do-inject 100,000 troops into an unsolvable conflict, fighting the Islamic state, the Syrian govt and iran all at the same time? this conflict will end. there were several civil wars in Africa that took millions of lives in the 90s. they ended. no one even thinks of them now
1
When it comes to Obama's historic, clown car failure in Syria, there are no buts.
What we are seeing in Syria is a textbook example of everything Barack Obama does. Whether it's Syria, the Obamacare website, the TPP, or the Iran Nuclear Deal, it is always the same thing.
Rhetoric and namecalling from a petulant, arrogant little man who really doesn't have a clue how what he's offering is going to work. Then when it doesn't work, fingerpointing, excuse making and blame, and ultimately the "pivot" (which happens to be Washington DC speak for 'hope the American people forget this screw up") to something like climate change.
There are 200K dead Syrians because of Barack Obama.
There are millions of Syrians and Iraqis fleeing to Europe because of Barack Obama.
Not because of Bush. Not because of 2003, but because Obama has BOTCHED the Middle East for the last 6 years and failed to do ANYTHING right.
Obama declared Iraq a success and had a mission accomplished pep rally in 2011.
Obama declared Yemen a success of the Obama doctrine.
Obama took credit for the so-called Arab Spring and portrayed it as some sort of breakthrough in Egypt, Libya and the Middle East.
It wasn't.
For the leader of Israel to come to the USA, stand before Congress and call Barack Obama a moron, that was more than chutzpah, that was a clarion call.
What we are seeing in Syria is a textbook example of everything Barack Obama does. Whether it's Syria, the Obamacare website, the TPP, or the Iran Nuclear Deal, it is always the same thing.
Rhetoric and namecalling from a petulant, arrogant little man who really doesn't have a clue how what he's offering is going to work. Then when it doesn't work, fingerpointing, excuse making and blame, and ultimately the "pivot" (which happens to be Washington DC speak for 'hope the American people forget this screw up") to something like climate change.
There are 200K dead Syrians because of Barack Obama.
There are millions of Syrians and Iraqis fleeing to Europe because of Barack Obama.
Not because of Bush. Not because of 2003, but because Obama has BOTCHED the Middle East for the last 6 years and failed to do ANYTHING right.
Obama declared Iraq a success and had a mission accomplished pep rally in 2011.
Obama declared Yemen a success of the Obama doctrine.
Obama took credit for the so-called Arab Spring and portrayed it as some sort of breakthrough in Egypt, Libya and the Middle East.
It wasn't.
For the leader of Israel to come to the USA, stand before Congress and call Barack Obama a moron, that was more than chutzpah, that was a clarion call.
1
Cohen is right.We need to take responsibility for enabling the worst humanitarian crisis since WWII.We made many foreign policy blunders in recent years but all are dwarfed by standing by and witnessing the rise of ISIS and the ensuing plight of millions,not to mention the loss of trust and credibility with friends and foes alike.
"Non-interventionism"? Seriously, Mr. Cohen? This was another example of an American regime looking for cheap foreign policy victories, once again trying to overthrow a secular government and then clutching itself in childlike dismay when religious zealots fill the vacuum.
2
The President correctly understands that most of us are just sick of "making war". So, we'll sit a few out.
3
The US provided arms in Iraq but they ended up in the hands of ISIL. Is there really a pro-American group in Syria that could defeat ISIL and Assad? The idea that ISIL could have been stopped by sending more guns to people we think are our friends seems like a pipedream. The US has also had limited success training foreign armies dating back to Vietnam
Since the invasion of Iraq our "experts" have really had no idea what is going on in this region. Iran, Turkey, Israel and the Gulf States all have their own agendas. The Turks hate the Kurds, who we like. Israel fears Iran and hates Assad. Who really knows what game the Gulf States are playing.
We want to get rid of both Assad and ISIL If we do that what comes next? We don't want the Russians or Iran to get involved. It is easy to blame Obama, but we don't really know whose side we are on or how to resolve this conflict. We need a coalition and it has to involve Iran, Turkey, Russia, the Saudis, and Israel. The US believing it can resolve this dispute on its own is delusional.
Since the invasion of Iraq our "experts" have really had no idea what is going on in this region. Iran, Turkey, Israel and the Gulf States all have their own agendas. The Turks hate the Kurds, who we like. Israel fears Iran and hates Assad. Who really knows what game the Gulf States are playing.
We want to get rid of both Assad and ISIL If we do that what comes next? We don't want the Russians or Iran to get involved. It is easy to blame Obama, but we don't really know whose side we are on or how to resolve this conflict. We need a coalition and it has to involve Iran, Turkey, Russia, the Saudis, and Israel. The US believing it can resolve this dispute on its own is delusional.
2
NY Times editorial exposing Barack Obama's incompetence.
Cue the excuses, Bush blaming and Trump shaming.
Will there ever be a day when the American people can actually say, hey, I think Barack Obama made a mistake?
When the entire American media cowers in fear of holding Obama responsible, that's how 200K Syrians die and millions more are forced to flee their homes.
Just once. Actually say the words.
Barack Obama made a mistake. Not Bush. Not Cheney. Not Trump.
Obama drew the red line, Assad crossed it and Obama choked. Period.
And the JV team nonsense allowed ISIS to become what ISIS is today. It was OBAMA on the golf course fiddling away crucial months that summer when ISIS could have been stopped. It was Obama who promised to degrade and destroy ISIS.
Obama's words. On television. In front of people.
Cue the excuses, Bush blaming and Trump shaming.
Will there ever be a day when the American people can actually say, hey, I think Barack Obama made a mistake?
When the entire American media cowers in fear of holding Obama responsible, that's how 200K Syrians die and millions more are forced to flee their homes.
Just once. Actually say the words.
Barack Obama made a mistake. Not Bush. Not Cheney. Not Trump.
Obama drew the red line, Assad crossed it and Obama choked. Period.
And the JV team nonsense allowed ISIS to become what ISIS is today. It was OBAMA on the golf course fiddling away crucial months that summer when ISIS could have been stopped. It was Obama who promised to degrade and destroy ISIS.
Obama's words. On television. In front of people.
3
I'm rather proud of a man that can walk away from a fight!
2
Mr. Cohen, what are you thinking? Was there some way of transforming Afghanistan and Iraq into peaceful, democratic countries that we missed in our hurry? No. Contrary to the accepted wisdom in Western kaffeeklatschen, there are a lot of countries where people emphatically do not want multiculturalism, where the men will not tolerate equal rights for women, and where the West, America in particular, is the object of visceral hatred. Syria by now is certainly one. The decision to oust Bashar al Assad by rhetoric and tinkering around the edges of a civil war was profoundly stupid. Going in deeper will be even stupider. There are things you can't do, even if you're America, and fixing Syria is one.
2
Mr. Cohen, above most others, ought to know that the Syrian rebel groups were not a unified coalition. As soon as the conflict started, Mr. Cohen's newspapers, the IHT and the NY Times, pointed out that it was not possible to know which of the groups were bad actors. It was not possible, at the time when US aid might have made a difference, to know whether such aid would go to the good guys or the bad guys, and there were many groups on each side. Witness John McCain's meeting with ISIS leaders and then telling the President and Congress that we should be arming them. The French and the British got the world in this mess by dividing up the Middle East to their political advantages without considering the tribal and sectarian situation they were disturbing. And then we have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who led the US into war for no reason, and then decided to disband the only law enforcement authority in Iraq.
5
I remember how Chalabi (who was allied with Iran) and others from the M.E. said what they needed to say, so that Cheney heard what he strongly wanted to hear, to support his own corrupt agenda, to bolster the deception for the invasion of Iraq.
Cheney got his war; Iran was strengthened. And Iraq has been overrun with theocrats and religious extremists. The US was played for the sucker and manipulated for both corrupt domestic and foreign agendas.
Libya was sold to the American people as a humanitarian cause. The NYTimes ran stories highlighting rude treatment to journalists. Now that Libya is overrun with religious extremists, apparently the even worse humanitarian consequences don't matter.
Syria doesn't appear to be different from the pattern. And here the foreign governments in the region, playing the "Great Game" for regional domination appear again to be using the US, for motives that are obviously, truly not, humanitarian. They are chess masters in comparison to our political leaders in charge of foreign policy. Are our foreign policy leaders also in on the game, or they are being played (again).
The question is, when will we learn?
Cheney got his war; Iran was strengthened. And Iraq has been overrun with theocrats and religious extremists. The US was played for the sucker and manipulated for both corrupt domestic and foreign agendas.
Libya was sold to the American people as a humanitarian cause. The NYTimes ran stories highlighting rude treatment to journalists. Now that Libya is overrun with religious extremists, apparently the even worse humanitarian consequences don't matter.
Syria doesn't appear to be different from the pattern. And here the foreign governments in the region, playing the "Great Game" for regional domination appear again to be using the US, for motives that are obviously, truly not, humanitarian. They are chess masters in comparison to our political leaders in charge of foreign policy. Are our foreign policy leaders also in on the game, or they are being played (again).
The question is, when will we learn?
Regime change in Iran w the Shah; regime change in Lebanon; regime change in Iraq; regime change in Afghanistan; regime change in Libya; in Argentina; in Chile; in Egypt; in (state a country the we think needs change) ... What do you get? Here's to the new boss, same as the old boss! Or worse.
2
"American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates."
America is not an empire, and we are not responsible for what other countries do to themselves.
Syrians don't need to go to Europe. They can go to Saudi Arabia. The fact that they don't is an indictment of Saudi Arabia, not the United States or Europe.
We have nothing to do with this one.
America is not an empire, and we are not responsible for what other countries do to themselves.
Syrians don't need to go to Europe. They can go to Saudi Arabia. The fact that they don't is an indictment of Saudi Arabia, not the United States or Europe.
We have nothing to do with this one.
1
A disappointing view from a columnist I usually respect. I can see from the comments that most of us believe that Cohen has missed the mark on this one to blame the President for Syria. The refugee crises lies at the feet of Europe and surrounding countries in that part of the world. If the situation were such that Mexican refugees were fleeing in great numbers to the US we would not see Chancellor Merkel blamed for that. Where is the United Nations in all of this? I have not heard anything about their part. I believe that Mr. Cohen who usually is not in line with Netanyahu has been listening to those viewpoints.
The refugee crises lies at the feet of Russia and Iran who are propping up the Assad government, come what may.
I could not agree with you more. But President Obama still has an opportunity to show Syrians that they have not been been totally abandoned by the United States. And toward that end, he can announce immediately that we will accept 800,000 refugees into our country (as Germany has committed to do). That will save the lives of so many displaced Syrians as well as the president's sagging legacy.
21
Yes, that will get us Donald Trump as President with a mandate to expel not only Mexicans, but Syrians as well. Let's see what happens in Europe first and then make a descision.
Gist of the column: No clear path to changing the outcome in Syria without risk of bad consequences but whatever way Pres. Obama chooses is per se wrong.
Pres. Obama gets Republican criticism for aiding in the ouster of The Libyan Butcher and for passing on confronting Assad. Go figure.
Syria is a client state of Russia. Direct intervention has great risk of escalating tensions to the point of war with Russia. Not such a good idea. Providing arms and support to rebels is a great idea until they start allying themselves with ISIL and turning them on us. Not such a good idea.
Pres. Obama's foreign policy could be called the Anti-Bush Doctrine: Don't use the military to prove manhood, don't invade without a long term plan for the aftermath, don't go off on adventures without meaningful support from allies, choose diplomacy where feasible and challenge traditions of hostile relations.
Where Pres. Obama has gone wrong is not engaging the American public more in the decisions. Rep. Cummings is right. If we Americans think military solutions are so great, reinstate the draft. There is no better way to engage the American people than to make sure they understand that they have skin in the game.
Pres. Obama gets Republican criticism for aiding in the ouster of The Libyan Butcher and for passing on confronting Assad. Go figure.
Syria is a client state of Russia. Direct intervention has great risk of escalating tensions to the point of war with Russia. Not such a good idea. Providing arms and support to rebels is a great idea until they start allying themselves with ISIL and turning them on us. Not such a good idea.
Pres. Obama's foreign policy could be called the Anti-Bush Doctrine: Don't use the military to prove manhood, don't invade without a long term plan for the aftermath, don't go off on adventures without meaningful support from allies, choose diplomacy where feasible and challenge traditions of hostile relations.
Where Pres. Obama has gone wrong is not engaging the American public more in the decisions. Rep. Cummings is right. If we Americans think military solutions are so great, reinstate the draft. There is no better way to engage the American people than to make sure they understand that they have skin in the game.
28
Rita,
Today's most concise Comment. Well done.
Today's most concise Comment. Well done.
The US military successfully killed terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, including Saddam Hussein, from 2002 to 2008. Obama killed Iraqi and Syrian civilians from 2009 to present by failing to use the US military to maintain the relative peace that the region had earned by 2008. Give the man another Nobel peace prize.
1
"Looking inward for long is a non-option for a nation that is also a universal idea."
It really is time to shelve this kind of "American exceptionalism" boilerplate nonsense. If Americans hadn't thought this way in the 1960s, Laos wouldn't have become the most heavily bombed country per acreage in history.
For me, George W. Bush destroyed the idea that academic pedigree means anything at all (Oh, you attended an Ivy League university as an undergraduate and then attended another Ivy League university as a business/law/medical/PhD student? Am I supposed to be impressed? I'm not). And yet, I can't understand how a foreign-born graduate of Oxford University like Roger Cohen can write something that might as well have been penned by the likes of Bobby Jindal, serial panderer to hyper-jingoists (oh wait, he's an Oxford graduate too).
It really is time to shelve this kind of "American exceptionalism" boilerplate nonsense. If Americans hadn't thought this way in the 1960s, Laos wouldn't have become the most heavily bombed country per acreage in history.
For me, George W. Bush destroyed the idea that academic pedigree means anything at all (Oh, you attended an Ivy League university as an undergraduate and then attended another Ivy League university as a business/law/medical/PhD student? Am I supposed to be impressed? I'm not). And yet, I can't understand how a foreign-born graduate of Oxford University like Roger Cohen can write something that might as well have been penned by the likes of Bobby Jindal, serial panderer to hyper-jingoists (oh wait, he's an Oxford graduate too).
16
The problem with blaming Obama for the mess in Syria because he chose not to intervene, is that the outcome may very well have been the same and the US would be seen as the meddling Western power that ruined everything.
Without an occupying force on the ground, such as we have in Afghanistan, there was no guarantee that we wouldn't end up where we are now, with ISIS wrecking havoc and Assad continuing to destroy his country in order to save it. While it's easy to judge Obama's actions in hindsight, it was a difficult decision that had no perfect outcome.
Without an occupying force on the ground, such as we have in Afghanistan, there was no guarantee that we wouldn't end up where we are now, with ISIS wrecking havoc and Assad continuing to destroy his country in order to save it. While it's easy to judge Obama's actions in hindsight, it was a difficult decision that had no perfect outcome.
38
Besides having the story completely wrong Obama has made the situation less confused. The US jumping into an all against all civil war would lead to more Islamists and be in confrontation with Assad. Another Iraq or another Beirut in 1983 is a likely scenario. Scott Pelly of 60 Minutes tried to reopen the Assad was responsible for the heinous chemical attack on civilians and the Obama red line and all that. The screaming of Frontline and Leon Panetta all wrong. It turns out that Turkey and al Nursa launched the attack to goad Obama to attack Assad. Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been abominable in this war. As Ayatollah Sistani said after the US invasion of Iraq, the US was opening an apocalyptic sectarian war. In the end civilians are the tragic victims. What Obama has been wrong about is focusing on Iran as the only fount of evil rather than the Saudi Arabians. Turkey has two focuses in this carnage, to get rid of Assad and harm the Kurds.
10
What do Iraq, Libya, Syria all have in common? Sins that are unforgivable to the West:
1. Solvency
2. Prosperity
3. Protection of minority Christian populations
All three had insignificantly little indebtedness to the western central banking cartel - an unforgivable sin. They were financially independent of the West and a small but noteworthy threat to the petrodollar [now busted permanently].
Women were being educated [unforgivable to the Islamists we left in charge], healthcare was good in the major cities. Islamist thuggery was brutally restrained. Christians lived in peace, howbeit at the bottom rung of society except in Syria where Christians were able to prosper in the middle class.
1. Solvency
2. Prosperity
3. Protection of minority Christian populations
All three had insignificantly little indebtedness to the western central banking cartel - an unforgivable sin. They were financially independent of the West and a small but noteworthy threat to the petrodollar [now busted permanently].
Women were being educated [unforgivable to the Islamists we left in charge], healthcare was good in the major cities. Islamist thuggery was brutally restrained. Christians lived in peace, howbeit at the bottom rung of society except in Syria where Christians were able to prosper in the middle class.
1
This story is still early days.
There will be more refugees and ISIL sleepers contained therein.
Russia is joining the Syrian conflict based upon the vacuum left by Obama.
Nothing indicates that ISIL is weakening at this time.
Iran continues its rhetoric toward the Great Satan saying Israel will not exist in 25 years.
Soon Iran will have $150 billion to use for self improvement or external strife.
Are things better or worse.
There will be more refugees and ISIL sleepers contained therein.
Russia is joining the Syrian conflict based upon the vacuum left by Obama.
Nothing indicates that ISIL is weakening at this time.
Iran continues its rhetoric toward the Great Satan saying Israel will not exist in 25 years.
Soon Iran will have $150 billion to use for self improvement or external strife.
Are things better or worse.
3
As much as I usually subscribe to Mr. Cohen's analysis, this one needs a few corrections:
1.) The civil war in Syria started when the US promised an "Arab spring" for Syria. The same type of "spring" that has destabilized an entire region. Still, people relied on the words of the US and, guess what, the US failed to deliver - again.
2.) The US interventions and consequent destabilization in the entire region gave rise to IS and other, similar, terrorist groups that could have never happened under e.g. Saddam or Gadaffi. So the US is to blame for what happens in Syria these days also in an indirect way.
3.) The US is heavily intervening in Syria by weapons delivery and training, far beyond what they agree to in public, to warring factions that work against Assad. So the US is pretty much involved in the conflict.
4.) The US had one success and that was that Assad had to give up his chemical weapons arsenal, still, that did not hinder any party in this conflict to use such weapons, including the US backed factions.
5.) The US does nothing to stop it's ally Turkey to use this conflict to further destabilize it's "Turkish Hinterland" in Syria, that includes Turkeys support for IS.
6.) The US hinders the two parties, Iran and Russia, who are the only ones that have a chance to end the civil war by destroying IS to go and do it just because they are US designated bad boys.
7.) The US has never understood the region but tried to play a major role there - with dire consequences.
1.) The civil war in Syria started when the US promised an "Arab spring" for Syria. The same type of "spring" that has destabilized an entire region. Still, people relied on the words of the US and, guess what, the US failed to deliver - again.
2.) The US interventions and consequent destabilization in the entire region gave rise to IS and other, similar, terrorist groups that could have never happened under e.g. Saddam or Gadaffi. So the US is to blame for what happens in Syria these days also in an indirect way.
3.) The US is heavily intervening in Syria by weapons delivery and training, far beyond what they agree to in public, to warring factions that work against Assad. So the US is pretty much involved in the conflict.
4.) The US had one success and that was that Assad had to give up his chemical weapons arsenal, still, that did not hinder any party in this conflict to use such weapons, including the US backed factions.
5.) The US does nothing to stop it's ally Turkey to use this conflict to further destabilize it's "Turkish Hinterland" in Syria, that includes Turkeys support for IS.
6.) The US hinders the two parties, Iran and Russia, who are the only ones that have a chance to end the civil war by destroying IS to go and do it just because they are US designated bad boys.
7.) The US has never understood the region but tried to play a major role there - with dire consequences.
12
Minor correction, Thomas.
The civil war in Syria began when the Assad government responded to graffiti in Homs with arrests and disappearances.
The civil war in Syria began when the Assad government responded to graffiti in Homs with arrests and disappearances.
Mr Cohen doesn't get it. Assad as he was then is a lot better than ISIS. There are no Syrian "moderates". Westernized Syrians, and Arabs generally, are quite pitifully few. That's it. End of story.
8
When will you "pundits" just accept that Assad is the *only* option we have got for stabilizing Syria?
Do we really arm a bunch of rebels who are unidentified and incompetent at best? Al Qaeda fighters at worst? Does Obama want to be seen in posterity as a President who armed a group that in turn became hostile to the USA?
Wake up and smell the coffee: any truthful interpretation of the Arab Spring teaches us that in the Middle East, the choice is between secular dictatorship or extremist Islam.
I know which one I prefer.
Do we really arm a bunch of rebels who are unidentified and incompetent at best? Al Qaeda fighters at worst? Does Obama want to be seen in posterity as a President who armed a group that in turn became hostile to the USA?
Wake up and smell the coffee: any truthful interpretation of the Arab Spring teaches us that in the Middle East, the choice is between secular dictatorship or extremist Islam.
I know which one I prefer.
7
The horror of Syria is real and the desire to apportion blame understandable. But Mr. Cohen seems to be resorting to the tired formula of the-most-powerful-nation-on-earth-must-(or should have)-do-something. When it is not clear at all that "doing something" would have made the situation any better. We "did something" in Afghanistan in the 80s -- got rid of the Soviets -- and the result was the Taliban and 9/11. We "did something" in Iraq in the 2000s -- got rid of Saddam Hussein -- and the result was the current chaos there and, it could be argued, in Syria. Who knows what the result would have been if we had done something in Syria? Probably just as bad but with US fingerprints -- and blood -- all over it.
5
For the sake of Syria, and secondly, for their sake as citizens here, Americans need to know the truth. 3 or more important things about the war have been obfuscated in the major media, and without any letup on it.
It is not well explained, as far as facts, how the protests began (Feb. 2011).
It has always been told, for one thing, these were only peaceful.
Yet it has been wrongly implied their intention, at least soon, turned from simply reform to regime change.
Then this became the mantra, for the US, or other, nations, like Saudi Arabia, or Qatar, and their terrorists, to give 'valid excuse' to want to do regime change, like was done to Iraq earlier.
It is not however valid at all to say it this way. The intentions of the reformists may not have been regime change, but simply the reform.
It is also implied the Syria did not respond fast enough to requests for reform. But this was their internal matter.
