Obama and a Doctrine of Reluctance in Syria

Better late than never? President Obama is now disposed to furnish non-lethal aid, including food and medical supplies, to the main political opposition group in Syria, the Syrian Opposition Coalition, led by Moaz al-Khatib, as part of the effort to accelerate the removal from power of dictator Bashar al-Assad.

The decision announced in Rome by the new Secretary of State, John Kerry, not to supply arms disappointed the more moderate rebels who suffered while the Russians and Iranians helped the butcher-dictator and jihadists set the tone for the civil war.

Among the rebels, the jihadists — those groups connected with the al-Qaida network — have proven to be the best combatants and have ended up counting on sympathy from even the moderate sectors frustrated by the vacillation of the West.

We need to be reluctant [to accept] the wisdom of the proverb “better late than never.” It could be too late, and there will never be an opportunity to remedy the delay. The reluctance of the Obama administration may prove to be lethal, impeding palatable outcomes for the West. (OK, we cannot rule out scenarios that might be less digestible than the status quo with Assad.)

The fact is that the American government is not at war. Obama is in war withdrawal, bolstered by the American population’s lack of military appetite and the necessity for budget cuts. The adventurism of the Bush era has ceded its place to this caution. The question is what will be the final cost to American interests.

President Obama operates from a semi-potent base; he wants the end of Assad, but he does not invest in the moderate opposition with any vigor out of fear that arms will fall into the hands of jihadists. During this time, there has been an increase in influence of American allies with a disturbing agenda, as is the case of the fundamentalist Islamic Regime in Saudi Arabia.

Obama fears the worst if he gets involved, but troubles will be increasing day by day for lack of involvement. Besides the carnage, there is the risk of dividing the country. Washington calculates that it cannot use a lot of force because of the risk of irritating the Russians too much — on whom it is depending to tighten the noose on Iran in the nuclear crisis. Washington’s reluctance encourages the regime in Tehran to question Obama’s willingness to follow through on his threats in case it develops a bomb.

Clearly, the situation in Syria is dangerous, but an aversion to risk has its own dangers. It is possible to proceed more vigorously without playing the irresponsible cowboy. One of the proposals is to have a no-fly zone to stop Assad’s planes from indiscriminate bombing. Much is at stake in Syria, both in humanitarian and strategic terms. Showing so much reluctance could even aggravate a civil war.

Obama’s focus is domestic, but the White House cannot neglect its obligations as a global superpower. In the past year, Obama vetoed the proposals of his high military commander and diplomat to furnish arms to the Syrian rebels. The new team, composed of Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, is more in tune with the president’s reluctance.

On the strategic horizon, the aim is to get rid of the butcher Assad, but stopping the butchering continues to be in the works. We need to convince the minorities, such as the Alawites and Christians, that the future does not belong to the jihadists. To do so, it is necessary to strengthen the moderate factions among the rebels. It is even possible, with delay, with reluctance, that a form of greater American engagement will occur, but the price will also be higher, to the point of being atrocious.