It is time to let the rest of the world get involved if they must…but it is time for the United States to stop thinking that we need to be involved in every local conflict in the world. But now, bowing to pressure from critics, advisers and purportedly former President Clinton, the president is moving the US more directly into the conflict in Syria. I warned about this back in April…it is STILL the wrong thing to do.
For two years, President Obama has resisted being drawn deeper into the civil war in Syria. It was a miserable problem, he told aides, and not one he thought he could solve. At most, it could be managed. And besides, he wanted to be remembered for getting out of Middle East wars, not embarking on new ones.
So when Mr. Obama agreed this week for the first time to send small arms and ammunition to Syrian rebel forces, he had to be almost dragged into the decision at a time when critics, some advisers and even Bill Clinton were pressing for more action. Coming so late into the conflict, Mr. Obama expressed no confidence it would change the outcome, but privately expressed hope it might buy time to bring about a negotiated settlement.
As I said in my earlier article, we failed in our original intervention in Afghanistan when we adopted an ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ policy and we are apparently ready to rejoin that position in Syria:
But the move also reflects nervousness in the White House about the increased involvement of Iran and its proxy group, Hezbollah, in the fight on Mr. Assad’s behalf. With the Syrian opposition on the defensive, a victory by Mr. Assad would be a victory for Iran as well.
Any number of other nations are already involved including Saudi Arabia. If they aren’t ready to step up their support of the Syrian opposition in a conflict on their doorstep…why does the US feel the need?
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, said he was “baffled” by Mr. Obama’s decision to become more deeply involved. “What exactly is our objective?” he asked. “It’s not clear to me that every nondemocratic government in the world has to be removed by force.”
And I’d like to leave with one last quote from the White House…which negates their whole position:
But White House aides on Friday again ruled out sending United States troops and dismissed calls for a no-fly zone over Syria, calling it “dramatically more difficult and dangerous and costly” than it had been in Libya in 2011, as Mr. Rhodes put it. And there is little domestic constituency for another American adventure abroad. (emphasis mine)