Russia is wrong to seek a military solution in Syria. “Beltway” critics are wrong to think a “weak” Russian President Vladimir Putin has the upper hand over the United States. And U.S. military intervention in the Middle East is wrong because the people there can’t find a way to live together.
Those are just three of the reasons President Obama cited in his news conference Friday for why he’s doubling down on his strategy for Syria, in spite of the Russian intervention that most outside observers have described as game-changing and Putin’s call this week at the United Nations for a more inclusive coalition against the Islamic State that includes embattled President Bashar al-Assad.
“Sometimes the conversation here in the Beltway differs from the conversation internationally. Mr. Putin had to go into Syria not out of strength but out of weakness, because his client, Mr. Assad, was crumbling and it was insufficient for him to send him arms and money. Now he’s got to put in his own planes and his own pilots,” Obama said.
“I didn’t see after he made that speech in the United Nations suddenly the 60-nation coalition that we have start lining up behind him. Iran and Assad make up Mr. Putin’s coalition at the moment. The rest of the world makes up ours.”
With a jab of his finger, the president dismissed as “half-baked ideas” and “mumbo-jumbo” the alternatives offered to his hands-off approach to the Syrian crisis, which is heavily influenced by the U.S. experience in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 and his desire to keep the United States out of another Middle Eastern “quagmire.”
“Unless we can get the parties on the ground to agree to live together in some fashion, then no amount of U.S. military engagement will solve the problem,” Obama said, noting that this had not yet happened either in Afghanistan or Iraq.
“In my discussions with President Putin, I was very clear that the only way to solve the problem in Syria is to have a political transition that is inclusive, that keeps the state intact, that keeps the military intact, that maintains cohesion but that is inclusive, and the only way to accomplish that is for Mr. Assad to transition,” he said.
But Obama’s dismissive tone, echoing a week’s worth of White House talking points, ignored the fact that calls for a new U.S. approach to Syria are coming from a diverse group that includes U.S. lawmakers of both parties, officials and activists worldwide and even one of his former advisers on the issue.
Many of those calls center on the need to create a “safe zone” to protect civilians, which have become more urgent with the flow of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees into Europe. About half of Syria’s 22 million people are displaced by four years of civil war, with 4 million living outside the country as refugees.
Frederic Hof, a former adviser to Obama on Syria, said at a Sept. 16 panel discussion at the Atlantic Council, where he’s a senior fellow, that the refugee crisis makes a change in U.S. policy toward creating safe zones for civilians essential.
“Mass slaughter renders irrelevant all talk of a negotiated settlement, all talk about political transition arrangements,” Hof said. “Civilian protection is the sole portal through which positive change in Syria … is possible.”
Meanwhile, Washington has been left to play catch-up after Putin deployed aircraft and troops and began striking targets in Syria this week. Many members of the U.S.-led coalition focused on fighting the Islamic State, including Saudi Arabia and Turkey, both of which unsuccessfully implored Obama to act against Assad before the Russian intervention, have hedged their bets in recent meetings with Russian officials to discuss ways of protecting their interests under the new reality. German Chancellor Angela Merkel broke with the coalition hard line against Assad late last month and said he should be included in Syrian peace talks.
Iraq, the focus of the coalition’s drive against the Islamic State, went so far as to set up a formal process to share intelligence and coordinate efforts with Russia, Syria and Iran. In an interview with France 24 on Thursday, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said he was open to the idea of Russian airstrikes against Islamic State targets in his country.
“It is a possibility. If we get the offer, we will consider it,” Abadi said.