Then there is the fact, completely covered up, that Britain, Israel, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, seized upon this as an opportunity to force regime change, even though the protesters, or rebels, at first really did not demand such a thing. And there is the fact terrorists WERE sent in.
If Syrians, for example, had known what would happen, namely a rapid escalation to war, would not have agreed to forced change.
These intentions were falsely attributed to them, so as to lend credence to the misrepresented wishes of nations that (still??) want to end the regime.
It is not well explained, as far as facts, how the protests began (Feb. 2011).
It has always been told, for one thing, these were only peaceful.
Yet it has been wrongly implied their intention, at least soon, turned from simply reform to regime change.
Then this became the mantra, for the US, or other, nations, like Saudi Arabia, or Qatar, and their terrorists, to give 'valid excuse' to want to do regime change, like was done to Iraq earlier.
It is not however valid at all to say it this way. The intentions of the reformists may not have been regime change, but simply the reform.
It is also implied the Syria did not respond fast enough to requests for reform. But this was their internal matter.
Then there is the fact, completely covered up, that Britain, Israel, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, seized upon this as an opportunity to force regime change, even though the protesters, or rebels, at first really did not demand such a thing. And there is the fact terrorists WERE sent in.
If Syrians, for example, had known what would happen, namely a rapid escalation to war, would not have agreed to forced change.
These intentions were falsely attributed to them, so as to lend credence to the misrepresented wishes of nations that (still??) want to end the regime.
1
American military power, always military power. Remember Vietnam--our commanders at the time said we will blast the enemy till they beg for peace. America lost that war. Then came Iraq. We will blast them to pieces and we can walk away. Hey, the American commanders got that wrong too. We are still at war in Iraq! As for Syria, it's about time for Europe to do their part, accepting the refuges. Doesn't anybody remember Emerson's "things are in the saddle and ride mankind".
3
In a no-win situation I think Obama has called it exactly right. If America started bombing aggressively, or sent in troops (whih is probably the only way to stop the war and defeat both Assad and ISIS) then the story would soon be 'American aggression' and the consequences would be loss of US blood and treasure. The real problem that Cohen doesn't address is the infantlization of the Arabs. Arabs never seem to be responsible for their own corrupt, autocratic system of governments and their ceasless conflicts. Its always the fault of some external agent. At least by avoiding getting sucked in to this losing proposition Obama has saved US lives and billiions of dollars.
12
There are two things going on in Syria. The first is the US overarching strategy for the Middle East. That plan begun under the Bush administration hasn't really changed under Obama. What has changed is the tactical approach, not the overall objectives.
Regime change as "democracy initiative" is what they sell to the public. Serious analysts pay no attention to this nonsense. Example, while we denounce Assad we embrace a military dictatorship next door in Egypt.
Controlling energy resources throughout the region, including pipeline routes is the strategic goal. The US plan goes beyond Syria and Iraq, though they are key pieces, but for different reasons. The real prize is Uzbekistan and beyond with its massive gas reserves and more importantly its strategic location between Russia and China. The US plan is to seize access to those reserves and block the trade and potential energy alliance between Russia and China.
The second reason is why Syria became a target? Their alliance with Russia had to be broken and the Russian Mediterranean port in Syria had to be eliminated. Assad refused to do this, hence, he had to go.
But the real story untold by the Times is the infighting in the State Department and Intelligence and Military between the neocons who pushed for direct military intervention and Obama's people who want the surrogates to do the fighting. Obama didn't figure out what was going on until after his announcement, then he backtracked. The plot thickens.
Regime change as "democracy initiative" is what they sell to the public. Serious analysts pay no attention to this nonsense. Example, while we denounce Assad we embrace a military dictatorship next door in Egypt.
Controlling energy resources throughout the region, including pipeline routes is the strategic goal. The US plan goes beyond Syria and Iraq, though they are key pieces, but for different reasons. The real prize is Uzbekistan and beyond with its massive gas reserves and more importantly its strategic location between Russia and China. The US plan is to seize access to those reserves and block the trade and potential energy alliance between Russia and China.
The second reason is why Syria became a target? Their alliance with Russia had to be broken and the Russian Mediterranean port in Syria had to be eliminated. Assad refused to do this, hence, he had to go.
But the real story untold by the Times is the infighting in the State Department and Intelligence and Military between the neocons who pushed for direct military intervention and Obama's people who want the surrogates to do the fighting. Obama didn't figure out what was going on until after his announcement, then he backtracked. The plot thickens.
3
Yes, Syria is a nightmare. The refugee problem is an enormous tragedy. ISIS is a real long-term threat to world peace. But what are the options now?
The countries in the region --- with modern armies that, combined, total millions of soldiers --- are unwilling to fight thirty or forty thousand ISIS soldiers. The region's leaders know that ISIS wants an all-out land war to fulfill end-times prophesies and are unwilling to see the destruction of the region.
Do we send a quarter million men and women into a battle when the most likely outcome is that the countries in the area will turn against us? Think of the loss of life, the economic burden, the destruction of oil wells, and a guerrilla war that will last for decades. It will make the Iraq debacle look small.
Right now, as bad as the situation is, our involvement will only make matters worse. We can only participate when the countries themselves prove they are 1000% committed to rid the region of ISIS.
Anything less and we'll be taken back to the days of W. and Cheney whose blindness, arrogance, and ignorance created this mess.
The countries in the region --- with modern armies that, combined, total millions of soldiers --- are unwilling to fight thirty or forty thousand ISIS soldiers. The region's leaders know that ISIS wants an all-out land war to fulfill end-times prophesies and are unwilling to see the destruction of the region.
Do we send a quarter million men and women into a battle when the most likely outcome is that the countries in the area will turn against us? Think of the loss of life, the economic burden, the destruction of oil wells, and a guerrilla war that will last for decades. It will make the Iraq debacle look small.
Right now, as bad as the situation is, our involvement will only make matters worse. We can only participate when the countries themselves prove they are 1000% committed to rid the region of ISIS.
Anything less and we'll be taken back to the days of W. and Cheney whose blindness, arrogance, and ignorance created this mess.
13
It's not our problem. How many American lives and how much American capital should be spent on "solving" problems not of our making and not key to our own survival and well being - 1,000 lives, 100 - I'd say zero. Yes, bad things happen in the world, but it is not incumbent upon our citizenry to make the world safe for Exxon. Nor would I continue military aid to Israel, the Saudis or Egyptians - let them reap what they sow. Don't moan about Saudi support of Wahhabism when Presidential candidates suck up to Kim Davis.
16
Wrong. Failure to rein in the financial sector will be the biggest blot on the Obama presidency.
5
This article is deeply unfair, because it ignores the fact that the USA cannot get involved in Syria and actually do the right thing. Here is why:
A disproportionately large number of Americans (not all, but many) chomping at the bit for intervention in Syria care about the conflict there ONLY in the context of how the outcome in Syria will affect the security and well-being of people in Israel, specifically Jews in Israel and maybe even just Ashkenazi Jews to be hyper-specific.
Any intervention by the USA in Syria will be suspected of being taken on behalf of Israel's ruling class. Until the USA can demonstrate that it really is impartial and actually cares MORE about Arabs than it does about the oil beneath their feet--the USA needs to stay out.
A disproportionately large number of Americans (not all, but many) chomping at the bit for intervention in Syria care about the conflict there ONLY in the context of how the outcome in Syria will affect the security and well-being of people in Israel, specifically Jews in Israel and maybe even just Ashkenazi Jews to be hyper-specific.
Any intervention by the USA in Syria will be suspected of being taken on behalf of Israel's ruling class. Until the USA can demonstrate that it really is impartial and actually cares MORE about Arabs than it does about the oil beneath their feet--the USA needs to stay out.
5
The silence of President Obama on the refugees is deafening.
It is a failure of moral leadership. It is failure to use his Presidency to mobilize the American people to help the refugees to accept them in America.
It is just so shameful, sorry.
It is a failure of moral leadership. It is failure to use his Presidency to mobilize the American people to help the refugees to accept them in America.
It is just so shameful, sorry.
2
If Obama had not recklessly pulled out of Iraq against the advice of his generals, we would not be having this crisis right now. There would be no ISIS and Assad would be less inclined to act up with us breathing down his neck. This may be Obamas biggest failure, and that's saying something.
34
Civilian control over the military--that's the cornerstone of the USA. Iraq is an independent country that its leaders wanted US soldiers out of the country. Enough with the idiotic fantasy that the USA could have turned Iraq into another West Germany or Japan. That was never possible, and the fact that Bush and his people believed it was showed that the unilateral invasion in 2003 was doomed to fail from the start.
8
Obama was ready to leave 5000 troops in Iraq but President Maliki insisted that all US troops leave on the agreed upon date. The sticking point was that the Iraqi parliament refused to give immunity to US soldiers for any crimes against Iraqi citizens. The US occupation was so unpopular, it was impossible for the US troops to stay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
7
@AR Iraq's leaders want the Iranians out of their country but the Iranians are not leaving. I guess Iraq is only independent when dealing with Obama.
1
It is interesting to see how different the world percieves the refugee situation and the roles in conflict to that of American perspectives. Mr Cohen states that " Every major conflict poses the question of how far America should get involved." while much of the rest of the world wonders as to what the real purpose and rationale of these supposed "interventions" in other sovereign states is about. South Africa have had millions of Zimbabweans streaming over its borders for years due to the political and often violent suppression of any oposition by the ruling dictatorship and the complete collapse of its economy. No-one in the West raises an eyebrow at that despite huge amout of human suffering occuring over a protracted period of time.
49
Yes. The Western govern have also ignored or downplayed the problems of Tibet and its refugees. Perhaps we can look forward to reading Roger Cohen's argument for an American intervention in Tibet.
Agreed. To be fair, we haven't had in an enormous presence in Zimbabwe.
Going to war in Syria would have created a proxy war with Putin. Obama had to stay out. It's very sad to see the suffering, but Obama did his job, which is to protect American interests.
Let Putin fight ISIS on Assad's behalf. In the meantime, the West should follow the money and cut off ISIS' funding.
Let Putin fight ISIS on Assad's behalf. In the meantime, the West should follow the money and cut off ISIS' funding.
135
'Let Putin fight ISIS on Assad's behalf. In the meantime, the West should follow the money and cut off ISIS' funding. '
Unfortunately, contrary to all appearances, our main goal in Syria is not to defeat ISIS; our main goal is to remove Assad from power to weaken/embarrass Iran and Russia.
Just as in the Ukraine, we had a great beginning but things kinda went awry and did not go quite according to our plans/hopes.
Unfortunately, contrary to all appearances, our main goal in Syria is not to defeat ISIS; our main goal is to remove Assad from power to weaken/embarrass Iran and Russia.
Just as in the Ukraine, we had a great beginning but things kinda went awry and did not go quite according to our plans/hopes.
America cannot be the leader of free world.
We have “us vs them” mentality.
The true leader sees only us everywhere around.
Gens una sumus! We are one people!
We have “us vs them” mentality.
The true leader sees only us everywhere around.
Gens una sumus! We are one people!
Anyone who thinks the US wasn't involved in destabilizing Syria hasn't paid attention. The Obama administration helped start the civil war in Syria and took sides in the civil war in Libya. Both have been a disaster.
I keep seeing all of those ISIS murderers with US weapons and training and we act like we had nothing to do with it. We did intervene and that's a big part of the problem.
I keep seeing all of those ISIS murderers with US weapons and training and we act like we had nothing to do with it. We did intervene and that's a big part of the problem.
7
Sorry, but the Syrian Civil War began when Bashar Al-Assad's Government tortured and killed 12-year-old boys for writing anti-government graphitti on walls back in Feb./ March 2011. And then Assad's Government Thugs decided to shoot the peaceful, unarmed mourners at the boys' funerals. What kind of sick government does that to its own people?
And then there was the Drought that hit Syria in 2010-11, causing many farmers to lose their farms and go to the cities, where they received no help from the government.
That was the real root of Syria's "Destabilizing".
Initially, the Free Syrian Army was composed of Accountants, Doctors, Writers and others who wanted an end to Assad's Dictatorship. If we had intervened in 2011 or early 2012, then we might have prevented ISIS and other terrorists from exploiting the situation.
After 2012, it became almost impossible to distinguish the Syrians fighting for Democracy from the Terrorists, since they fought the same enemy. But in the Middle East, "the Enemy of your Enemy can STILL be your Enemy".
And then there was the Drought that hit Syria in 2010-11, causing many farmers to lose their farms and go to the cities, where they received no help from the government.
That was the real root of Syria's "Destabilizing".
Initially, the Free Syrian Army was composed of Accountants, Doctors, Writers and others who wanted an end to Assad's Dictatorship. If we had intervened in 2011 or early 2012, then we might have prevented ISIS and other terrorists from exploiting the situation.
After 2012, it became almost impossible to distinguish the Syrians fighting for Democracy from the Terrorists, since they fought the same enemy. But in the Middle East, "the Enemy of your Enemy can STILL be your Enemy".
I usually welcome Roger Cohen's columns for the most part because he usually provides nuance whereas the rest of America now talks about foreign policy with hyperbole as opposed to policy. Here, Mr. Cohen seems to emulate Dick Cheney's bloviating.
Yes, there were missteps (all around) but I think it was best to NOT topple Assad. I'm no fan of Putin but I agree with Putin with regard to Syria. The US is only good at deciding which despot is/is not in favor at the moment without regard to long-term consequences to the region and the world. No matter what actions the US might have taken in Syrian, one faction or another would have been wiped out. Right now, I think the best thing to do is strengthen Assad (as awful as he may be in some respects), working with Putin (he, at least, publicly is calling for joint efforts), stabilizing Syria to whatever extent possible as soon as possible. That means aiding a government that will not be absorbed into ISIS.
Yes, there were missteps (all around) but I think it was best to NOT topple Assad. I'm no fan of Putin but I agree with Putin with regard to Syria. The US is only good at deciding which despot is/is not in favor at the moment without regard to long-term consequences to the region and the world. No matter what actions the US might have taken in Syrian, one faction or another would have been wiped out. Right now, I think the best thing to do is strengthen Assad (as awful as he may be in some respects), working with Putin (he, at least, publicly is calling for joint efforts), stabilizing Syria to whatever extent possible as soon as possible. That means aiding a government that will not be absorbed into ISIS.
3
Insightful words from a conservative quoted in the NYT Magazine's Sept. 6 story — great headline, by the way — "Between Iraq and a Hawk Place": ‘‘In Iraq, we toppled the government and did an occupation and everything went to hell. In Libya, we toppled the government and didn’t do an occupation and everything went to hell. In Syria, we didn’t topple the government and didn’t do an occupation and everything went to hell. So, broadly, this is the Middle East. Things go to hell. And we’ve got to make our way through that fact to protect our national interests, on the back of a war-weary public that doesn’t want to invest our treasure in this.’’ http://nyti.ms/1KGdJWO
4
After we liberated Rome on June 4th, 1944, General Mark Clark of the U.S. Fifth Army called upon the Italian Police, the Carrabinni, to restore order in Rome.
What was the problem? The Romans were being "too enthusiastic" in welcoming the American Troops as Liberators. It was a question of crowd control. Every time an American Jeep went by, 2 or 3 Italian women would jump in the Jeep. (Source: NY Daily News, June 7th, 1944)
General Clark recognized that his Army was not a Police Force. He called upon the local Police to do their job. THAT was what was missing in Iraq.
To be fair, when we invaded Italy on July 7th 1943, ("Operation Husky"), about one-third or 33% of the American Soldiers were Italian-Americans, who spoke fluent Italian, and whose parents had emigrated from Italy around 1900.
What was the problem? The Romans were being "too enthusiastic" in welcoming the American Troops as Liberators. It was a question of crowd control. Every time an American Jeep went by, 2 or 3 Italian women would jump in the Jeep. (Source: NY Daily News, June 7th, 1944)
General Clark recognized that his Army was not a Police Force. He called upon the local Police to do their job. THAT was what was missing in Iraq.
To be fair, when we invaded Italy on July 7th 1943, ("Operation Husky"), about one-third or 33% of the American Soldiers were Italian-Americans, who spoke fluent Italian, and whose parents had emigrated from Italy around 1900.
I am happy Obama did not attack yet another country that was not causing us trouble. Look at the results of what happened when Obama attacked our weak ally Libya. He wanted to save 1000 jihadis from certain death and ended up killing up to 100,000 with our freedom bombs. Obama has typically been the touch of death for whatever he takes an interest in. He was handed a stable Iraq and bragged about how he pulled out all of our troops until ISIS formed. Now he blames the military pull out on Bush of all people. We have always left troops behind to secure our victories. Obama ignored this and now we have this extra big mess as a direct result of obama's actions and lack of actions. How can one man come up snake eyes on just about every issue handed to him?
Remember, the Iraq government want us out
Nice spin, Mr. Cohen, but most clear thinking Americans know it has been Mr. Obama and his bumbling administration's misguided foreign policies that have led to this disastrous situation.
3
American military intervention with "local partners" did not work In Iran in 1953, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya and it would have worked in Syria. We can't even figure out who's on which side and which side we're on. It's a bloody horrible war, but it's not our war. What we should have been doing in Syria and should do now is a gigantic humanitarian surge.
6
Although the United States is indeed “hard-wired to the notion that it can make the world a better place”, I’m certain that the rest of the world wishes this weren’t the case. And looking at the overall results of US attempts to make the world a better place (I will refrain from reciting the litany of horrors.) I don’t blame them.
4
Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Having served more than four decades ago in the Vietnam War, I observed our country's descent into insanity after the 9/11 attacks when neocon hawks marched our precious young men and women off to two wars, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Both are acknowledged to be military misadventures by The Council on Foreign Relations, hardly a hotbed of radical leftists, and in the case of Iraq, one could make a sound argument the Iraq War rivals and perhaps even exceeds the Vietnam War as a foreign policy debacle. Yet now Mr. Cohen proposes intervention in the Syrian civil war, which was caused in part by our invasion and occupation of Iraq and which created the perfect storm of sectarian violence from which the Islamic State emerged. This stark historical repetition of disastrous wars illustrates Einstein's definition of insanity when we use our military might as a blunt instrument in foreign policy. And as justification for an intervention in Syria, he bases his op-ed on this premise: "(The) United States is hard-wired to the notion that it can make the world a better place." I fail to see how these wars have made the world a better place. And this quote eerily harkens back to the Vietnam War, when the US was policeman to the world. He merely updates the rhetoric for the age of the Internet. But his rationale for intervention meets Einstein's definition of insanity.
11
It is good for American to get ride of the Myth - America can create a better world. The better world syndrome is a Western imagination not the reality. The world will evolve according to the law of forces - and at present there are distinct forces at play - Western, Islamic and Asian. The "good" and "bad"outcome of these forces are contextual not absolute. So let us get out of this Myth of doing good to the world.
America should persue strategy that is good for American - and do nothing at Syria is the right strategy for Americans. There is no immediate danger to America form ISIS and current containment policy is working. The walking streams of refugee on TV channel created a great visual - these refugees are less than 200,000 on 4 million refugee pool. European compassion is not going to solve the Syrian refugee problem. Refugee problem will be solved when Islamic forces will put their mind to solve it - not by Western desire to do good to the world. Let us be realistic about the twenty first century reality. Obama is pragmatic and is policies shows he understand how twenty first century world works.
America should persue strategy that is good for American - and do nothing at Syria is the right strategy for Americans. There is no immediate danger to America form ISIS and current containment policy is working. The walking streams of refugee on TV channel created a great visual - these refugees are less than 200,000 on 4 million refugee pool. European compassion is not going to solve the Syrian refugee problem. Refugee problem will be solved when Islamic forces will put their mind to solve it - not by Western desire to do good to the world. Let us be realistic about the twenty first century reality. Obama is pragmatic and is policies shows he understand how twenty first century world works.
3
Largely due to our servile fealty to Israel, and its transparent slow-walk annexation of the West Bank and brutal treatment of Gazans, we have virtually no credibility in the Arab world other than what we buy with our purchases of oil and arms sales. Sending in troops, who do not speak the language or understand the culture, does not work. Those who criticize Obama fail to explain how, short of magic, our intervention in Syria would have altered the outcome for the better, as opposed to simply adding to the carnage and chaos.
7
Excellent piece by Mr. Cohen.I believe that the 0's failure to enforce his "red line"ultimatum and call for airstrikes on ASSAD's AIR FORCE is a "cauchemar" that will continue to haunt him even after he leaves the presidency. Every barrel bomb dropped on innocent civilians in rebel held strongholds in Syria can be attributed to O's failure to act when it counted. But Cohen misses the Iranian connection in all this. O's reversal, in my view, can be attributed to his desire to propitiate IRAN, which, even back then, was envisaged as a future partner in a NUCLEAR AGREEMENT that he believed would cement his legacy. Do not underestimate also the role of VALERIE JARRETT, his closest advisor who grew up in the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC, speaks Farsi fluently, and is very much pro Iranian. Syria was Iran's client state, so why attack Assad, no matter how atrocious, was O's thinking--just a hunch. 0 was and continues to be a "grand naïf" in foreign affairs, and for VJ to get O to change his mind must have been, as the expression goes, a "piece of cake," or "easy as pie."
Valerie Jarrett was born in Iran in 1956, about 23 YEARS BEFORE it became the Islamic Republic. Jarrett's American Father was a Doctor who ran a Children's Hospital in Iran. Valerie Jarrett left Iran in 1963, long before the Ayatollah's Reign.
It is easy to say that policy in Syria has failed to change the trajectory of this tragic situation. Unfortunately, that also ignores the root causes of the problem. The face-off between Syria and Israel, the alignment of the world's superpowers on opposite sides of that crises, the rise of radical Islamic terrorism without clear state responsibilities, the standoff with Iran and its support for groups opposite to ours at a time when Iran's nuclear program was the predominant concern and the crises in the Ukraine. What an abominable mess. Sure we would all like to see Assad go and the crises end.
Perhaps the diplomacy with Iran will be a first step. Next, gain their support in Syria.
We have missed an opportunity to bargain with Russia - allow their reclamation of a traditional Russian area in Crimea, forget the incompetent, corrupt and probably fascist elements in Ukraine in exchange for a common effort in Syria.
