Today the Islamic State is blowing up precious cultural monuments
in Palmyra, and half of all Syrians have been displaced — as if, on a
proportional basis, 160 million Americans had been made homeless. More
than a quarter-million have been killed. Yet the “Save Darfur” signs
have not given way to “Save Syria.”
One reason is that Obama —
who ran for president on the promise of restoring the United States’
moral stature — has constantly reassured Americans that doing nothing is
the smart and moral policy. He has argued, at times, that there was
nothing the United States could do, belittling the Syrian opposition as “former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth.”
He has argued that we would only make things worse — “I am more mindful probably than most,” he told the New Republic in 2013, “of not only our incredible strengths and capabilities, but also our limitations.”
He
has implied that because we can’t solve every problem, maybe we
shouldn’t solve any. “How do I weigh tens of thousands who’ve been
killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being
killed in the Congo?” he asked (though at the time thousands were not
being killed in Congo).
On those rare
occasions when political pressure or the horrors of Syrian suffering
threatened to overwhelm any excuse for inaction, he promised action, in
statements or White House leaks: training for the opposition, a safe
zone on the Turkish border. Once public attention moved on, the plans
were abandoned or scaled back to meaningless proportions (training 50 soldiers per year, no action on the Turkish border).
Perversely,
the worse Syria became, the more justified the president seemed for
staying aloof; steps that might have helped in 2012 seemed ineffectual
by 2013, and actions that could have saved lives in 2013 would not have
been up to the challenge presented by 2014. The fact that the woman who
wrote the book on genocide, Samantha Power, and the woman who campaigned
to bomb Sudan to save the people of Darfur, Susan Rice, could
apparently in good conscience stay on as U.N. ambassador and national
security adviser, respectively, lent further moral credibility to U.S.
abdication.
Most critically, inaction was sold not as a necessary
evil but as a notable achievement: The United States at last was
leading with the head, not the heart, and with modesty, not arrogance.
“Realists” pointed out that the United States gets into trouble when it
lets ideals or emotions rule — when it sends soldiers to feed the hungry
in Somalia, for example, only to lose them, as told in “ Black Hawk Down,” and turn tail.
...
When Obama pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq, critics worried there
would be instability; none envisioned the emergence of a full-blown
terrorist state. When he announced in August 2011
that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside,” critics
worried the words might prove empty — but few imagined the extent of the
catastrophe: not just the savagery of chemical weapons and “barrel
bombs,” but also the Islamic State’s recruitment of thousands of foreign
fighters, its spread from Libya to Afghanistan, the danger to the U.S.
homeland that has alarmed U.S. intelligence officials, the refugees
destabilizing Europe.
Unfortunately, there are no longer any easy answers for Syria. Syrians are fleeing to Europe because they don't want to flee to Arab countries (looking at how the 'Palestinians' have been held hostage for more than six decades by their Arab brethren - including in Syria - they have no desire to follow suit) and because Europe is accessible and in some cases - notably Germany, but really all of them because of the Schengen visas - open. I don't expect this to end well. Germany is absorbing 800,000 Syrians, at least some of whom are likely to be Islamic State terrorists. But even if that were not the case, the sheer number of 'refugees' would likely change the entire character of the German population.
I'm not suggesting that the United States take them in either. I don't think that any country should take in large numbers of them. Perhaps they should be dispersed all over the world, but only after ensuring that they don't include terrorists. The sad reality is that they likely do.
Obama could have stopped Assad in his tracks four years ago. He could have supported the Nusra Front before it became radicalized. He could have left US troops in Iraq (which he dogmatically - there is no other word - insisted on withdrawing despite all indications of a resulting disaster), and thus prevented the rise of ISIS on Syria's border. Instead, he kissed up to Assad, insisting on sending an ambassador to Syria, all in the interest of the one foreign policy goal about which Obama has been consistent: Destroying the State of Israel. (God Forbid).
The Obama administration has quietly withdrawn the nomination of Robert Ford - formerly their ambassador to Syria - to be the ambassador to Egypt. The withdrawal was apparently made at the request of the Egyptian army.
Sources
familiar with the matter say that Robert Ford -- the highly-respected,
Arabic-speaking career diplomat and current ambassador to Syria -- was
withdrawn from consideration for the Cairo post after some
representatives of Egypt's military regime quietly indicated that they
didn't want him in the job because of his stated willingness to
negotiate with some of Syria's Islamist militants and political groups.
