The Domino Effect on al-Assad
After eliminating Osama bin Laden and overthrowing Muammar Gadhafi, Barack Obama now targets the downfall of Bashar al-Assad.
The White House does not like the expression “war president,” nor does it want to talk in terms of “missions accomplished." It prefers theorizing on the role of the leader of the United States in the world “driving from the back seat.” This does not mean that from Abbottabad to Tripoli through Damascus, an Obamian doctrine is taking shape against oppressors and dictators. In order to understand what is happening, it’s important to listen to Ben Rhodes.
The 30-year-old strategy expert who writes most of Obama’s speeches on national security states that the administration applies different policies to each situation based on “conditions on the ground.” As far as bin Laden is concerned, he was eliminated thanks to a military formula combining intelligence, drones and special forces, since this operation could be conducted only on the territory of an ally country such as Pakistan, despite the fact that its secret services are deemed to be infiltrated by jihadists.
Therefore it was an American operation from beginning to end, whereas in Tripoli, preference was given to a conjunction of international legitimacy together with a UN resolution, the support of the Arab League and NATO intervention. Non-traditional methods were also used, such as training provided by special forces to support rebels but also the supply of weapons from ally countries and the provision of sophisticated intelligence equipment to the Berber tribes so as to suggest when the final assault on the Green Square in Tripoli should begin.
As for Syria, the formula Obama’s administration relies on is yet another. It consists of an absence of military intervention and is focused on giving massive support to the internal opposition thanks to technological wonders such as briefcases which can create Internet networks capable of escaping the surveillance of the regime. The U.S. believes that the domestic protest movement against al-Assad has such a dimension that it has led to a “change of power relations on the ground,”* according to William Burns, Deputy Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton, referring to the weakening of the regime's security apparatus.*
The only common element in the Syrian and Libyan operations led by the White house is that there has been a constant diplomatic effort to reinforce the isolation of the dictators using national, multilateral and where possible, U.N. sanctions.
The different approach to the current crises in the Arab Muslim world shows the Obama administration to be unsure, ambiguous and contradictory, but according to Rhodes and Burns the consistency lies in the “direction taken,” that is the decision to put opponents to America under pressure wherever they are, using means that are available pragmatically. That approach has the advantage of making Obama unpredictable to his opponents, who tend to underestimate him and risk making fatal mistakes. Bin Laden was sure he could escape drones, Gadhafi thought of quietly slaughtering the inhabitants of Benghazi and al-Assad innocently promised ‘reforms’ while he ordered to the shooting of protesters at point-blank range in public squares. This resulted in an Arab-Muslim chessboard where the opponents of America Obama inherited from George W. Bush have either been defeated, or are now in a defensive mode. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, remains excluded from this scenario since he managed to suppress protests and continues to pursue atomic weapons. The White House asserts that the weakening of al-Assad’s government will hit Iran, though not officially using the expression “domino effect.”
*Editor’s Note: This quote, while translated accurately, could not be verified.
The White House does not like the expression “war president,” nor does it want to talk in terms of “missions accomplished." It prefers theorizing on the role of the leader of the United States in the world “driving from the back seat.” This does not mean that from Abbottabad to Tripoli through Damascus, an Obamian doctrine is taking shape against oppressors and dictators. In order to understand what is happening, it’s important to listen to Ben Rhodes.
The 30-year-old strategy expert who writes most of Obama’s speeches on national security states that the administration applies different policies to each situation based on “conditions on the ground.” As far as bin Laden is concerned, he was eliminated thanks to a military formula combining intelligence, drones and special forces, since this operation could be conducted only on the territory of an ally country such as Pakistan, despite the fact that its secret services are deemed to be infiltrated by jihadists.
Therefore it was an American operation from beginning to end, whereas in Tripoli, preference was given to a conjunction of international legitimacy together with a UN resolution, the support of the Arab League and NATO intervention. Non-traditional methods were also used, such as training provided by special forces to support rebels but also the supply of weapons from ally countries and the provision of sophisticated intelligence equipment to the Berber tribes so as to suggest when the final assault on the Green Square in Tripoli should begin.
As for Syria, the formula Obama’s administration relies on is yet another. It consists of an absence of military intervention and is focused on giving massive support to the internal opposition thanks to technological wonders such as briefcases which can create Internet networks capable of escaping the surveillance of the regime. The U.S. believes that the domestic protest movement against al-Assad has such a dimension that it has led to a “change of power relations on the ground,”* according to William Burns, Deputy Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton, referring to the weakening of the regime's security apparatus.*
The only common element in the Syrian and Libyan operations led by the White house is that there has been a constant diplomatic effort to reinforce the isolation of the dictators using national, multilateral and where possible, U.N. sanctions.
The different approach to the current crises in the Arab Muslim world shows the Obama administration to be unsure, ambiguous and contradictory, but according to Rhodes and Burns the consistency lies in the “direction taken,” that is the decision to put opponents to America under pressure wherever they are, using means that are available pragmatically. That approach has the advantage of making Obama unpredictable to his opponents, who tend to underestimate him and risk making fatal mistakes. Bin Laden was sure he could escape drones, Gadhafi thought of quietly slaughtering the inhabitants of Benghazi and al-Assad innocently promised ‘reforms’ while he ordered to the shooting of protesters at point-blank range in public squares. This resulted in an Arab-Muslim chessboard where the opponents of America Obama inherited from George W. Bush have either been defeated, or are now in a defensive mode. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, remains excluded from this scenario since he managed to suppress protests and continues to pursue atomic weapons. The White House asserts that the weakening of al-Assad’s government will hit Iran, though not officially using the expression “domino effect.”
*Editor’s Note: This quote, while translated accurately, could not be verified.