"Diplomacy is with our enemies." But will the right wing in America allow such cooperation with Russia and Iran without labeling Obama a traitor? The opposition at home stymies effective action.
Perhaps the diplomacy with Iran will be a first step. Next, gain their support in Syria.
We have missed an opportunity to bargain with Russia - allow their reclamation of a traditional Russian area in Crimea, forget the incompetent, corrupt and probably fascist elements in Ukraine in exchange for a common effort in Syria.
"Diplomacy is with our enemies." But will the right wing in America allow such cooperation with Russia and Iran without labeling Obama a traitor? The opposition at home stymies effective action.
2
We should have done something to prevent this like say, a military intervention, because that has worked out so well for us in past excursions into the Middle East.
Yeah right.
Yeah right.
7
Obama was actually very involved in the middle east and had his secretary of state dedicating almost all of his time towards matters in that area of the world. However the focus of concern was not at all the implosion of all order in many of the countries of the middle east and the wars that followed, but matters that were of least urgency.
Even the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians by Assad's barrel bombs, murder on a scale that make those carried out by ISIS pale in comparison, didn't even rise to the level where it was worthy of commenting on.
Because Obama and Kerry decided that the issue that merited all of their energy was to try to be the ones that finally got Israel and the Palestinians to sign a peace deal. The fact that the Israeli Palestinian issue has been going on for decades and that things were quite at the time and that it was the least pressing matter in the middle east did not take away from its importance.
And that was because a Nobel prize was on the line, and Obama's primary concern was for establishing his legacy. And when he failed at that he decided to negotiate an end to the sanctions on Iran and reach a deal. And since the whole point was for a deal to be finalized on his watch he had no choice but to concede to Iran's demands over and over, guaranteeing a bomb for Iran in 15 years.
Because Obama's presidency is was for his own selfish purpose. And that was to achieve things that were victories for him alone, and thus build his legacy.
Even the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians by Assad's barrel bombs, murder on a scale that make those carried out by ISIS pale in comparison, didn't even rise to the level where it was worthy of commenting on.
Because Obama and Kerry decided that the issue that merited all of their energy was to try to be the ones that finally got Israel and the Palestinians to sign a peace deal. The fact that the Israeli Palestinian issue has been going on for decades and that things were quite at the time and that it was the least pressing matter in the middle east did not take away from its importance.
And that was because a Nobel prize was on the line, and Obama's primary concern was for establishing his legacy. And when he failed at that he decided to negotiate an end to the sanctions on Iran and reach a deal. And since the whole point was for a deal to be finalized on his watch he had no choice but to concede to Iran's demands over and over, guaranteeing a bomb for Iran in 15 years.
Because Obama's presidency is was for his own selfish purpose. And that was to achieve things that were victories for him alone, and thus build his legacy.
1
'Syria will be the biggest blot on Obama'.
How exactly does the United States determine the fate of a Russian ally? How would the U.S. respond to Russia interfering with our allies where we maintain military bases?
I admire the ideals of my country, but I don't feel that we are the leaders and decider of the worlds problems. Sorry, IMHO, this Syrian problem lies at the feet of their benefactor, Russia.
How exactly does the United States determine the fate of a Russian ally? How would the U.S. respond to Russia interfering with our allies where we maintain military bases?
I admire the ideals of my country, but I don't feel that we are the leaders and decider of the worlds problems. Sorry, IMHO, this Syrian problem lies at the feet of their benefactor, Russia.
4
What a great irony! The Syrian rebels out to oust Assad were welcomed by US who steadfastly obstructed any military support to Assad from countries like Russia, Iran or China. For Us policy makers, the rebels although known to be comprised of Islamist fundamentalists of Sunni sect (who incidentally form the majority of terror organizations) were indirectly encouraged as good fundamentalists much the same way Taliban and Al Qaeda were treated in the Afghan war against the Russians. The good fundamentalist fighters were then thought to be an instrument for ushering in the Arab spring of democracy. Now these fighters have metamorphosed into monstrous ISIS and Arab spring lies in tatters in countries like Egypt, Libya and Yemen. Following US intervention after 9/11 disaster, Pakistan gave shelter to the top Taliban leadership including Bin Laden. The excuse by Pakistan was that they were not shielding the Taliban who were bad terrorists but sheltering innocent Islamic fighters. The US had no option but to swallow this excuse to continue fighting in Afghanistan. Similarly, US support for anti-Assad rebels as good Islamist, fighting for democracy has boomeranged and destroyed the Syrian state, spawning ISIS. It is difficult to believe that the US policy makers could be so naive and gullible.
5
Obama was actually very involved in the middle east and had his secretary of state dedicating almost all of his time towards matters in that area of the world. However the focus of concern was not at all the implosion of all order in many of the countries of the middle east and the wars that followed, but matters that were of least urgency.
Even the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians by Assad's barrel bombs, murder on a scale that make those carried out by ISIS pale in comparison, didn't even rise to the level where it was worthy of commenting on.
Because Obama and Kerry decided that the issue that merited all of their energy was to try to be the ones that finally got Israel and the Palestinians to sign a peace deal. The fact that the Israeli Palestinian issue has been going on for decades and that things were quite at the time and that it was the least pressing matter in the middle east did not take away from its importance.
And that was because a Nobel prize was on the line, and Obama's primary concern was for establishing his legacy. And when he failed at that he decided to negotiate an end to the sanctions on Iran and reach a deal. And since the whole point was for a deal to be finalized on his watch he had no choice but to concede to Iran's demands over and over, guaranteeing a bomb for Iran in 15 years.
Because Obama used his presidency for his own selfish purpose. And that was to achieve things that were victories for him alone, and to build his legacy.
Even the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians by Assad's barrel bombs, murder on a scale that make those carried out by ISIS pale in comparison, didn't even rise to the level where it was worthy of commenting on.
Because Obama and Kerry decided that the issue that merited all of their energy was to try to be the ones that finally got Israel and the Palestinians to sign a peace deal. The fact that the Israeli Palestinian issue has been going on for decades and that things were quite at the time and that it was the least pressing matter in the middle east did not take away from its importance.
And that was because a Nobel prize was on the line, and Obama's primary concern was for establishing his legacy. And when he failed at that he decided to negotiate an end to the sanctions on Iran and reach a deal. And since the whole point was for a deal to be finalized on his watch he had no choice but to concede to Iran's demands over and over, guaranteeing a bomb for Iran in 15 years.
Because Obama used his presidency for his own selfish purpose. And that was to achieve things that were victories for him alone, and to build his legacy.
Several days before Russia committed troops to fight on behalf of Assad, Obama's new "strategy" was to move fighters to "safer zones to increase training and intel." A safer zone means: away from the fighting. So it appeared that Obama wanted to move to contain ISIS during the year before the presidential election, rather than engage, and hope that ISIS would then commit more fighters against Assad.
Just two days later what happens? Russia land a massive amount of troops by air, and tanks are on the way by ship. Then the US complains about Russia's response, as if it wasn't predictable.
Obama hasn't finished creating the nightmare in Syria, he's still working on it.
Just two days later what happens? Russia land a massive amount of troops by air, and tanks are on the way by ship. Then the US complains about Russia's response, as if it wasn't predictable.
Obama hasn't finished creating the nightmare in Syria, he's still working on it.
1
This editorial is correct in all of its conclusions. The world is a mean place. People do bad things to each other. Why do they behave this way? Because they think they can get away with it.
The playground bully would cease his tormenting if every time he bullied someone, 20 kids would pounce on him. That's the way the street works. Weakness is attacked because it is easy to attack. Strength provides safety.
International relations are not that different from the rules of the street. Diplomacy only works when all participants want to play nice. Assad doesn't play nice. ISIS doesn't play nice.
Acquiescence is by default an endorsement. The stability of the free world cannot be maintained by acquiescence of Assad and ISIS.
It may not be America's job to fight every battle, but it is our job to be the world leader and get everyone else to join in the fight. We didn't do that. We didn't get the 20 other kids to pounce and the result is the bullies are killing with abandon.
The playground bully would cease his tormenting if every time he bullied someone, 20 kids would pounce on him. That's the way the street works. Weakness is attacked because it is easy to attack. Strength provides safety.
International relations are not that different from the rules of the street. Diplomacy only works when all participants want to play nice. Assad doesn't play nice. ISIS doesn't play nice.
Acquiescence is by default an endorsement. The stability of the free world cannot be maintained by acquiescence of Assad and ISIS.
It may not be America's job to fight every battle, but it is our job to be the world leader and get everyone else to join in the fight. We didn't do that. We didn't get the 20 other kids to pounce and the result is the bullies are killing with abandon.
1
"but it is our job to be the world leader and get everyone else to join in the fight"
No, actually it is not. We - meaning most Americans - did not sign up to be the world leader or the job of rounding up everyone to attack a perceived bully. This is strictly a civil war and is a regional problem. We have been and will undoubtedly continue to be generous with aid to refugees, but that's where our involvement needs to stop. Saudis and other Arab petro-states have been funding and arming ISIL, and Russia and Iran have been funding and arming Assad - let them put a stop to it.
No, actually it is not. We - meaning most Americans - did not sign up to be the world leader or the job of rounding up everyone to attack a perceived bully. This is strictly a civil war and is a regional problem. We have been and will undoubtedly continue to be generous with aid to refugees, but that's where our involvement needs to stop. Saudis and other Arab petro-states have been funding and arming ISIL, and Russia and Iran have been funding and arming Assad - let them put a stop to it.
One of the bitterest lessons of the Vietnam War is that it taught us we have a class system. Mr. Cohen and our other elites will never see combat in the wars they promote in a high dander of righteous indignation. It's not just the right wingers who are eager to send our young people to war.
5
Mr. Cohen, usually you are a good judge of the pulse of the middle east, not so here. The ME has been a quagmire for any nation involved there and nothing we are anyone else has done (more likely has increased the speed) could change the downward trajectory of these nations.
As you noted many times the ill conceived Balfour declaration was the beginning of the end.
What if anything Mr Obama could have done would not have changed Syria, look at Iraq, Libya and Yemen to name a few.
As you noted many times the ill conceived Balfour declaration was the beginning of the end.
What if anything Mr Obama could have done would not have changed Syria, look at Iraq, Libya and Yemen to name a few.
1
Super Powers like Russia and the U.S, and lesser powers like Europe and China, compete for spheres of influence in the region. Hundreds of years of colonization have made the Great Powers confident that they alone can redraw the map in this region anytime at will.
Syria, in particular, is considered by Russia to be a very important part of its sphere of influence. In geographical importance, it probably ranks right up there with America's oversight of the Panama Canal.
Russia is deeply committed to shoring up the Assad region to maintain control of the region. Obama gets it. This is not an Iraq "Cake Walk." This is a Super Power showdown with huge consequences beyond the region.
Obama was right to walk away from the first showdown by taking the Russian offer of a negotiated settlement over the poison gas stockpiles of the Assad regime.
Right now, Obama is doing as little as is politically possible to keep our involvement at a minimum. It makes for big mess nonetheless, but it avoids the huge price tag that would come with overthrowing a Russian proxy.
Syria, in particular, is considered by Russia to be a very important part of its sphere of influence. In geographical importance, it probably ranks right up there with America's oversight of the Panama Canal.
Russia is deeply committed to shoring up the Assad region to maintain control of the region. Obama gets it. This is not an Iraq "Cake Walk." This is a Super Power showdown with huge consequences beyond the region.
Obama was right to walk away from the first showdown by taking the Russian offer of a negotiated settlement over the poison gas stockpiles of the Assad regime.
Right now, Obama is doing as little as is politically possible to keep our involvement at a minimum. It makes for big mess nonetheless, but it avoids the huge price tag that would come with overthrowing a Russian proxy.
4
I can't believe it, I sense a bit of disappointment in your column about Obama's position on Syria, it still surprises me that you didn't feel the same way about Obama's Iranian Deal which was the same retreat from confrontation as his retreat in Syria & the Ukraine.He must be aware by now that his non involvement is a clear sign of weakness that Russia & China will exploit.I have voted for Obama, & have been a Democrat all my life, but I can own-up to a mistake in judgement where Obama is concerned. Why don't you try it it's sort of cleanses your soul.
Dear Editors,
I'm beginning to feel like I'm persona non grata, as the Times is doing everything they can to prevent my comments from being published.
Dear Editors,
I'm beginning to feel like I'm persona non grata, as the Times is doing everything they can to prevent my comments from being published.
2
I recently had a conversation with a young woman U.S. Army major, deployed for four years as a Blackhawk helicopter pilot in the Middle East. She said, succinctly, "there is nothing we can do over there that will be helpful." The conflicts in Syria, Iraq, lebanon, Yemen and Afghanistan may have been triggered by actions of the West after World War I and President Bush's wars of choice, but they are essentially sectarian wars like the ones Protestants and Catholics fought with brutal and tragic consequences nearly a thousand years ago. We should spend out money on compassionate relief, not military interventions and weapons provisions.
5
The beauty of the internet, and a few language skills, enable interested observers to watch other government's parliaments, and debates I watched two journalists, one an old British hand in the Middle East give testimony to a UK parliamentary committee. The consensus view of the journalists who have traveled outside the risky ISIL/ISIS zones (but have contacts there) is that a collapse of Assad would bring an even larger flow of refugees to Europe.
This is so because for all of his heavy-handed tactics Assad provides a measure of protection to the minorities (Druze, Alawites, Christians, and others). The only effective opposition to the regime these days are ISIL and the jihadi groups directly or indirectly supporting ISIL. Of late, Assad is losing the battle and hence the sudden flurry of Russian military planes to Syria. We allied ourselves with a mass murderer before in the person of Stalin in WW II. Sometimes ends do justify means. Let Assad rule over a rump state of West Syria. Join with the Russians and anyone else (Turkey, the Kurds) to break and bring down ISIL. Establish safe zones for Syrians and put heavy pressure on the Sunni oil states to fund a rebuilding of areas not controlled by Assad and his allies the Iranians. But don't topple Assad without contingency plans in place or even the wooly thinking Frau Merkel and the EU functionaries will have to change their "come one come all" nonsense.
This is so because for all of his heavy-handed tactics Assad provides a measure of protection to the minorities (Druze, Alawites, Christians, and others). The only effective opposition to the regime these days are ISIL and the jihadi groups directly or indirectly supporting ISIL. Of late, Assad is losing the battle and hence the sudden flurry of Russian military planes to Syria. We allied ourselves with a mass murderer before in the person of Stalin in WW II. Sometimes ends do justify means. Let Assad rule over a rump state of West Syria. Join with the Russians and anyone else (Turkey, the Kurds) to break and bring down ISIL. Establish safe zones for Syrians and put heavy pressure on the Sunni oil states to fund a rebuilding of areas not controlled by Assad and his allies the Iranians. But don't topple Assad without contingency plans in place or even the wooly thinking Frau Merkel and the EU functionaries will have to change their "come one come all" nonsense.
2
War is not the answer. We need to stop sending the same people to fight our battles over and over again. If you want to be an interventionist, send your children to war. I am tired of sending mine.
4
When I see the "Wounded Warriors" commercials I fell disgusted that I and others did not work harder to stop the military industrial complex from maiming our children in the search of greater profits.
Spend a week in a military rehab facility, and imagine that the patients you are tending to are your children.
How many of your children are serving in the armed forces, or Doctors Without Borders and the like?
I don't care for O, but it would be a bigger blot if we had 10,000 body bags stacked up at Dover.
Beat your war drum somewhere else. And be sure to be in the front ranks of the charge.
Spend a week in a military rehab facility, and imagine that the patients you are tending to are your children.
How many of your children are serving in the armed forces, or Doctors Without Borders and the like?
I don't care for O, but it would be a bigger blot if we had 10,000 body bags stacked up at Dover.
Beat your war drum somewhere else. And be sure to be in the front ranks of the charge.
7
Possibly a slow realization that the successful revolution breeds a another upheaval?
Do you forget if you bombed, you would've antagonized Russia to a much larger degree? If you armed, ISIS would only be better armed than they are (after stealing US weapons from Iraq).
There was no solution to this fight. Now, Russia seems to have one — an invasion that actually beats ISIS. Will it lead to an Iraq-like insurgency. Possibly, but then the majority of ISIS fighter or foreign. Facing a real military threat, perhaps they'll go home.
So now, your only choices are the horror of ISIS or the horror of war. Maybe we should let them worry about it until we fix our roads.
There was no solution to this fight. Now, Russia seems to have one — an invasion that actually beats ISIS. Will it lead to an Iraq-like insurgency. Possibly, but then the majority of ISIS fighter or foreign. Facing a real military threat, perhaps they'll go home.
So now, your only choices are the horror of ISIS or the horror of war. Maybe we should let them worry about it until we fix our roads.
3
"But, no! Such ruination was not an inevitable outcome."
But, yes! Yes it was! How much *more* American blood has to be needlessly spilt in sand before Mr. Cohen accepts that? No more American war in the Middle East, period, end of story. If something needs to be done, where is Saudi Arabia? Where is Egypt? Where is Turkey? Where are *their* troops?
But, yes! Yes it was! How much *more* American blood has to be needlessly spilt in sand before Mr. Cohen accepts that? No more American war in the Middle East, period, end of story. If something needs to be done, where is Saudi Arabia? Where is Egypt? Where is Turkey? Where are *their* troops?
10
Bad assumption -- that American firepower can solve the Syrian conflict. Yes, we could have knocked out Assad's air power, but the anti-American backlash might well have released forces even more destructive than Assad & ISIS. Syria/ISIS is an Arab & Islamic problem. They, together with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, etc will not be resolved by the West, with or without Russia.
9
I don't see how Obama making good on his red line in Syria would have achieved anything. Bombing the Syrian airforce to oblivion for instance would not have prevented the Russians and Iranians from resupply them for instance. Unless the critics are suggesting Obama should have invaded Syria (Boots on the ground), I am not sure what they are proposing. Obama can argue that his red line policy is the reason the Syrian regime gave up its chemical weapons stockpile (at least the more lethal stuff). Its easy to be critical sitting on a couch with the benefit of hindsight.
9
The view from the Middle East is that America and its' clients want the breakup of Syria, Iraq, Libya, and probably a few other countries. Otherwise, why would it take a coalition of a several dozens nations including super powers like the US, France and Britain, Turkey and Saudi Arabia more than a few years to destroy a ragtag collection of Islamists in the so-called "Islamic State?" After all, this is not WWII Germany we are talking about. Who buys oil from these guys? (Answer: NATO member Turkey and others.)
The unintended consequence of such a conspiracy is refugees. Not any refugees, but the ones who break their way into Europe and the West. Crocodile tears will be shed for those who are killed in Syria or seek refuge in neighboring countries. Token assistance will be sent to help and blame can be assigned to Syrian factions.
But thousands are making their way to Europe. Now there is a problem!
The unintended consequence of such a conspiracy is refugees. Not any refugees, but the ones who break their way into Europe and the West. Crocodile tears will be shed for those who are killed in Syria or seek refuge in neighboring countries. Token assistance will be sent to help and blame can be assigned to Syrian factions.
But thousands are making their way to Europe. Now there is a problem!
1
As soon as I read the first few paragraphs in this article, I accurately predicted the theme of many of the comments on it. President Obama, clearly, is much better at reading the public mood than Mr. Cohen is.
But Cohen raises an interesting point: despite our many well-known failures in the Middle East, are Americans morally obligated to try to help ameliorate this situation, on the grounds that 1) we broke it, thus we bought it; or 2) we're the only country with the resources to resolve this human calamity.
But First Principles first: what is the conflict in Syria about? what key dynamics could we hope to change? The answer is that it's mainly a war between shiites and sunnis--although it's also a clash between modernism and the ideologies of tribal societies.
I admire President Obama, but expecting him to effectively kill many more Americans by trying to alter these age-old historical dynamics is foolish.
But Cohen raises an interesting point: despite our many well-known failures in the Middle East, are Americans morally obligated to try to help ameliorate this situation, on the grounds that 1) we broke it, thus we bought it; or 2) we're the only country with the resources to resolve this human calamity.
But First Principles first: what is the conflict in Syria about? what key dynamics could we hope to change? The answer is that it's mainly a war between shiites and sunnis--although it's also a clash between modernism and the ideologies of tribal societies.
I admire President Obama, but expecting him to effectively kill many more Americans by trying to alter these age-old historical dynamics is foolish.
173
Your "to effectively kill many more Americans..." bothers me. Why can't we have a discussion and just say "to effectively kill many more people"? Why is it ok for nations or insurgents to endlessly resort to violence, when we teach our children to use your words? Do Americans only care about how many Americans die?
My syntax was faulty. I should have something like "...in effect, kill...." Yet I focused on potential American deaths because President Obama had complete control of whether or not we should expend American lives. Obama, however, has little control over casualties from conflicts between Shia and Suuni forces. All deaths are lamentable, of course.
Our Congress refused to give President Obama the ability to act in Syria. We have been interfering in the Middle East forever with really bad results. What I find unforgivable about this situation is the lack of planning and funding for humanitarian response. Everyone should have been alerted, early on, to the extent of the problem and what the contribution needed to be. There should have been planning with the UN and others for refugee camps and processing of asylum claims. Obviously that hasn't happened and we are now seeing the results. My follow up to the you break it you own it rule is this: if you invade a country and blow it up, you are agreeing to take in every person who wants to leave.
44
Bush did it.
Ahh, if we only had crystal balls.
Obama is comfortable with ameeican militar power as an adjunct to marketing his brand and his brand legacy.
He loathes military power and thinks it is a cause, not a restraint on, evil. This insanity is the orthodoxy of a genration in which every world conflict is explained as the result of an earlier use of american military power.
Oh well. Here we are.
He loathes military power and thinks it is a cause, not a restraint on, evil. This insanity is the orthodoxy of a genration in which every world conflict is explained as the result of an earlier use of american military power.
Oh well. Here we are.
1
Deterrence is the objective of the military, not breaking things and killing people.
