RKGLOBALANALYSIS

SyriaTheRealityofhavingnogoodoptions
Vol.89 September4 2013

There probably never was a statesman whose ideas were so right and whose attitude to public opinion was so wrong. Such disparity between the grasp of ends and the understanding of means amounts to a failure in statesmanship. Charles Webster, The Foreign Policy of Castlereagh (1931), p.231

The making and pursuing of serious, mature and objective driven foreign policy is a giant task. It takes an enormous amount of patience, reflection, leadership, strategic assessment and courage to define and pursue national interests. It is within this context, the current Syrian debate must be understood. Let the mostly semi-intelligent, social-media obsess and self-proclaim analysis worry about the logistics of the potential and not so secret strikes. The confused Syrian narrative from the Obama administration is a larger symptom of a deep malaise within the makings of the US foreign policy apparatus which since the end of the Cold War has looked for "a purpose". The most recent debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan are the shining examples of that malaise. President Obama and his team has carried on that tradition through their management and response to the Arab Spring and now Syria. (Libya is a special case and even there, things are not that great. The author has already outlined the Libyan situation here several times.) From the outset, the Syrian conflict was defined in terms of threats, ultimatums and drunken outbursts type statements. Statements like ("Bashar al-Assad must go"; "Chemical weapons use crosses a red line") and policies ("we will arm the opposition") cannot be described anything else. Requiring authority from Congress at the eleventh hour introduced further undesirable uncertainty. Improvisation and policy making on the fly are not the hallmark of a serious, mature and objective driven foreign policy. The pursuing of a national interest part is also a laughing stock of a policy when it comes to Syria. That was visible yesterday when both Secretary Kerry and Hagel were unable to clearly define the US objectives in Syria of any potential strikes. Questions from the Senators to both Secretaries revolved around two basic inquiries. How will the US assess the success of any potential strikes and what is the US's plan after the strikes for Syria (assuming there is one)? The responses from both Secretaries of these two basic questions were filled with undeniable vagueness and empty national security rhetoric. In short, both Secretary Kerry and Hagel were

RKGlobalAnalysisrkglobalanalysis@gmail.com

unable to articulate the US policy towards Syria. It was an immature, at best, performance by the two key members of the Obama administration who are supposed to be President's message carriers to the World. If the Obama administration is serious about the Syrian civil war, it must align rhetoric with reality and policy with purpose. If not, couple of air strikes on some highly visible targets will not do much damage. The Syrian situation continues to deteriorate and currently, Syria is not big enough to accommodate both Assad and his divided opposition. One party has to go away and both parties do not offer any good options for the future of Syria as both of them have done their part to destroy the Syria as an entity. In fact, one could argue that the politics in the Middle-East today resembles the reality of having no good options. Apart from political, Syria is an economic and human tragedy. One in six is now a refugee in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan and most of them are children. Imagine how those kids, when they are older and are able to carry a weapon, will see the world tomorrow. Today's tragedies can be tomorrows catastrophes.

RKGlobalAnalysisrkglobalanalysis@gmail.com