Obama Syria policy under fire from former envoy

[webfact]

Obama Syria policy under fire from former envoy

WASHINGTON: -- US President Barack Obama's former ambassador to Damascus has harshly criticised the White House's Syria policy, saying Washington should have done more earlier to arm moderate rebel factions.

Robert Ford said in an interview with the PBS NewsHour that as a result of US hesitation, extremist threats to the United States had grown.

Mr Ford's remarks appeared likely to refuel the debate over Mr Obama's cautious approach to the war, just as the White House has launched a campaign to counter criticisms of the President's foreign policy.

Syrians voted on Tuesday in an election - derided as a sham by opposition factions and Western governments - that seemed set to consolidate President Bashar al-Assad's rule.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/obama-syria-policy-under-fire-from-former-envoy-20140604-zrx8v.html


-- The Age 2014-06-04

[JesseFrank]

Washington should have done more earlier to arm moderate rebel factions.

No comments, as it would labeled American bashing anyway

[coma]

Obama has it right for once. You DO NOT arm Arabs. Period

Let alone a bunch of under educated, half ar$ed street thugs and terrorists.

[Calach]

Why woud one country take side in an another's civil war ? (Strategic interests aside).

Civil war is the most atrocious thing that can happen to a population, arming the opposition, either moderate or radical, that moreover has little chance to win over an army of half a million men, only extends the suffering of the Syrian population.

If rebels hadn't been helped by the West and Arabian monarchies from the beginning, Assad would have ended that from the beginning, more or less brutally, but definitively, and Syrian would be back to a lesser evil.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Calach

[coma]

Why woud one country take side in an another's civil war ? (Strategic interests aside).

Civil war is the most atrocious thing that can happen to a population, arming the opposition, either moderate or radical, that moreover has little chance to win over an army of half a million men, only extends the suffering of the Syrian population.

If rebels hadn't been helped by the West and Arabian monarchies from the beginning, Assad would have ended that from the beginning, more or less brutally, but definitively, and Syrian would be back to a lesser evil.

Absolutely correct.

[TVGerry]

Obama has shown what a crappy president he is. Democrats are going to have a crappy mid term election this year because of him.

[thumper101]

Huh.... They should have armed the rebels earlier??

They shouldn't be arming anyone at any time.... Over 100,000 dead and rising alarmingly fast because of the US 'arming' rebels... Maybe it would have only been a few thousand dead had Obama not stuck his nose in.... Still unacceptable deaths, but the lesser of two evils.

Same with Libya, and the situation is far worse now than before the US led NATO interfering.

It's just the old 'arm them and sit back and watch them destroy themselves' attitude...... Gross.

[Chicog]

Sit back and let the genocide happen - get criticised for doing nothing.

Arm the rebels so they have a chance at defending themselves - get criticised for poking your nose in.

The bloke can't win.

Assad has done a great job of eclipsing his dad's massacre record, I'll give him that.

[simple1]

Huh.... They should have armed the rebels earlier??

They shouldn't be arming anyone at any time.... Over 100,000 dead and rising alarmingly fast because of the US 'arming' rebels... Maybe it would have only been a few thousand dead had Obama not stuck his nose in.... Still unacceptable deaths, but the lesser of two evils.

Same with Libya, and the situation is far worse now than before the US led NATO interfering.

It's just the old 'arm them and sit back and watch them destroy themselves' attitude...... Gross.

It has been the Russians and Iran who provided the majority of weapon when Assad's regime was nearly on its knees. This has prolonged the conflict that is now reported at 160,000 deaths; allegedly 30% of whom are civilians.

The rebellion commenced when members of the Syrian military deserted to fight Assad after he commenced his brutal repression of the Arab Spring demonstrators. It has now morphed into what could be termed a proxy war along the Sunni/Shia divide. Also Sunni upon Sunni Islamic extremist fighters battling for control of territory with oil. It has been reported that Assad has been buying oil from the Sunni extremists. This could be misinformation by diplomatic sources, but has the ring of truth given Assad many acts of bastardy.

http://world.time.com/2014/01/27/syria-assad-geneva-al-qaeda/

Assad had been killing & torturing any opposition, including children, for years prior to the armed rebellion. In my opinion it’s a pity the West did not quickly assist the moderate rebels, prior to the various extremist elements entering the war.