Obama's doctrine is not complicated . He reacted to a war weary America. For a very long time, all we understood, until allowed to view, were caskets coming home for yet another conflict. One of many post WW 2, we never conclude with a victory. A very tough question has emerged, does our involvement in conflicts really make any difference? Realism teaches us currently there are 3 world powers The US, China, and Russia bringing up the rear. Each has a doctrine to serve their interest. Now that the US has ample oil, the Middle East and the inevetable middle east wa,r has less impact on or interest. Seems common knowledge Obama has no interest in Israel as he knows they can fend for themselves.
7
Why must Americans die in the god forsaken Middle East? This area's people have been in confrontation since the beginning of time and I, for one, simply don't believe our children should die there as a buffer between warring sects.
Let's examine some of Mr. Cohen's suggestions:
The Syrian aircraft dropping those barrel bombs could have been taken out. (How to choose sides? The Syrian government bombs its own people while the 'rebels' ie. ISIS and others, simply behead, burn or rape them). ) A safe area for refugees might have been created. (Where? Protected by American boots on the ground?) Arming the rebels early and massively might have changed the course of the war. (Many of the 'rebels' are Islamic fanatic who hate the west with equal fervor)>
Let's examine some of Mr. Cohen's suggestions:
The Syrian aircraft dropping those barrel bombs could have been taken out. (How to choose sides? The Syrian government bombs its own people while the 'rebels' ie. ISIS and others, simply behead, burn or rape them). ) A safe area for refugees might have been created. (Where? Protected by American boots on the ground?) Arming the rebels early and massively might have changed the course of the war. (Many of the 'rebels' are Islamic fanatic who hate the west with equal fervor)>
9
I certainly do not know what we should do. And our leaders have proved they do not either. We seem to have got Afghanistan wrong, Iraq wrong, Syria wrong, Libya wrong, and backing the Saudis wrong. It is not that Americans do not want to help, it is that they understand that our efforts always seem to make things worse in the Middle East. Purely based on our history, the Iran treaty (I mean agreement) will make things worse as well. Hopefully, this is different and we finally quit batting zero, but time will tell. The only thing that seems right is more aid to countries like Jordan that are being overrun with refugees.
9
I disagree with Roger. Syria is a Vietnam-like civil war, worse, more complicated, with dozens of religion- and/or dogma-based factions, none of them kitted with military uniforms. We don't know whom to fight, whom to support with what kinds of armaments. we don't speak Arabic. Other countries, some of them our ostensible allies, have their own dogs in the fight. Syria defines "quagmire." Regrettably, Obama has been right to keep a distance.
15
Incredible -- another journalist recommending invasion. Where has he been for the last 50 years?
17
At the time, the danger in arming the rebels, which was the most obvious path, was the very real, and even likely, possibility that the arms would wind up with the jihadists. It was a real problem with no clear solution.
5
The doctrine since Viet-Nam is: Nobody can win anywhere, but we do not want to win either.
2
The borders of the Middle East can't remain as is as religious, tribal and ethnic differences are far to great for Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq to remain as is. Each group the Kurds, Sunni, Shia, Christians, Yahtzie, Druze ,Alawites, and Pals should be given their own independent, protected areas with world power and UN support.
The creation of these new countries would permanently resolve the conflict, eliminate terror and bring peace and prosperity to the planet. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up for things to only get worse and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
The creation of these new countries would permanently resolve the conflict, eliminate terror and bring peace and prosperity to the planet. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up for things to only get worse and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
5
I'm afraid Obama's errors are even more serious than Cohen acknowledges.
Obama's passivity has enabled the Russians to intervene in Syria to prop up Assad. And Obama has stood by as Assad has continued his reign of terror, quite likely to oblige his (Obama's) new Iranian partners.
These are major foreign policy mistakes for which the United States, its friends, and innocent Syrians will pay. And we could use a stronger word than "mistake."
Obama's passivity has enabled the Russians to intervene in Syria to prop up Assad. And Obama has stood by as Assad has continued his reign of terror, quite likely to oblige his (Obama's) new Iranian partners.
These are major foreign policy mistakes for which the United States, its friends, and innocent Syrians will pay. And we could use a stronger word than "mistake."
3
The whole world should have agreed with Assad that Syrians needed to learn how democracy works, because they obviously don't know.
Don't be too quick to claim Syria as the biggest foreign policy blot on the Obama presidency. That presidency is not over, the Iran deal appears certain to go through, and the consequences of THAT gamble could eclipse those of Syrian missteps.
The problem is the basic plan Mr. Obama adopted, which was to run at any prospect of actually using our military for anything other than drone hits and the occasional Special Forces mission to kill an Osama-clone, plus an ultimately pyrrhic "surge" in an Afghanistan we knew we'd be abandoning anyway. That plan has resulted in a military intentionally hollowed-out to the point that senior military leaders are warning that we haven't been so unprepared to address global developments in decades. It may take a decade to repair that damage, but Republicans have been doing that for a long time -- Carter, Clinton and now Obama seriously degraded our military capacities, leaving it to successors to rebuild.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but most liberal pundits supported Mr. Obama's Syrian cave two years ago on chemical weapons, as well as his decision not to meddle in Syria two years before that. Use of the chemical weapons and ISIS were direct results of not meddling, and the chemical weapons deal itself was a joke, as Assad used such weapons against his own people AFTER they were supposed to have been destroyed.
On the historical evidence, it might be best to leave solutions to the next president, whoever he or she turns out to be.
The problem is the basic plan Mr. Obama adopted, which was to run at any prospect of actually using our military for anything other than drone hits and the occasional Special Forces mission to kill an Osama-clone, plus an ultimately pyrrhic "surge" in an Afghanistan we knew we'd be abandoning anyway. That plan has resulted in a military intentionally hollowed-out to the point that senior military leaders are warning that we haven't been so unprepared to address global developments in decades. It may take a decade to repair that damage, but Republicans have been doing that for a long time -- Carter, Clinton and now Obama seriously degraded our military capacities, leaving it to successors to rebuild.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but most liberal pundits supported Mr. Obama's Syrian cave two years ago on chemical weapons, as well as his decision not to meddle in Syria two years before that. Use of the chemical weapons and ISIS were direct results of not meddling, and the chemical weapons deal itself was a joke, as Assad used such weapons against his own people AFTER they were supposed to have been destroyed.
On the historical evidence, it might be best to leave solutions to the next president, whoever he or she turns out to be.
3
Cohen has the audacity to say that the Syrian refugee crisis is the result of American inaction? American administrations, Republican and Democratic, through their consistent policies of regime change and intervention are mainly responsible for the present horrifying state of affairs. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen come to mind. Syrian "rebels" have been supported by the U.S. and it's "allies: Saudi Arabia and Israel, from the beginning of this conflict. Once again, we are supposed to believe that regime change of a sovereign government is a good, proper and practical thing to do. How's it working so far? This is a disgusting idea!
4
I haven't forgotten the nightly news reports of Americans filling town halls to beg their representatives to vote no on a war resolution to bomb Syria over chemicals weapons use. The administration couldn't get the votes, the American people were in an uproar, not "weariness with foreign adventure" as Mr Cohen peppers in. Obama was being threatened with impeachment if he acted without Congressional authorization, and there was a strong argument whether the Damascus strikes had anything to do an "imminent threat to the United States" ala the executive authority in the War Powers Resolution. Was Mr. Cohen on an extended vacation in Ibiza during August/September of 2013? As this played out on domestic soil, Russia was disseminating counter propaganda defending the Assad regime and even claiming the attacks could have even been a false flag. Then there was Putin's little plot to remove the weapons in time, he didn't want to spoil the Sochi and G20 fun! The intellectual dishonesty of this piece and every other that leaves out the strategic and emotional importance of Syria to Russia exposes a lack of seriousness. Tartus, is Russia's only naval access port to the Mediterranean. Putin wants it and the regime who leases it to him unchanged, he might even pull a Crimea over it. Amazes me that articles like these can ignore the obvious. Oh and about Assad's other ally Iran..talk about one heck of a proxy war! So can you compare Syria in 2013, to Iraq in 2003? Absolutely not.
2
This is an uncharacteristically dumb analysis by a typically clever columnist. Laying Syria at Obama's feet for "failing to muster the will," the "belief in American military power?" Which is to say, failing to wade into another disastrous Middle Eastern ground war where everybody hates us, even as he was winding the last one down? Seriously?
Obama's probably made mistakes with Syria, but the die was really cast when the last American president decided to invade and occupy its neighbor to depose the Baathist strongman on the next block. Let's not succumb to the same kind of lazy magical thinking about American might and "will" and testosterone diplomacy scarcely a decade later.
Obama's probably made mistakes with Syria, but the die was really cast when the last American president decided to invade and occupy its neighbor to depose the Baathist strongman on the next block. Let's not succumb to the same kind of lazy magical thinking about American might and "will" and testosterone diplomacy scarcely a decade later.
8
As terrible as the refugee crisis from Syria (and elsewhere in the middle east) is, European governments' wish to help may well be mixed with a degree of fear.
Hundreds of thousands of muslim refugees may include ISIS jihadists or sympathizers. At the very least, they may include future radicalized residents of European nations, as England and France have been discovering in the wake of their past importation of medieval idealogical religious beliefs.
The fact, as reported by the NYT's, that refugees are removing their own fingerprints in order to be allowed to leave Italy, raises questions about other reasons for obstructing identification.
It is a delicate balance for Europe (or the US for that matter) to help the refugee population without having a humanitarian welcome become a new Trojan horse that invites jihadists into the countries.
Hundreds of thousands of muslim refugees may include ISIS jihadists or sympathizers. At the very least, they may include future radicalized residents of European nations, as England and France have been discovering in the wake of their past importation of medieval idealogical religious beliefs.
The fact, as reported by the NYT's, that refugees are removing their own fingerprints in order to be allowed to leave Italy, raises questions about other reasons for obstructing identification.
It is a delicate balance for Europe (or the US for that matter) to help the refugee population without having a humanitarian welcome become a new Trojan horse that invites jihadists into the countries.
1
"Arming the rebels early and massively might have changed the course of the war."
What a delusion. What "rebels". All it would have done is provided even more weapons to the jihadists. Absent massive American involvement like in Iraq, supporting a nascent group of disorganized regime opponents would only have brought out more of the worst of Assad that much earlier, with Russia and Iran helping all the way. The horror of Syria is awful, but deluding ourselves into believing that American power would have changed the course of this regional sectarian war sounds a lot like the neocon fictions uttered before the Iraq invasion. And undertaking such an effort without the strong support of the American people, which no leader could have garnered in the aftermath of Iraq, would have been the height of foolishness and irresponsibility.
What a delusion. What "rebels". All it would have done is provided even more weapons to the jihadists. Absent massive American involvement like in Iraq, supporting a nascent group of disorganized regime opponents would only have brought out more of the worst of Assad that much earlier, with Russia and Iran helping all the way. The horror of Syria is awful, but deluding ourselves into believing that American power would have changed the course of this regional sectarian war sounds a lot like the neocon fictions uttered before the Iraq invasion. And undertaking such an effort without the strong support of the American people, which no leader could have garnered in the aftermath of Iraq, would have been the height of foolishness and irresponsibility.
6
What myopia from someone deemed intelligent enough to write for the NYTimes...We took out Hussein and Iraq devolved into an intractable mess. We took out Quaddafi and the country is a an ungovernable no-man's land. We knocked the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan - but they are still a force to be reckoned with and we're forced to remain there indefinitely or the current govt will collapse. What part of this picture are you NOT seeing?
If we take out Assad - as contemptible as he is - who is going to step into the vacuum there? Already most of the weapons and vehicles owned by ISIS were furnished to Iraq by the good ol' USA. If we take out Assad - we'll be giving them the whole country as well.
America is not the solution to the world's problems. Let the thugs and religious zealots battle each other to exhaustion.
Mr Cohen - please open your eyes...
If we take out Assad - as contemptible as he is - who is going to step into the vacuum there? Already most of the weapons and vehicles owned by ISIS were furnished to Iraq by the good ol' USA. If we take out Assad - we'll be giving them the whole country as well.
America is not the solution to the world's problems. Let the thugs and religious zealots battle each other to exhaustion.
Mr Cohen - please open your eyes...
The proposition that "every major conflict poses the question of how far America should get involved" is flimsy, at least in the Middle East, since every conflict we have gotten involved in there has failed--miserably, usually making matters worse. I can see where the Administration would be skittish about getting involved in any further debacles. Emotional arguments like the one in this column never seem to entertain the suspicion that we might fail or create a bigger problem, although all the evidence points in that direction.
6
Where do people get the idea that our involvement in the Middle East would reduce conflict and chaos? We can't go in and leave in 5-10 years because you've simply delayed the inevitable in that case all the while spending American blood and treasure. What we've learned the last 70 years is that geopolitical stability happens organically, if at all, and not because we send in soldiers.
7
You note that "Americans are not happy with Obama's non-intervention". Who are they, really. Republican political carpers, that's who. What ever Obama does is bad; whatever he doesn't do is bad. I am happy he did not get us involved. Syria is a total mess. If we were involved, Syria would be a total mess with us involved. I prefer it be a total mess without us involved. The presense of a political human disaster does not equate with the need for the USA to be a part of it. Actual history and data seem to reveal that our presence in this entire region, militarily, is a big negative, resulting in bigger disasters, not lesser. Better to watch the inferno from afar, rather than to incinerate oneself in it. We've no means to put it out. When , if ever, this region rights itself, and Islam has it's own reformation, will it be a stable area. That will of course take many many generations and our presence in the midst of it will result only in our expending our own blood and treasure without affecting the outcome nor how long it takes to get to the outcome.
9
No doubt we could have done more in terms of humanitarian aid. But the American people were never going to approve the kind of military action that would put an end to the conflict and establish security in Syria and Cohen knows it. We haven't been able to do that in Afghanistan in more than 14 years of involvement there and we are not going to be able to do it in Syria. We did not cause the conflict in Syria and we cannot end it.
86
This same column could have been written IF President Obama decided to intervene in Syria and a similar, dragged-out crisis emerged. American intervention would have almost certainly created a crisis of similar sorts. This column, with all due respect, is a hind sight analysis without all possible forks in the events being considered. Unfortunately, life only follows one path. Trying to live a different path remains in alternate reality.
One question Roger, who among us is willing to see their children die on battlefields of the next American intervention in the Middle East?
1
Roger says that Mr. Obama is uncomfortable with American military power; it'd be more accurate to say that he is acutely cognizant of the limits of our military power.
Roger also states that counter-factuals don't count for much, that we'll never know. That is true. However, indications are that it is more likely that things would be even worse than they are. We do know now that some of the groups that we would/could have armed have either joined, or become overrun by, ISIS. There was talk about arming the "more moderate" rebels -- not "moderate", because there weren't any moderate ones we could find. Aside from the fact that we had no reliable way to vet any of those groups, "more moderate" translates to "less jihadi" -- not "not jihadi", just less so but still jihadi. Arming them probably would have resulted in even more weapons falling into ISIS hands. What if that, together with our taking out Assad's aircraft, resulted in the Assad regime's defeat and ISIS controlling the entire country? What would Syria look like then? What kind of refugee problem would there be then?
Roger also states that counter-factuals don't count for much, that we'll never know. That is true. However, indications are that it is more likely that things would be even worse than they are. We do know now that some of the groups that we would/could have armed have either joined, or become overrun by, ISIS. There was talk about arming the "more moderate" rebels -- not "moderate", because there weren't any moderate ones we could find. Aside from the fact that we had no reliable way to vet any of those groups, "more moderate" translates to "less jihadi" -- not "not jihadi", just less so but still jihadi. Arming them probably would have resulted in even more weapons falling into ISIS hands. What if that, together with our taking out Assad's aircraft, resulted in the Assad regime's defeat and ISIS controlling the entire country? What would Syria look like then? What kind of refugee problem would there be then?
2
"In Libya, Obama bombed and abandoned. In Afghanistan, Obama surged and retreated. In Syria, Obama talked and wavered."
I admire president Obama, still. But these charges are quite accurate. This has led to enormous, incalculable misery to tens of millions of people. All his achievements are minuscule compared with these failures and shortcomings. He should at least acknowledge his failures, as Bill Clinton did. Compared with Bill Clinton's failures Obama's are enormous and far more consequential, and comparable with George W. Bush's Iraq debacle. History may not judge him too kindly. That is sad.
I admire president Obama, still. But these charges are quite accurate. This has led to enormous, incalculable misery to tens of millions of people. All his achievements are minuscule compared with these failures and shortcomings. He should at least acknowledge his failures, as Bill Clinton did. Compared with Bill Clinton's failures Obama's are enormous and far more consequential, and comparable with George W. Bush's Iraq debacle. History may not judge him too kindly. That is sad.
Some say that climate change will mean the end of human civilization as we know it. I'm guessing we won't have to wait that long. Some tell me that I must sacrifice today so that future generations can live. Watching the various tragedies unfolding across the world and even right here at home, I'm not particularly interested in that sort of future. Sacrifice... why, and for whom?
So that men like Assad can terrorize millions? So that ISIS can enslave women and girls? So that religious fanatics can harass and intimidate people all over the world in every single interaction they have with others?
No thanks. Humanity is not worth saving.
So that men like Assad can terrorize millions? So that ISIS can enslave women and girls? So that religious fanatics can harass and intimidate people all over the world in every single interaction they have with others?
No thanks. Humanity is not worth saving.
1
Cohen is off the mark. This is now Europe's problem. While the US should be taking in more Syrian refugees on humanitarian grounds, killing more Arab civilians and hoping that they are the bad guys would be a mistake.
The problem was however created by Bush/Cheney when they successfully destabilized the Mideast by attacking and destroying Iraq. The fallout from this neocon inspired "creative destruction" is now being felt. Obama is doing well to back away from continuing down that path.
What is alarming is that neocons are still being heard...people like Cheney, Krauthammer, and others of that era. Their role in promoting the Iraq war has yet to be fully exposed, and their ideas fully discredited. Unless this is done, there is real danger that they may resurface yet again.
The problem was however created by Bush/Cheney when they successfully destabilized the Mideast by attacking and destroying Iraq. The fallout from this neocon inspired "creative destruction" is now being felt. Obama is doing well to back away from continuing down that path.
What is alarming is that neocons are still being heard...people like Cheney, Krauthammer, and others of that era. Their role in promoting the Iraq war has yet to be fully exposed, and their ideas fully discredited. Unless this is done, there is real danger that they may resurface yet again.
2
Why am I constantly reading about a mysterious US invasion or occupation or military action recently in Libya? There was no such action! Neither by Bush's men or by Obama's men. If the CIA or some bunch of "black bag wet workers" were there,(IF!), it's not an official invasion. Qaddaffi was killed and removed by his own people, as the so-called Arab Spring fell apart. The reason no Arab nations have been able to transcend their Ottoman history of enslavement and brutal tyranny is because of the nature of the religion they allow themselves to exist under. The horrible Mongol invasions have left Arabs terrified of outsiders, and any pushing liberal education and equal rights. The barbarities they practice are pale imitations of Mongol brutalism worked on them and, which, now, like so many religious fanatics or mystics practicing sympathetic magic or "voodoo", they believe they must imitate it in order to keep off potential aggressors. As a result, there will not ever be a liberal or European style state in the Arab Crescent. The short-lived, European run colonial empires were as good as it will ever be for Islam.
1
There is no doubt that Assad is a Bad Man.
But Saddam Husein was also a Very Bad Man, hated by his own people. But US intervention in Iran and killing Saddam Husein did NOT improve life for the people in Iran. On the contrary, it made things much worse for most.
And it left an arsenal of weapons in the area some of which feel into the *wrong hands* and contribute to the current conflict.
Iran is the blot on the Bush presidency that led to the hopeless situations with which we are now confronted.
But Saddam Husein was also a Very Bad Man, hated by his own people. But US intervention in Iran and killing Saddam Husein did NOT improve life for the people in Iran. On the contrary, it made things much worse for most.
And it left an arsenal of weapons in the area some of which feel into the *wrong hands* and contribute to the current conflict.
Iran is the blot on the Bush presidency that led to the hopeless situations with which we are now confronted.
1
"Arming the rebels early and massively might have changed the course of the war."
Nah. The USA did that - ISIS would be nothing without weapons and machines bought and paid for by US taxpayers, then abandoned by an Iraqi army which proved unwilling to risk life or limb for a nation that was a figment of American imagination.
Nah. The USA did that - ISIS would be nothing without weapons and machines bought and paid for by US taxpayers, then abandoned by an Iraqi army which proved unwilling to risk life or limb for a nation that was a figment of American imagination.
3
This op-ed promotes the naive perspective that Assad is a bad meanie who started a war against his own people and we should end it. The reality is this was an interventionist war from the get go. Remember Obama's red line, remember the arms and fighters that poured into this country very early in this conflict.
And no this is not the only blot on the presidency, what about Libya? Another country that did not need a destabilization provided by a supply of foreign weapons and an arial bombing campaign.
The only realistic solution to ending the war in Syria is peace negotiations that leave Assad in power or at least in control of a good part of Syria. Anything else is to ask the Syrian people to endure what will in all likelihood will be an extremely violent enduring war. Which most likely will be followed by rule by various warring militias as is the case in Libya.
No thanks Mr. Cohen our policy of regime change and "nation building" should be retired in favor of respect for national sovereignty.
And no this is not the only blot on the presidency, what about Libya? Another country that did not need a destabilization provided by a supply of foreign weapons and an arial bombing campaign.
The only realistic solution to ending the war in Syria is peace negotiations that leave Assad in power or at least in control of a good part of Syria. Anything else is to ask the Syrian people to endure what will in all likelihood will be an extremely violent enduring war. Which most likely will be followed by rule by various warring militias as is the case in Libya.
No thanks Mr. Cohen our policy of regime change and "nation building" should be retired in favor of respect for national sovereignty.
3
Troubling indeed for an Obama supporter who believes fervently that the President has achieved much to advance global security in a world apparently hell-bent to damage it. His record on Syria, however speaks balefully for itself.
If we accept the notion that it is the US responsibility to save distant nations determined to destroy themselves for the sole sake of dictatorial power-lust, then indeed America should indeed have intervened more forcefully in Syria. That core notion, however, is not self-evidently true, and 20-20 hindsight is easy.
