In a risible editorial entitled "Mr. Putin’s Mixed Messages on Syria," The New York Times blames Vladimir Putin for the disastrous civil war in Syria. The Times would have us know:
"No one should be fooled about Russia’s culpability in Syria’s agony. Mr. Putin could have helped prevent the fighting that has killed more than 250,000 Syrians and displaced millions more, had he worked with other major powers in 2011 to keep Mr. Assad from waging war on his people following peaceful antigovernment protests. The brutality of Mr. Assad, a member of a Shiite sect, against the majority Sunni population has enabled the Islamic State, made up of Sunnis, to take control of large parts of Syria. Mr. Assad would probably be gone without the weapons, aid and other assistance from Russia and Iran."
Fascinating. And Obama, of course, has no culpability. But consider how -
- Obama failed to enforce his "red line" involving Assad's use of chemical weapons;
- Obama declared in 2011 that Assad must go, but then failed to do anything about it, for fear of antagonizing Iran and jeopardizing his "legacy-creating" nuclear agreement with Khamenei (US Secretary of State Kerry now says that Assad still must go, but the timing is negotiable).
- Obama recently warned Putin against sending troops and equipment to support Assad ("The strategy they're pursuing right now of doubling down on Assad is a mistake"), yet after the troops and equipment arrived in Syria, he instructed US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to enter into talks with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu to defuse the situation.
The whole world is watching the follies of a naïve American president, who was instrumental in creating the Middle East power vacuum that gave rise to the Islamic State. A pity that Obama has yet to realize that impotence is not a basis for implementing foreign policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment