The American Spectator : America's Irresponsible Silence on Syria

Text Size

At Large

America’s Irresponsible Silence on Syria

By Matthew RJ Brodsky on 5.11.11 @ 6:08AM

A bizarre love affair turns very sour.

When it comes to the “Arab Spring” in Syria, the silence and lack of leadership in Washington is stunning. Two months into the uprising, unconfirmed reports suggest that as many as 800 people have been killed with as many as 10,000 arrested. The countrywide crackdown is massive, with the Assad regime using tanks and sniper fire to crush the opposition movement. Whereas the case for intervention in Libya was made based on humanitarian needs, the situation in Syria cries out for American leadership and not merely on humanitarian grounds. In Egypt, America cast an ally aside and stood with the people even though a strong case could be made that toppling the Mubarak regime was not in America’s interest. After all, there was near universal agreement that what would come next in Egypt would be less amenable to U.S. interests in the region. Yet in Syria, the case for intervention on humanitarian grounds is already manifest and toppling the Assad regime, which remains an enemy of the U.S. in both word and deed, is strongly in America’s interest. What then explains Team Obama’s trepidation?

For many years America has had a bizarre love affair with Syria — one of the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism. It began before the 1991 Madrid conference that set the path for a fruitless decade in which the U.S. engaged with Syria and Israel in order to make peace. Hafez al-Assad played the Clinton administration like a finely tuned cello, talking about peace while arming Hezbollah and undermining the Palestinian Authority. Nevertheless, Syria was seen as the key to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, a state that could grant Israel its seal of approval. But when Bashar al-Assad inherited his rule from his father in 2000, he set his country on a collision course with the Bush administration.

The belief in Washington is that Bashar al-Assad is a closet reformer surrounded by a clique that prevents him from carrying out his democratic and liberal vision for Syria. This wishful prognosis has never been true and has never been as crystal clear as the recent weeks of violence demonstrate. Yet simple facts do not get in the way of former presidential hopeful, current Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and longtime Syria aficionado, Senator John Kerry. Asked recently about whether the U.S. would benefit from the downfall of the Assad regime, Kerry replied, it “depends on which Assad you are talking about.” But there is only one Bashar al-Assad and he has actively worked to undermine the United States at every turn.

Many in Washington — Kerry included — question what would come after Assad. The scare tactic of Syria turning into a Muslim Brotherhood stronghold in a post-Assad era is overblown despite Assad’s attempt to harness this canard like all the region’s dictators before him. Furthermore, Syria is a charter member of the U.S. list of state-sponsors of terrorism and the regime is in league with Iran. It served as the key transit point for jihadists crossing into Iraq to kill American troops and continues to pursue a nuclear program with the help of North Korea and Iran. It hosts the headquarters for Hamas and many other Palestinian rejectionist groups and supports Hezbollah with the transfer of advance missile systems, all the while destabilizing Lebanon and assassinating political rivals both at home and abroad. The Assad regime is committed to Muqawama, which means “resistance,” and in practice that means terrorism. So it is difficult to believe that what comes next would be worse. Moreover, Syria’s population is roughly 80% Sunni and they are currently ruled by the Alawite minority that makes up some 12% of the population. Whatever would come next in Syria would likely be naturally opposed to Iran’s Shiite encroachment in the Middle East.

The most mystifying aspect of Barack Obama’s approach to Syria is that he came to office preaching diplomatic engagement with America’s enemies. That strategy has been a resounding failure. Nevertheless, in the case of Syria, Obama made wooing Syria away from Iran’s orbit a strategic priority — this was the overall goal of U.S. policy vis-à-vis Syria, and Israel was supposed to pay the price by trading away the Golan Heights. The U.S. even returned its ambassador to Syria in a December 2010 recess appointment while the region was undergoing the first spasms of what would become the “Arab Spring.” Still the White House has yet to learn that no amount of diplomatic engagement or enticements to Syria will bring about this change in Assad’s behavior. If President Obama believes he can weaken Iran by removing Syria from its orbit, then hastening the fall of the Assad regime represents the only possibility of success.

