Why Obama won't intervene in Syria
Jeffrey Goldberg is frustrated with President Obama's seeming lack of a coherent policy in the Middle East, particularly with respect to Syria:
Could Obama simply be avoiding a messy foreign entanglement during his bid for re-election? If this were true, it would make him guilty of criminal negligence. Is he the sort of man who would deny innocent and endangered people help simply because greater engagement could complicate his re-election chances? I truly doubt it.Hereâ??s another possible explanation: Perhaps Obama isnâ??t quite the brilliant foreign-policy strategist his campaign tells us he is. Of course, he has had his successes. Iâ??m not sure youâ??re aware of this, but Osama bin Laden is dead (killed, apparently, by Obama, who used only a salad fork and a No. 2 pencil). And, despite Republican assertions to the contrary, he has done far more to stymie Iranâ??s nuclear ambitions than his predecessor, George W. Bush, ever did.
Yet Obamaâ??s record in the Middle East suggests that missed opportunities are becoming a White House specialty.
Syria is the most obvious example. Assad is a prime supporter of terrorism (as opposed to Qaddafi, who had retired from terrorism sponsorship by the time his people rose up against him), and his regime represents Iranâ??s only meaningful Arab ally. The overriding concern of the Obama administration in the Middle East is the defanging of Iran. Nothing would isolate Iran -- and its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah -- more than the removal of the Assad regime and its replacement by a government drawn from Syriaâ??s Sunni majority. Ensuring that Muslim extremists donâ??t dominate the next Syrian government is another compelling reason to increase U.S. involvement.
I have no idea why the administration is withholding the aid Goldberg is demanding - or even if they are (would it surprise anyone to learn several years hence that the administration's support for Syria's uprising was more robust than is being publicly reported today?). What I do know is that there's something Goldberg fails to note: that the consequence of stepped-up U.S. aid could create a situation far worse for American interests than the current, bloody insurgency.
What might that be? How about a large-scale civil war in Syria that cracks the door even wider for al-Qaeda to set up yet another regional base (you know, like the one that blossomed in Iraq after the U.S. fought the last war Goldberg urged on Washington)? Or perhaps a war that slips Syria's borders (it's already leaking out) and ignites a wider conflagration, drawing the U.S. in at great cost in blood and treasure. Both could happen without a U.S. intervention, of course, but pouring on the gasoline isn't likely to help put out the fire.
Even under the best of circumstances, the U.S. would have trouble consolidating a new government in Syria - one capable of respecting minorities (or at least not slaughtering them, as happened in Iraq), providing security for the country and - importantly - towing the U.S./Gulf state line on vital regional issues. It seems that absent some clear strategy for a Syrian end-game, any intervention would be grossly irresponsible - and even a good strategy could crumble apart once it meets on-the-ground realities in Syria.
Interestingly, Goldberg concludes his piece with perhaps the best explanation for why the administration has been reluctant to dive into yet another regional war:
The Middle East is a misery for American presidents. Very few, including Obama, have managed to shape events there in ways that benefit the U.S.
Amazingly, this failure never seems to deter American pundits.
