Print
Email
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedInOn Friday, the Syrian regime killed another hundred peaceful protesters, and then fired at people attending their funerals on Saturday, killing yet another dozen.
What has been the Obama administration’s response? To toughen up its rhetoric a bit, but to do nothing.
On Friday, after an especially weak performance by the president’s press spokesman (who contrasted the terrible situation in Libya with what he apparently thought was a far better one in Syria), the White House issued a new statement from the president.
“The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the use of force by the Syrian government against demonstrators,” the statement said. And, “We strongly oppose the Syrian government’s treatment of its citizens,” it concluded. What’s wrong with that?
First, where is the president? This statement carefully avoided using the word “I” and was handed out by the White House. The president’s appearance on camera, delivering such words personally so that they can be carried into Syria on al-Jazeera and YouTube, would be much more effective. With hundreds now dead in the streets of Syria, it is past time for him to speak.
Second, the Friday statement continues to appeal to Assad: “We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people.” That might have been acceptable three hundred deaths ago, but it is now absurd. The president called on Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, a long-time American ally, to leave; why the reticence about Assad, a long-time American enemy?
Third, the White House statement is just words. It does not promise, suggest, or announce any actions. This administration has spent two years engaging with the Assad regime and loosening U.S. sanctions on it. “The World Trade Organization’s 153 members granted Syria observer status after the U.S. dropped its opposition in a sign the Obama administration is softening its stance toward the Middle Eastern nation,” Bloomberg reported a year ago, noting also that “President Barack Obama’s administration has already loosened export-license curbs on aircraft repairs for state-owned Syrian Arab Airways.” So this administration, having followed a foolish policy of engagement with this barbaric regime, has a special obligation to correct its course. The first action should be recalling our ambassador to Syria, who should never have been given his recess appointment to the post last year. Second, the United States should be calling immediately for special meetings of the UN Security Council and Human Rights Council, to bring additional focus on the murders of peaceful protesters in Syria and seek sanctions against the regime, in the hope that this attention will constrain its bloody hand.
As in Tunisia, as in Egypt, as in Libya and Bahrain, the president has been slow to react. This is inexcusable in the face of the mounting death toll—and the very real gains for the United States if the vicious Assad regime falls.
thank you for standing up for the syrian people.i reside in the us dand us citizen ,am afraid to voice my feelings and opinion about what is hapenning in syria.The president comments are signaling that assad’sregime is here to stay.thank you
Obama’s policy is based on his personal wishes not US national interests. These interests are to support Muslims, Palestinians and the enemies of Israel. He will not take any steps to weaken the enemies of Israel- Iran and Syria.
very true..the fall of Asad regime will benefit the whole region .and i think that the threat of islamism or civil war is exagerated..
It’s hard , at this point , to determine if President Obama is simply out of his league or completely spineless regarding Syria and every other country in the Middle East . I would suggest that it’s both .
One thing though , that he does make clear , is his animus for and neglectful attitude toward Israel which is the only country in the region which keeps its word and does exactly what it says it will do .
His “foreign policy” , if it can be described as such , has been nothing short of disgraceful .
Maybe this Administration’s real fear or concern is in confronting Iran so directly if the U.S. takes more direct or actual steps agains the Syrian regime (especially at this time with the U.S. involved in several wars)?
I suppose we will find out very shortly where the Syrian people stand on Islamism, Israel, Iran, Lebanon, Hizbollah, the hosting of Hamas, and the rest.
Of course, it probably can’t be any worse than Assad, and would likely be better, as far as the US is concerned, on a signficant subset of these issues.
The USA’s silence/impotence/incompetence on Syria is disgraceful. It’s alsmost as if having made ‘engagement with Syria a cornerstone of his Mideast policy, what with a new ambassador, he is reluctant to see another brick of of his Mideast policy crumble – for he knows it will be thrown in his face during the upcoming election cycle – and he may even hope for Assad to remain in power, weakened, and therefore more amenable to his engagement (paid for with Israeli concessions).
Again, disgraceful, if true.
I wonder what ‘Vanity Fair’ has to say about this?
They just did an in depth story about the wonderfullness of Assad’s wife, so they might have a some unique insights . . . .
Perhaps the Obama Admin is basing its Syria policy on those Vanity Fair insights?
“Where is President Obama?” Well, that’s a good question. He must be the same place he’s been during the budget crisis; the attempts to short-circuit health care reform legislation; climate change issues; the Medicare and Social Security matters…When you find him, do let us know.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but there are two things that irk me.
First, President Obama campaigned against idealistic interventions in other countries. Now the United States is engaged in three simultaneous wars? Seems fairly bold to me not, as some have suggested, a sign of a lack of leadership.
Second, after western countries accidentally bombed the Libyan opposition…a few times…I question the competence of the United States and other western countries to intervene without causing more bloodshed.