Walter Pincus, Washington Post: Obama has strategy for Syria, but it faces major obstacles
It’s time to stop this constant refrain that President Obama has no strategy for Syria.
There is and always has been a strategy. From 2011 it has been to end the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, primarily through diplomatic rather than military means. Since 2012, the Obama strategy has been to use force to degrade and defeat the Islamic State.
The basic element of the diplomatic strategy for ending Assad’s rule, repeated in Friday’s Vienna communique, says, “This political process will be Syrian-led and Syrian-owned, and the Syrian people will decide the future of Syria.”
Defeating the Islamic State in Syria, under Obama’s strategy, rests on enabling local Syrian forces not only to beat back Islamic State fighters but to hold freed territory until a new central government, established in Damascus, can take over.
WNU Editor: According to Walter Pincus .... President Obama's strategy for Syria is sound .... it's the tactics that have been the problem ... and these tactics are changing as conditions on the ground are changing. (My eyes are rolling). What's my take .... President Obama's strategy has always been to stay away from a new war in the Middle East .... and his tactics have been to minimize America's involvement. His motivations for pursuing this strategy are multiple .... but I believe the big ones are (1) he does not want a legacy where he is remembered as being a President who got involved in another Middle East war, and (2) political .... he knows that the American public are not interested in getting involved in another major war. Unfortunately .... as much as President Obama may not want to get involved in another war, war wants to get involved with him .... and that is why his strategy (or what little there is of it) will be remembered as a failure.
2 comments:
I'm certain that the effort and cost of dealing with ISIS two years ago would have been a lot less than the cost of dealing with them in say 2 to 3 more years when have better military resources, cover more area and are infringing on non Mid East territory (Europe).
Unfortunately, Bob,
At that time, despite all the rapes, murders, slaughter and destruction ISIS was causing in Iraq and Eastern Syria, it's presence was "valued" by the U.S. administration, for putting pressure on Maliki and forcing him to step down,"
So, Maliki, who was having some success building a "strong" Iraqi Shia Govenment with some Iranian Government support, centered on the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police, was "forced " due to the losses against ISIS,
And was replaced by Al-Abadai, who's Government is so weak, that it relies on the Shia Militia's including the Mhadi Army, to stay in power.
Post a Comment