Obama Can Stop the Killing in Syria

The United States has leverage with the murderous Bashar al-Assad; it has simply chosen not to use it.

BY TONY BADRAN | JUNE 14, 2011

As the Syrian uprising against the regime of Bashar al-Assad concludes its third month, U.S. President Barack Obama's administration is coming under increasing fire for its slow, reluctant reaction. The administration continues to call on the Syrian president to lead a transition to democracy and argues that the United States simply lacks the leverage to affect the situation in Damascus. As one senior U.S. official told the Atlantic in May, "The Syrian government knows it can act with a certain amount of impunity because we have no real leverage over them."

Not all significant players agree with Washington. French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak have stated that Assad's rule is "illegitimate." Washington is lagging behind.

Against all odds and expectations, the Syrian revolt has spread to almost every part of the country. The spark that began in mid-March in the southern town of Daraa has extended to the Kurdish areas in the northeast, the mixed Sunni-Alawi coastal towns, central Syrian cities such as Hama and Homs, and even the suburbs of Damascus.

Initially, Washington was skeptical. An anonymous U.S. official revealed in April that the Obama administration's general assessment was that such a broad uprising "wouldn't happen, that Assad was too good at nipping these movements in the bud, and also that he was not afraid to be brutal."

Save for the last part, that analysis has proved wrong. Despite unspeakable brutality, including the wanton torture and murder of children, the uprising continued apace and quickly became a national movement whose demands have coalesced around toppling Assad. The protesters' chants have echoed the refrain heard in Tunis and Cairo: "The people demand the removal of the regime."

Yet even after its initial analysis proved wrong, the Obama administration hesitated to support the protesters. Syrian dissidents who met with administration officials in Washington in April relayed their overall disappointment with America's "lukewarm" response.

Lukewarm is the right word. Even as the administration moved to impose sanctions on senior regime figures, its reluctance was obvious. Anonymous officials lamented to journalists that, due to a lack of leverage, they doubted whether sanctions would have any tangible effect. "We already have sanctions," a senior administration official said in April. "We could pursue whether there are additional ways to tighten pressure, but I don't want to suggest there is anything imminent."

These lamentations are a self-fulfilling prophecy. The evolution of the Syrian uprising has presented Washington with a unique opportunity to squeeze Assad. The United States has leverage; it has simply chosen not to use it.

The first and easiest avenue for Washington to pursue would be to recall Robert Ford, whom Obama appointed as his ambassador to Damascus despite congressional objections. Bringing Ford home would be an obvious way to deprive Assad of the legitimacy that comes with relations with the world's only superpower. It would send an unambiguous message that the United States is done dealing with the Syrian regime. That message would embolden the protesters and dishearten Assad. Perhaps most importantly, it would send a clear signal to the silent majority in Syria, which is watching apprehensively and wondering who will win.

LOUAI BESHARA/AFP/Getty Images

 

Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

JOHNHUNT

4:26 AM ET

June 15, 2011

The One Thing That's Lacking

But for Obama to do those things, he would have to treat an evil regime as such and not with respect. In short, he would need to have moral clarity. But he is a liberal. And it will take a lot of real-life evidence to get him to admit that maybe his view of the world has been mistaken.

Perhaps, supposedly bad people are actually bad after all (e.g. Syria, Iran, Hamas, Arabs, Palestinians, dictators in general, etc). And maybe supposedly good people are good after all (e.g. Israel). Horror of horrors...maybe Bush Jr was correct! No, that can't possibly be right! Instead, let's just sit on out hands hoping that somehow the situation changes and doesn't make Obama look any more foolish. Or better yet, let him make an eloquent speech that makes people believe that he had moral clarity all along.