Edited June 4, 2014 by simple1

[xminator]

On the other hand, the Obama administration might have looked a bit at how arming Taliban turned out, and been carefull arming rebels with al quaida connections in Syria. Rightfully so. While the Assad-regime is under Russian and Chinese protection there is no way to have an effective policy in Syria. Simple as that.

[Credo]

This is one of the conflicts that it is best for the US to stay out of. There will be no winner. If Assad wins, the West loses, if the opposition wins, then probably the extremists will take over and everyone loses.

A former ambassador would have emotional ties to the country.

The US is accused of bullying and sticking it's nose in other's affairs, but the minute it doesn't, then it's viewed as weak.

Obama has this one right.

[Baerboxer]

Robert Ford - wasn't that the name of the cowardly traitor that shot Jesse James in the back whilst a guest in his house?

[coma]

No doubting Obama made the right decision in not arming ISIL. Seems like they have made a successful play at neighbouring Northern Iraq. Not looking good for the region at all.

Half a million people are estimated to have fled Iraq's second city of Mosul, as Islamist militants tighten their grip after overrunning it and a swathe of other territory.
Read more at http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/06/11/02/00/jihadists-seize-iraq-s-second-city#JGGDshP5Va8rGqvL.99

[simple1]

Obama has it right for once. You DO NOT arm Arabs. Period

Let alone a bunch of under educated, half ar$ed street thugs and terrorists.

Don't believe the shallow reporting. The US supplies weapons to proxies such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia to arm 'rebels' in Syria; example at the URLs below. US is providing training for moderate rebel fighters out of their bases in Jordan, I guess there must be other more secret facilities in the regiion.

US, along with other Western countries, is a major supplier of weapons and weapons systems to Arab countries, has done so for decades, including the current administration, plus provides ongoing training & logistics for their military. US helps a number of Arab countries with supressing Al Qaeda and other extremists within their territory, it's in the public domain, especially Saudi & Yemen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

and...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ny-times-scrubs-mention-of-cia-arming-syrian-rebels/5302360

[Ulysses G.]

Obama has it right for once. You DO NOT arm Arabs. Period

Let alone a bunch of under educated, half ar$ed street thugs and terrorists.

I'm afraid that I have to agree with this. The whole red line thing was a huge mistake, but intervening in the conflict would be bigger one. There is no winning in Syria for our side.

[Steely Dan]

Sit back and let the genocide happen - get criticised for doing nothing.

Arm the rebels so they have a chance at defending themselves - get criticised for poking your nose in.

The bloke can't win.

Assad has done a great job of eclipsing his dad's massacre record, I'll give him that.

Don't blame it all on Assad, For the record Assad senior did for around 25,000 people in Hama, the press hardly bothered reporting it, they were too busy fretting over around 150 Palestinian refugees murdered by the Druze that very same year, seeing as blame could be pinned on Israel by proxy.

Returning to today, had it not been for external interference Assad would have no doubt crushed the uprising, instead we have a giant religious war between Sunni and Shia, which covers Iraq too. Remember the words 'mission accomplished'? Well now Al Qaeda have taken Mosul, Iraqs' second largest city. All intervention in the middle east is a fools errand, especially when done with so little comprehension of the factors involved.

[Morch]

Sit back and let the genocide happen - get criticised for doing nothing.

Arm the rebels so they have a chance at defending themselves - get criticised for poking your nose in.

The bloke can't win.

Assad has done a great job of eclipsing his dad's massacre record, I'll give him that.

Don't blame it all on Assad, For the record Assad senior did for around 25,000 people in Hama, the press hardly bothered reporting it, they were too busy fretting over around 150 Palestinian refugees murdered by the Druze that very same year, seeing as blame could be pinned on Israel by proxy.

Returning to today, had it not been for external interference Assad would have no doubt crushed the uprising, instead we have a giant religious war between Sunni and Shia, which covers Iraq too. Remember the words 'mission accomplished'? Well now Al Qaeda have taken Mosul, Iraqs' second largest city. All intervention in the middle east is a fools errand, especially when done with so little comprehension of the factors involved.