Secretary of State John Kerry tapped
Ford for the post this summer, and the White House had hoped to
formally nominate him early next year. Instead, people familiar with the
situation say the administration has decided to keep Ford in his
current job in Syria -- and its primary intermediary to the country's
fractious opposition groups -- and find a new pick for the high-profile
Cairo slot. With the Senate out of session and mired in partisan
deadlock, that could take months.
Obama administration officials confirm that Ford faced some opposition
in Cairo, but said the primary reason that he won't be getting the
position is the importance of his current job as the primary U.S.
liaison to Syria's rebels. Ford has spent the past few months shuttling
between Washington, Geneva and Istanbul as part of an effort to persuade opposition leaders to take part in peace talks scheduled for late January.
"Ambassador Ford is doing a phenomenal job working on Syria during an
incredibly intensive time heading into the Geneva II conference. It's a
top priority job on a top priority issue, and everyone from the
president on down has trust in Robert to handle it, and I don't think
anyone's pausing to think about the future," a senior State Department
official said. "The president, and the secretary, and the entire
administration have enormous respect for the job he has done on Syria --
here in Washington and in Damascus -- and they feel it's vital for him
to keep working on this issue."
Read the whole thing. As usual, it sounds like the Obama administration could have done a much better job of handling the situation.
“The longer the violence goes on the more extremist groups benefit,”
Ford said Thursday afternoon during a discussion organized by the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
“It’s incumbent on us to bolster moderates in the political
opposition,” said Ford, who stated that while Assad is clearly “losing”
the battle, “there will be substantial fighting in the days ahead.”
...
“Extremist groups in Syria have little by little been gaining influence
among the armed opposition,” Ford said. “There is an al Qaeda in Iraq
affiliate operating in Syria more and more and there are groups
cooperating with it. That really is a problem.”
...
“If we can keep these Syrian leaders united I think there will be less
chance for Iran, Russia, pernicious actors, [the terror group]
Hezbollah, to intervene in a negative way,” Ford said in perhaps his
most candid moment.
Syria recalls ambassador to the US for 'consultations'
There's now one less spy at the Syrian embassy in Washington. In response to the US announcement earlier on Monday that it has recalled Ambassador Robert Ford, Syria has announced that it has recalled its ambassador to the United States.
The US has brought home its man in Damascus, Robert Ford, for an open-ended 'vacation' due to 'security concerns' arising from goings on in the Syrian capital.
The United States has pulled its ambassador out of Syria over security concerns that have arisen during a seven-month-old popular uprising against President Bashar Assad, Western diplomats said on Monday.
Robert Ford left Syria over the weekend, they told Reuters.
The report comes after the European Union (EU) warned Iran on Sunday it would face tougher sanctions if it failed to address concerns about its nuclear program and said they would tighten restrictions on Syria if it continued to repress its population.
Robert Ford was definitely not a stay-at-home ambassador and the only mildly surprising things about this story are that it did not happen much sooner and that the Obama administration has apparently decided not to use Ford's departure to hammer Bashar al-Assad. The State Department briefing later on Monday should be interesting.
You will recall that last week, US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice spoke out forcefully against the Syrian regime after Russia and China vetoed a resolution condemning the dictatorship. It was the first time I can recall her speaking out forcefully at the UN against any country other than Israel. But Rice's words were empty rhetoric. The Obama administration continues to have no Syria policy (Hat Tip: Instapundit).
We admire Ambassador Rice’s impassioned defense of the Syrian opposition, who have been bravely challenging the Assad regime for over seven months. But surely Washington was not blindsided by Russia and China’s move. Rice’s comment that the veto was a “cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime” does not highlight American morality but only underscores the incoherence of the White House’s Syria policy. The Obama administration, like everyone else, knows that Moscow has been selling the Assad regime arms for decades, and that the wholesale slaughter of peaceful demonstrators is hardly cause for the Russians to ostracize a repeat customer like Damascus. Same with China—does anyone believe that Beijing is eager to have the U.N. censure a member state for human rights abuses and thereby illuminate its own violent repressions? The only surprise in last Tuesday’s voting was that the delegation from Lebanon, a country now virtually governed by Syria’s ally Hezbollah, mustered the courage to abstain.
