Too Big to Fail?

If you're a bit confused about U.S. President Barack Obama's passivity in the face of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's brutal repression of domestic opposition, don't be. Syria isn't Libya. The Assad regime is just too consequential to risk undermining.

Although the fall of the House of Assad might actually benefit U.S. interests, the president isn't going to encourage it. For realists in the White House, Assad's demise carries more risks than opportunities.

Great powers behave inconsistently -- even hypocritically -- depending on their interests. That's not unusual; it's part of the job description. In fact, in responding to the forces of change and repression loosed throughout the Arab world, flexibility is more important than ideological rigidity.

The last thing America needs is a doctrine or ideological template to govern how it responds to fast-breaking changes in a dozen Arab countries, all of which are strikingly different in their respective circumstances.

That the administration's response often seemed like a giant game of whack-a-mole, with a new problem popping up daily, was inevitable. And so was the variety of U.S. responses. In Bahrain, where the United States had established the headquarters of the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, and in Yemen, where counterterrorism is king, interests trumped values. You didn't hear Obama make any "Qaddafi must go"-style speeches directed against Bahrain's ruling Khalifa family or Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The contradictions and anomalies of U.S. foreign policy have also been on stark display in the Obama administration's differing responses to Qaddafi's and Assad's repression of their own people.

Beating up Qaddafi proved doable and necessary to prevent what was viewed as potential atrocities by his forces in Benghazi. Libya had few significant air defense systems and no friends; it was relatively easy to construct a coalition of the (semi-)willing in the United Nations, NATO and the Arab League to oppose the man President Ronald Reagan once dubbed the "mad dog of the Middle East" -- a tin pot and often bizarre dictator who opposed reform and political change. If you wanted to construct a more vulnerable target in a laboratory, you couldn't have done much better.

Syria presents a profoundly different situation. U.S. policy has always been driven by the hope that the Assads would change and the fear of what might replace them if they fell. Three additional realities ensured a U.S. response quite different from the one for Libya.

First, Syria was hard. It's a country with a sophisticated air defense system, chemical and biological weapons, and a great many friends -- including Iran and Hezbollah, which are capable of striking back. Marshaling support at the United Nations, mobilizing NATO, and getting buy-in from the Arab League in the way that made the Libya intervention possible are not in the cards. Some of America's closest friends, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, are also not at all sure that Syria without Assad would be better than with him.

Second, for most U.S. presidents -- Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush being the exceptions -- Syria has served as a kind of unholy diplomatic grail. Since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, U.S. policymakers had viewed the Assads as pragmatists capable of facilitating or blocking U.S. policy in Lebanon and the Arab-Israeli peace process.

12NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

IAN

3:32 PM ET

May 12, 2011

I also find it wierd

that the Obama Administration could be so (relatively) decisive about Libya, but so hesitant over exactly the same issue in Syria. So much for promoting freedom and human rights and all that.

@ Mighty Mouse...

You do realize that Aaron David Miller wrote this article explaining why he thinks Obama isn't acting the same way, and the only time he brings his personal feelings (2nd para, 2nd page), he wonders why anyone would be enamored of the brutal, autocratic Assad regime. So your "short version" of the article actually has nothing to do with the article at all, since its not Aaron's personal reasonings, but what he believes Obama is thinking.

DOVE_VN

12:02 AM ET

May 13, 2011

The bester singer for the Middle East

The Obama administration seems to hope that, instead of Assad, Sarkozy becomes Frank Sinatra of the Middle East.

KARENYKARL

9:49 AM ET

This article is more reality based than your other on Syria

Recent reports indicate that the internals of the Syrian regime may in fact be more precarious than what's officially indicated. The reports of widespread defection in the ranks of Syrian military with soldiers deserting or not following orders gives indications that all might not be going well for Assad's repression of dissent.

I am glad that the author realizes that there is just about absolutely nothing that Washington can do to affect the course of the Jasmine Revolution in Syria. This is a refreshing change from Mr. Hannah's extremely ill-thought piece calling for nation building in Syria on our part.

However, from a realistic standpoint, perhaps we can be somewhat optimistic about the future course of an Assad regime assuming it survives. The April speech (known among the dissidents as Speech #2) actually does promise some sweeping reforms in Syrian society for the better if Assad and the Baathists actually implement what was promised. And any movement by the Syrian government towards a more open and just society while maintaining domestic stability would be a welcome thing for the entire world.