The Hama massacre took place on February 1982, the Sabra and Shatila massacre (assuming that is what you referred to) was on September 1982. There were condemnations of both - six months are an eternity in terms of public attention span. A couple of pedantic corrections - more than 150 refugees killed (still not getting even remotely close to the Hama body count), and it was carried out by Maronite militias rather than by Druze ones (some months later the Druze did carry out massacres against the Maronites, though, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties).

Worthwhile to point out that the Assad regime itself is aided by foreign powers - Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Wonder how things would have panned out otherwise. Current situation in Northern Iraq does look grim, will be interesting to see if the various radical Islamic factions and organizations can actually coalesce into a single entity, or something resembling such.

USA (or any other major power, for that matter) military intervention is risky at best. With not too many good guys around to support, and with most outcomes looking unsavory, maybe it is indeed best to sit this one out. Mete out whatever is needed directly, not by proxy, and without massive or lengthy deployment of troops on the ground.

[Scott]

Posts removed.

[Chicog]

USA (or any other major power, for that matter) military intervention is risky at best. With not too many good guys around to support, and with most outcomes looking unsavory, maybe it is indeed best to sit this one out. Mete out whatever is needed directly, not by proxy, and without massive or lengthy deployment of troops on the ground.

It was a stupid idea to go into Iraq in the first place, but the damage has been done. It would be even more stupid to go back in there now.

[Morch]

USA (or any other major power, for that matter) military intervention is risky at best. With not too many good guys around to support, and with most outcomes looking unsavory, maybe it is indeed best to sit this one out. Mete out whatever is needed directly, not by proxy, and without massive or lengthy deployment of troops on the ground.

It was a stupid idea to go into Iraq in the first place, but the damage has been done. It would be even more stupid to go back in there now.

Indeed.

Even committing the presence of enough troops for enough time does not guarantee results, not with changing policies. and with shifting political alliances. I think that the USA could get pretty much the same results (and the same amount of negative image and criticism) by applying other military means, aimed at achieving limited but clearer results. Not taking part at all is always an option, but not sure if it is always a realistic one.

[Steely Dan]

Sit back and let the genocide happen - get criticised for doing nothing.

Arm the rebels so they have a chance at defending themselves - get criticised for poking your nose in.

The bloke can't win.

Assad has done a great job of eclipsing his dad's massacre record, I'll give him that.

Don't blame it all on Assad, For the record Assad senior did for around 25,000 people in Hama, the press hardly bothered reporting it, they were too busy fretting over around 150 Palestinian refugees murdered by the Druze that very same year, seeing as blame could be pinned on Israel by proxy.

Returning to today, had it not been for external interference Assad would have no doubt crushed the uprising, instead we have a giant religious war between Sunni and Shia, which covers Iraq too. Remember the words 'mission accomplished'? Well now Al Qaeda have taken Mosul, Iraqs' second largest city. All intervention in the middle east is a fools errand, especially when done with so little comprehension of the factors involved.

The Hama massacre took place on February 1982, the Sabra and Shatila massacre (assuming that is what you referred to) was on September 1982. There were condemnations of both - six months are an eternity in terms of public attention span. A couple of pedantic corrections - more than 150 refugees killed (still not getting even remotely close to the Hama body count), and it was carried out by Maronite militias rather than by Druze ones (some months later the Druze did carry out massacres against the Maronites, though, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties).

Worthwhile to point out that the Assad regime itself is aided by foreign powers - Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Wonder how things would have panned out otherwise. Current situation in Northern Iraq does look grim, will be interesting to see if the various radical Islamic factions and organizations can actually coalesce into a single entity, or something resembling such.

USA (or any other major power, for that matter) military intervention is risky at best. With not too many good guys around to support, and with most outcomes looking unsavory, maybe it is indeed best to sit this one out. Mete out whatever is needed directly, not by proxy, and without massive or lengthy deployment of troops on the ground.

I don't suppose rent-a-jihaddis living in the west care much whether they are fighting in Iraq or Syria - they share the same ideology, hence merely setting foot in Muslim lands is sufficient cause for war. It is estimated that in the ISIS (AQ moniker du pays) have 50,000 fighters ready to threaten Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, I think the coalescing has been done.