We've seen more than enough coulda, shoulda, wouldas. The pressing question is, "What now?" I look forward to Mr. Cohen's next column.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
If we accept the notion that it is the US responsibility to save distant nations determined to destroy themselves for the sole sake of dictatorial power-lust, then indeed America should indeed have intervened more forcefully in Syria. That core notion, however, is not self-evidently true, and 20-20 hindsight is easy.
We've seen more than enough coulda, shoulda, wouldas. The pressing question is, "What now?" I look forward to Mr. Cohen's next column.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
Despot client of Putin's guns down his own people when they ask for Democracy, starting a civil war, and it is an American president's fault?
A ridiculous notion of "staggering proportions."
A ridiculous notion of "staggering proportions."
4
"In Libya, Obama bombed and abandoned."
This really is Obama's fault. The U.S., France and Great Britain changed Libya from a tightly-controlled dictatorship into a failed state like Somalia. However,
"In Afghanistan," the war was lost when BUSH abandoned our troops there in 2003 with no mission, no leadership and no strategy. And
"In Syria" Obama had no real options. Ever. The stupidity of BUSH's "Shock and Awe", "Mission Accomplished", and "The Surge", stripped Mr. Obama of any options he might have had.
This entire Cohen essay is meaningless. If this is how our thoughtful analysts analyze the world, I guess Donald Trump really is going to be our next president.
This really is Obama's fault. The U.S., France and Great Britain changed Libya from a tightly-controlled dictatorship into a failed state like Somalia. However,
"In Afghanistan," the war was lost when BUSH abandoned our troops there in 2003 with no mission, no leadership and no strategy. And
"In Syria" Obama had no real options. Ever. The stupidity of BUSH's "Shock and Awe", "Mission Accomplished", and "The Surge", stripped Mr. Obama of any options he might have had.
This entire Cohen essay is meaningless. If this is how our thoughtful analysts analyze the world, I guess Donald Trump really is going to be our next president.
8
"American interventionism can have terrible consequences, as the Iraq war has demonstrated. But American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates."
Cohen treats American Interventionism here as an academic question, as if American interventionism hadn't been applied in a massive show of Shock and Awe in Iraq, where the number of deaths was more shocking than his "numbing"statistics on Syrian deaths, and the number of refugees created thereby was a record for this century.
In the case of Iraq we intervened on the premise that democracy would bloom in the region when the dictator Saddam Hussein was forcibly removed from power. What the neocons failed to tell George W at the time was that Iraq had profound confessional fissures, and Saddam was a secular Baath Socialist, who was an obstacle to Iran and the enemy of all jihadis.
When he fell, Iraq disintegrated, the Shia got the upper hand by democratic vote. and 4.5 million people voted with their feet, to hit the road.
Not satisfied with destroying Iraq and liberating the Shia Crescent, the drum beat was sounded to take down another secular leader, the Shia President Assad, and the efforts to support the Sunni rebels by tens of billions of dollars supplied by our allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar had the effect of amplifying the chaos by creating ISIS and terrifying the natives into hitting the road.
Bush screwed up. Obama had continuity. We are responsible. Now what! Bomb I guess, but bomb whom?
Cohen treats American Interventionism here as an academic question, as if American interventionism hadn't been applied in a massive show of Shock and Awe in Iraq, where the number of deaths was more shocking than his "numbing"statistics on Syrian deaths, and the number of refugees created thereby was a record for this century.
In the case of Iraq we intervened on the premise that democracy would bloom in the region when the dictator Saddam Hussein was forcibly removed from power. What the neocons failed to tell George W at the time was that Iraq had profound confessional fissures, and Saddam was a secular Baath Socialist, who was an obstacle to Iran and the enemy of all jihadis.
When he fell, Iraq disintegrated, the Shia got the upper hand by democratic vote. and 4.5 million people voted with their feet, to hit the road.
Not satisfied with destroying Iraq and liberating the Shia Crescent, the drum beat was sounded to take down another secular leader, the Shia President Assad, and the efforts to support the Sunni rebels by tens of billions of dollars supplied by our allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar had the effect of amplifying the chaos by creating ISIS and terrifying the natives into hitting the road.
Bush screwed up. Obama had continuity. We are responsible. Now what! Bomb I guess, but bomb whom?
5
The situation is Syria, Lebanon , Jordan and the Middle East at large is all on account of Bush/ Cheney fraud war on Iraq. Just as is the so called Islamic State force in Iraq, Syria etc. The military officer core that lead the Islamic State are all Saddam's ex military cadre of Generals and other lower rank officers and troops. Other than engage in and other land war, which we will never win, nor we have the resources , there is not much to be done about. Middle East is an Arab problem, just as is the refugees, who are escaping in to Europe . It is amazing that Mr. Cohen refers to four million Syrians , but he forgets that Bush/ Cheney fraud war on Iraq created over five million refugees majority of who wind up in Syria , and now a large portion the same along with Syrians and others from the Middle East are finding their way into Europe. All the while the rich gulf states who have resources have turned a blind eye for the people of there own kind. That is culture, tradition, customs, religion and way of life. Including the Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman etc have plenty of resources etc to assimilate, integrate by building new cities and towns to absorb over 10 plus million more of their own kind, culture, tradition, customs and religion. Who can be productive, rather then try and mix with the Europeans
3
Bush caused global warming. And global cooling. And climate change. And he deleted Hillary's e-mails. And also Lois Lerner's e-mails. And . . . Everything else too!
Thank you, Mr. Cohen, for a succinct and well-reasoned article. Finally, someone on the pages of the NYT is willing to hold Obama accountable for his lack of action. Obama voted "present" many times in the Illinois state legislature. That was a weak but harmless place to showcase his lack of initiative. But the world stage is a place where hundreds of thousands have died while Obama drew lines in the sand and then erased them, blaming others for his lack (or fear) of leadership. We shall indeed see how all this plays out in the future, but Obama owns the debacles of Libya and Syria.
2
I'm not sure it can all be blamed on Obama. He had a Secretary of State before 2012 who might have pushed him towards actions other than those described. His known disdain for military solutions has probably been justified but in dealing with intractable enemies, jihadis, Putin, and Republicans he seems paralyzed and unable to reach the American people as a means of gathering support for his initiatives.
4
"...but uncomfortable with American military power."
Or maybe just realistic about it. After all, we did View Nam. And Iraq. And Afghanistan. And gained what, exactly, from them all? Not much that I can see!
America has the world's best military, bar none; but from the above evidence, it seems clear that American political leaders have repeatedly vastly underestimated the size of the problems they apply the military to.
Syria has all the hallmarks of yet another such monster problem. Yeah, the military could probably crush Assad and ISIS both in a few weeks, but then who's gonna to clean up the mess in the aftermath?
So, maybe Obama's doctrine is "modest to the point of meaninglessness"; but maybe that's just a recognition of the unpleasant truth of what American military might can actually accomplish.
Or maybe just realistic about it. After all, we did View Nam. And Iraq. And Afghanistan. And gained what, exactly, from them all? Not much that I can see!
America has the world's best military, bar none; but from the above evidence, it seems clear that American political leaders have repeatedly vastly underestimated the size of the problems they apply the military to.
Syria has all the hallmarks of yet another such monster problem. Yeah, the military could probably crush Assad and ISIS both in a few weeks, but then who's gonna to clean up the mess in the aftermath?
So, maybe Obama's doctrine is "modest to the point of meaninglessness"; but maybe that's just a recognition of the unpleasant truth of what American military might can actually accomplish.
So tiresome. Why the US? Why are other Muslim "nations" in the region not opening up to the refugees? Important questions, and in the answers lies enlightenment. You go into Iraq, you break it, and you own it. Same with Libya. Why would Syria be different? Where do we stop meddling in a region we've proven beyond any shadow of doubt we do not understand? Yes, the sight of so many human beings in distress and without homes, without a future is most distressing. But, as many have said so many times over the last ten years, outsiders cannot will peace and progress on a region when the people there will not fight for them. Containment and, where possible, humanitarian aid, in concert with other global powers, is the only sane policy.
15
Seriously, why us. How do we even know who to kill when we get there? Right now we are supporting one group of bad people that are trying to kill another group of bad people. Do we kill them both?
Obama is not responsible for this mess. Syria is only one of the Middle East's nightmare. It is also a problem for Europe. The 28 nation EU alone has 503 million people and a nominal GDP of $18.5 T. There are 50 European nations with 745 million folks.
Since 9/11/01 only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on an American armed forces military uniform. And they were ground to emotional mental physical dust by multiple deployments in a doomed effort to resolve ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil wars by military means. American military defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan show the complete futility of choosing "allies" among nothing but bad guys and girls. Syria is no different.
Syria is part of the Middle Eastern Stage IV metastatic cancer whose roots lie deep within America's fundamental strategic failure of hypocritically trashing it's values and damaging it's interests. While proclaiming the virtues of civil secular plural egalitarian democracy, America has allied with Sunni Muslim Arab dictators in places like Egypt and royal theocratic oil baron autocrats in places like Saudi Arabia. America is allied with Zionist Jewish Israel's denial of the divine natural certain equal rights of 6 million Christian and Muslim Arab Palestinians under Israeli dominion by occupation, blockade/siege, exile and 2nd class citizenship.
America's primary weapons of mass construction are diplomacy, commerce and humanitarian aid encouraging American values.
Since 9/11/01 only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on an American armed forces military uniform. And they were ground to emotional mental physical dust by multiple deployments in a doomed effort to resolve ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil wars by military means. American military defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan show the complete futility of choosing "allies" among nothing but bad guys and girls. Syria is no different.
Syria is part of the Middle Eastern Stage IV metastatic cancer whose roots lie deep within America's fundamental strategic failure of hypocritically trashing it's values and damaging it's interests. While proclaiming the virtues of civil secular plural egalitarian democracy, America has allied with Sunni Muslim Arab dictators in places like Egypt and royal theocratic oil baron autocrats in places like Saudi Arabia. America is allied with Zionist Jewish Israel's denial of the divine natural certain equal rights of 6 million Christian and Muslim Arab Palestinians under Israeli dominion by occupation, blockade/siege, exile and 2nd class citizenship.
America's primary weapons of mass construction are diplomacy, commerce and humanitarian aid encouraging American values.
4
The resettlement of the refugees is indeed a monstrous endeavor and should be shared by the global community.
Considering that the invasion of Iraq cost tens of thousands of innocent lives, how many of these refugees might have been caught up in a US intervention in Syria and similarly lost? And how many American young lives? And how many more years of engagement in the ME as our own country's needs are neglected?
Considering that the invasion of Iraq cost tens of thousands of innocent lives, how many of these refugees might have been caught up in a US intervention in Syria and similarly lost? And how many American young lives? And how many more years of engagement in the ME as our own country's needs are neglected?
1
You forgot Obama had the largest chemical weapons stockpile in the Middle East destroyed when he forced Assad over threat of invasion. That's a HUGE achievement and should not be underestimated or forgotten.
The problem with Syria is Putin stubbornness.
Obama has tried but Putin has blocked everything to protect Assad.
The problem with Syria is Putin stubbornness.
Obama has tried but Putin has blocked everything to protect Assad.
2
Obama will take in some Syrian refugees. It's cheaper than saving Syria and it also helps the domestic economy which what Obama's foreign policy is all about. Europe is too tired to defend itself and too stupid to see the opportunity that thousands of young, highly educated middle eastern refugees bring to their economy and culture.
Mr Cohen who thinks he is so deft at befuddling and bamboozling his readers, fails to mention the simple fact that nearly every intervention that the US military undertakes, is in response to a crisis which historically has, at least in part, US action to blame for it's cause
3
It is difficult to watch the horror unfold in Syria and understandable impatience with it is commendable. But it is extremely complicated and military intervention by the U.S. would make it more so. But what we can do is accept Iran's invitation for talks and get more generous with refugee aid and resettlement. The regions difficulties are directly linked to Western military interventions, "nation building", and self-seeking. The best way to resolve them is to be patient, helpful and kind.: America the beautiful.
2
America has transformed into an anti-American society by betraying everything we believed in including our founding principles.
America has turned into something our forefathers loathed – the British Colonial Empire – eager to rule the entire world.
That’s why we spend on our military as much as the rest of the globe combined. It’s not a defense budget at all. It’s an imperialistic budget. It would be the defense budget only if we truly feared that the entire planet would miraculously unite and decide to attacks us. Only under those conditions the current military budget would make sense. Since it is never going to happen our defense budget should be renamed into the imperialistic military budget.
We are not a force for good any longer.
There is no crisis we can fix or wrap up. All our foreign problems are never-ending: the Korean War, the Israeli-Arab conflict, confrontation with Russia, the Afghan War, the Gulf War, the Iranian stand-off…
Trust me, only the father-like presence and involvement was needed to secure that the melting pots (like our American one) would continue to work in the Holy Land, ex-Yugoslavia, Mesopotamia or Syria to protect the locals and maintain the peace.
All those conflicts were absolutely preventable if there were enough good will.
Our worst national security problem is that there is no more good will in our hearts.
A friendly face-to-face meeting with all the involved parties in 2011 would have prevented the current carnage in Syria.
America has turned into something our forefathers loathed – the British Colonial Empire – eager to rule the entire world.
That’s why we spend on our military as much as the rest of the globe combined. It’s not a defense budget at all. It’s an imperialistic budget. It would be the defense budget only if we truly feared that the entire planet would miraculously unite and decide to attacks us. Only under those conditions the current military budget would make sense. Since it is never going to happen our defense budget should be renamed into the imperialistic military budget.
We are not a force for good any longer.
There is no crisis we can fix or wrap up. All our foreign problems are never-ending: the Korean War, the Israeli-Arab conflict, confrontation with Russia, the Afghan War, the Gulf War, the Iranian stand-off…
Trust me, only the father-like presence and involvement was needed to secure that the melting pots (like our American one) would continue to work in the Holy Land, ex-Yugoslavia, Mesopotamia or Syria to protect the locals and maintain the peace.
All those conflicts were absolutely preventable if there were enough good will.
Our worst national security problem is that there is no more good will in our hearts.
A friendly face-to-face meeting with all the involved parties in 2011 would have prevented the current carnage in Syria.
2
Yes, Mr Cohen. Most of what you say is correct. But I also note that when you criticize Mr. Obama's lack of significantly more use of forceful intervention, you also say that the results "might have" helped. you used 'might have" a couple of times.
Criticizing action and non-actions after the fact is pretty easy. Cheap shot sporting analysts do it so often that we all know what Monday Morning Quarterbacking is.
Let me note that had we, or if we do intervene in Syria to a more significant degree, my children and grandchildren "might have" or "maybe will" die as a result. And even that ultimate sacrifice "might not" change one iota the tragic consequences of the greed and ignorance on long display in the middle east. A place populated by folks who claim to hate me, my country, and who continuously shout that they want to erase my relatives from the earth.
No thanks. I'll continue to hug my family right here at home and support President Obama's thoughtful policies.
Criticizing action and non-actions after the fact is pretty easy. Cheap shot sporting analysts do it so often that we all know what Monday Morning Quarterbacking is.
Let me note that had we, or if we do intervene in Syria to a more significant degree, my children and grandchildren "might have" or "maybe will" die as a result. And even that ultimate sacrifice "might not" change one iota the tragic consequences of the greed and ignorance on long display in the middle east. A place populated by folks who claim to hate me, my country, and who continuously shout that they want to erase my relatives from the earth.
No thanks. I'll continue to hug my family right here at home and support President Obama's thoughtful policies.
5
I commend you for your artical, I realize it must have been quite difficult to get publish in what has become the main propaganda conduit for this administration.
It is far past the time that we start holding our administrations accountable for their action and inaction. Wanting to take action against a despot murdering his own to hold on to power IS NOT the same as being a war maniac or as Mr Obama likes to portray those who call him on his lack of strategy.
Hope is not a strategy!, Don't doing stupid is NOT a strategy. If he didn't want to act and take responsibility he never should have taken the job. He should have stayed a community organizer.
Leaders lead from the front not from behind.
It is far past the time that we start holding our administrations accountable for their action and inaction. Wanting to take action against a despot murdering his own to hold on to power IS NOT the same as being a war maniac or as Mr Obama likes to portray those who call him on his lack of strategy.
Hope is not a strategy!, Don't doing stupid is NOT a strategy. If he didn't want to act and take responsibility he never should have taken the job. He should have stayed a community organizer.
Leaders lead from the front not from behind.
"Syria will be the biggest blot on the Obama presidency", are you kidding Mr. Cohen. Least we forget,Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Libya,Ukraine, the list goes on and on. One has to wonder now that it is know that the Russians are in Syria, what happens when a American missile, bullet kills some Russians? Interesting that yesterday a update of a NYT article that, more than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military's Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials. The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.
“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.
Interesting that the reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, the analysts claim.
“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.
Interesting that the reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, the analysts claim.
1
There is not a solution for the US to intervene in every single conflagration.
Every year there is one!
Russia could help, let her.
I agree that the US and the international community should have created a safe area for refugees. It is not too late, to create and finance an area close by, sand save Europe by the Muslim invasion.
None of the US wars since WWII worked and they cost this country a huge price in money, lives and amputees.
Each time I write an op-ed making an argument for a new war and a new military intervention I see the shadow of a lobbyst for a defense contractor.
They always need new business.
Every year there is one!
Russia could help, let her.
I agree that the US and the international community should have created a safe area for refugees. It is not too late, to create and finance an area close by, sand save Europe by the Muslim invasion.
None of the US wars since WWII worked and they cost this country a huge price in money, lives and amputees.
Each time I write an op-ed making an argument for a new war and a new military intervention I see the shadow of a lobbyst for a defense contractor.
They always need new business.
3
"[Obama] has been comfortable with the pinpoint use of force — the killing of Osama bin Laden for example — but uncomfortable with American military power."
Precisely. And that's why we elected Obama twice.
We want a President who is UNcomfortable with American military power. We seen what a President comfortable with military power is capable of.
Precisely. And that's why we elected Obama twice.
We want a President who is UNcomfortable with American military power. We seen what a President comfortable with military power is capable of.
8
BAC had a good suggestion: Bring back the draft. Everybody should have some skin in the game (although the horrors that these conflicts have caused is no "game". It truly is not right for one group of Americans to face death time after time after time!
3
Apparently, Mr. Cohen has learned nothing from Iraq about how "effective" American military power is bringing about resolution of intractable conflicts among deeply aggrieved and antagonistic religious and political groupings in the Middle East. An American intervention (actually a larger intervention since we are already bombing ISIS in Syria) would mean the U.S. killing a large number of Syrians (both Sunni, Alawite, and Shia), with probably a ratio of 3 civilians to every fighter killed and getting Americans killed themselves until realization set in that this is doing no good and we withdraw and let them get on with sorting it out themselves. I don't think "comfort" is the word. President Obama just questioned what good we would be accomplishing. Cohen seems to believe in the Green Lantern, that if there was just enough "will" then America could solve Syria, just like it solved Iraq and Afghanistan (14 years in Afghanistan and still counting - apparently the Pashtuns and their Taliban leaders don't have the same view of knuckling under to American military power as Cohen does.)
9
It's reasonable to look back over four years of Syrian civil war and wonder what we might have done differently, now that it has turned into such a catastrophe.
But the salient point to keep in mind here is that, prior to President Assad taking over around 2000, his father ruled Syria for 30 years. Daddy Assad came up through the ranks of the military, and strategically placed his ruthless colleagues in all the key political positions so that it became impossible to separate the military and the secret police from the government.
With that kind of entrenched hold on power, there was simply no way the U.S. could dislodge Assad without help from other countries, which we obviously did not have.
The notion that the U.S. had the will to oppose both China and Russia in Syria after our disastrous foray into Iraq just wasn't realistic.
In other words, the Obama doctrine may not sound very courageous, but it at least accurately portrayed the ambivalence of the American people, who expect their leaders to try to "don't do stupid stuff".
It would be wonderful if America could be the "beacon of shining light on a hill for humanity", but after Iraq, the majority of Americans are more interested in realism.
There just wasn't a realistic path for America to "fix" Syria.
But the salient point to keep in mind here is that, prior to President Assad taking over around 2000, his father ruled Syria for 30 years. Daddy Assad came up through the ranks of the military, and strategically placed his ruthless colleagues in all the key political positions so that it became impossible to separate the military and the secret police from the government.
With that kind of entrenched hold on power, there was simply no way the U.S. could dislodge Assad without help from other countries, which we obviously did not have.
The notion that the U.S. had the will to oppose both China and Russia in Syria after our disastrous foray into Iraq just wasn't realistic.
In other words, the Obama doctrine may not sound very courageous, but it at least accurately portrayed the ambivalence of the American people, who expect their leaders to try to "don't do stupid stuff".
It would be wonderful if America could be the "beacon of shining light on a hill for humanity", but after Iraq, the majority of Americans are more interested in realism.
There just wasn't a realistic path for America to "fix" Syria.
8
What all people who support Obama's position fail to realize is this: if we don't take action and lead in these areas, others with intentions not aligned with ours will fill the vacuum. Mr. Cohen articulates this point but it is one that needs CONSTANT reinforcement to the American people. You cannot have it both ways. You either stand and lead or shrivel and watch competitive forces fill the role we could have and/or can.
I am tired of the "war is not the answer" mentality to preclude swift and necessary military commitment and action when it is both necessary and when our stated positions are well-known. Obama's biggest failure in foreign policy is his unwillingness to stand by his word. It will become known as the Obama Doctrine. And this doctrine has created more problems (seen and unseen, now and in the future). That redline he ignored was a gaffe of epic proportions.
I am tired of the "war is not the answer" mentality to preclude swift and necessary military commitment and action when it is both necessary and when our stated positions are well-known. Obama's biggest failure in foreign policy is his unwillingness to stand by his word. It will become known as the Obama Doctrine. And this doctrine has created more problems (seen and unseen, now and in the future). That redline he ignored was a gaffe of epic proportions.
1
Tell ya what. Is this a conflict you'd be willing to sacrifice YOUR children or grandchildren in? I'm not! When you're you're willing to put your kin in this fight, then call. Till then, shut up!
Yes, the Syrian nightmare is horrific but it was President Obama who got Putin's assistance (assistance which would not have been on offer had America been shock and awing anywhere in the Middle East) to remove Assad's chemical arsenal from the field of battle. So long as Mr Cohen is playing Monday morning quarterback maybe he ought to take a moment to game out how very much worse the Syrian nightmare could have been.