Given Rice’s tone, it is worth asking why the White House was so heavily invested in, as she put it, a “watered-down text that doesn’t even mention sanctions.” The reason, we must unfortunately conclude, is that the administration’s position is rhetorical and lacks substance. The administration has no plan to accomplish the goal of getting Bashar al-Assad to step down—a goal that the president took more than six months to articulate. Even now there is no sense that Assad’s exit is good not only for those Syrians standing up to this vicious dictator, but for American interests as well—not least because the fall of the Alawite minority regime will represent a major blow to its one ally, Iran.
We congratulate Robert Ford on winning Senate confirmation this week for his appointment as U.S. ambassador to Syria. The physical courage he has shown in supporting the Syrian opposition and representing American interests is commendable. But it also has to be said that Ambassador Ford has reflected the vagaries of the administration’s Syria policy. The Syrian opposition, he says, is upset with American policies regarding Iraq and the Palestinians. Really? Who has bothered to complain about Israeli settlements when they are busy dodging snipers and avoiding the depredations of a security apparatus that uses torture and rape as matters of policy? And if, as Ford says, the conflict is “a Syrian problem and it needs Syrian solutions,” then what is his purpose in Damascus? Maybe it is just to show “the courageous people of Syria,” as Ambassador Rice put it, that America “supports their yearning for liberty and universal human rights.” But that is not a policy.
News out of Syria indicates that there are defections from the military. Perhaps the Syrian opposition should have followed the Libyan model and picked up weapons at the outset. Violence won the Libyan rebels NATO backing, while peaceful demonstrations earned the Syrians the world’s sympathy—tender mercies that they risk forfeiting, explained Ford, should they pick up weapons in self-defense.
Lest the Syrian opposition think the democracies set a precedent when they went after a dictator like Qaddafi, Ford has explained, the Syrians are not going to get a Libya-style NATO intervention. Rice concurred: “This is not about military intervention,” she said last week. “This is not about Libya.” So, what does Washington have to offer the Syrian opposition? “The number one thing that we can do to help them is to get international monitors in there,” said a State Department spokesman. “We need witnesses so that we can hold Assad to account.”
In other words, Libya’s tribes get NATO support when the White House wants to show that it can work in multilateral comity with its European partners who, rightly, see Libyan oil and a potential refugee crisis as vital interests. But a Syrian opposition squared off against a dictator who has set himself against American interests since he came to power more than a decade ago gets a superpower petitioning like an enfeebled NGO.
This administration has no morals. It's all about expediency (and - in the case of the 'Palestinians' - contempt for Jews).
Once again, an orchestrated demonstration of Syrians has kicked sand in the collective faces of the Obama administration.
Supporters of President Bashar Assad on Thursday pelted [US Ambassador to Syria Robert] Ford - an outspoken critic of the Syrian regime’s brutal crackdown on the country’s six-month-old uprising - with eggs as he visited a prominent Syrian opposition figure in Damascus. He was trapped in the office for about three hours by the hostile pro-government protesters outside until Syrian security forces arrived to escort him out.
“If you want to avoid rotten eggs, you should advise your country to stop its blatant interference in Syrian affairs and its feverish efforts to seek sanctions against Syria from the U.N. Security Council,” the [Al-Baath] newspaper said.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the White House said the assault was part of a campaign to intimidate diplomats looking into the Assad’s government’s brutal repression of pro-reform demonstrators. The Obama administration summoned Syria’s ambassador in Washington to hear formal U.S. condemnation of the assault.
In comments posted on the embassy’s Facebook page, Ford said Thursday’s attack was not limited to eggs and tomatoes.
“Protesters threw concrete blocks at the windows and hit the cars with iron bars. One person jumped on the hood of the car, tried to kick in the windshield and then jumped on the roof,” Ford wrote.
“Is that peaceful? I’d call it intolerant if not worse.”
Al Baath newspaper said Ford should expect further “unpleasant treatment” as long as his country meddles in Syrian affairs.
“As long as the ambassador believes that diplomacy is the art of instigation against national regimes, he should anticipate unpleasant treatment,” it said.
The last President whose diplomatic corps was kicked around like this? You guessed it: Jimmy Carter's diplomats in Tehran in 1979.
Here's Soccer Dad's daily Middle East media sampler.
