'Apocalyptic': Intelligence
Chief James Clapper may have spoken the truth
this time, when he
described the crisis in Syria. Above, people in Yarmouk,
Damascus, line up for
food. Rebels in besieged neighborhoods have been
turning over their
weapons to the Assad government in exchange for an
easing of its blockades, which
have kept supplies from reaching civilians.
Obama Must Decisively Reject 'Partnership' with Assad
(Dar al-Hayat, Saudi Arabia)
"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has repeatedly hinted that the Obama Administration will not collaborate with Bashar al-Assad and his family in an effort to draft this heretic into the fight against terrorism. ... the U.S. president is obliged to clarify what his position is on a partnership with Assad in the war against terrorism, which has been outlined by Moscow, supported by Tehran and adopted by Damascus. It would be illogical for the Obama Administration to demand the ouster of Assad if it would agree to a strategy that is dependent on him."
In the face of increasing shrieks of 'hypocrisy' from around the world, Secretary of State Kerry makes remarks on the release of America's annual country reports on global human rights, Feb 28.
What
will President Obama do, after acknowledging
that with each passing day, "more people inside of Syria are suffering"
and "the state of Syria itself is crumbling"? ... "That is bad for
Syria," he has said. "It is bad for the region. It is bad for global
security," because "there are extremists who have moved into the
vacuum in certain parts of Syria in a way that could threaten us over the long
term."
This
quote of the president's despair will not save Syria, which has
been described to Congress by Director of U.S. Intelligence James Clapper as "apocalyptic."
That President Obama grieves over the "heartbreaking" situation in
Syria will not benefit the dead, victimized by barrel bombs, starvation and siege.
It will not benefit the victims of terrorism, which has spread as a result of
the prolonged conflict in Syria, the ridiculous backing-away of the United
States, and the arrogance of Russian nationalism. If Barack Obama intends
to correct his policies, he must first restore the
world's confidence in him and his word.
He
has to undo the reputation he acquired as a result of his handling of
the Syrian question. If he genuinely believes that the deterioration of the
humanitarian situation, the spread of Islamic radicalism and the persistence of
killings and crimes against humanity make Syria "one of our highest
national security priorities," the American president must put forward a
policy - not express heartbreak. Despair is not a policy. Rather, it is a way of
avoiding taking positions that Obama is well-aware of. A
decisive turning point in the Syrian tragedy is available to the U.S. president.
All he needs to do is to take actual decisions instead of hiding behind his pointing
finger. Will Obama - today - remain hidden behind that finger, or astonish and
surprise us by taking action?
This
is not about the U.S. president abandoning his decision to satisfy American
public opinion by withdrawing from the wars of others. No one expects the
dispatching of American soldiers to Syria under any circumstances, nor even a
military strike on Damascus, which was withdrawn in the final hours of the
countdown. None of this is part of the thinking of those watching to see what Obama
is willing to do in revisiting his policies toward Syria.
The
first stop en route to a policy change is a review of previous policies in
order to identify failures and successes.
In
Syria, the policies of attrition, exhaustion, and mutual destruction between
the forces of the Assad regime and its allies, Lebanese Hezbullah and Iran's
Revolutionary Guard, and the forces of radical Salafism
and affiliates of al-Qaeda - have failed.
The
Damascus regime believes it is on verge of victory and is confident it will
survive and restore itself. Furthermore, Assad's allies are determined to fight
any battle beside him or for him, and he receives regular arms shipments from
Russia and Iran. Fanatics and terrorists in Syria have found a focal point for
their global ideological battle.
Having
distanced itself from the Syria crisis, the Obama Administration has contributed to the
growth of these profiteers, who have exploited America's restraint to their own
benefit. Thanks to three Sino-Russian Security Council vetoes, the extension of
the conflict is in keeping with the plans of the radicals and terrorists. Neither
are consumed or exhausted.
All
things considered, the time has come to admit that the policies of attrition,
exhaustion, and mutual destruction in Syria have utterly failed, leading
instead to a tragic and destructive catastrophe for Syria and its people, and
that there is no justification for such policies to continue.
Neither
is there room for a decisive military victory for either side in Syria, or
for those taking part or who are implicated in such policies.
The
notion of an alliance with the intelligence
agencies of the West, from which information flowed on the al-Nusra Front, the ISIS and the like, would be a dream come true
for the Assad regime and its allies, and an example of poor bad policies on the part
of the West, notably the United States.
U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry has repeatedly hinted that the Obama Administration
will not collaborate with Bashar al-Assad and his
family in an effort to draft this heretic into the fight against terrorism. Kerry
has reiterated that Assad is a magnet drawing terrorism to Syria and the
region. This left the impression that the administration would frustrate any
hopes of Damascus to tempt the U.S. intelligence services into a political
partnership.
