Obama's Syria Warning Rebuked by Russia

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright August 22, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

           Warning 46-year Syrian President Bashar a-Assad to not move or use his biological or chemical weapons, President Barack Obama signaled U.S. restraint is wearing thin.  “I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation,” said Barack, despite strong calls—and criticism—from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.  With over 18,000 deaths since the Syrian civil war began March 15, 2011 following revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, pressure mounts.  When the International Red Cross declared the Syrian revolt a civil war July 16, White House officials sobered up about military intervention.  Russia and China, Syria’s closest allies on the U.N. Security Council, have vetoed every attempt to authorize force to end the bloody conflict.  Russian and China have backed al-Assad’s right to preserve his sovereignty.

            Syria acknowledged possession of chemical and biological weapons for the purpose of fending off “external aggression.”  Backed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the U.S. and a host of other Arab countries, the uprising challenges al-Assad’s reign of power.  With a Russian Navy Base Tartus at a Syrian port since 1971, the U.S. walks a dangerous tightrope supporting the Syrian revolution.  Obama has said he doesn’t know the real sources of the Syrian revolt that might have links to radical Sunni groups like al-Qaeda, Bin Laden’s international terror group responsible for Sept. 11.  White House reluctance to intervene in Syria stems from many reasons, not least of which setting up a potential confrontation with Russia and China.  With Putin returning to power May 17, Russia shows no signs of tossing al-Assad under the bus.  While not approving all of al-Assad’s tactics, Russia and China believe al-Assad’s within his rights.

            Facing stiff headwinds over the economy for his reelection, Obama has been reluctant to initiate unilateral military action.  With Russia and China opposing military intervention, the U.S. can’t get a consensus on the Security Council.  Saying the movement or use of chemical or biological weapons would cross the “red line,” Obama signaled he would consider acting unilaterally.  Deadlocked on the Security Council, Obama would have no choice but to act alone.  Most regard that prospect slim-and-none until after the election.  “We’re monitoring the situation very carefully.  We have put together a range of contingency plans,” Barack told reporters Aug. 19 at an impromptu Rose Garden press conference.  Worried that biological or chemical weapons could fall into the wrong hands, Barack appeared more open to intervening.  He knows he walks a razor’s edge opposing Russia and China.

             Obama knows that whether or not al-Assad tries to bluff his way with biological and chemical weapons, alienating Russia and China carry far worse consequences.  Whatever happens in Syria, the U.S. has more long-term interests dealing with Russia and China.  Risking both relationships would compromise U.S. national security interests in other parts of the globe.  “Our mission failed because the two sides did not abide by their commitments,” said former U.N. Secretary-General and special Syrian peace envoy Kofi Annan, who quit Aug. 2 out of frustration.  While 78-year-old veteran Sudanese diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi replaced Annan Aug. 17, he has no rabbits under his hat.  Convincing al-Assad or Syrian rebels to make peace won’t be easy.  No one really knows who’s motivating the civil war.  Disenfranchised Palestinians, and other Sunni groups, seem hell-bent to ousting al-Assad.

            No matter what the posturing before the election, the president should heed Annan’s assessment that both sides reject peace.  Barack must look at the bigger picture going forward, not heed McCain or Hillary that seem too inclined to use U.S. power.  Unless there’s a compelling national security reason for intervention, alienating Russia and China pose far greater problems for U.S. foreign policy than meddling in Syria’s civil war.  If there’s any sobering message to losing 4,486 U.S. soldiers and over $1 trillion in U.S. tax dollars in Iraq, the current U.S.-backed Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki has closer ties to Iran than Washington.  Whether anyone liked Saddam Hussein or not, the current government is far less stable and more closely tied to U.S. enemies than Saddam’s Baathist regime.  Given the fragile U.S. economy, making the same mistake again would compromise the U.S.

            No matter what the drumbeat to war, Barack’s instincts to stay out of Syria have been correct.  Jeopardizing U.S. relations with Russia and China compromises U.S. national security.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo said yesterday both were committed to “the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law . . . and not to allow their violation,” signaling the current stalemate in the U.N. Security Council.  White House officials know they won’t get Security Council authorization for no-fly zones or any type of military intervention in Syria.  Russia and China, both strong trading partners with Syria, believe al-Assad has every right to defend his sovereignty against all enemies.  Before the Syrian situation spirals out-of-control, Obama must show the kind of wisdom that helped end the Iraq War and finishes Afghanistan.

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.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.