Follow by Email

Sunday, January 12, 2014

New York Times Editorial, "Treading Water on Syria": Even The Times Now Acknowledges Obama's Broken Foreign Policy

As observed in an earlier blog entry, Washington Post Obama cheerleader David Ignatius is now wondering whether Obama's "broken" foreign policy can be "put back together" (see: Well, apparently The New York Times is also beginning to question the wisdom of Obama's indecisiveness and skittishness. In an editorial entitled "Treading Water on Syria" (, The Times declares:

"Nearly three years after the fighting began, many of the most dire predictions about Syria’s civil war have come true. The conflict has not only engulfed the country, killing more than 130,000 people and forcing more than nine million civilians out of their homes. Increasingly, it has metastasized across the region, destabilizing neighboring countries and serving as a magnet for militants, or would-be militants, including some from the United States.

The war has become exceedingly complicated, compounding the bitter rivalry between Saudi Arabia, a Sunni-majority state that is a major backer of Sunni rebels seeking to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, and Shiite-led Iran, Mr. Assad’s top supporter. And there is no indication that the United States or any other power has the influence to bring it to an end. The prospects for a peace conference planned for Jan. 22 in Switzerland are not encouraging. Just getting all sides to the table will not be enough, and even that looks doubtful."

More than 9 million refugees? That's approximately 40% of Syria's population, yet ten days ago, in an editorial entitled "The Ticking Mideast Clock" (, The Times continued to advance the risible Obama administration position that the Palestinian-Israeli controversy lies at the heart of all of the Middle East's troubles.

Today's Times editorial goes on to warn that "Syrian extremists are already trying to recruit and train Americans and other Westerners to carry out attacks in the United States." It also ends by noting that "Iran could go a long way toward persuading the world of its readiness to play a constructive international role by encouraging Mr. Assad to step aside in favor of a transitional government." But unlike Obama, Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei is not in the habit of undercutting his allies.  Khamenei smells Obama's fear of confrontation, and placing one's hopes upon intercession by Khamenei is delusional.

Bottom line, David Ignatius is correct: Obama's foreign policy is broken.

It's also dangerous.

1 comment:

  1. I think two motives are operating: 1- desire to engage Iran to make more money and 2- complacency that comes with knowing that many Americans are non-interventionists and don't care about the middle east. They can't see the train coming from standing on the tracks.