Elliott Abrams

Pressure Points

Abrams gives his take on U.S. foreign policy, with special focus on the Middle East and democracy and human rights issues.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

Syria: Are We Trying to Lose?

by Elliott Abrams
September 3, 2013

It’s hard to win if you’re not trying. What are we trying to do in Syria?

Today’s Wall Street Journal carries a story about the failure of the United States, three months after saying we would arm the Syrian rebels, to get one bullet through to them. The Journal explains:

The delay, in part, reflects a broader U.S. approach rarely discussed publicly but that underpins its decision-making, according to former and current U.S. officials: The Obama administration doesn’t want to tip the balance in favor of the opposition for fear the outcome may be even worse for U.S. interests than the current stalemate….

The White House wants to strengthen the opposition but doesn’t want it to prevail, according to people who attended closed-door briefings by top administration officials over the past week. The administration doesn’t want U.S. airstrikes, for example, tipping the balance of the conflict because it fears Islamists will fill the void if the Assad regime falls, according to briefing participants, which included lawmakers and their aides.

Thousands of Syrians are fighting and dying to free their country of a regime they hate, one that has killed 100,000 (and perhaps many more) of their countrymen and made millions into refugees and displaced persons– and used chemical weapons against its own population. There are also jihadis and Islamists in that fight.  But instead of strengthening the nationalist, non-jihadi forces with lethal and non-lethal aid so that they could win, overthrowing the regime and then preventing Islamist groups from taking power, what has the Obama administration done? Tried not to tip the balance, tried not to win, and apparently taken the view that we just want the fight to go on and on.

Now the administration is saying we have to do a military strike against Syria because Assad used chemical weapons to kill citizens. I happen to agree with that policy. But is it not odd to strike at him for killing citizens, if we have a policy that by design lengthens the conflict, assuring that there will be yet more deaths and more refugees? Perhaps this is something Republicans in Congress can address when the administration seeks their votes. Iran and Hezbollah, and for that matter Russia, have a policy: to win. And winning means Assad stays in power. In good conscience, can we ask Syrian rebels to fight on if we do not seek victory- if we seek to prolong the conflict because we want just enough “balance” on the ground to permit us to negotiate a Syria deal with Russia?

That policy is so foolish, so redolent of misunderstanding of international politics, war, and Putin’s Russia that I would call it inconceivable– were it not for this administration’s grossly incompetent handling of Syria for  two years now, since the rebellion began.

 

Post a Comment 3 Comments

  • Posted by EthanP

    The problem now, as I see it is that POTUS has set the stage. Regardless of what anyone thinks of BHO, he IS the President. If the USA is to stand for anything, his word has to stand also. I’m not a supporter if Syrian intervention. Nor this POTUS. But we can’t back off now.

  • Posted by A.T. Halmay

    Perhaps this has less to do with foreign relations than with a convenient diversion to mask domestic problems facing Obama. As for the role of any free world state, the only sensible tack would seem to be strictly an observer. The world will always be better off having to deal with a corrupt dictator than with so-called men of God. Theocracies bring nothing but harm to their own people and headaches to the rest of the world. Yes, and if a long, dragged out conflict continues interminably, reducing in numbers both sides, the world wins.

  • Posted by Steve

    1. Thousands of Syrians are fighting and dying to take power in Syria and inflict upon the Alawi the same treatment the Alawi have inflicted upon them. The author, who was consistently wrong in Iraq, has no credibility at all in the evaluation of this matter.
    2. As for Assad/Hezbollah winning – this sounds exactly like a hawk in the US saying we could have “won” in Vietnam. Assad/Hezbollah can never win in Syria because they are hated by 2/3 of the population. They will fight forever. Fine. The so called “Syrian people” are no friend of the United States, as was shown in every pre-war poll. And in fact there are no such thing as Syrians. That is only a geographic term the French put to the pseudo-state they set up to serve their perceived colonial interests. No one can ever win in Syria.
    3. People like this author who have spent their entire lives in government and in think tanks and in Washington DC do not understand the mood of our country, and in fact do not understand that the people of this country see no good coming to the UNITED STATES from this intervention. I am sure the intervention will do AL Qaeda very good, just like the intervention in Iraq was guarantied to produce an Iranian satellite.
    Enough already.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required