Four years ago, during the so called Arab spring, protests broke out in Damascus against Syrian dictator Bashir al Assad. The protests were peaceful and large. Not long after the demonstrations in the streets began, however, the Assad government started taking extreme countermeasures, namely Assad sent snipers to randomly shoot into the crowds in the streets.
Let's stop here for now. There's no need to rehash the entire history of the Syrian Civil War; I have written about it for four years. Instead, I want to focus on the response of the USA to this mess. Remember in 2011, the USA had just gone into Libya to overthrow Gaddafi and pushed for the ouster of Mubarak in Egypt in response to demonstrations there. The same Obama/Clinton foreign policy team that made those moves, however, took a hands off approach to the wholesale murder of innocents in Syria. America stood by silently as the snipers shot and killed many in the crowds of demonstrators. When the demonstrators did not back down but continued the protests, the Assad forces upped the level of violence. The response from Obama/Clinton was again silence. It looked like there was a possibility that the protests would succeed in overthrowing Assad, but there needed to be some sort of help from the outside. None came.
It's worth noting that the USA could easily have gotten rid of Assad at that point if Obama had decided to become an actor in the situation rather than an observer. Generally, it is not a good idea to get involved in the internal affairs of another country, but this was a different situation. The government of Syria was randomly killing hundreds of people who were doing nothing more than engaging in free speech. Nothing would be more American than to express support for those seeking freedom. Obama/Clinton chose silence.
At that point, the violence escalated. The protests changed into an armed insurrection, originally to defend against the killings by Assad. At that point, however, the Syrian "rebel" were actually Syrians and they were for the most part NOT Islamic terrorists. Obama/Clinton stayed silent. In fact, it took tens of thousands of deaths in the civil war before Obama finally said the words "Assad must go", but by then those words meant little. There were two armed forces facing each other across Syria. Non-military pressure from America meant nothing.
It took a few more years, but Obama finally announced the goal of destroying ISIS, a terror group that grew strong in part because of the mishandling of the Syrian situation by Obama/Clinton. Once again, however, Obama did not mean to actually achieve that goal. He arranged to have a program that was designed to fail. The USA would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to "train and equip" vetted Syrian rebels. That was over a year ago. So far, there are four or five of these trained rebels fighting in Syria according to the most recent testimony of the joint chiefs in Congress. The program is such a failure that any other administration would be embarrassed by it. Obama, however, achieved exactly what he intended. I'm sure his only regret is that this program was revealed for the fraud that it is before he left office and before the 2016 election.
The failure by Obama/Clinton in Syria was the result of pulling back from traditional American values. The USA did not even bother to express outrage at the killing of people who were non-violently expressing their opinions. It was a result of pulling back from America's leadership role in the world. It was the result of dishonest statements from our president designed more for domestic political consumption than actual effect in the world. Finally, this failure is the result of incompetence at the White House.
We need a new president, and this time we better get one who is competent.
Let's stop here for now. There's no need to rehash the entire history of the Syrian Civil War; I have written about it for four years. Instead, I want to focus on the response of the USA to this mess. Remember in 2011, the USA had just gone into Libya to overthrow Gaddafi and pushed for the ouster of Mubarak in Egypt in response to demonstrations there. The same Obama/Clinton foreign policy team that made those moves, however, took a hands off approach to the wholesale murder of innocents in Syria. America stood by silently as the snipers shot and killed many in the crowds of demonstrators. When the demonstrators did not back down but continued the protests, the Assad forces upped the level of violence. The response from Obama/Clinton was again silence. It looked like there was a possibility that the protests would succeed in overthrowing Assad, but there needed to be some sort of help from the outside. None came.
It's worth noting that the USA could easily have gotten rid of Assad at that point if Obama had decided to become an actor in the situation rather than an observer. Generally, it is not a good idea to get involved in the internal affairs of another country, but this was a different situation. The government of Syria was randomly killing hundreds of people who were doing nothing more than engaging in free speech. Nothing would be more American than to express support for those seeking freedom. Obama/Clinton chose silence.
At that point, the violence escalated. The protests changed into an armed insurrection, originally to defend against the killings by Assad. At that point, however, the Syrian "rebel" were actually Syrians and they were for the most part NOT Islamic terrorists. Obama/Clinton stayed silent. In fact, it took tens of thousands of deaths in the civil war before Obama finally said the words "Assad must go", but by then those words meant little. There were two armed forces facing each other across Syria. Non-military pressure from America meant nothing.
It took a few more years, but Obama finally announced the goal of destroying ISIS, a terror group that grew strong in part because of the mishandling of the Syrian situation by Obama/Clinton. Once again, however, Obama did not mean to actually achieve that goal. He arranged to have a program that was designed to fail. The USA would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to "train and equip" vetted Syrian rebels. That was over a year ago. So far, there are four or five of these trained rebels fighting in Syria according to the most recent testimony of the joint chiefs in Congress. The program is such a failure that any other administration would be embarrassed by it. Obama, however, achieved exactly what he intended. I'm sure his only regret is that this program was revealed for the fraud that it is before he left office and before the 2016 election.
The failure by Obama/Clinton in Syria was the result of pulling back from traditional American values. The USA did not even bother to express outrage at the killing of people who were non-violently expressing their opinions. It was a result of pulling back from America's leadership role in the world. It was the result of dishonest statements from our president designed more for domestic political consumption than actual effect in the world. Finally, this failure is the result of incompetence at the White House.
We need a new president, and this time we better get one who is competent.
No comments:
Post a Comment