Fareed Zakaria: Obama on the path to success in Syria

[flpoljunkie]

Fareed Zakaria: Obama on the path to success in Syria
By Fareed Zakaria, Published: September 11

Whatever the twisted path, whether by design or accident, the Obama administration has ended up in a better place on Syria than looked possible even days ago.

The president was wise to take up and begin to test the Russian offer to remove and possibly destroy Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons. In fact, the offer has forced some clarity from a sometimes muddled U.S. foreign policy. For the president to turn this situation into a foreign policy success, he will have to maintain that clarity.

There are three distinct arguments for intervention in Syria, which are sometimes mixed together in calls for action. The first is regime change, which would require policies to help the rebels topple Bashar al-Assad’s government. The second is humanitarian, to do something to stop the enormous sufferingthere. The third is simply to underscore and enforce an international norm against the use of chemical weapons.

President Obama has now firmly committed himself to the third — and only the third — objective. In his speech Tuesday, he rejected the first, explaining that the United States “cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.” His proposed military action would be even smaller in scale than the Libyan strikes, he noted, and, thus, would be unlikely to shift the balance of power much in Syria.

Obama’s proposals are also not likely to reduce the humanitarian crisis. Even his most muscular proposals — airstrikes and aid to the rebels — would probably intensify the conflict and increase the number of people killed or displaced. (Several studies of past military interventions, including as recently as from 2012, confirm this observation.) Nearly all of the deaths in Syria have come through conventional weapons and, as Time magazine’s Michael Crowley notes, “The images of children crippled by conventional bombs were sickening, too.”

So, Obama’s aim is solely to affirm an international norm. To this end, he already has achieved something important. He has mobilized world attention, and there is now a chance, albeit small, that he might get a process in place that monitors and even destroys Syrian chemical weapons. Almost certainly he has ensured that such weapons won’t be used again by the Assad regime. That’s more than he could have achieved through airstrikes — which are unlikely to have destroyed such weapons. (Bombing chemical weapons facilities could easily release toxins into the atmosphere.) This is a significant success.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-obama-is-on-the-path-to-success-in-syria/2013/09/11/5757f55a-1b06-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html

[RobertEarl]

1. Obama is looking like a Peace monger

This is certainly a change from previous administrations.

Of course Clinton and Carter both leaned that way, but they were a minority.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

2. For all the Hair On Fire around here...

We ended up with what we wanted (so far). An end to chemical attacks, Syria's agreeing to operate under international law, and no U.S. involvement.

It may have been three-dimensional chess or it may have been dumb luck.

But for the moment, we appear to be moving in a positive direction.

[Barack_America]

3. You forgot Putin!

In all seriousness though, Zakaria makes a convincing case here and I think he is spot on.

[John2]

4. I think

Putin must have had something to do with this. I don't know what game he is playing but the Syrian's seems to trust the Russians. The Russians have essentially called the American Administration Liars. Syria is now Russia's responsibility, if the Attacked.

[JRLeft]

5. Chechnya! He doesn't want Chechnyan terrorists acquiring those chemical weapons.

[davidpdx]

6. I generally agree with Zakaria on most things

I only wish there was more humanitarian assistance we could provide.