The Latest "Policy" on Syria

For the last year, Syrian leader Bashir al Assad has been killing civilians in Syria who protest against his rule. At this point, the Syrian regime is regularly using tanks and artillery against whole neighborhoods and cities in an effort to kill off (literally) the opposition. The death toll is unknown, but it is way past 10,000 dead and many more wounded. American policy as enunciated by the Obama White House has responded at a glacial pace. First, Obamacrats praised Assad as a "reformer" while snipers on rooftops were shooting members of street protests at random. Then, after hundreds were dead, Obama called for Assad to stop shooting. More were slaughtered. Then, the USA withdrew its ambassador from Damascus, not in protest of the thousands left dead in the streets, but because of safety concerns for the embassy staff. As the attacks on the people of Syria escalated, Obama finally called for Assad to step down. Actually, Obama had a spokesman make the call, since Obama was too busy campaigning for re-election. Obama, however, made clear that the USA would not get involved with the opposition in Syria. Since then, we have watched parts of the city of Homs get destroyed by armored columns of Assads forces. The protesters are now the rebel opposition; there is nothing like wholesale killing by the government to energize opposition. Today comes news of a new American positions.

I know you are all waiting to hear the great step forward taken by Obama on Syria. Here it is: moving forward, the USA will act with the Arab League to send funds (100 million dollars) to pay the salaries of opposition fighters. America will also send supplies to the opposition, but these will be limited to medical supplies. No weapons of any sort will be furnished to the opposition.

One has to wonder what idiot came up with this new plan. I use the word idiot because I did not want to over-react. After all, this new plan has to be the worst thing I have ever seen. Why would we pay salaries to the opposition fighters but not give them weapons. The opposition needs weapons; it does not need salaries. The USA has now clearly sided with the opposition against Assad. We will not win any kudos from Assad or his allies for doing so. If Assad triumphs in the end, he will have no warm feelings for the USA. We will have been paying salaries to Assad's opponents. So we have to conclude that the plan is not designed to promote America's relations with the Assad regime.

That leads, of course, to the next question: if America has sided against Assad and with the opposition, why are we spending well over $100 million to give them what they do not need? We could have continued a policy of non-intervention by refusing to send anything other than humanitarian supplies like medical and food products. That, at least, makes sense. Instead, Obama has chosen to move beyond humanitarian supplies but to limit aid to items other than weapons. Obama is giving aid that is designed NOT to help.

It does not take a genius to see the extraordinary stupidity of the Obama policy. It has to be changed.