Clinton Had No Miracle Cure
A superpower may be criticized for interfering too much, but just as often for not solving the world's crises. It is easy to call George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq a fatal failure. However, 170,000 dead in the civil war in Syria, where the United States has remained aloof, is also a tragedy. In both countries, ISIL is now spreading horror and death.
Hillary Clinton, President Obama's secretary of state for four years, provides fuel to the debate by seemingly attacking him for inaction in Syria. In a much talked about interview in the magazine The Atlantic, she calls attention to the fact that she was unable to win approval for her proposal to train and arm the rebels.
Clinton is certainly planning for the presidential elections in 2016 and needs to establish a comfortable distance from the unpopular Obama. However, her criticism is vague — that the moderate rebel groups in Syria never became a credible military force was certainly a failure that led to a "big vacuum, which the jihadis have now filled.” At the same time, Clinton admits that no one can know whether her course would have worked.
The phrase “arm the insurgency” has been used a lot. However, the conditions for success were and are unfavorable. In a blog post on the Washington Post’s website, Marc Lynch, director of George Washington University’s Institute for Middle East Studies, gives a series of compelling reasons.
Rebel organizations in Syria were numerous and fragmented, more a collection of local militias than a guerrilla army. Exiled politicians had their own goals. Economic and military support came from several Muslim countries — Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey — and private individuals with totally opposing interests. Some Syrian groups were satisfied with the overthrow of the dictator Assad; the Islamists wanted to create a caliphate. Alliances were formed and dissolved; the secular fought against or cooperated with jihadis, depending on the current situation.
The idea that reliable rebels could be selected and entrusted with advanced weapons is not true at all, writes Lynch, but perhaps they could be lured by money and resources. If so, they could also shift loyalty the next day. His conclusion is that the war would have progressed in the much same way, but that the United States would have been involved in the disaster.
Clinton is right that Obama's slogan, “don’t do stupid stuff,” is not sufficient as a foreign policy principle. However, neither she nor anyone else has presented a manual against extremism and chaos.
Hillary Clinton, President Obama's secretary of state for four years, provides fuel to the debate by seemingly attacking him for inaction in Syria. In a much talked about interview in the magazine The Atlantic, she calls attention to the fact that she was unable to win approval for her proposal to train and arm the rebels.
Clinton is certainly planning for the presidential elections in 2016 and needs to establish a comfortable distance from the unpopular Obama. However, her criticism is vague — that the moderate rebel groups in Syria never became a credible military force was certainly a failure that led to a "big vacuum, which the jihadis have now filled.” At the same time, Clinton admits that no one can know whether her course would have worked.
The phrase “arm the insurgency” has been used a lot. However, the conditions for success were and are unfavorable. In a blog post on the Washington Post’s website, Marc Lynch, director of George Washington University’s Institute for Middle East Studies, gives a series of compelling reasons.
Rebel organizations in Syria were numerous and fragmented, more a collection of local militias than a guerrilla army. Exiled politicians had their own goals. Economic and military support came from several Muslim countries — Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey — and private individuals with totally opposing interests. Some Syrian groups were satisfied with the overthrow of the dictator Assad; the Islamists wanted to create a caliphate. Alliances were formed and dissolved; the secular fought against or cooperated with jihadis, depending on the current situation.
The idea that reliable rebels could be selected and entrusted with advanced weapons is not true at all, writes Lynch, but perhaps they could be lured by money and resources. If so, they could also shift loyalty the next day. His conclusion is that the war would have progressed in the much same way, but that the United States would have been involved in the disaster.
Clinton is right that Obama's slogan, “don’t do stupid stuff,” is not sufficient as a foreign policy principle. However, neither she nor anyone else has presented a manual against extremism and chaos.