FIRST ADVISOR

9:56 AM ET

A Complete State of Bafflement

I openly confess the complexity of Syrian society baffles me. The wild variety of ethnic groups, religions and sects, commercial and cultural groups of uncertain power and influence within each ethnic and religious grouping, the dozens of special interest groups inside every ethnic group and religious demographic, the intricate net of cooperation and competition among traditional classes and new income levels spread over all ethnic and religious divisions; I get dizzy just trying to understand the Syrian culture.

One thing I do know is that Miller is obviously correct in his central argument, the danger of who or what might succeed the Assad family is far too great to gamble on bringing him down. I think the most likely scenario would be civil war, but again, Syrian society is far too complex to ever predict exactly how a civil war would uniquely manifest itself in the country. By everything I do know, it would be a different civil war to any the world has seen before, and how long the war would last, and what the ending resolution to any conflict would be ,are utterly unpredictable. Two standards are definite; any international coalition attempting to intervene would regret their temerity, and Syrian society would be worse off afterwards than it is now.

Assad is a cruel, careless fool, but he remains better than any alternative.

MARTY24

10:16 AM ET

Generosity to Obama

Mr. Miller is far too generous to Obama. By attributing to Obama a thoughtful assessment of the issues, Miller misses the reality that Obama sees all of the Middle East's problems through a prism of blaming Israel.

Acknowledging that there is something seriously wrong with the Assad regime would be an admission that the failure of Israel and Syria to make the progress Obama wants may be Syria's fault. And once he is forced to admit to this, the next domino follows almost immediately, the failure of Israel and the Palestinians to reach the progress Obama wants may be their fault rather than Israel's. And that leads to the conclusion Obama most wants to avoid: that his understanding of the conflict and the region is simply wrong and that his efforts to date have actually undermined the prospects for peace.

So, rather than starting down a path that would lead to his having to acknowledge that he is part of the problem, rather than the solution, Obama simply avoids dealing with the situation in Syria. I realize this is very deflating for the Arab participants in this blog, but that is what's really going on.

PUPIL

9:36 PM ET

Somalization of Libya, Egypt, Syria...

As other commentators already pointed, Obama is just a mediocre speech deliverer, but even J.F.Dulles or H.Kissinger would be baffled with the precipitous speed of disintegration of Arab "secular" i.e socialist states. Syria is just following the path of two other Arab Spring Flowers. The pundits have strangely missed a conspicuous fact: Islam still holds while Socialism breaks apart. Tunisia was historically the least socialist out of all the revolutionary countries, so it has a chance to get up on her feet. It can be compared with Slovenia at the dawn of Yugoslavia revolution in 1990s.

We should not be duped by the newspapers and TV talking heads who abuse the strong, obligating and proud word - dictatorship. Egypt lost its privilege of being called dictatorship the day Nasser died. But socialism persisted since that even under Sadat - Mubarak thaw. Assad is not a dictator, he is The Secretary General of Central Committee of Communist Party of Syria. Or whatever party rules there. Tito, kind of. When Socialism comes to an end and no Capitalism is in the offing - only some total ideological garbage as we see in Egypt now, the state collapses. Somalia did undergo this transformation cycle long time ago during the rule and after the departure of Siad Barre.

It is not dictatorship, it is socialism, stupid. Collapse of socialism means total destruction of remaining power institutions (courts, police, army) because real socialism had to destroy all existing confessional, economic, legal, public and personal links between the people. Those links hold society together.

Obama is not a terribly bright individual, but his feebleness is more that that. It is the shock and awe of true believer watching his clay idols crashed by lightning. Obama believes in socialism. We all believe in socialism. We cannot admit that socialism infects and kills countries exactly as it infects and destroys people's souls. Can anybody imagine Obama calling for new era of capitalist Arab rebirth? Just to name an alternative to jingoism, aggression, Islamism, racism? Can he give the people hope? Can he even utter the words like "Marshal Plan"?