 

DDSNAIK

12:08 PM ET

June 15, 2011

Bad and good are subjective attributes

I don't disagree with everything said above, but by your logic :

Arabs and Persians and Palestinians (all Arabs and Palestinians and Persians, which encompasses an awful lot of people) are grouped with dictators and Hamas

GWB understood good vs. evil - and therefore declared war on a sovereign country which posed no existential threat to us at massive cost and dubious outcome

I'd say a willingness to see things in black and white or take decisive action without thinking it through does not automatically make for a better leader. It's a little more complicated than that.

 

JOSEPH37

12:07 AM ET

June 16, 2011

You are an idiot and a

You are an idiot and a racist. You've decided that an entire ethnicity spanning 300 million people around the globe are all evil. Obama may be a coward, but at least he possesses a fragment of intelligence and humanity that you obviously lack.

 

DAVIDJONES3214

5:55 AM ET

June 15, 2011

Tyria bad ass

Tyria bad ass ... Tyria bad ass ... Tyria bad ass. That's all they are going to run in the media ... only to get

an approval to get to bomb it.

Look at what they run in the media ... look whose sides they take ... look at what they want to do and look

at their targets ... nice fat sheep with a lot of wool.

Read More

http://godinthejungle.com/index.php/story-notes/389-wednesday-june-15-2011.html

 

JOSSEFPERL

7:57 AM ET

June 15, 2011

Absolutely Right

I cannot agree more. The reaction of the Obama administration on Syria has been timid, which is incomprehensible. Given all the troubles Syria has been causing the US for years, in Lebanon, Iraq and its alliance with Iran, and all the failed attempt to appeal to Assad to change his ways, the fact that the US is not leading the charge in calling for Bashar's ouster will be one day viewed as one of the major blunders of Obama's foreign policy, particularily if Bashar manages to stay in power. Obama's attempt to be "anything but GWB" has reached a ridiculous degree of calculating and recalculating every step, showing lack of principles and clarity.

 

F1FAN

9:25 AM ET

June 15, 2011

Obama Can Stop the Killing in Syria

Just like he could stop it in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain................................

 

RICARDOMR

11:29 AM ET

June 15, 2011

Just like that! But, "these

Just like that!
But, "these other countries are not so bad" o^)

 

RICARDOMR

11:39 AM ET

June 15, 2011

TONY BADRAN, what is a "significant player"?

"Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak have stated that Assad's rule is 'illegitimate.' Washington is lagging behind."

Well, if He said that... Amen and Fire!

 

DDSNAIK

12:16 PM ET

June 15, 2011

Broken record but...

... are supposed to take up the fight on behalf of every suffering soul in the world ? (If so, repression isn't limited to the ME.)

Don't we often get flack when intervening, when we decide to do so ? And now there's blowback for the opposite ?

It seems like the US can't win the perception battle, so perhaps we shouldn't try - and just apply consistent, fair standards when deciding the course of action or lack thereof

 

MARTY24

1:13 PM ET

June 15, 2011

Closest to the mark

JohnHunt is closest to the mark: Obama lacks moral clarity, but he also still lacks any real comprehension of how policy, and not just foreign policy, works.

We have been led to believe that Obama is brilliant, thoughtful, moral, etc. in a way that no previous president has managed, at least within the limited memory of the people who control the media. The evidence for this is that the media report it to be the case while giving their fawning approval to everything he does.

The reality, however unfortunate and unwelcome, is that two and a half years into his presidency, Barack Obama still lacks any clue about what the president of the United States is supposed to do, either within the domestic context or the international one. He managed to get himself elected without telling us what he stands for; I have to confess that I still don't know, except that he believes he is entitled to have everyone do what he tells them to. For him, becoming president has been little more than an opportunity to make speeches.

With regard to Syria, his situation is complicated by the fact that he sincerely wants Israel to make unilateral concessions to the Assad government, which is obviously hard to justify if he comes out and declares the Assad government unfit to remain in power. The alternative, standing for the people of Syria, requires that he admit that Arab governments are of questionable reliability, durability, and morality, and thus not entitled to unilateral concessions from Israel. But if that applies to Syria, which has kept the border reasonably quiet for nearly 40 years, how can it not also apply to the Palestinians who are itching to resume their attacks on Israeli civilians?

