The Washington Post isn’t letting up on its criticism of President Obama’s handling of the humanitarian crisis in Syria, and it accused the commander in chief Wednesday of standing silent while innocent people are slaughtered.
“An extraordinary new crisis is beginning to unfold in Syria, a country that already has suffered through some of the worst war crimes, humanitarian depredations and refugee flows in recent history,” the paper’s editorial board said.
“Russia, Iran and the Syrian government are conducting a major offensive aimed at recapturing the city of Aleppo and the rebel-held territory that connects it to the border with Turkey. They have cut one supply route to the city and are close to severing another, trapping rebel forces along with hundreds of thousands of civilians. Tens of thousands have fled to the border, where Turkey is denying them entry.”
All of this has come to pass despite a U.N. Security Council resolution that passed in December that called on the Syrian government stop shelling civilian territories. The resolution also demanded that the Syrian government provide humanitarian aid to the thousands of civilians who have been swept up in the war.
None of this has happened. And it’s not just Syria: Russia, which voted to approve the aforementioned U.N. resolution, is also guilty of “indiscriminately bombing civilian targets,” the Post noted.
“In the face of this onslaught, which promises to destroy any chance of an acceptable end to the Syrian civil war, the Obama administration has been a study in passivity and moral confusion,” the Post said. “President Obama is silent. Secretary of State John F. Kerry has been reduced to reading the text of Resolution 2254 aloud, as if that would somehow compel a change in Russian behavior.”
Kerry said last week that Russia and Iran looked ready to support a cease-fire in the deadly civil war, but explained it couldn’t go forward because rebel forces would not “come to the table.”
The Post was not impressed with this excuse.
“That conclusion is as preposterous as it is self-serving. Russia launched bombing operations in northern Syria within 48 hours of the Security Council vote on Dec. 18 and never stopped; it has long been obvious to almost everyone that the regime of Vladimir Putin is seeking a military victory over Western-backed rebels, not a truce,” they wrote.
The board continued, writing, “By insisting on the Geneva talks — and reducing support to the rebels as a way of forcing their participation — the United States has paved the way for the ongoing military debacle. Having predicted that Russia would find itself in a ‘quagmire,’ Mr. Obama now is at risk of watching as Mr. Putin eliminates any non-terrorist alternative to the Assad regime, and thus strengthens the Islamic State.”
The Post concluded by saying there is still time to save the hundreds of thousands of civilians who are in grave danger, but it requires that the United States finally act. This would mean reinforcing rebel forces and establishing “safe havens” for refugees.”
“The alternative — to hope that Russia and Iran stumble, or suddenly embrace a truce — has already been proved a fantasy,” the paper concluded.