The business of America is Business. This we used to do well and the Arabs are prone to Business. Look at their success in the US. Palestinians do well in the West Bank. Obama hates Business like Jew hates pork. He would not also allow the others to formulate the capitalist alternative to the Arab Foul Spring. Capitalism is the only way to salvation, as it was in the defeated, desperate post war Europe. Obama would reject this option even after water-boarding 187 times.

ZATHRAS

2:09 PM ET

May 14, 2011

The Soviet Legacy

The numerous dumb things in the post immediately upthread shouldn't obscure an important point about Syria and most of the other Arab countries outside the immediate Saudi orbit: they were profoundly influenced by the Soviet example, and in many cases by their relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Most commentary about the Middle East today is written as if the Soviet Union never existed. Yet for many countries what was then known as the Third World, Soviet Communism offered a relatively simple, clear path to a valued destination, the establishment of governments immune from domestic challenge. People do not risk their lives to drive out colonial powers or overthrow decaying monarchies for the right to lose power if they lose an election, something the Soviet experience enabled the Russians to understand better than the Americans did. Security against domestic challenge, as the Soviet experience also showed, is enhanced in direct proportion to the degree of state control: over politics, the economy, information, and culture.

It made perfect sense for Arab countries aligned with the Soviet Union to design their governments in such a way that domestic opponents could be crushed before they became a threat. To be fair, this objective was not exactly a new one in the history of Arab states, but reaching this objective in the post-World War II world was aided immeasurably by the example and assistance of a superpower that monopolized on its own soil nearly all power within the state. Syria under the Assads had special reason to look closely at the Soviet example, for the elder Assad himself took power in a coup, and after his country had lost two wars against Israel in the space of six years made himself dependent on Soviet military advice thereafter.

The last American administration chose to advance a fatuous theory about a "freedom deficit" in the Arab Middle East, which the Obama administration has chosen to treat with respect. This theory held that Arab states were not democratic because the United States had "propped up" authoritarian rulers in its pursuit of stability. Among the many things wrong with it was the fact that most of the worst, most repressive Arab regimes had been Soviet clients during the Cold War, not American ones. This was never merely a factor of regional geopolitics; the Soviet Union at that time simply had more to offer Arab governments anxious to revolutionize their societies and maintain their domestic position than did the United States.

The consequences of the choices made by Arab governments then are reflected in their character now. The Obama administration would do well to discard the woolly thinking of its predecessor, and be direct in its public statements about the challenges to Arab political liberalization posed by the Soviet legacy in the Middle East.

1:28 AM ET

May 15, 2011

ZATHRAS: Whose legacy is it?

The only point of disagreement between us is actually the role of Obama and the reason why he is paralyzed. Apparently you agree that Socialism has been the main source of current Arab self destructive convulsions, because Jordan, S.Arabia, and the most of Gulf Principalities still look surprisingly stable. The only shaky entity outside Arab domain is Iran, which

Trivially, it was USSR who propped Nasser, papa and baby Assad, Gaddafi, Siad Barre, Mengistu Mariam in Ethiopia, and many many more "anti-imperialist" mass killers. America was not socialist yet when Communism crashed, so we did not prop the "dictators". The Soviets did. We bought some of them later from Russia, but we had not established them. Apparently you did agree with that thesis.

The key point I make is that Obama being a Socialist himself has no room in his mind where an alternative (capitalist, that is) idea and policy is locked waiting to be freed to fly over the world. I have no idea what is your "woolly thinking of its predecessor". Let us clarify a couple of things. If you say, Bush was not the best salesman of capitalism, I would agree. He tried to give them "freedom", which they (Arabs) had no idea how that dish can be served for breakfast. Instead he should have offered them "business" and "money", not given by the US as a gift, but easily made by themselves. But, my friend, "money" and "freedom" are inseparable properties of our social being as "particle" and "wave" are inseparable properties of our material world.

If you think, there is better, "humane" socialism, that would be really the dumbest thing ever spoken. Ceterum censeo Obamarum esse (politically) delendam.

1:41 AM ET

...The only shaky entity outside Arab domain is Iran, which... while being not formally a socialist domain, exhibits all the attributes of truly People's Socialist (with some Islamic scaffolding) Democratic Republic. The have collective government, Inner Party, KGB, and zillions of departments (receiving generous handouts) in the ministries of Truth, Peace, Prosperity and Freedom.