To stand with the Syrian people, Obama must admit that he simply doesn't understand the dynamics of the Middle East, and no-one should listen to him about Middle Eastern issues. Obama is simply psychologically incapable of admitting this because his entire personna depends on seeing himself as the font of all wisdom.

 

KUNINO

2:31 PM ET

June 15, 2011

The only thing wrong with this article: it's nonsense

It's based on the idea that the president can stop the killing in Syria. There's no sensible reason to believe that's true. America can of course add to them. The real American skills of the modern age seem to be:

1. Multiply the killing in Iraq, and leave that institutionalized.

2. Start the killing in Afghanistan with no prospect of that ever ending.

3. Introduce random assassinations to Pakistan*.

4. Multiply the killing in Libya.

None of these little tricks seem to benefit America much, and all seem to harm innocent civilians in the nations where applied.
_______________
* Random, because they seem to kill as many as ten or a dozen innocent civilians for each targeted possible bad guy. Exactly how many of those assassinated are civilians we don't know because the military and CIA don't care to count them. The of course makes them no less dead, or innocent.

 

KARENYKARL

3:21 PM ET

June 15, 2011

Sounds like neocon bushwa to me

I think with regards to Syria, the first objective should be, "Don't just do something. Stand there." The last thing we need to do is to get involved in active regime change in Syria. As disgusting and distasteful as the Assad regime is, I think that France, Turkey, and Qatar are doing just fine by themselves. The US foreign policy machine is capable of doing only so many initiatives at any one time, and I think our plate is full right now. Thank you very much.

With limited power in a multipower world, letting other countries like Turkey or France do some of the heavy lifting that we might have otherwise done as cops to the world in the old days is a good example of multilateral co-operation. And besides, Syria as it's constituted represents a geopolitical hub for the entire Middle East. Meddling with Syria means potentially creating unpredictable disruptions to all of its neighbors and beyond.

Personally, I think that the State Department is taking a very wise and prudent position when it comes to the current troubles in Syria. America has got to get used to thinking that it's not capable of controlling every godamned little thing in the entire world.

 

AARKY

5:14 PM ET

June 15, 2011

Should the US Interfere?s35i5

.." a Broader strategy of countering Iranian influence in the region" When that little statement popped up , I realized this is just another AIPAC propaganda piece on behalf of the Likkudniks of Israel.

 

ITONLYSTANDSTOREASON

7:07 PM ET

June 15, 2011

Delusional

Our leverage is words and symbolic action, a few economic sanctions, and ta da! A Security Council Resolution!

Oh, yes, that will sent Assad packing. It's always worked so well before - North Korea, Iran. In Libya we've even thrown in a military assault. Despite Libya's lack of an external patron like Iran, the regime is hanging on.

In other words, the author is delusional or only another right-wing hack looking who thinks acting like a movie cowboy is the answer to all foreign affairs problems.

 

DROOGE

12:27 AM ET

June 16, 2011

America's Chaotic Middle East Policy

Tony Badran's article on Syria is as confused as America's policy to the countries in the Arab Spring. There is absolutely no consistency in the manner Obama interacts with Egypt and the manner it interacts with Bahrain the ignored/forgotten country.

Do the Secretary of State Clinton or President Obama have any significant, focused policy if so the Arab world would like to know what it is?

The speed and reaction that the UK and France attacked Libya's Gaddafi was quite a revelation. Prime Minister Cameron daily alluded to regime change and the ICC was highly efficient in issuing an arrest warrant for Gaddafi and his thugs. It appears that what we are witnessing in Libya is a civil war as Gaddafi appears to have substantial support from some of his people. If this is the case then France and the UK should keep out of Libya as they may be simply replacing one dictator with another.