Damascus
is patiently betting on the exhaustion of Washington, confident that the Obama Administration
will shrink away and walk the path set by Damascus, Tehran and Moscow for a
partnership in the fight against terror, with the intent of evading the
political transition laid down by Geneva II, which means in
practical terms the replacement of the Assad regime.
President
Obama is obliged to directly explain himself - not merely through his secretary
of state. There is an impression that Obama uses Kerry to make political talk
while keeping his options open - and not necessarily in keeping with his public
discourse. Even if that [U.S. intelligence cooperation with Assad] was merely
an impression held by the Syria-Russia-Iran-China-Hezbullah axis, the president's
lack of clarity on the partnership sought by this axis only serves to aid and
foster its strategy.
Therefore,
the U.S. president is obliged to clarify what his position is on a partnership
with Assad in the war against terrorism, which has been outlined by Moscow, supported
by Tehran and adopted by Damascus. It would be illogical for the Obama Administration
to demand the ouster of Assad if it would agree to a strategy that is dependent
on him.
If
Obama has chosen to reject this call for a partnership, he must adopt a clear,
consistent and determined policy that includes the means to eradicate the
growing Salafist fanaticism in Syria and prevent the further influx of new
jihadists and foreign volunteers in their terrorist ideological war.
One
of those means is interagency intelligence collaboration both regionally and
internationally, in addition to a high-quality dialogue with its partners about
Syria, implemented with other participants and their friends who possess both
influence and expertise on how to contain al-Qaeda and register victories against
it.
Another
such means lies in rebuilding confidence with the forces of the moderate
opposition and local leadership - quickly - done like it was with the "Sons of Iraq."
Certainly, insistence on implementing Geneva II and its primary objective - the
establishment of a transitional governing body with full executive powers - is
of the utmost importance in this endeavor.
Now
this is where the American-Russian relationship becomes part of the equation.
This relationship, which since the agreement to destroy Syria’s chemical
weapons has been the subject of celebration, needs for practical reasons to
take a pause. The Obama Administration is required, with resolve and clarity,
to demonstrate that it will not play second fiddle to Russia concerning Syria, and
take into account that Russia is an ally of the Damascus regime.
There
is a clear imbalance on this issue: Russia is an active ally of Damascus,
funding, supplying arms, preventing the U.N. Security Council from adopting
resolutions, hindering accountability for crimes against humanity and defending
the use of "tools" like starvation, siege and barrel bombing.
Utilizing its leverage as co-sponsor of the political process with the United
States, Russia destroys American credibility, assured that Washington will subordinate
itself to the Kremlin's wishes, given its desire to distance itself from the
Syrian issue.
The
Obama Administration does not enjoy a similar alliance-style of relationship with
the Syrian opposition it supports verbally but hardly practically. Washington
has parted with its allies over Syria, including with the Arabs and Europeans. Consequently,
it has acquired a reputation of retreat and treachery and disloyalty to its
friends, losing the prestige and influence as a great power.
Now
there is a chance for Obama to restore that confidence and prestige, provided that
he makes a decision. This is an opportune moment because Russia has abused its
power and itself acquired a reputation for making a deal with the devil and
disregarding human values for the sake of its own national interests.
Russia
today appears above accountability, boasting of its victory over the "old"
USA in Syria and the Middle East. So the moment is right for a serious and
solemn dialogue with Russia - if Obama is serious about diverting Syria from
the path of tragedy.
Another
solemn message should be sent to Tehran addressed to Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani,
who, commenting on sanctions, described U.S. officials as arrogant and
opportunistic bastards and said he considers U.S. threats to be, "like the
roar of an old lion that doesn't dare to attack."
The
American President has the capacity to make clear to Iran that sanctions relief
requires a serious reform of Iranian foreign policy, which is required under
the U.S. D'Amato Act [aka/the Iran and Libya
Sanctions Act]. This should be firmly asserted by Obama as he encourages
openness on Iran, putting Syria at the forefront of the policy changes demanded
of Tehran.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
If
he chooses to adopt them, the U.S. president has several tools and diverse
options at his disposal to impliment effective policies toward the Syrian disaster.
If
Obama actually decides that the Syrian crisis is a top national security priority,
he can inform Moscow and Tehran that Washington will now judge their roles in
Syria from an American national security perspective, and that their policies
are contributing to the spread of terrorism, the collapse of Syria, and are
destabilizing neighboring countries.
The
decline of the reputation and prestige of the United States in the Middle East
and beyond is a matter that Barack Obama must remedy and repair, which he will
fail to do unless he reverses himself and stands with confidence, decisiveness
and determination. Consequently, President Obama can regain what they call
America's moral leadership. Hiding behind one’s finger is not a policy worthy
of a man who came to the White House with promises that amazed the world - all
of which now seem like a mirage.