In Syria, U.S. policy should be regime change, not behavior change. This is a historic opportunity to stand with the people of Syria and Lebanon and work for the downfall of the Assad regime. Unlike Egypt, Tunisia, or Libya, the effect of a new spring in Damascus would have the greatest positive impact on U.S. interests in the Middle East. The clock is ticking.

About the Author

Matthew RJ Brodsky is Director of Policy at the Jewish Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and editor of inFOCUS Quarterly. His website is www.MatthewRJBrodsky.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (31) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Teaghan| 5.11.11 @ 8:16AM

Maybe this doesn't benefit Barry politically.

ConantheContrarian| 5.11.11 @ 8:44AM

"Yet in Syria, the case for intervention on humanitarian grounds is already manifest and toppling the Assad regime, which remains an enemy of the U.S. in both word and deed, is strongly in America's interest."

By "intervention on humanitarian grounds", does Brodsky mean military intervention or intervention by just talking about how bad Assad is? The former sounds like typical neocon B.S. I'm not falling for it. Get out of Afghanistan and of Iraq. Put our troops where they are needed: on our southern border.

A. C. Santore| 5.11.11 @ 8:46AM

Many of my British friends used to annoy me with their complaints that our government is too easily convinced that we know best and get involved in places where we should not.

Not any more.

We are like the catcher in the rye, with far more deadly results impending, and yet we still hear the cries from the self-righteous to right every wrong in the world, overthrowing governments by force of arms when more subtle tactics don't work.

And, as usual, the Democrats will create a lot of international problems for the Republicans to try to clean up.

I just wish we could find some sanity in our international diplomacy and not act like a bunch of high school kids at a mock government field trip!

Bob K.| 5.11.11 @ 9:15AM

Some plan!

After the Sunni's kill off all the Alawites and then clear out the other minorities in Lebanon and finally have Israel surrounded there will be peace in our time in the near east.

Can we bring our troops home then?

LiveFreeOrDie| 5.11.11 @ 11:41AM

If only France had some oil/banking interests in Syria...

Atokaite| 5.13.11 @ 8:55AM

Syria used to be a French colony, once upon a long ago time
end
Semper Fi

Conservative Bob| 5.11.11 @ 12:47PM

Exactly what action do you recommend? I understand that the ditherer and chief is not doing anything.... that is his style, until he gets pushed to action by Clinton or some other advisor as he did in Libya.
But what do you want us to do. Bomb their military facilities? Send arms to the protesters through Iraq?

ncatty| 5.11.11 @ 1:38PM

The American people will not support another war, intervention, whatever you call it in the Middle East.

Steve in Pittsburgh| 5.11.11 @ 7:28PM

Think about it. The psychos who might try to attack our troops, or our country, are probably flocking to Syrian, Libya, etc.

Killing themselves and each other.

So lets not get involved at all.

Dee See| 5.12.11 @ 2:10AM

"The US has one final task before its own
collapse is completed and RED China is brought
in as 'model' and 'world enforcer' ---and that's
to 'bring in' (culturally obliterate and franchise
slum) the recalcitrant Middle East."
-ALAN WATT
(essential online coverage)

"We are using MASSIVE third world immigration
to destroy British culture once and for all
---FOREVER."
-TONY BLAIR
(Daily Mail interview cited by ALAN WATT)

AS 'stealth' NAU integration and the police state
grid is in full swing------largely unmentioned
by our capstone 'on board' media

And as David Rockefeller, just months ago,
called for VAST and RAPID 'depopulation'
(ie worldwide genocide) --by 'any and all
means'

---------------DO NOT BE DECEIVED---------------

All American American| 5.12.11 @ 8:31AM

I'm kinda surprised this article wasn't written by John Dhimmidiano.

Anyway my advice to neocons looking to intervene in every last country on Earth is this: go enlist. If you all went and enlisted at the same time you could create a Neocon Brigade who's mission would be to go and right every "wrong" in every far-away place imaginable. But your specialty would be deposing one muslim craphole dictator and replacing him with another muslim craphole dictator, cuz that ALWAYS works to America's advantage!

Wear the uniform a bit and then see how ya like it when fat, lazy, think-tank guppies get together and write about sending you to die in some muslim craphole country for NOTHING.