1) Assad's thugs attack Ford
A video has emerged, showing a pro-regime demonstrator, wrapping a poster of Bashar Assad around the American ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford. (h/t Tweet from LakerGMC)
A video has emerged of U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford being assaulted by a pro-regime demonstrator on the streets of Damascus last week.
The assault took place before Ford's unapproved trip to the city of Jassem on Aug 23. Ford was present at a gathering of demonstrators who support the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad outside the Cham Palace Hotel in Damascus when one demonstrator ran up to Ford and tried to wrap him in a poster that featured Assad's face.
Ford's security intervened quickly and rushed Ford to his car. The incident was then replayed in a highly produced segment on a Syrian television station owned by Mohamed Hamsho, a businessman is the brother-in-law of the president's brother, Maher al-Assad. Hamsho was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department earlier this month for siding with the Assad regime during its brutal crackdown on protesters.
During the attack several mortar shells hit the Erez Crossing, just as three Palestinian women and two infants were crossing back into the Gaza Strip after receiving medical treatment in Israel, causing damage to the crossing's infrastructure and an electrical shutdown. The power outage disabled gates at the crossing. Two of the women passed through safely but a third woman, along with her infant daughter, got caught between two disabled gates while rockets were falling.
The commander of the Erez crossing and another security officer rescued the woman and her daughter. All of the Palestinian women were brought to a protected shelter at the crossing where they were given a meal for the end of the daily Ramadan fast.
How often do you hear anyone - including these same NGOs - condemning attacks on the crossings?
3) Changes
Last week there were two similar article in the New York Times and the Washington Post; both dealt with how the changes in the Arab world (and more generally in the Middle East) were affecting Israel. Ethan Bronner of the New York Times wrote With Mideast in Turmoil, Israel Debates Strategy:
As angry rallies by Egyptians outside the Israeli Embassy in Cairo this week have shown, Israel’s relationship with Egypt is fraying. A deadly exchange of rockets fired at southern Israel and Israeli airstrikes on Hamas-controlled Gaza this week showed the risk of escalation there. Damaged ties with Turkey are not improving. Cooperation with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank seems headed for trouble.
“We are witnessing a paradigm shift in front of our eyes,” said a top Israeli official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Egypt was a major stabilizer in the region, and that may be over. Coordination with the Palestinian security officials could be lost. We are concerned about Turkey.”
There is a growing realization in Israel that maintaining ties with post-revolutionary Egypt no longer depends solely on cultivating the relationship with its leaders. Adopting stances that are more acceptable to ordinary Egyptians and the various political forces emerging in that country after Mubarak’s ouster has become important as well.
“There’s a new factor now, the masses, who are setting the pace and dictating moves,” said Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, a veteran politician and former defense minister long known for his relationships with Mubarak and senior Egyptian officials.
The New York Times article, seems a bit better and more detailed. But both articles lack certain information.
Neither article gives a sense that Israel sacrificed the Sinai and with it, strategic depth and a wealth of natural resources, in order to achieve peace with Egypt. Israel didn't simply rely on the goodwill of a corrupt and unpopular dictator. The growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood isn't addressed in either article; the Greenberg article simply attributes it to "ordinary Egyptians and various political forces" without naming those forces. Similarly, Bronner doesn't mention that Turkey, under Erdogan has been moving away from Israel from well before the Mavi Marmara and that Turkey has been becoming more of a radical Islamic state. Neither article is especially bad, but neither fully describes the forces in play.
Breaking: US ambassador to Syria Robert Ford in Daraa
US ambassador Ford is in Daraa in southern Syria to display solidarity with Syrian protesters. You might recall that after a previous visit to Hama, the Syrians ordered Ford to stay within a 25-miles radius of Damascus. Daraa is outside that radius.
Israel Radio reports that Ford is not shaking hands with or speaking to Syrian protesters out of fear for their lives.
But Clinton backed off on Saturday, saying the administration still hopes that Assad's regime will stop the violence and work with protesters to carry out political reforms. On Monday, European Union ministers also called on Assad to implement reforms and made it clear they still hoped he would do so.
The change in tone reflects the continuing debate over whether Syria's ruler is likely to survive the current turmoil, and how best to use the limited diplomatic tools available to pressure him.
For now, a State Department official said, it's unclear whether the administration will ramp up the rhetoric and officially call for Assad's departure.
