Putin and Obama Co-Responsible for Syrian Disaster
A few days ago, Bashar al-Assad impudently thumbed his nose at all those hoping to stop the massacres in Syria during an interview with the Russian press. He announced that he was not worried about the military's plan to squash the rebellion because Russia was largely providing Syria with weapons, spare parts, missiles and even tanks. Here he amply showed Moscow's unbelievable persistence in helping its Syrian ally, no matter the extent it has and could still go to in driving the war which Assad wages against a segment of his population.
This interview was otherwise the exact illustration of what Le Monde described in its Aug. 30 editorial, "The Politics of Fear." Putin's politics consisted of constantly vetoing the U.N. Security Council's every resolution in appearing a little bit restrictive for Syria ... exactly like the pathetic clown Gromyko did during the Cold War with his famous "nyet." This blind support, in which the Russian president has never sought to calm Assad's murderous zeal, has driven Syria to use, almost nonchalantly, chemical weapons which the entire international community has outlawed except for eight countries — including his own. As the executioner giving carte blanche to his people, Russia and Putin will no doubt have to answer to it one day; history has a longer memory than cynics and dictators believe.
Humiliation
But if, after two years of civil war and more than 100,000 deaths, democratic countries are still discussing the legitimacy of a military intervention in which they are incapable of outlining strategic objectives or policies, this is also because their reservations — especially Obama's — have given Bashar al-Assad free reign for a long time. This is notable because at the beginning of the conflict the American president did not send diplomatic and military aid to neighboring Turkey, which has the most to fear from a civil war taking place on its borders, and which would have allowed this Islamic country to help and channel forces that were rising against the Assad regime.
What might have prevented al-Qaida supporters from "infecting" the rebellion and allowed democratic countries to support, arm and aid those battling Assad without having doubt as to who was benefiting from their support? One cannot forget that after having shot down a Turkish army jet, bombarded border towns with its tanks and organized several deadly attacks, Erdogan's government was within its right to strike back. For good reason, besides several inconsequential protests America, Turkey's NATO ally, was oddly absent.
Thus, this is how Obama and his allies do not have a single satisfactory solution today for ending the Syrian tragedy and avoiding a humiliation which it is likely that they will leave traces of in the Middle East and elsewhere.
This interview was otherwise the exact illustration of what Le Monde described in its Aug. 30 editorial, "The Politics of Fear." Putin's politics consisted of constantly vetoing the U.N. Security Council's every resolution in appearing a little bit restrictive for Syria ... exactly like the pathetic clown Gromyko did during the Cold War with his famous "nyet." This blind support, in which the Russian president has never sought to calm Assad's murderous zeal, has driven Syria to use, almost nonchalantly, chemical weapons which the entire international community has outlawed except for eight countries — including his own. As the executioner giving carte blanche to his people, Russia and Putin will no doubt have to answer to it one day; history has a longer memory than cynics and dictators believe.
Humiliation
But if, after two years of civil war and more than 100,000 deaths, democratic countries are still discussing the legitimacy of a military intervention in which they are incapable of outlining strategic objectives or policies, this is also because their reservations — especially Obama's — have given Bashar al-Assad free reign for a long time. This is notable because at the beginning of the conflict the American president did not send diplomatic and military aid to neighboring Turkey, which has the most to fear from a civil war taking place on its borders, and which would have allowed this Islamic country to help and channel forces that were rising against the Assad regime.
What might have prevented al-Qaida supporters from "infecting" the rebellion and allowed democratic countries to support, arm and aid those battling Assad without having doubt as to who was benefiting from their support? One cannot forget that after having shot down a Turkish army jet, bombarded border towns with its tanks and organized several deadly attacks, Erdogan's government was within its right to strike back. For good reason, besides several inconsequential protests America, Turkey's NATO ally, was oddly absent.
Thus, this is how Obama and his allies do not have a single satisfactory solution today for ending the Syrian tragedy and avoiding a humiliation which it is likely that they will leave traces of in the Middle East and elsewhere.