[Morch]

Sit back and let the genocide happen - get criticised for doing nothing.

Arm the rebels so they have a chance at defending themselves - get criticised for poking your nose in.

The bloke can't win.

Assad has done a great job of eclipsing his dad's massacre record, I'll give him that.

Don't blame it all on Assad, For the record Assad senior did for around 25,000 people in Hama, the press hardly bothered reporting it, they were too busy fretting over around 150 Palestinian refugees murdered by the Druze that very same year, seeing as blame could be pinned on Israel by proxy.

Returning to today, had it not been for external interference Assad would have no doubt crushed the uprising, instead we have a giant religious war between Sunni and Shia, which covers Iraq too. Remember the words 'mission accomplished'? Well now Al Qaeda have taken Mosul, Iraqs' second largest city. All intervention in the middle east is a fools errand, especially when done with so little comprehension of the factors involved.

The Hama massacre took place on February 1982, the Sabra and Shatila massacre (assuming that is what you referred to) was on September 1982. There were condemnations of both - six months are an eternity in terms of public attention span. A couple of pedantic corrections - more than 150 refugees killed (still not getting even remotely close to the Hama body count), and it was carried out by Maronite militias rather than by Druze ones (some months later the Druze did carry out massacres against the Maronites, though, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties).

Worthwhile to point out that the Assad regime itself is aided by foreign powers - Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Wonder how things would have panned out otherwise. Current situation in Northern Iraq does look grim, will be interesting to see if the various radical Islamic factions and organizations can actually coalesce into a single entity, or something resembling such.

USA (or any other major power, for that matter) military intervention is risky at best. With not too many good guys around to support, and with most outcomes looking unsavory, maybe it is indeed best to sit this one out. Mete out whatever is needed directly, not by proxy, and without massive or lengthy deployment of troops on the ground.

I don't suppose rent-a-jihaddis living in the west care much whether they are fighting in Iraq or Syria - they share the same ideology, hence merely setting foot in Muslim lands is sufficient cause for war. It is estimated that in the ISIS (AQ moniker du pays) have 50,000 fighters ready to threaten Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, I think the coalescing has been done.

So far they seem hell bent on pissing off anyone and everyone - including other Sunni groups, even those with AQ affiliations.

Their latest operations managed to escalate tensions with Turkey, and of course, the Kurds aren't all that friendly.

While definitely a threat, it remains to be seen if they can actually hold on and consolidate their gains long term. One thing to run an organization, but they aim higher.

Estimates of fighters vary, some state more, some less - so far they haven't been a direct threat as far as Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were concerned, but might be in the future. Even if their numbers grow, it would still be hard for them to keep up with holding on their gains, engaging new enemies and fronts, plus moving on to threat countries further afield. That is without counting on the splintering factor so common with radical groups.

Stretching themselves a little too thin is one possible issue, but on the other hand, the minute they settle down, with proper bases and such, they become a much easier target to engage.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Scott

[Pralaad]

It would seem the great president Obama and his administration have managed to screw up most if not all international relations .

Russia, Syria , Egypt , Iran , Pakistan ,Thailand , Israel , China and few more.

[Johpa]

I'm afraid that I have to agree with this. The whole red line thing was a huge mistake, but intervening in the conflict would be bigger one. There is no winning in Syria for our side.

In rare agreement with Ulysses in this one. On some issues there is no right answer, there is no correct or even possible response when both sides are in the wrong.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Johpa

[rgs2001uk]

The bottom line is, how much per barrel will they sell us a barrel of oil?

Who cares if we buy it from the corrupt Saudis at $125 per barrel or Al Qauda at $55 per barrel?

Still to this day cant understand why the west got involved in Saddams little venture into zone 19, oil at the time $25 per barrel, by the time the western warlords had finished we ended up paying in excess of $100 per barrel.

Reminds me of the scene in Kellys Heroes

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[Asiantravel]

I don't know about anyone else but I find it hard to work out which countries are considered to be allies of the West from week to week

Assad had better be careful - he may end up suffering the same fate as Gaddafi

West poised to join forces with Assad in face of Islamic State

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/west-poised-to-join-forces-with-assad-in-face-of-islamic-state-9686666.html

Edited August 23, 2014 by Asiantravel