Obama's Sudden Reversal on Syria

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 14, 2013
All Rights Reserved.                                      

          Acquiescing to pressure from hawks on Capitol Hill, President Barack Obama went against his best instincts agreeing to provide military assistance to “vetted” rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.  Since the revolution started March 11, 2011, the International Red Cross estimated that more that 93,000 Syrians have lost their lives battling al-Assad’s Iranian, Russian and Hezobollah-backed government.  Obama insisted that if al-Assad used chemical weapons, it would cross a “red line” for possible U.S. military intervention.  White House officials waited for what looks like conclusive evidence that Damascus used sarin nerve gas, maiming and killing as many as 150 Syrian rebels and civilians.  Whether the White House has proof or not of chemical weapon use, Obama should consider real consequences to the U.S. military and economy of another Mideast war.

             Hawks in the U.S. Congress, especially ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.,) have called for arming Syrian rebels and establishing a no-fly zone for more than a year.  Before she retired as Secretary of State Jan. 20, 2013, Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed with McCain and other Senate and House Republicans that arming Syrian rebels was the only way to stop the bloodshed.  Conservative have pushed Obama to prove U.S. credibility by backing rebel groups now that’s it’s known that sarin nerve gas was used on a small number of Syrian rebels and civilians.  Since the civil war broke out, Obama has steadfastly resisted calls by House and Senate conservatives for military intervention.  Only officially ending the Iraq War Dec. 31, 2011 and hoping to end the Afghanistan War in 2014, Obama showed no interest in a new Mideast war.

             Pointing to the documented use of sarin nerve gas probably did not push Obama to finally supply arms to Syrian rebels.  When Secretary of State John Kerry met in Moscow with Russian Foreign Ministry Sergei Lavrov, he heard a mouthful of Russian objections to toppling al-Assad.  Apart from the fact that Syria hosts Russia’s Tartus Naval Base on the Mediterranean, Lavrov only sees more instability from allowing Saudi-backed Wahhaabi insurgents from toppling al-Assad.  White House officials—including Obama—know that al-Qaeda’s mujahedeen terrorists—the same ones led by Osama bin Laden that battled the Russians in Afghanistan [1980-89] are now joining forces with radical Palestinians and other Sunni rebel factions to topple al-Assad’s Shiite-based regime.

             Obama’s sudden decision to reverse gears and support Wahhabi groups fighting al-Assad suggest that there’s more at state than U.S. credibility.  Battle-thirsty hawks in the U.S. Congress don’t talk about the loss of U.S. prestige from losing the Vietnam War, or, for that matter, losing 4,886 troops in Iraq and over $1 trillion, only to find Iraq more closely aligned with Iran than ever.  Obama knows more than most the failure of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  He opposed both because he saw clearly they wasted precious U.S. lives and resources trying to remake the Middle East.  Unlike former President George W. Bush or his Vice President Dick Cheney, Obama correctly recognized the colossal loss of U.S. lives and tax dollars.  His decision to antagonize Russia and embroil the U.S. in a new proxy war in Syria stems from career-threatening domestic problems at home, including the brewing IRS and spying scandals.

             Obama’s sudden reversal in his thinking on Syria is strangely reminiscent of former President Bill Clinton’s decision to start bombing Kosovo Feb. 28, 1998, curiously linked to the growing Monica Lewinsky scandal, leading the House of Representatives to vote Dec. 19, 1998 two articles of impeachment.  While there was plenty of justification to start the Kosovo War, including accusing former Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic of genocide of Muslim ethnic Albanians, Obama’s got a tough sell joining the Wahhabi revolt to topple al-Assad.  Al-Assad’s small Alawite Shiite minority faces a growing Wahhabi-backed massacre of Syria’s Shiite minority.  Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Foreign Minister Lavrov pleaded with the U.S. to stay out of Syria.  Faced with growing scandals at home, Obama now chose to “wag the dog.”

             Obama’s sudden change-of-heart on arming Syrian rebels stems from much more than al-Assad’s alleged use of sarin nerve gas.  Whether that’s true or not, the U.S. should work through the U.N. before deciding to arm rebel group that face uphill battle defeating al-Assad.  Putin remembers well when the U.S. backed Osama bin Laden’s mujaheeden militia to topple the Soviet-backed Afghan government in a bloody war [1980-89], that eventually toppled the Soviet Union.  When you look at the big picture, the Syrian civil war is a Saudi-backed Wahhabi war against al-Assad’s minority Alawite Shiite government.  When Syrian-Iran-backed Hezbollah’s Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah promised to back al-Assad May 25, any U.S. involvement would start a proxy war against Shiite Iran, now deeply committed to battling Sunni Wahhabis and preserving al-Assad’s Shiite regime.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.