Bashar Al Assad's armies and intelligence agencies have murdered far more Syrians in Syria than Gaddafi has in Libya they also have displaced them to Turkey out of fear of Assad’s troops. Assad is told by Secretary of State Clinton that he had better stop or strict sanctions will be applied. Why the double standard? Sanctions are America's favourite method of appearing to do something without actually doing anything ask Castro of Cuba. Why is there no ‘no fly zone’ set up and an arrest warrant taken out against Assad from the ICC for crimes against humanity? Is Syrian blood different, cheaper than that of Libya?

King Khalifa of Bahrain a Sunni Muslim, whose country is 80% Shiite Muslim and are treated as second class citizens decided to hold peaceful demonstrations in the Square which became a rallying point for their Arab Spring.

The people demanded freedom of speech and assembly and equality as they are treated like second class citizens. The army and thugs that Khalifa sent to put down these demonstrations were brutal. Arrests were made without charge or representation or ability to talk to their family. They were beaten up, tortured and imprisoned indefinitely where the torture and humiliation continued without explanation.

The Army appears not to have the stomach for killing their own people so Saudi Arabia convinced King Khalifa to accept 1.500 Saudi troops armed to the teethe to tackle these peaceful demonstrators. Again Secretary of State Clinton told off King Khalifa and promised punishment of an undisclosed nature, what? As Bahrain is home to the US 5th. fleet it would appear that Secretary of State Clinton didn’t have a great deal of options even though the Bahraini opposition had no intentions of asking the Americans to find a more suitable place to dock their fleet. The Bahraini opposition would welcome them to remain under their democracy as they feed the economy substantially.

Saudi Arabia is experiencing problems with its minority Shiite Muslims (approximately 10%) and there have been demonstrations and Saudi murders of its people and this is the reason that Saudi Arabia is so frightened today, it boarders Iran a powerful Shiite state.

King Abdullah is an old decrepit man who has no compulsion in killing his own people and those of his neighbour Bahrain to secure his needs. The Saud family are the most arrogant and corrupt thieves in the Middle East. There is no other country in the world that names its country after its leader’s family.

Recently to calm the Saudis Abdullah tried bribing them with a $40 billion package to create jobs and subsidized housing with generous loans at minimal interest rates. This man is so detached from his religion and his people and reality that he must have forgotten that the Koran specifically prohibits usury.

The Saud family are acting as the spoiler to the Arab Spring. They do not want their people to enjoy the fruits of democracy, freedom of speech, representation in parliament they will soon find out how corrupt the Saud family are and dispose of them.

Elections must be held in the Middle East and North America and honest elections and if the Saud family disagree they must be sent into exile with their hundreds of relatives all that live on an asset that is the property of all Saudi Arabians.

What a fool this King is: firstly to bribe his people with their own assets and then to have the temerity of charging them interest. King Abdullah is prepared to prop up any dictator in the Middle East and North Africa and to ensure that democracy, freedom of speech, equality of the sexes and anything else that could bring his country into the 21st. Century never see the light of say. It is Saudi Arabia that is terrorizing the Arabs and when you find a snake like that you try him and his associates in a court of law and if found guilty them several life sentences of hard labour. Unfortunately King Abdullah will die soon thereby escaping justice on earth but no one will help him when he faces his maker.

 

FIFTH HORSEMAN

2:37 AM ET

June 16, 2011

Whenever the crocodile tears

Whenever the crocodile tears begin flowing bombs and collateral death aren't far behind.

 

CHANGS

10:38 PM ET

July 11, 2011

The people of the region must be the force of change.

The people of countries such as Syria must be the force of change within their countries. Outside countries like the US, France, etc. can not be the force of change.

When the US leaves Iraq it will collapse as the various factions within the country continue their age long war against each other. When the US pulls out of Afghanistan, the factions will fight among themselves until the stronger faction wins enough power to force their will on the remainder of the country.

There is nothing outside countries can do to change the situation until the people of the country come together and put a stop to it.

ChangS