A US mistake trying to stop the Syrian slaughter

The international community is still trying to come to terms today with the failure of the resolution that attempted to deal with the continuing slaughter of citizens of Syria by strongman Bashar al-Assad.   Security Council members China and Russia both objected to the final language in the draft resolution that, judging from Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton repeated statements on the matter, originated with the US along with angry members of the Arab League who see their earlier struggles playing out again in central Syria.  Liberal champion Clinton and the State Department over-reached in helping draft the UN resolution by insisting on inserting language with the phrase “regime change”, thereby alienating two members of the security council – Russia and China - with restive populations they may also need to suppress and who aren’t anxious to put themselves in the position in which Assad currently finds himself.   Every time Hillary steps up to a microphone with her pinched lips and starts talking about regime change in that strange monotone I cringe. 

Hillary, honey, everyone knows the end game, whether it is Gadhafi in Lybia, Ben Ali in Tunisia or Assad.   You’re being kind of ambitious – and needlessly so – by first requiring a recalcitrant Security Council to agree to extremely harsh sanctions and throwing in an, “Oh-by-the-way, that includes regime change”, for good measure.  That’s like asking a girl for a threesome on the first date. Why not start with a cease fire?   Maybe throw in some UN peacekeepers.  But essentially demanding Assad’s head on a Pike was a bridge too far and counterproductive as it turns out.  Principles are fine but haven’t you ever heard of realpolitik – that exercise is unashamed political pragmatism so ruthlessly demonstrated by Nixon & Kissinger, thereby codifying it in the contemporary American foreign policy guidebook? 

Now Assad is free to go on mercilessly shelling Homs and killing his citizens at the slightest provocation.   Assad has to feel like he’s cornered; Iraq – while still struggling to keep its feet, is ostensibly a democracy now and a threat by its very existence.  Turkey to the north is a NATO member and the closest an Arab country comes to being ally of the West.  And of course, Israel is the stone in his shoe to the south.  He’s desperate with good reason and is doomed long term.  His repressive reaction to his country’s version of the Arab Spring blew up in his face and his savage doubling down has not tamped down the demonstrations.  Why can’t we show some finesse? 

There is a long history of the United States blundering in foreign policy matters – the proverbial bull in a China shop.   Witness the Bush administration and Saddam’s Iraq.  This administration has actually shown admirable restraint as the uprisings swept across North Africa.  I shudder to imagine what Bush, Cheney and their band of overwrought neo-con geniuses would have reacted as a very important ally in Egypt erupted and Mubarak was dragged off to jail.  The much criticized semi-intervention in Lybia worked out perfectly and we have been able to stifle our most intrusive impulses and let things unfold even though old war horses like John McCain led a chorus of highly partisan bitching and the republican presidential candidates attempted to take shots even as the policy was succeeding. 

Obama has also played his Iran cards almost perfectly, again, counter to normal US over-intrusiveness.  When the post election riots and demonstrations developed, the US offered encouragement to pro-democracy forces but not so much as to piss off the Mullahs unnecessarily.  We recognized that the only lasting way to have the hoped for “regime change” there was for it to develop organically.  That is was forcefully and viciously put down was an unfortunate result but only round one - it clearly laid the groundwork for future opportunities.  We have shown great patience in dealing with the fiery and unstable government leaders there while the right wants to dust off the nukes and obliterate them.  

 One of the great strengths of China has been its willingness to be patient and understand that what it wants to happen doesn’t have to happen tomorrow.   We need to develop that ability to see over the horizon and understand that it may take three or four strategic moves to achieve what the impatient chest-beaters want to happen yesterday. 

That’s why the clumsy handling of the Syrian resolution was surprising.  Of course there is a certain amount of urgency attached to the reports of people dying in the streets by the hundreds.  But all the more reason to read the room, understand that our requirement of regime change would undermine the ultimate end, and set our sights on some intermediate result, like a cease fire, to end the killing and relieve the pressure on the badly out gunned democracy protesters.  

All of this is taking place with the stability of Iraq crumbling as 1,000 years of tribal mistrust and animosity overwhelm the fragile political structure artificially put in place after our forceful and ill-considered experiment in regime change there.   The irony is stark and the lessons clear to anyone paying attention.   Call it gunboat diplomacy, nation building or peace enforced by bayonet; it doesn’t work.  The only instance of it working was in two countries that we completely destroyed and which had little choice but to accede to our wishes.   We all pray that the situation after world war two won’t be replicated any time soon so it’s time for us to abandon the idea – and indeed, the very wisdom - of forcing our notions of how countries are governed and by whom.  That’s none of our business – Uncle Ron Paul is right about that.  We should focus on getting the killing stopped and trying to help cooler heads solve problems without slaughter.

Hillary standing at a microphone, the stern schoolmarm, lecturing China and Russia about their veto of the Security Council resolution, is a foolish waste of time.  We should know they don’t care what we think and, moreover, get pissed off for having to hear it.  Maybe she’s tired; it’s been a tough three and a half years.  If that’s the case maybe she should take her threatened retirement early and let’s try it again.