6
as horrific as it sounds now, if the west was going to do little it should have swung behind assad and tried to manage him 4 years ago. putin correctly advocated this as it was then the best of many bad alternatives, and the result now is the expansion of ISIS and re-emergence of Al Qaeda as a military and political force with wider ramifications. ironically the west may now have to embrace Assad thru Russia as the only safe alternative to the otherwise real chance that ISIS emerges as a national force in the world politic, and then cannot be simply extinguished as a rogue terrorist group.
4
Specify exactly what you would have done differently.
Who would your allies have been?
How would you have paid for it? Which of our depleted troops would you have sent? How will you fund the VA to care for the survivors?
How will you insure that our military presence does not become the issue and the focus for continued disintergation in the Middle East, as it always has?
How is doing the same things over and over again going to have a different outcome?
Who would your allies have been?
How would you have paid for it? Which of our depleted troops would you have sent? How will you fund the VA to care for the survivors?
How will you insure that our military presence does not become the issue and the focus for continued disintergation in the Middle East, as it always has?
How is doing the same things over and over again going to have a different outcome?
22
What would an actual President instead of Prom Queen Obama have done?
1. Keep his word. The 2008 Obama would have resolved the Syrian conflict because he was the one who was going to heal the world, received the Nobel Peace Prize for "future" efforts, and promised to scrap the Bush doctrine that got us into this mess. Obama lied. Obama failed.
2. Not draw a red line with Syria after thumbing your nose in Congress' face for 3 months saying you were going to go to war with Syria with or without them. Good will and respect go a long way. Even here in Washington.
3. Stop wrestling bears and eating leftovers with a reality TV host in Alaska and get back to the WH to deal with a major global refugee crisis.
4. Not squander allied support by choking on the red line, scaring the allies that COULD have helped us away because they didn't want to be left high and dry in a war zone by an incompetent, waffling POTUS.
5. Not squander everything on the Iran deal. By bullying our allies into that mess, Obama squandered any chance to get their military help in Syria. Arms can only twist so far.
6. Apologize to the American people and to the Syrian people for failing to come through, and for failing to stop ISIS.
These are things Obama will never do because they require humility, integrity and a pair.
1. Keep his word. The 2008 Obama would have resolved the Syrian conflict because he was the one who was going to heal the world, received the Nobel Peace Prize for "future" efforts, and promised to scrap the Bush doctrine that got us into this mess. Obama lied. Obama failed.
2. Not draw a red line with Syria after thumbing your nose in Congress' face for 3 months saying you were going to go to war with Syria with or without them. Good will and respect go a long way. Even here in Washington.
3. Stop wrestling bears and eating leftovers with a reality TV host in Alaska and get back to the WH to deal with a major global refugee crisis.
4. Not squander allied support by choking on the red line, scaring the allies that COULD have helped us away because they didn't want to be left high and dry in a war zone by an incompetent, waffling POTUS.
5. Not squander everything on the Iran deal. By bullying our allies into that mess, Obama squandered any chance to get their military help in Syria. Arms can only twist so far.
6. Apologize to the American people and to the Syrian people for failing to come through, and for failing to stop ISIS.
These are things Obama will never do because they require humility, integrity and a pair.
1
"uncomfortable with American military power"
Well we've seen what a Bush/Cheney adminitration who were comfortable using military power brought us. Perhaps historians will see Obama's decision to not commit more ground troops to the area as very wise. Families who do not have to go to airports to retrieve the coffins of their sons or daughters or watch the broken bodies and minds of their children return from the charnel house which is the Mid East will be grateful.
Well we've seen what a Bush/Cheney adminitration who were comfortable using military power brought us. Perhaps historians will see Obama's decision to not commit more ground troops to the area as very wise. Families who do not have to go to airports to retrieve the coffins of their sons or daughters or watch the broken bodies and minds of their children return from the charnel house which is the Mid East will be grateful.
7
To those who say the US cannot be "the policeman of the world," I respond that the US cannot have its cake and eat it too. It cannot justify military operations in Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc., and then hand pick the places where it does not want to intervene. The whole balance of power in the Middle East was forever altered mainly due to the Iraq invasion, and recent US policies in the region. The US cannot pretend that what is now happening there has nothing to do with it. Granted, other nations should be helping too, but the US cannot simply choose when and where it will assume responsibility or not.
44
Sounds like the tired old "domino theory" used to get us involved in the Vietnam fiasco. Are we really that gullible?
1
You are correct. We cannot justify the military operations in the countries you mentioned - or in any others. We do not have the power or the political will to change the Middle East and it's about time we stopped trying..
2
If Iraq was a policy and strategic failure instigated by Cheney Bush, I really don't see why we are committed or would want to be committed to intervene in Syria. Obama was wrong to say "Assad must go" but that doesn't mean therefore that he has to commit US troops and treasure to support Syrian rebels. For one thing which rebel faction would we support? And who takes over after American military might deposes Assad? Do we really want to take on the "pottery barn rule," in Syria based on our Iraq and Afghanistan experience? Only if you are a Dick Cheney desperately trying to rewrite the history of our Iraq experience.
2
If Mr. Cohen and other critics of the Obama policy had a viable alternative to Mr. Assad, then their criticism could be taken seriously. Otherwise, any role of the United States in ousting Mr. Assad would lead to creation of a state similar to Iraq or Libya, with the best case scenario of an autocratic Islamic government. Most Syrians, including the half of the population who firmly support Mr. Assad, realize that there is no potential moderate democratic alternative to Mr. Assad. Without funding and support from our fundamentalist Islamic friends in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, Syria would not be where it is today. Most Syrian know that theses Islamic states do not want or care about Syrian refugees. They want Mr. Assad out at any cost.
92
I believe the editorial is correct that more could have been done. Aggressive intervention in Syria might have produced a better outcome at the small price of some additional bluster from Putin and the Republicans.
But I differ on the idea that the US must be the one to intervene. Countries in the immediate neighborhood, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, have sat on their hands with regard to trying to end the violence. Slightly further afield, Europe has done little.
A concerted effort from the other countries could accomplish the same thing as any American effort. Is it easier for them when the US is the front man that becomes the Great Satan/Imperialist to yet another set of extremist groups? Of course. But there are many others who could have and should stepped up.
But I differ on the idea that the US must be the one to intervene. Countries in the immediate neighborhood, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, have sat on their hands with regard to trying to end the violence. Slightly further afield, Europe has done little.
A concerted effort from the other countries could accomplish the same thing as any American effort. Is it easier for them when the US is the front man that becomes the Great Satan/Imperialist to yet another set of extremist groups? Of course. But there are many others who could have and should stepped up.
11
" ... But I differ on the idea that the US must be the one to intervene. ..."
You are perfectly right, the US has made so many interventions in the region, produced so many deaths and created so much instability, that it is time to get out and never ever come back.
There only one thing the US should be made to do, take in the migrants and refugees from those countries it has destabilized in the region.
That should be a couple of millions and should be enough to keep the US busy for a while.
You are perfectly right, the US has made so many interventions in the region, produced so many deaths and created so much instability, that it is time to get out and never ever come back.
There only one thing the US should be made to do, take in the migrants and refugees from those countries it has destabilized in the region.
That should be a couple of millions and should be enough to keep the US busy for a while.
I fled from Syria escaping from that hell and the only thing more painful than leaving your country is having people like you roaming freely with their ignorance!!! Do you want the very countries who are funding ISIS to intervene and destroy it. Get this thing into your head: Turkey and Saudi Arabia ARE ISIS
Russian forces are already in Syria with Assad and Iranian generals and other sundry advisers have long been with Assad and Hezbollah.
Mr. Kristof suggested today, as a very minimum, that the Obama administration support and facilitate the establishment of a no-fly zone in southern Syria to protect the Syrians from Assad's barbarity.
Mr. Kristof is correct. This a the minimum, but better than what the Obama administration has done so far. Mr. Cohen mentions a "safe area for refugees" in Syria, perhaps he too meant a no-fly zone.
Alas, such a step on the part of the US would undoubtedly irritate the Russians and Iranians and it is therefore unlikely that the Obama administration will carry through on Mr. Kristof's excellent suggestion.
Mr. Kristof suggested today, as a very minimum, that the Obama administration support and facilitate the establishment of a no-fly zone in southern Syria to protect the Syrians from Assad's barbarity.
Mr. Kristof is correct. This a the minimum, but better than what the Obama administration has done so far. Mr. Cohen mentions a "safe area for refugees" in Syria, perhaps he too meant a no-fly zone.
Alas, such a step on the part of the US would undoubtedly irritate the Russians and Iranians and it is therefore unlikely that the Obama administration will carry through on Mr. Kristof's excellent suggestion.
2
"Syria will be the biggest blot on the Obama presidency, a debacle of staggering proportions."
Why a blot on Obama? President Obama has never been the President of Syria.
Does anyone now seriously blame FDR for the millions killed in Europe, for the millions displaced, before the U.S. entered the war? The U.S. only won WWII because we had Russia on our side. Had Russia and Germany not been at war with each other, the outcome would likely have been much different.
WWII is still the best model we have for military success. President Obama has been right to follow it. Until and unless the most powerful parties to the Middle East wars are completely committed to defeating ISIS, the U.S. will not be able to succeed at anything there except creating more enemies.
Perhaps we could have mitigated what has happened in Syria. But we would have needed the cooperation of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. We would have had to leave Assad in power. Had we done all that, we might have gotten Assad to stand down. We could have done much good as neutral humanitarians. How politically tenable would such an approach have been?
Why a blot on Obama? President Obama has never been the President of Syria.
Does anyone now seriously blame FDR for the millions killed in Europe, for the millions displaced, before the U.S. entered the war? The U.S. only won WWII because we had Russia on our side. Had Russia and Germany not been at war with each other, the outcome would likely have been much different.
WWII is still the best model we have for military success. President Obama has been right to follow it. Until and unless the most powerful parties to the Middle East wars are completely committed to defeating ISIS, the U.S. will not be able to succeed at anything there except creating more enemies.
Perhaps we could have mitigated what has happened in Syria. But we would have needed the cooperation of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. We would have had to leave Assad in power. Had we done all that, we might have gotten Assad to stand down. We could have done much good as neutral humanitarians. How politically tenable would such an approach have been?
15
Another war..must it always be Obama`s war ?
This can of warms opened up started by Bush/Cheney and it is the sitting President is taking all the blame. While the instigator Cheney is making a book tour stating Obama to be the villain.
This can of warms opened up started by Bush/Cheney and it is the sitting President is taking all the blame. While the instigator Cheney is making a book tour stating Obama to be the villain.
18
Sushova
Do not be surprised if soon it will be reported that Dick Cheney has been relegated to an American list of infamous historical names.
Do not be surprised if soon it will be reported that Dick Cheney has been relegated to an American list of infamous historical names.
1
Miss Ley..it should be but that is not enough.
Roger Cohen says: "In Libya, Obama bombed and abandoned. In Afghanistan, Obama surged and retreated. In Syria, Obama talked and wavered."
The fact is, Obama didn't do much of the "bombing" in Libya. He left it to Britain and France, which flew most of the sorties. After the death of Muammar Gaddafi, Cameron and Sarkozy travelled to Tripoli in September 2011 and were welcomed as heroes by the Libyans. With the transitional government in place the West thought Libya would be in good hands. It just turned out that many Libyans rejected expats returning to the country to help shape its future. Instead of focusing on state building they bickered and fought each other.
Obama's troop "surge" and "retreat" in Afghanistan was questionable. But the Americans had enough of the war there.
Whether the situation in Syria would be better today, had Obama intervened militarily in September 2013, has provided fodder for the hawks to criticise his dithering. Today in light of ISIS, they say he should have done so. But had he intervened militarily, it wouldn't have changed the equation, because to defeat Assad, one had to put boots on the ground and there was no guarantee for a better outcome neither.
The fact is, Obama didn't do much of the "bombing" in Libya. He left it to Britain and France, which flew most of the sorties. After the death of Muammar Gaddafi, Cameron and Sarkozy travelled to Tripoli in September 2011 and were welcomed as heroes by the Libyans. With the transitional government in place the West thought Libya would be in good hands. It just turned out that many Libyans rejected expats returning to the country to help shape its future. Instead of focusing on state building they bickered and fought each other.
Obama's troop "surge" and "retreat" in Afghanistan was questionable. But the Americans had enough of the war there.
Whether the situation in Syria would be better today, had Obama intervened militarily in September 2013, has provided fodder for the hawks to criticise his dithering. Today in light of ISIS, they say he should have done so. But had he intervened militarily, it wouldn't have changed the equation, because to defeat Assad, one had to put boots on the ground and there was no guarantee for a better outcome neither.
22
It has little to do with Obama who like the rest of the world is essentially a spectator of localized tribal and religious strife. It's not the responsibility of the US to intervene in the Syrian war and impose our solution. We tried that in Iraq. Remember. There is no support in the US for sending US ground forces into Syria or serious intervention of any sort. The Obama doctrine, if you want to call it that, is to not do anything stupid like embroiling the US in conflicts that are very difficult to stop which is one of the constant lessons of history (Hello Israel and Kabul). Cohen would deny vehemently that he's a neoconservative but he demonstrates all the same hubristic characteristics. The US has all the solutions and all we have to do is send a gunboat, throw money at the problem and it will all turn out well. It's no more the biggest blot on Obama's presidency than on Cameron's premiership or Merkel's Chancellorship nor will it be so regarded by the American people who are largely disinterested in events in Syria.
29
John, I agree with your cogent analysis, and yet Americans who watch Fox news all day will soon be beating the drums of war, forgetting what it has brought us so far.
In the midst of all of this, we cannot forget that it was the mass migration of some 15% of Syria's population to the cities, after losing their farms to the region's worst drought in recent memory, that set the stage for this to happen. It is not hard to imagine that if 45 million Americans abandoned the farms in the American heartland and moved to the cities in search of food, water, and work over a five year period that the situation here would be tense as well.
Syria is the canary in the coal mine of a warming planet. As rising oceans and spreading drought eat into the places where people live, mass migrations will become the norm, as will strife and civil unrest. We need to take care of the immediate refugee crisis. But we also need to be aware that this may just be the beginning.
Syria is the canary in the coal mine of a warming planet. As rising oceans and spreading drought eat into the places where people live, mass migrations will become the norm, as will strife and civil unrest. We need to take care of the immediate refugee crisis. But we also need to be aware that this may just be the beginning.
16
Seriously, this is what you get from this situation? Liberalism really is a mental disease.
Mr. Cohen leaves out the well-documented efforts of Obama to train Syrian Rebels in Jordan, then arm them, and finally fund them. Obama did have a policy, which was to bring Assad down despite the majority of Americans saying they didn't want any more war. Not content to stay out of it, Obama has dithered with bomb strikes here and there, rescuing a handful of Yazidis off a mountain, and spending $41 million to train 54 rebels who were promptly captured by ISIS. What he has not done is pick up the phone and talk to Putin or confront the Saudi King, who was just here picking up new weapons and receiving Obama's assurances that we would militarily defend that vile kingdom.
11
You are judging Obama on a very short term basis, like 5 years or so. Look at the long term. What is happening in the Middle East? Surely there is a civil war brewing amongst the stakeholders who live their lives there, in these countries whose boundaries were artibratity imposed upon them, and in the region in general. Islamic culture writ large wants to fight it out in the Mideast, and decide once and for all who is the boss. We did the same thing in our country, our region of states, we fought a long, stupid, primitive, brutel civil war and at the end we decided who won. Since then we haved lived in an acceptable sort of equilibrium. We now celebrate combatants from both sides as national heroes, and write books and endless re-enact their adventures, like Homer and the Iliad.
Would we have been able to settle these issues if a vastly more powerful outside power had continually meddled in the outcome, like we are doing in the Mideast?
If a vastlly more powerful power had sent observers and interlopers into our battlefields, wouldn't they have been caught in the crossfire?
Would we have been able to settle these issues if a vastly more powerful outside power had continually meddled in the outcome, like we are doing in the Mideast?
If a vastlly more powerful power had sent observers and interlopers into our battlefields, wouldn't they have been caught in the crossfire?
7
A short term basis?
Obama has been in office for SIX YEARS.
Obama has been in office for SIX YEARS.
Substantially true, Roger. But the "red line" illustrates a fundamental difficulty that's made almost intractable by a collision between the Constitution and our broken politics.
Constitutionally, the president is not allowed to make war on his own. Therefore he should never make utterances about red lines or about Assad having to go, because he can't unilaterally back them up with force, and he's very unlikely to get Congress to back them up. In a better time that might not be the case, but it's definitely true with our current political dysfunction.
Never mind how sensible and obvious it seems to say Assad's using chemical weapons would cross a "red line." The President of the United States is not currently capable of meaningfully saying such a thing, and so, unfortunately, he should refrain from doing so. And if you answer that he should just take action on his own, that is a fraught proposition constitutionally.
Look at the ridiculous way this played out. Congress demanded to have its say on the red line. The president, properly, relented. Congress said no to a military response. The president ended up looking weak and ineffectual. It's conceivable that's what many in the Congress wanted anyway.
Constitutionally, the president is not allowed to make war on his own. Therefore he should never make utterances about red lines or about Assad having to go, because he can't unilaterally back them up with force, and he's very unlikely to get Congress to back them up. In a better time that might not be the case, but it's definitely true with our current political dysfunction.
Never mind how sensible and obvious it seems to say Assad's using chemical weapons would cross a "red line." The President of the United States is not currently capable of meaningfully saying such a thing, and so, unfortunately, he should refrain from doing so. And if you answer that he should just take action on his own, that is a fraught proposition constitutionally.
Look at the ridiculous way this played out. Congress demanded to have its say on the red line. The president, properly, relented. Congress said no to a military response. The president ended up looking weak and ineffectual. It's conceivable that's what many in the Congress wanted anyway.
4
I agree Mike. As far as I can see, Obama's ONLY mistake in Syria was to make the cavalier "red-line" comment. We all make gaffes, right? He should have eloquently backed down from the ill-chosen statement; shifted any proper blame to Congress; and asked we the people flat out:"is Syria a place you want to expend more of our blood and treasure, or do you want to rebuild OUR nation?" Case closed.
"Syria will be the biggest blot on the Obama presidency, a debacle of staggering proportions."
True, but it is not worse than Libya, or Somalia, or Afghanistan, or Iraq.
More die every month now in Iraq than in Syria.
Libya is an ungoverned space festering with weapons and jihadis and exporting war instead of oil.
Somalia almost had a government emerge in that long-ungoverned space, and the US paid for yet another invasion to prevent that, rather than deal with it.
There are other places rapidly degenerating to those levels. Yemen is almost there. Nigeria teeters. Much of Africa teeters. Even Ukraine teeters.
The problem is that the US never repudiated the neocon projects for regime change. Those projects never succeeded, not anywhere, not once. We keep at it, digging this hole deeper. Obama varied the methods some, but not the underlying policy of changing those regimes.
Maybe he couldn't. Maybe Washington is so deeply owned by the hawks of both parties that no "very serious person" could gainsay it, not even the President. I fear that is so. But whatever the reason, Obama has persisted with the basic error of the Cheney Era.
The only way to change Washington would have been to jail Cheney and crew. If we couldn't do that at home, then send them to the Hague for war crimes we just can't handle domestically. If we couldn't do that, then send them to Gitmo -- they certainly deserve their own creation.
Instead, their influence continues. Their projects continue.
True, but it is not worse than Libya, or Somalia, or Afghanistan, or Iraq.
More die every month now in Iraq than in Syria.
Libya is an ungoverned space festering with weapons and jihadis and exporting war instead of oil.
Somalia almost had a government emerge in that long-ungoverned space, and the US paid for yet another invasion to prevent that, rather than deal with it.
There are other places rapidly degenerating to those levels. Yemen is almost there. Nigeria teeters. Much of Africa teeters. Even Ukraine teeters.
The problem is that the US never repudiated the neocon projects for regime change. Those projects never succeeded, not anywhere, not once. We keep at it, digging this hole deeper. Obama varied the methods some, but not the underlying policy of changing those regimes.
Maybe he couldn't. Maybe Washington is so deeply owned by the hawks of both parties that no "very serious person" could gainsay it, not even the President. I fear that is so. But whatever the reason, Obama has persisted with the basic error of the Cheney Era.
The only way to change Washington would have been to jail Cheney and crew. If we couldn't do that at home, then send them to the Hague for war crimes we just can't handle domestically. If we couldn't do that, then send them to Gitmo -- they certainly deserve their own creation.
Instead, their influence continues. Their projects continue.
30
Correct Mark... the core policy was dubbed "Operation Clean Break" ... a policy the neoCon Likudniks formulated in the late 90s to "secure the realm" for Israel. Clean Break specifically targeted Iraq, Syria and Iran for regime change, ie "Secure the realm" by burning down the neighborhood.
The US signed on to Clean Break and extended the scope beyond Israeli designs, with the unprovoked military attacks against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Cohen wants to complete the cycle by allying with ISIS against Assad. But this puts the West in a direct confrontation with Iran and Russia, both Assad allies.
The US signed on to Clean Break and extended the scope beyond Israeli designs, with the unprovoked military attacks against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Cohen wants to complete the cycle by allying with ISIS against Assad. But this puts the West in a direct confrontation with Iran and Russia, both Assad allies.
1
You cannot tell the story of Syria this way. It is not the story that historians will tell, only the one pundits who want to be critical of Obama do for now. The real story is the American people's overwhelming popular support for abandoning all of those countries. The real story is Obama's call in accepting the nobel peace prize to develop alternatives to military intervention when something like Assad's chemical weapons happen, and the international community drawing a collective blank. Faced with only one tool in his toolbox, he almost used it as presidents have since the end of the cold-war: unilaterally without public support. But at the last minute Obama decided to place a bet on the American people, a bet he lost, and the result was he could no longer justify how to save Syria.
Look to Friedman's article on the two choices: isolate the chaos or install order. That's where the real critique of Obama's half-measured foreign policy comes from; not this mealy-mouthed condemnation that carefully dodges the role of the public in pressuring the administration to never intervene.
Look to Friedman's article on the two choices: isolate the chaos or install order. That's where the real critique of Obama's half-measured foreign policy comes from; not this mealy-mouthed condemnation that carefully dodges the role of the public in pressuring the administration to never intervene.
