Fareed Zakaria: Obama on the path to success in Syria

[babylonsister]

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

[pinto]

1. Though I often disagree with Zakaria, he always makes a reasoned, clear pov on an issue.

As he does here. Thanks for the snag. (aside) His show on CNN is the only Sunday morning broadcast I routinely catch. It's informative and includes a wider array of guests than the usual talking heads seen on the Sunday circuits.

[Scurrilous]

2. K & R

[jakeXT]

3. No regime change, no weapons for the rebels ? /nt

[Iliyah]

4. Read that this may also lead to some kind

of compromise between Assad and the rebels. Seems like a few military generals and/or higher ups may take Assad out themselves. We shall see tho.

I've been reading especially on this board that Syria's civil war is their concern and the international community should stay out of it, especially the USA because we are not the Police of the world.

I personally agree that when it came to Assad using chemical warfare that is put into another category, and I truly agree with the President on that one. If the administration had to talk plenty shit to get the results hopefully in the making, so be it. Assad and Russia have probably secured some of the most dangerous chemicals somewhere else who knows. But the world knows now regardless of how some feel. Syria is on the map of one of the most violent countries in the world.

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Yes. This is what I've been saying

Obama is definitely on the path to achieving his objective which is the removal of chemical weapons in Syria.

A negotiated settlement will do a better job of that than air strikes.

Obama knows what he's doing.

[Sand Wind]

6. I hope he succeed. Will see.

If Assad can no more use his WMD, he will lose, and Russia too.

This will be a great victory for Syrian, Obama and all the region.