C Smith| 5.12.11 @ 11:34AM

“No,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bluntly stated when asked on “Face the Nation” if the U.S. would intervene in Syrian unrest as in Libya. She defended her position by saying that the situations in Syria and Libya are respectively "unique." Yes, each are unique, but not for reasons mentioned:

Syria's human rights record is among the worst according to Human Rights Watch. Syrian secret police detain, torture, and are suspect in the disappearance of an estimated 17,000 political prisoners. Libya, by comparison, is not even in the ball park.

Syria, according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), supports the following terrorist organizations: Hezbollah, the Iraqi insurgency, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Libya of course is culpable for Lockerbie, but even here Gaddafi personal sanction on the matter is debatable.

Iran and Syria maintain a mutual defense agreement, while Iran and Libya are enemies with the former encouraging the West to arm their anarchist allies.

Syria possesses weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological) and the capability to deliver them according to U.S.defense and intelligence reports. However, a September 2007 Israeli air strike is generally credited with putting Syria's nuclear program on hold. Libya, in stark contrast, has complied with the "world community," and what was her reward, "decimation":

"On December 19, 2003, Libya announced it would dismantle its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programs. Since then, U.S., British, and international officials have inspected and removed or destroyed key components of those programs, and Libya has provided valuable information, particularly about foreign suppliers. Libya’s WMD disarmament is a critical step towards reintegration into the world community.... " (Sharon A. Squassoni and Andrew Feickert (Specialists in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division), CRS Report for Congress, Disarming Libya: Weapons of Mass Destruction, September 22, 2006).

Clinton's unsubstantiated preference of Syria over Libya is not an error in judgment, but rather something more sinister:

Frank Gaffney, a columnist for the Washington Times, recently made the obvious connection in an analysis titled “The Gadhafi Precedent.” Gaffney indicates that the hostilities initiated against Libya might soon be used to “justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.” Actually, Gaffney was too restrained in his analysis. The coalition's assault on Libya was a test run or perhaps a dress rehearsal of the "Expedient for Jerusalem":

Palestinian preparations for the opportune moment to initiate anarchy in Israel are complete, pending Secretary Clinton's affirmation of the "Gadhafi Precedent." However, the situations in Libya and Israel are respectively "unique". Secretary Clinton and her coalition are unaware "the LORD hath chosen" Israel (cf. Deuteronomy 14:2), has "chosen Jerusalem" (cf. 2 Chronicles 6:6) and unto Abraham promised: "... all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever" (Genesis 13:15).

Secretary Clinton and her coalition are also unaware the LORD doesn't settles His accounts on Friday, but has chosen one DAY in all eternity to judge the earth. Yet as that DAY draws ever nearer "the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us" (Psalms 2:2-3). And as Secretary Clinton and her coalition covertly prepare ambush for Israel, the LORD bates the pit: "... I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people... and in that day will... make Jerusalem a burdensome stone... And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zechariah 12:2-9).

http://theisraelofgod.blogspot.....salem.html

jerome| 5.12.11 @ 5:45PM

Common sense and logic are puny adversaries of
vested interests, misinformation and wilful ignorance of history or facts and endless propaganda.
Whilst this liberal near blindness and myopic obsession with political correctness and expediency remains, it will be impossible to attribute any sense to the fuzzy thinking and idiotic policies being practised.
The USA is proving to the world that it is not a power to be reckoned with anylonger but merely an
appeaser and hand wringer nation scared of its own values and the threat of being unpopular.

Atokaite| 5.13.11 @ 8:53AM

Syria, Lebanon, form the Northern border of Israel. ANY misstep here spells disaster for Israel.
The Golan Heights are the passes into the interior of Israel. A holder of these passes garantees the future of Israel.
So. It is NOT a question of the Arab Spring, populist revolution, it is a question of what comes after a fall of the current Syrian regime.

Prognosticators aside, the Flow of revolution will be determined by inept pols, inept FP libs, and a willingness to look the other way by the US Citizenry.
We are witnessing a classic shift in history, akin to the Sultanates of the 7 th century. Shortsightedness is our thorn.
Semper FI
end