21
I agree that mistakes were made such as calling for Assad to step down but not having anything at the ready with which to back up that demand, or not preventing Iraq's government from not sufficiently including all constituencies. But I am less sure about the "shoulda, coulda" part -- I think Americans, both those in office and those who elect them, have Vietnam in the back of their minds as a symbol, and I do question how much the intervention of even a superpower can accomplish. I guess what I would wonder is whether policies of partial commitment are particularly dangerous -- they can be held up in a positive light of being strategic and accomplishing something but prudent and not overreaching, but maybe they in actuality have the weaknesses of stirring the pot and then walking away, getting allies' hopes up and then leaving them in the lurch, changing the equation but not enough.
But we have the world as it is, and given what has been done and not done in Syria, I think the current main event now is to deal with the mass exodus of Syrians and Iraqis and Afghanis. The West didn't sufficiently help these people while they were in their own lands (and who knows what would have or could have been successful), now the West is being called upon to help these people while they are on western soil. I hope we learn something from this.
But we have the world as it is, and given what has been done and not done in Syria, I think the current main event now is to deal with the mass exodus of Syrians and Iraqis and Afghanis. The West didn't sufficiently help these people while they were in their own lands (and who knows what would have or could have been successful), now the West is being called upon to help these people while they are on western soil. I hope we learn something from this.
17
What you say about the curse of Vietnam is so true. It hobbles us, but it could also be a blessing in disguise that prevents us from trying to bully the world as the neocons would so much like for us to do. Hubris has gotten us into so much more trouble than moderation. Cheney and his ilk will never learn. They simply must be ignored.
1
REDIANAMOSES: Carrying out surgical air strikes on ASSAD's air force to dissuade him to ever again to attack innocent Syrian civilians with the use of barrel bombs or any other payload dropped from the air does not mean that we would have"owned" the Syrian war or that we needed to go any further. You r letting O off far too easily. His ulterior motive, just a hunch, was to propitiate IRAN, for which SYRIA was a client state, since even back then O looked forward to signing a nuclear agreement that he hoped would cement his legacy, uppermost in his mind and first in terms of his priorities. Recall also the influence of Valerie Jarrett, his closest advisor, on O's thinking.As I have mentioned elsewhere, VJ grew up in the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC,speaks fluent Farsi, and is known for being pro Iranian. How much persuading did it take on her part to convince O, a "grand naïf" in foreign affairs, to change his mind? Not much I presume.We now conduct air strikes on ISIS's strongholds at a million dollars a strike. Why could we not have adopted a similar strategy with regard to Assad's airforce in Syria? I was a MERCHANT MARINE officer during the VN war, and although I never saw any combat except with fellow crew members, many whom I knew had fought in Indochina. But it is a cliché to maintain that the VIETNAM syndrome still preoccupies us. That past is dead.
Alalexander Harrison,
I dunno, a child of American parents who happen to have been working in a hospital in Iran to help kids, moves to London at age 5 (I'm getting this from Wikipedia) -- doesn't strike me as terribly indicative of Iranian partisanship.
I dunno, a child of American parents who happen to have been working in a hospital in Iran to help kids, moves to London at age 5 (I'm getting this from Wikipedia) -- doesn't strike me as terribly indicative of Iranian partisanship.
Leading from behind and breaking your promises is Obama's foreign doctrine and this chaos is the result.
The leftists love Obama, but the world sees how poor a leader he has been.
The leftists love Obama, but the world sees how poor a leader he has been.
16
Yes, with the world's miserable approval rating of Obama around 65%, but mostly in the 70's to 80% among allies, they snicker at him. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/24/7-charts-on-how-the-worl...
17
You, those like you, your thinking, is what has gotten the US into this debacle.
The only way out would be something Obama never dared. We had to repudiate the whole Cheney Era. We had to jail them. We had to end this.
Instead, Obama tried to moderate it. This is something that can't be moderated. It does not get better when you smash a country, just using a different method. Libya is not better than Iraq or Afghanistan in outcome or in evil done, even if it cost far less in American lives and money to do it.
Greater efficiency in evil is not progress.
We are wasting American chances for a future for ourselves. We are wasting our resources. We are wasting out opportunities.
It is called "opportunity cost." We've lost all that we could have done instead of these debacles, plus we've got the results of our debacles.
And that is only the selfish view of the cost to us. The refugees highlight that the costs to others are far greater. We've been looking away from that until dead babies wash up on our beaches. Our behavior has been disgusting. Our grandchildren will look back on us as fiends they can't understand, and must apologize for. We are like Andrew Jackson, today's hero who will disgust our own descendants.
It is sickening when Cheney took us. It is sickening that the Team of Rivals, Obama and Hillary, did not break away from it except in details of execution.
Worse, the worst of that pair was Hillary, and she is promising even more of the same.
The only way out would be something Obama never dared. We had to repudiate the whole Cheney Era. We had to jail them. We had to end this.
Instead, Obama tried to moderate it. This is something that can't be moderated. It does not get better when you smash a country, just using a different method. Libya is not better than Iraq or Afghanistan in outcome or in evil done, even if it cost far less in American lives and money to do it.
Greater efficiency in evil is not progress.
We are wasting American chances for a future for ourselves. We are wasting our resources. We are wasting out opportunities.
It is called "opportunity cost." We've lost all that we could have done instead of these debacles, plus we've got the results of our debacles.
And that is only the selfish view of the cost to us. The refugees highlight that the costs to others are far greater. We've been looking away from that until dead babies wash up on our beaches. Our behavior has been disgusting. Our grandchildren will look back on us as fiends they can't understand, and must apologize for. We are like Andrew Jackson, today's hero who will disgust our own descendants.
It is sickening when Cheney took us. It is sickening that the Team of Rivals, Obama and Hillary, did not break away from it except in details of execution.
Worse, the worst of that pair was Hillary, and she is promising even more of the same.
3
The world loves a weak U.S.
Obama hates killing people and does so reluctantly. Toppling Assad would have created some other crisis much like the disaster in Iraq. Only authoritarian regimes can maintain peace in Middle Eastern countries. Governance by selective suppression is the only thing that works and that applies to Israel too.
41
I disagree, the people of the middle east deserve peace and freedom as much as anyone. The murderous, brutal and corrupt regimes you admire there are inherently unstable power kegs that are just waiting to explode, and it is very ugly when it finally happens. Watch Egypt next time, the first revolution will be considered very peaceful. Israel will find that is violent occupation of Palestine will come at a terrible cost to it.
He may hate killing people, but he sure seems to love letting others do it with impunity.
Obama's mistake was NOT failing to take military action… it was failing to provide humanitarian aid. The public and the media are obsessed with a clear military victory which, as we should know after our misadventures in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, is unattainable. Instead of defining America's power based on militarism we should define our power based on compassion. When thugs impose their will in such a way that a group is forced into exile we should provide humanitarian aid to those in exile and use our economic power to impose sanctions on the totalitarian leadership. Instead we've provided armaments to opposing forces, armaments that fuel more misery and suffering to the region we are trying to "save".
12
We do everything: arm, train and fund "moderate" rebels, pay huge amounts for refugees (the US is the single largest donor to Syrian refugees at $4.1 billion to date), and take refugees. Surely has got to be a better way.
3
I couldn't agree with you more. Wish I had read your comment before submitting mine! thanks, mary
A ridiculously limp, implicitly defeatist attitude, suggesting that forceful presence only has value if it can achieve total vanquishment of sinister adversaries. What responsible nation or international leader can afford to live in such a cartoonish concept. Sometime judicious force can at least preserve a metastable state where bloody chaos is at least kept in check - albeit not resolve all frictions for all time - and often that IS the humanitarian thing to do!
Yeah dropping bombs on Syria with France would have solved the problem. Obama!
11
Did France buy more bombs? We had to give them bombs in the Libyan campaign when they ran out.
My questions to the great military expert, Mr. Cohen are:
Since only France was offering to join the US in military strikes against Syria if asked, but not one single other one of our allies, does he really think that would have defeated Mr. Assad?
As to Libya, the European countries asked the US to help bomb that country in order to oust Gadaffi and his clan. What should have come next, ground troops to occupy Libya until they see the light and become a Western democracy?
Yes, Mr. Obama has been comfortable with pinpoint use of force in both of these countries, remembering all too well what a disaster our American military power created in Iraq, the result of which was the advent of ISIL and the endless refugee crises of not only displaced Syrians but Iraqis as well.
Since only France was offering to join the US in military strikes against Syria if asked, but not one single other one of our allies, does he really think that would have defeated Mr. Assad?
As to Libya, the European countries asked the US to help bomb that country in order to oust Gadaffi and his clan. What should have come next, ground troops to occupy Libya until they see the light and become a Western democracy?
Yes, Mr. Obama has been comfortable with pinpoint use of force in both of these countries, remembering all too well what a disaster our American military power created in Iraq, the result of which was the advent of ISIL and the endless refugee crises of not only displaced Syrians but Iraqis as well.
61
Only France and the UK wanted to bomb Libya. The US Congress did not, not that Obama asked or received consent. He took action by calling this not a war but a "kinetic action" - a bit of wordsmithing. He belatedly covered his actions with a limited UN Mandate, which he then exceeded.
Given what we knew about Bush's mistakes in taking out Hussein, we knew better than to take out Qaddafi with no plan for what would happen thereafter. Even the Pentagon, shockingly, said don't do it. Bush is responsible for almost all the bad things we have done in the ME, but Obama owns Libya and the destabilization of all of North and SubSaharan Africa.
Given what we knew about Bush's mistakes in taking out Hussein, we knew better than to take out Qaddafi with no plan for what would happen thereafter. Even the Pentagon, shockingly, said don't do it. Bush is responsible for almost all the bad things we have done in the ME, but Obama owns Libya and the destabilization of all of North and SubSaharan Africa.
4
Not just Iraq, if you remember the Frankensteins that the Afghan campaign in the 80s created in the form of Hekmatyar, Taliban, Al Qaeda and an emboldened ISI all of which went on to sow terror and mayhem. Sorry Mr. Cohen, this notion that our military intervention solves problems in the middle east and it's immediate neighborhood is a fantasy. The focus should be on what America does best, using its creativity and resources in helping the world address challenges which underlie a lot of these conflicts. Going down another rabbit hole in the middle east is not the way to go.
2
I distinctly remember people like John McCain and Newt Gingrich criticizing Obama for not bombing Libya, and then a week later after Obama bombs Libya, they were criticizing Obama for having bombed Libya. So I guess it is all on Obama, because whatever he decides to do generally isn't supported by anybody whether it is wrong or right, because...well, because Obama, I guess.
1
Too bad the price of oil is dropping like a rock along with the United State's interest in the area that lives and dies on the price of oil by the barrel.
Like Mr. Gates said, "Any president who puts 'boots on the ground' in the Mid-East should have his head examined."
I, too, am "uncomfortable with American military power" when it's used in forlorn endeavors like Vietnam or Iraq as it generally means 19 year old kids come home maimed or in body bags for no appreciable reason.
Unfortunately, Syria falls into that category; violent religious differences, ethnic prejudices and no real "leadership" to help solve the problems only continual conflict at the behest of powerful warlords.
I'd rather see Mr. Obama "lose face" than lose American lives.
Like Mr. Gates said, "Any president who puts 'boots on the ground' in the Mid-East should have his head examined."
I, too, am "uncomfortable with American military power" when it's used in forlorn endeavors like Vietnam or Iraq as it generally means 19 year old kids come home maimed or in body bags for no appreciable reason.
Unfortunately, Syria falls into that category; violent religious differences, ethnic prejudices and no real "leadership" to help solve the problems only continual conflict at the behest of powerful warlords.
I'd rather see Mr. Obama "lose face" than lose American lives.
112
Did you see any body bags at the World Trade Center. Oh, I guess you forgot about that.
The failure of US policy in Syria cannot be traced to Russia but rather to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Rather than confront Saudi funding and support for Wahhabi (the most extreme Saudi version of Islam) fueled extremists fighting in Syria, the US ignored, or worse, pretended it was a positive development. Assad skillfully maneuvered a popular uprising against his regime into a war against Islamic extremists. Saudi Arabia was sucked into a war they cannot win.
18
Correct Hal... but the US had a direct role in arming and training the jihadis in Syria... that's what was going on in Benghazi.
The infuriating thing about the refugee crisis is the perception that this is Europe's problem. It is Europe's problem, only because the United States, Saudi Arabia, Japan etc etc have washed their hands of it. We are stuck with it and far too liberal and wooly-headed to send these people back to the very safe and humane refugee camps from which they came. But no, heaven forbid the media gets a picture of a child with a tear in their eye. They simply must be given everything they want, we the people have no say.
Well we the people may need to start electing more politicians that reflect the peoples desire. We need more populism in Europe, and less high minded technocrats imposing policies the people dont want because they have decided they know better. A fuse has been lit by this, im not sure its an exaggeration to compare it to the 1930's.
Well we the people may need to start electing more politicians that reflect the peoples desire. We need more populism in Europe, and less high minded technocrats imposing policies the people dont want because they have decided they know better. A fuse has been lit by this, im not sure its an exaggeration to compare it to the 1930's.
18
Easy to condemn inaction, but after Bush / Rumsfeld / Cheney, and with the complexity of the Middle east politics, it's understandable.
Better choices could have been made; BUT; A lot of ideas can look good on paper, but then our rational Western approach, based on best intelligence (which is often dead wrong ) blows up in our face. How often have we seen this in our foreign policy in the last 100 years?
Mr. Cohen may be right, we'll never know; but how about the constant, automatic Republican hobbling off every single Obama initiative? That we are certain of.
Better choices could have been made; BUT; A lot of ideas can look good on paper, but then our rational Western approach, based on best intelligence (which is often dead wrong ) blows up in our face. How often have we seen this in our foreign policy in the last 100 years?
Mr. Cohen may be right, we'll never know; but how about the constant, automatic Republican hobbling off every single Obama initiative? That we are certain of.
16
Oh, I believe we'll know if Mr. Cohen is right. We'll know when Vlad expands his only warm water port to rival any in the Med. We'll know when there are Russian divisions in Damascus. And we'll certainly know when Russian WMD show up in Syria. We will most certainly know.
I am always wondering what Obama or America could have done to alleviate the crisis in Syria. The Middle East has been a region that has constantly defied change. Diplomacy and politics never changed much. Western common sense and rationale never made much of a different.
It seems like the upheaval we are seeing in the Middle East today is the only way the region will overcome its resistance to meaningful change and acquire the pluralism that is necessary to partake in the modern world.
It seems like the upheaval we are seeing in the Middle East today is the only way the region will overcome its resistance to meaningful change and acquire the pluralism that is necessary to partake in the modern world.
10
Roger Cohen, along with a disparate collection of left and right warmongers, supported the US war of aggression on Iraq in 2003. As he won't admit in this piece, that was the original destabilizing event in the Middle East that created the many conflicts there, including the conflict in Syria.
You helped create the mess in Syria, Mr. Cohen, not Barack Obama. He opposed that war. You want to blame someone for Syria? Get a mirror.
You helped create the mess in Syria, Mr. Cohen, not Barack Obama. He opposed that war. You want to blame someone for Syria? Get a mirror.
121
Right on, Mr. Osborne. right on. I have grown increasingly tired of journslist and politicians who support military actions and manage to escape any blame for the horrific outcome of those actions.
We have repeatedly seen the limitations of air power in the middle east. Our Marine and Army assets have been just about used up. Moreover, the USA is soul-weary of the constant wars of the past 15 years.
I contend that the U.S. military must have (or regain) the conventional capabilities to help defend NATO, Israel, Japan, South Korea and our allies in SE Asia. Other conflicts must be managed by the UN and/or other allies.
We have repeatedly seen the limitations of air power in the middle east. Our Marine and Army assets have been just about used up. Moreover, the USA is soul-weary of the constant wars of the past 15 years.
I contend that the U.S. military must have (or regain) the conventional capabilities to help defend NATO, Israel, Japan, South Korea and our allies in SE Asia. Other conflicts must be managed by the UN and/or other allies.
Mr. Cohen, after being lied into an Iraq war which was badly mismanaged, the American people have not wanted and do not want to commit more troops (if that is what it would take) in support of further military adventurism overseas. Look no further than Sen. Lindsey Graham's position in the polls to see that this is still true. President Obama knows that when it comes to war our leaders must not only obtain the consent of the people but also sustain that consent after the coffins start coming home and until the conflict has been settled.
By the way, neither the American congress or the British parliament supported an attack on Syria after Assad's use of chemical weapons. It would have been very problematic for us to have bombed Syria without the support of the American congress or its most important ally.
By the way, neither the American congress or the British parliament supported an attack on Syria after Assad's use of chemical weapons. It would have been very problematic for us to have bombed Syria without the support of the American congress or its most important ally.
16
The US Congress did not approve or support the bombing war on Libya either, but that didn't stop Obama or Hillary. The result has been disastrous for the entire continent.
1
Brutally honest column, Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
It's hard to read the list of results from all the nonactions of the President. It's harder still to watch the crisis of Syrian refugees fleeing a living hell on earth.
Here's what struck me most in this column: "American interventionism can have terrible consequences, as the Iraq war has demonstrated. But American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates"
You nailed it--we lack a uniform vision for our role in the world., because of the internecine battle our two political parties keep waging, over tactics to use in an overall strategy based on the concept "America knows best."
All of this reminds me of a wonderful French film called "Les Choristes" about a school for disadvantaged or orphan children in post-WWII France. One of the most callous teachers kept repeating the phrase "Action....reaction".
If we keep making foreign policy decisions based on reactions to the actions of others, and we keep changing parties every 4 to 8 years, we're bound to keep repeating the same old mistakes. Our policy makers seem to use two sets of glasses--one to treat farsightedness, the other for nearsightedness. Somebody has to don a new pair where the far and near are balanced by a middle range of sight.
It's hard to read the list of results from all the nonactions of the President. It's harder still to watch the crisis of Syrian refugees fleeing a living hell on earth.
Here's what struck me most in this column: "American interventionism can have terrible consequences, as the Iraq war has demonstrated. But American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates"
You nailed it--we lack a uniform vision for our role in the world., because of the internecine battle our two political parties keep waging, over tactics to use in an overall strategy based on the concept "America knows best."
All of this reminds me of a wonderful French film called "Les Choristes" about a school for disadvantaged or orphan children in post-WWII France. One of the most callous teachers kept repeating the phrase "Action....reaction".
If we keep making foreign policy decisions based on reactions to the actions of others, and we keep changing parties every 4 to 8 years, we're bound to keep repeating the same old mistakes. Our policy makers seem to use two sets of glasses--one to treat farsightedness, the other for nearsightedness. Somebody has to don a new pair where the far and near are balanced by a middle range of sight.
3
we keep changing parties every 4 to 8 years,
______________________________________
That's how democracy works.
______________________________________
That's how democracy works.
Obama's mistake was not to support Assad. It was clear from the beginning that the alternative to Assad was extremist muslims, just as in Libya and in Egypt (and in Iran, 30 years ago). The secular dictators were always a better deal, foul though they are.
The US cannot change this: the so-called rebels never stood a chance. At the moment, discrete support for Assad, discrete support for Hetzbollah and Iran, and overt support of the Kurds, is the best policy.
The US cannot change this: the so-called rebels never stood a chance. At the moment, discrete support for Assad, discrete support for Hetzbollah and Iran, and overt support of the Kurds, is the best policy.
20
In both Syria and Libya the radicals came from outside. I was very briefly in Libya in 2011 during their civil war, and there is nothing anti-western about them. They asked for western support, knew the west would be the only ones to help, and really appriecated it. The west, in my opinion, needed to strongly support the Libyans to build their democratic systems after the war. If that had been done the instability we see in Libya now probaly wouldn't have happened.
Finally some common sense. Thank you!
Mr. Cohen, there isn't a President, Rep or Dem who could have sorted out this current mess. It's pretty sad when Hamas and Hezbollah look like a friendly college football grudge match agains the US. At least we know what they want, who funds them and they have a little coherency.
Exactly, who were we supposed to arm in Syria? That goes for Afghanistan and Iraq as well. We are fighting the Taliban on Monday which turns into Al Quaeda on Tuesday, morphs into ISIS on Wednesday. Throw in a little Nasra and Boko Harim and we have Friday Night Fights, winner take all.
Please, tell me what rebels in which countries we are supposed to arm who will actually fight for their country. Then we can talk about what could be done or foreseen.
Two weeks ago NYT was comparing some European countries to Nazi WWII. Then several other stories seeped out about the migrant demands, burning their finger prints, complaining about the length of time to get asylum, complaining about the quality of housing, complaining about the allowances, complaint about difficulty in learning language (being taught free no less) and complaining about spending 2 days in camps while the countries figure out what to do.complaining that Dyrians should be prioritized over Afghans and Iraqis. Complaining that their demand to go to a certain country wasn't immediately met. What can be foreseen is a coming European backlash.
All to often we "arm" first and find out who we're arming later. Usually, to our detriment.
Exactly, who were we supposed to arm in Syria? That goes for Afghanistan and Iraq as well. We are fighting the Taliban on Monday which turns into Al Quaeda on Tuesday, morphs into ISIS on Wednesday. Throw in a little Nasra and Boko Harim and we have Friday Night Fights, winner take all.
Please, tell me what rebels in which countries we are supposed to arm who will actually fight for their country. Then we can talk about what could be done or foreseen.
Two weeks ago NYT was comparing some European countries to Nazi WWII. Then several other stories seeped out about the migrant demands, burning their finger prints, complaining about the length of time to get asylum, complaining about the quality of housing, complaining about the allowances, complaint about difficulty in learning language (being taught free no less) and complaining about spending 2 days in camps while the countries figure out what to do.complaining that Dyrians should be prioritized over Afghans and Iraqis. Complaining that their demand to go to a certain country wasn't immediately met. What can be foreseen is a coming European backlash.
All to often we "arm" first and find out who we're arming later. Usually, to our detriment.
64
Obama did exactly that: he covertly trained, then overtly armed and funded "moderate" rebels, many of whom went on to become jihadists. He has been so hell-bent on defeating Assad and doing the Saudi's work for them that he took his eye off the rebellion.
