Obama’s Syria Catastrophe | Frontpage Mag

Obama’s Syria Catastrophe | Frontpage Mag

51 U.S. Diplomats Blast White House Syria Policy, Urge Military Strikes Against Assad | The Tower

51 U.S. Diplomats Blast White House Syria Policy, Urge Military Strikes Against Assad | The Tower

Former Senior Obama Official: U.S. Allowed Syria Carnage to Save Iran Deal | The Tower

Former Senior Obama Official: U.S. Allowed Syria Carnage to Save Iran Deal | The Tower

OBAMA'S FOLLIES WITH SYRIA: A Russian Bear in the Desert | The Weekly Standard

by Tod Lindberg

Russia was nominally opposed to the 2003 Iraq war but supported Security Council Resolution 1441, in November 2002, giving Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” and promising “serious consequences” for the failure to do so. The United States expected to but couldn’t obtain a second Security Council resolution in early 2003 containing explicit authorization for the use of military force against the Hussein regime; the big problem then was not Russia, but France. And of course the United States was prepared to act on its own authority anyway, about which Russia could or would do nothing of consequence.

Similarly, Russia did not like the idea of NATO enlargement, especially into formerly Soviet territory, namely, the Baltics. But was Russia willing to, for example, act covertly to destabilize Lithuania in the hope of derailing U.S. enthusiasm for its inclusion in the enlargement round in 2004? No, it wasn’t (or couldn’t).

More recently, Russia was hardly enthusiastic about coming to the rescue of Libyan civilians as forces loyal to Muammar Qaddafi closed in to crush the rebellion and—if Qaddafi’s own words were to be believed—exact reprisals on a mass scale. Certainly Russia was not in favor of toppling the Qaddafi regime. But Russia and China did voluntarily subscribe in 2005 at the United Nations World Summit to the principle of the “responsibility to protect”: that if a state fails to act to protect its populations from atrocities (or perpetrates atrocities), the international community acting through the United Nations may do so. And so Russia and China abstained on Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized the use of force to protect Libyan civilians................

FULL ARTICLE HERE: A Bear in the Desert | The Weekly Standard

Of Course It's Not ‘Too Late’ in Syria - The Daily Beast

Whenever someone says it's "too late" to deal with a policy crisis, it's a sure indication that they are fundamentally comfortable with the status quo. Now that the United States has finally announced that it is going to get involved in directly aiding rebel groups in Syria, the siren song of "too late" is being heard loudly and clearly. "Too little"—or even "don't do anything at all"—might be a fair criticism, but "it's too late" is almost never true of any ongoing policy challenge. Syrian rebel fighters belonging to the "Martyrs of Maaret al-Numan" battalion leave their position after a range of shootings on June 13, 2013 in the northwestern town of Maaret al-Numan. (Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty)

Many Americans have opposed direct involvement in Syria from the outset. A new strand of neo-isolationism, uniting factions on the left and the right, has become very fashionable in Washington, post-Afghanistan, Iraq and the fiscal crisis. There are others who genuinely can't see any major interests at stake or reasonable outcomes available. And there are some who are essentially comfortable with the Damascus regime anyway.............

FULL ARTICLE HERE: Of Course It's Not ‘Too Late’ in Syria - The Daily Beast

Krauthammer Slams Obama’s Syrian Policy: Worse Than Doing Nothing | Washington Free Beacon

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff

June 17, 2013 7:10 pm

Columnist Charles Krauthammer ripped the Obama administration’s Syrian policy on Special Report Monday, saying his weak intervention was worse than doing nothing.

Speaking about Obama and Russian president Vladimir Putin’s tense G8 summit meeting about how to resolve the Syrian conflict despite supporting opposing sides, Krauthammer said “it wasn’t a frosty meeting, it was a useless meeting.”

While Russia has a long-vested interest in having influence over Syria and has shown clear, direct support for Bashar al-Assad, Obama’s tepid aid of small arms to the rebels was “marginal” and unlikely to have any influence over the outcome, Krauthammer said..........

FULL ARTICLE HERE: Krauthammer Slams Obama’s Syrian Policy: Worse Than Doing Nothing | Washington Free Beacon

The Obama doctrine in Syria and elsewhere: Washington Post

By Jennifer Rubin

We’ve heard all the rote lines from the White House. Bashar al-Assad is a “reformer” became “Assad must go!” Then we migrated to “Assad is done. Only a matter of time.” Then we heard that use of chemical weapons would be a “game changer.” Then: “We’ll look into it.”

Forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. 
(Rami Bleible/Reuters)

In fact, Assad was never a reformer, President Obama never intended to do much to oust him, the red line was an empty threat (no one knows what has happened to that investigation), although France, Israel and even the lowly United Nations have concluded chemical weapons have been used. Oh, and while we were dawdling Russia, Hezbollah and Iran have been madly arming Assad.

If you assumed that everything the administration has been saying about Syria is untrue (a good practice, whatever the topic), then it should come as no surprise that Assad now has the upper hand. The New York Times headline says it all: “Rebels’ Losses in Syria Complicate Options for U.S. Aid.” Sure when you do nothing while the other side gets help, aid options get complicated. Or, “Assad wins, United States has blown it.”........................

FULL ARTICLE HERE: The Obama doctrine in Syria and elsewhere

McCain: Without American action, Assad could remain in power | The Times of Israel

Arizona and New Jersey senators voice bipartisan support for military backing for Syrian rebels, skeptical of diplomacy’s efficacy

By Elhanan Miller May 25, 2013, 11:06 pm 

US Republican Senator John McCain speaking in Jerusalem in February 2012 (photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)

DEAD SEA, JORDAN — Syrian President Bashar Assad will likely remain in power unless decisive American action is taken to remove him, US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said Saturday.

Speaking to the press at the World Economic Forum on the Middle East and North Africa at the Jordanian Dead Sea, the former presidential candidate voiced skepticism ahead of a planned international conference on the Syrian civil war next month, popularly referred to as Geneva 2..................

FULL ARTICLE: McCain: Without American action, Assad could remain in power | The Times of Israel

LOSING TO ASSAD AND COMPANY: Muddled Israeli-US policies on Assad set stage for Golan offensive against Israel

Four days after a “senior Israeli official” warned Assad through The New York Times of Wednesday, May 15 that he risks forfeiting power if he retaliates for Israeli attacks on weapons supplies to terrorists, “Israeli officials” were telling the London Times of Saturday, May 18 something quite different: “An intact, but weakened, Assad regime would be preferable,” they said. “Better the devil we know than the demons we can only imagine if… extremists from across the Arab world gain a foothold there.”

The night before this report, Fox News aired footage appearing to show Israeli commandos inside Syria racing back on foot to Israeli territory.

Without going into whether the two sets of “Israeli officials” were one and the same, their utterances are clearly making Israel’s policy-makers and defense leaders look muddled and uncertain – or, worse, unable to think clearly – about how to cope with the menace building up on the Syrian Golan. This could take the form of a Syrian war of attrition and/or a Hizballah offensive against Upper and Western Galilee...........

FULL ARTICLE HERE: Muddled Israeli-US policies on Assad set stage for Golan offensive against Israel