Why did we need to intervene in Syria at all when we knew there'd be a power vacuum just as in Iraq and Libya, neither of which worked out the way the US planned. Obama bungled his actions in Syria - he should have either stayed out or committed 100%. His waffling has allowed the war to fester.
Why did we need to intervene in Syria at all when we knew there'd be a power vacuum just as in Iraq and Libya, neither of which worked out the way the US planned. Obama bungled his actions in Syria - he should have either stayed out or committed 100%. His waffling has allowed the war to fester.
1
Yep - it was definitely Obama's fault.
5
I think the most efficient way to deal with ISIS and Assad is start working with Putin. Russia can persuade Assad to share power or step aside under the right circumstances.
5
Under what "right circumstances" can you possibly imagine Putin being helpful here?
Watching American foreign policy backfire is his favorite pastime.
Watching American foreign policy backfire is his favorite pastime.
And what are we gonna do, ask ISIS to stop?
Yes, we are just another little war away from total national security....
8
Every US president that I have known during my lifetime has treated the Middle East in the same way. The two who have most recently served, Obama and Bush 2 have stood by while atrocities are committed in places such as Bahrain and Palestine on a regular basis, and yet Mr Cohen reserves his most vitriolic language for regimes he dislikes. America's Janus faced foreign policy has done more to erode international respect for this country than anything Bush or Obama has done.
6
Bibi also drops barrel bombs in Palestine but Roger remains silent on that front. And on what planet has Obama not intervened in Syria? Whose bombs do you think are falling from the skies to kill 200,000 Syrians?
12
On what imaginary planet do the opponents of the Assad regime have helicopters or jet fighters to drop these 'American' bombs that you claim have killed 200,000 Syrians? Assad's stockpile of weapons is courtesy of Russia, his long time supporter and political ally. To this day Russia continues to veto any action in the UN against Assad despite the ongoing slaughter.
What a we supposed to do in Syria??? Who do we align with out of the 100 or more groups fighting the government and each other? This isn't James Bond in the movies. Russia and Iran want to keep Assad in power because right now he is probably the only real option for some sort of stability. We are bombing ISIS but how accurate is that? Are we doing more damage than good? There's other countries also conducting air strikes and bombing. It is a total mess with no good answers. Also I don't understand why people ( pundits and writers ) keep forgetting that around the same time Obama made his foolish red line statement, he wanted to send in troops and basically start another ground war. And the whole country said no, 99% of the electorate. The Republicans were against it, because they're against anything The President proposes; And people like me said no way, no more wars unless it's clear cut and for the right reasons.
I am hearing reports tonight that the Russians may be moving heavy war equipment into Syria and the US is upset about it. I say let them go in and try to stabilize the country. At least maybe the refugee crises might slow down.
I am hearing reports tonight that the Russians may be moving heavy war equipment into Syria and the US is upset about it. I say let them go in and try to stabilize the country. At least maybe the refugee crises might slow down.
17
Hindsight is 20-20. Americans had no stomach for more interventionism, soldiers on the ground. We are still reeling from Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of us detested and detest drone-warfare. Those who had some knowledge said that Assad could not hold on. We did not know who we were going to be supporting ultimately or what the outcome. Many of us felt that this was for the Arab countries ( many still do), Others feel this points yet again to the lack of an international force/means to deal with such situation and that the US cannot do this anymore and should not. Not only that, more importantly, we don't know how.
4
" A safe area for refugees might have been created. Arming the rebels early and massively might have changed the course of the war. "
This proclamation by Roger Cohen is a not at all subtle suggestion that occupying Syria with American troops and arming the anti-government forces would have been a good idea. It seems the author is not aware of the fact that we did exactly that in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"In Libya, Obama bombed and abandoned."
Clinton, we may wonder which one, pushed a young inexperienced President Obama to destroy the Libyan government that for years kept the religious fanatics at bay. Now Al Qaeda and ISIS run free trough the ancient streets of Tripoli.
If we decide to turn foreign policy decisions over to Roger Cohen, body bags for our own precious but expendable warriors will soon be on backorder.
This proclamation by Roger Cohen is a not at all subtle suggestion that occupying Syria with American troops and arming the anti-government forces would have been a good idea. It seems the author is not aware of the fact that we did exactly that in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"In Libya, Obama bombed and abandoned."
Clinton, we may wonder which one, pushed a young inexperienced President Obama to destroy the Libyan government that for years kept the religious fanatics at bay. Now Al Qaeda and ISIS run free trough the ancient streets of Tripoli.
If we decide to turn foreign policy decisions over to Roger Cohen, body bags for our own precious but expendable warriors will soon be on backorder.
12
I see..if we had only stayed in Iraq and Afghanistan and invaded Syria and Egypt everything would be be fine.
21
Roger,
Perhaps you would do well to refresh your facts; the President has asked Congress for approval to do more in Syria. The Congress REFUSED to act.
Ipso facto: the failure belongs to the party controlling Congress.
Perhaps you would do well to refresh your facts; the President has asked Congress for approval to do more in Syria. The Congress REFUSED to act.
Ipso facto: the failure belongs to the party controlling Congress.
8
That did not seem to stop Obama from screwing everything up in Libya did it. Obama is to blame for better or for worse on this issue. Remember he has a pen and a phone.
Nice to have all the military answers in retrospect General Cohen.
9
If at all there's an Obama doctrine about the US foreign policy it has been to look for a chance outcome as with an earlier achievement in Syria on chemical weapons standoff which other world powers too were keen to resolve, or the Iran nuclear deal, again a multilateral effort, rather to confidently seek any foreign policy gain through pursuit of any consistent strategy. It's perhaps Obama's calculated ambiguity, until other powers come forward to support solution, that best describes the Obama doctrine, if at all he has any on the US foreign policy.
1
This is not our war and we are not responsible for what is happening in Syria. We can help with refugees and we can help with negotiations. But we should focus on our internal issues: job creation, poverty, mass incarceration, inequality.
9
Narcissist always appear grandiosely self confidant... but this masks a deep seated self hatred. Narcissus ultimately destroyed himself through self-fixation. Sadly, we humans too after choose narcissists as our leaders to compensate for our own lack of confidence... and then they unwittingly lead us to ruination.
1
When mentioning the lack of weapons supplied to the opposition, you must keep in mind our nemesis, Israel, played a roll. I'm certain the objection to supplying sophisticated weapons needed to defeat a nation's army were denied because of Israel's fear that those weapons could be used against their nation.
Does anyone out there see a pattern where Israel continues to be a factor - a negative one. The US government encouraged the Palestinians to have elections and when the results were not to the US's liking, we shunned Hamas. Even now, congress and the current administration want to increase advance weaponry to Israel because of the Iran nuclear deal. When will this country learn that all of our woes in the Middle East are the result of the US's unwavering support of Israel.
This article mentions, the Chinese and Russia threatening veto in the UN concerning Syria. Well, how many times has the US threatened veto and have used that veto to protect Israel from world condemnation for their treatment of the Palestinians?
Does anyone out there see a pattern where Israel continues to be a factor - a negative one. The US government encouraged the Palestinians to have elections and when the results were not to the US's liking, we shunned Hamas. Even now, congress and the current administration want to increase advance weaponry to Israel because of the Iran nuclear deal. When will this country learn that all of our woes in the Middle East are the result of the US's unwavering support of Israel.
This article mentions, the Chinese and Russia threatening veto in the UN concerning Syria. Well, how many times has the US threatened veto and have used that veto to protect Israel from world condemnation for their treatment of the Palestinians?
6
Roger, civil wars are not new. Civil wars have been with us for as long as nation states have been on the scene.
Islam is also not new. However, most religions appear to, over time, sand down the rough edges of their ideologies, to make them more hospitable for humanity. Unfortunately, the rough edges appear to be getting sharpened in Islam.
Assad is a bad man - but the leaders of ISIS are worse men. ISIS is the stepchild of Paul Bremer's decision to disband Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army and the toxic ideology encouraged by the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia.
Syria is a tragedy, a tragedy partly incited by reckless American interventionism and partly incited by Wahhabi collective insanity.
If Assad could be beamed up to the brig of the Starship Enterprise today, how would that solve the problem of ISIS? How would that address the tendency towards establishment of these reactionary, hate-filled Islamist states?
Islam appears to be devolving before our eyes - and only Muslims can put a halt to this trend. Perhaps Assad could spare a few of his barrel bombs, for use against the Wahhabi clerics of Saudi Arabia?
If Obama is guilty of anything, it is of continuing to enable the devil in Saudi Arabia.
Islam is also not new. However, most religions appear to, over time, sand down the rough edges of their ideologies, to make them more hospitable for humanity. Unfortunately, the rough edges appear to be getting sharpened in Islam.
Assad is a bad man - but the leaders of ISIS are worse men. ISIS is the stepchild of Paul Bremer's decision to disband Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army and the toxic ideology encouraged by the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia.
Syria is a tragedy, a tragedy partly incited by reckless American interventionism and partly incited by Wahhabi collective insanity.
If Assad could be beamed up to the brig of the Starship Enterprise today, how would that solve the problem of ISIS? How would that address the tendency towards establishment of these reactionary, hate-filled Islamist states?
Islam appears to be devolving before our eyes - and only Muslims can put a halt to this trend. Perhaps Assad could spare a few of his barrel bombs, for use against the Wahhabi clerics of Saudi Arabia?
If Obama is guilty of anything, it is of continuing to enable the devil in Saudi Arabia.
95
The US did his duty in Kosovo, today the Kosovo is the main source of european economic migrants.
The US did his duty in Libya, today Libya is a main hub for sub-saharian migrants.
I don't question your intention, but you must get real, american interventionism recently had always been a disappointment. Americans know how to win a war, but they don't know how to establish peace.
The US did his duty in Libya, today Libya is a main hub for sub-saharian migrants.
I don't question your intention, but you must get real, american interventionism recently had always been a disappointment. Americans know how to win a war, but they don't know how to establish peace.
84
We know how to establish the peace but Democrats are now more concerned with winning elections than saving human life. We secured the peace in Germany, Japan and Korean. What did we do? We left troops behind and still have some in these countries to this very day. What did Obama brag about before ISIS formed? He said I brought our troops home from Iraq. I ended that war. With no troops left behind the country devolved into ISIS. No it is someone elses fault of course. Obama takes no responsibility for he actions or inactions.
I am not an Obama supporter. And I am not a supporter of military intervention in Syria.
Pres Obama listened to the American people who are tired of wars where we lose life and our only reward is to be hated by the people we supposedly helped.
Let the neighbors in the region sort it out.
Pres Obama listened to the American people who are tired of wars where we lose life and our only reward is to be hated by the people we supposedly helped.
Let the neighbors in the region sort it out.
181
Absolutely right. The worst thing was leaving Iraq. America has never won a war gained a fragile peace and then left a country. Isis would not be in Iraq if we had kept a base there. And if IS had gained a foothold in Syria we could have brought the world along with us to contain and stop them. But with Iraq in complete chaos Syria seems an impossible challenge. This is completely Obama's fault. The gigantic crisis that will "keep on giving" could have been avoided and Obama owns it completely. Even now he doesn't see it. Throwing a few bombs on IS in Iraq and Syria is more about keeping his image as an anti war President than solving the problem that he created! Putin and Xi build military bases and take over countries at will knowing the wimp in the White House will stand aside and let the bullies run the world.
4
Completely Obamas fault? The Bush administration negotiated the treaty that said all troops had to be gone, The Bush administration put in place the corrupt government that led to the continuing breakup of the country. Yes Obama could have tried to renegotiate the agreement - but what country really want our troops milling about their country. The Iraq government did not want us. That is the fact.
3
Bush created the problem. Obama honored the timeline set by Bush to wind down our involvement. We should never have been in Iraq in the first place and we have no national interest there. No one from Iraq or Syria is "running" the world.
2
May I point out that the agreement which pulled US troops out of iraq was made by G W Bush? And that it was the Iraqi refusal to assure that US troops would be shielded from Iraqi law (whatever that might be) as are our forces In Korea, Germany, and Okinawa, that forced the withdrawal. And that Iraqi corruption led to the complete collapse of the Iraqi army when facing ISIS?
As for Mr. Cohen....it is easy to sympathize with his distress at the carnage, but do I misremember that BHO asked for authority in Syria and was denied it by Congress? And I have to also ask, how would you intervene, who would you back, in a situation where there is no scorecard and little or no way to identify the players? Remember that the "freedom fighters" of Afghanistan became the Taliban, and that our use of Saudi Arabia as a base for intervening in Kuwait led directly to 9/11.
As for Mr. Cohen....it is easy to sympathize with his distress at the carnage, but do I misremember that BHO asked for authority in Syria and was denied it by Congress? And I have to also ask, how would you intervene, who would you back, in a situation where there is no scorecard and little or no way to identify the players? Remember that the "freedom fighters" of Afghanistan became the Taliban, and that our use of Saudi Arabia as a base for intervening in Kuwait led directly to 9/11.
2
An argument for use of US military power in these conflicts should also include an argument for reinstatement of the draft. We should not keep sending the same solders back again and again to theaters of war while the rest of us go shopping.
226
Absolutely.
Here are some ideas to curtail the reckless use of the U.S. military:
* Enact a national-service requirement, including a military option. No deferments except for truly disabling health conditions.
* Use the War Powers Act as it was intended. The executive branch may, at its discretion, send troops into the field (or air, or sea), but Congress *must* declare war if they are to be there beyond 60 days.
* A deployment of 60 days automatically triggers an across-the-board, no loopholes, tax increase on every American, individual and business, to pay for the war — and to care for veterans returning from the war.
The military and political leaders in Washington love the plaything that is the all-volunteer military; Congress loves the system as is, for it lets them off the hook for going on the record regarding any armed conflict; presidents love it too, for it gives them all-but-unrestrained power to wage war.
When so few Americans have a meaningful stake in the wars fought in their name, it's easy to manipulate people into jingoistic rah-rah and sending other people's children into battle.
Here are some ideas to curtail the reckless use of the U.S. military:
* Enact a national-service requirement, including a military option. No deferments except for truly disabling health conditions.
* Use the War Powers Act as it was intended. The executive branch may, at its discretion, send troops into the field (or air, or sea), but Congress *must* declare war if they are to be there beyond 60 days.
* A deployment of 60 days automatically triggers an across-the-board, no loopholes, tax increase on every American, individual and business, to pay for the war — and to care for veterans returning from the war.
The military and political leaders in Washington love the plaything that is the all-volunteer military; Congress loves the system as is, for it lets them off the hook for going on the record regarding any armed conflict; presidents love it too, for it gives them all-but-unrestrained power to wage war.
When so few Americans have a meaningful stake in the wars fought in their name, it's easy to manipulate people into jingoistic rah-rah and sending other people's children into battle.
1
"We" got rid of the draft because after Viet Nam, the Americans who like to go shopping would never have tolerated seeing their sons and daughters go fight in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, and wouldn't send them to Syria, either. I agree we shouldn't be sending our soldiers to the middle east repeatedly, but I think bringing back the draft would insure never sending them there even once. Was that your point? I wasn't sure.
Such a foolish liberal kind of crazy. You are not happy with what volunteers, volunteer to do so you want to take away the freedom of others over your whim. This is why liberals are not fit to leader due to such horrible ideas.
Revisionism at its finest.
This is George W. Bush's Syrian nightmare. Bush/Cheney lied to the world about WMD. Bush/Cheney lied to get the Coalition of the Willing. UK and EU - staunch US allies backed US action and paid in blood.
President Obama tried to muster international action. It was in Europe's best interest to act - but the Europeans failed to back US action, understandable given the betrayal of trust by the Bush administration. In the UK, during Prime Ministers Questions, Cameron was grilled over how the UK could trust US intelligence given the Iraq fiasco. Absent UK & EU backing, unilateral action by the US was not a valid strategic option.
Better questions to ask about "W's Syrian nightmare" include:
1. Why aren't key players in destabilizing Syria (Saudi Arabia, Russia) lifting a finger to deal with the refugees?
2. China vetoed Syria intervention at the UN security council. What is China doing to help the refugees?
3. Why aren't the Gulf countries helping their fellow Muslims? Where are Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia?
4. Why isn't Jeb! "low energy" Bush being grilled on the composition of his foreign policy advisors? This is the same gang which created a power vacuum by unlawfully invading Iraq/Afghanistan. They sowed the seeds of chaos which we are reaping in current disaster in Syria. Why isn't the fourth estate, which was silent in the run-up to the Iraq war, proactively pursing this vital story?
This is George W. Bush's Syrian nightmare. Bush/Cheney lied to the world about WMD. Bush/Cheney lied to get the Coalition of the Willing. UK and EU - staunch US allies backed US action and paid in blood.
President Obama tried to muster international action. It was in Europe's best interest to act - but the Europeans failed to back US action, understandable given the betrayal of trust by the Bush administration. In the UK, during Prime Ministers Questions, Cameron was grilled over how the UK could trust US intelligence given the Iraq fiasco. Absent UK & EU backing, unilateral action by the US was not a valid strategic option.
Better questions to ask about "W's Syrian nightmare" include:
1. Why aren't key players in destabilizing Syria (Saudi Arabia, Russia) lifting a finger to deal with the refugees?
2. China vetoed Syria intervention at the UN security council. What is China doing to help the refugees?
3. Why aren't the Gulf countries helping their fellow Muslims? Where are Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia?
4. Why isn't Jeb! "low energy" Bush being grilled on the composition of his foreign policy advisors? This is the same gang which created a power vacuum by unlawfully invading Iraq/Afghanistan. They sowed the seeds of chaos which we are reaping in current disaster in Syria. Why isn't the fourth estate, which was silent in the run-up to the Iraq war, proactively pursing this vital story?
343
Thank you Grace for your perspective. I totally agree.
Presuming you get answers to all of the questions you presented, still, who cares? You would rather have an intellectual discourse about who should do what but who isn't willing than the President standing by his word?
I could imagine you in my squad as we head into combat and you'd rather pontificate and contemplate what could/should have been as bullets fly over head. In case you hadn't noticed, European nations DO NOT LEAD.
I could imagine you in my squad as we head into combat and you'd rather pontificate and contemplate what could/should have been as bullets fly over head. In case you hadn't noticed, European nations DO NOT LEAD.
Grace I
Evasion if responsibility at kts finest.
Obama wanted and took the job. He knew what W did. If Obama couldn't handle the job, or would refuse to do deal with the mess, he should have said so.
Pathetic. Chain Of Fools.
Evasion if responsibility at kts finest.
Obama wanted and took the job. He knew what W did. If Obama couldn't handle the job, or would refuse to do deal with the mess, he should have said so.
Pathetic. Chain Of Fools.
2
Mr. Cohen wrote: "Obama said, “The time has come for President Assad to step aside.” At that time, as events have shown, the president had no policy in place to achieve that objective and no will to forge such a policy. His words were of a grave irresponsibility."
American hubris. Events in other countries are often beyond our control.
We demonstrate our real character, courage and wisdom when we make earnest sacrifices to do our best to help the victims.
American hubris. Events in other countries are often beyond our control.
We demonstrate our real character, courage and wisdom when we make earnest sacrifices to do our best to help the victims.
10
And helping victims also means preventing additional ones. In case you were unaware, it is called "causation". Eliminate the root cause and you stop having victims.
To suggest Assad should step aside is not the same as to command it. He is U.S. President Obama, not World Emperor Obama. It was good advice; Assad should have taken it; he didn't. There's no fault on Obama there.
Many of the Syrian refugees are young men, apparently healthy enough to have stayed home and fought Assad. It is their country; they are responsible for it; they are deserting. The Syrian women and children should be welcomed with open arms. The Syrian men should be conscripted into a Free Syrian Army, armed and trained and sent home to fix their mess.
Many of the Syrian refugees are young men, apparently healthy enough to have stayed home and fought Assad. It is their country; they are responsible for it; they are deserting. The Syrian women and children should be welcomed with open arms. The Syrian men should be conscripted into a Free Syrian Army, armed and trained and sent home to fix their mess.
Well, of course Obama - and most US citizens - are skeptical on the effectiveness of our military in the Middle East! Is there a way for our muscle to make a real difference in a religious war between two powerful, fundamentalist factions arguing about the proper heir of Mohammed? It took 300 years for Roman Catholics and Protestants to stop killing each other after their 16th-century split.
100
That's the key to the whole mess over there in the near east. Religious civil war. You gotta be nuts to jump in there between the two sides, they will only unite to fight the invader. Once we are gone the sects will go right back to slaughtering each other. Phooey on the whole bloody-minded lot.
"American interventionism can have terrible consequences, as the Iraq war has demonstrated. But American non-interventionism can be equally devastating, as Syria illustrates."
Then as Mr. Cohen suggests, intervention in Syria would be more appropriate than our invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. A brutal dictator with a propensity of invading his neighbors and slaughtering over 100,000 innocent Iraqis and Kurds.
Then as Mr. Cohen suggests, intervention in Syria would be more appropriate than our invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. A brutal dictator with a propensity of invading his neighbors and slaughtering over 100,000 innocent Iraqis and Kurds.
5
Well, we apparently have created conditions in Iraq that led, based on the most accurate estimates 174,000 deaths over a ten year period (2003-2013). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War So we out did Saddam!
I like Mr. Cohen, liberal interventionist, and his neo-con friends, to explain exactly the strategy of how an American led intervention/occupation of Syria would end "violence." Apparently we would be fighting both Assad's Alawite and Baathist forces and ISIL, both entities presumably would melt into the surrounding population and initiate guerrilla warfare insurgencies against the occupation troops and their local collaborators. So how would this all be "resolved?" The President's prudence and wisdom is appropriate in the light of history.
I like Mr. Cohen, liberal interventionist, and his neo-con friends, to explain exactly the strategy of how an American led intervention/occupation of Syria would end "violence." Apparently we would be fighting both Assad's Alawite and Baathist forces and ISIL, both entities presumably would melt into the surrounding population and initiate guerrilla warfare insurgencies against the occupation troops and their local collaborators. So how would this all be "resolved?" The President's prudence and wisdom is appropriate in the light of history.
I too want their children to live, Mr. Cohen. But I have a 16-year-old grandson. I want him to live.