"Whether we take it farther will depend on events on the ground," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities. "We need to think through carefully what we say."
Why can't the administration make up its mind? Well, apparently it has, but it's too timid to enforce it.
U.S. officials say that although some administration officials, including Clinton, have pressed for a more forceful policy, others argue that the administration would look weak if Obama called for Assad's departure and nothing happened.
Obama has been demanding that Kadafi give up power in Libya since March, and the U.S. military is backing the North American Treaty Organization's air war against Kadafi's forces. But the Libyan leader remains in power.
How could Obama look any weaker than he does already? I suppose Syria, Iran and Venezuela could invade the United States....
Meanwhile, in yet another indication of how weak Obama appears, Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem has warned US ambassador Robert Ford and French ambassador Eric Chevalier not to leave Damascus.
Syria's foreign minister has warned the U.S. and French ambassadors not to travel outside Damascus without permission.
Walid al-Moallem said Wednesday that if the ambassadors defy the orders, Syria will ban all diplomats from leaving the capital.
Earlier this month, the U.S. and French ambassadors traveled to the restive city of Hama, a stronghold of opposition to President Bashar Assad.
The Syrian government slammed the visit and said it was unauthorized. The regime accused the envoys of interfering in Syria's internal affairs.
I understand the Administration’s desire not to urge people into the streets, lest there be a slaughter that we cannot halt or avert. But no one is suggesting that the president call for a mass uprising. U.S. policy needs only to show consistency and moral clarity.
I shudder to think how a Syrian protester must view the United States when he is risking his life and the secretary of state is still dreaming of “peaceful cooperation” from the government shooting him and his fellow demonstrators dead in the streets day after day. Mrs. Clinton’s remark about Assad’s loss of legitimacy was, we are told, unscripted. “The administration’s policy toward the Syrian autocrat has lately been shaped more by diplomatic improvisation than methodical planning within the White House,” the Washington Post reported.
This may explain why the secretary oscillates between tougher and weaker rhetoric and positions, but it is a terrible indictment of the Obama Administration foreign policy team that it cannot get its act together after thirty months in power. This Administration’s Syria policy has now moved from “improvisation” to incoherence.
Barack Hussein Obama is unwilling to face down Bashar al-Assad. Instead, he's hiding behind the United Nations, where he can count on Russian and Chinese vetoes to prevent anything from happening. He's turning the United States into a weak laughingstock, which will eventually result in dozens of free countries falling to Islamism and Communism. He calls it 'leading from behind.'
Blogger Marc Lynch interviews US ambassador to Syria Robert Ford.
"I have seen no evidence yet in terms of hard changes on ground that the Syrian government is willing to reform at anything like the speed demanded by the street protestors. If it doesn’t start moving with far greater alacrity, the street will wash them away."
That was the blunt verdict offered by U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford in a wide-ranging telephone interview with Foreign Policy today. Ford sharply criticized the Syrian government's continuing repression against peaceful protestors and called on President Bashar al-Assad to "take the hard decisions" to begin meaningful reforms before it is too late. Not, Ford stressed, because of American concerns but because of the impatience of the Syrian opposition itself. "This is not about Americans, it is about the way the Syrian government mistreats its own people," Ford stressed repeatedly. "This is really about Syrians interacting with other Syrians. I’m a marginal thing on the sidelines. I’m not that important."
...
But thus far, the Syrian regime has chosen to violently crack down on peaceful protests across the country, and has not made the kind of reforms which might have at an earlier point saved the regime. I asked Ford when the Syrian regime's violence would cross the line, when the repression and violence might have gone too far for any peaceful transition to be possible. "That's really not a question for Americans," he responded. "It's a question for the Syrian opposition, a lot of whom are quite tough. I've met enough of them, and believe me, they are a lot tougher than anyone in the Washington Post or the U.S. Senate. They know exactly what they are doing. I have talked to people who have lost immediate family, who have been killed or jailed. Nothing focuses the mind like that."
The Obama administration doesn't get it either. Ford keeps acting as if there's some expectation that Assad will reform (as do Obama and Clinton), and that if he does, the Syrian people will stop the uprising. We're long past that.
Syrian foreign minister kicks sand in Obama's face
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mualem kicked sand in the face of US President Barack Hussein Obama by threatening to restrict the movements of US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'alem admitted in a press conference that regime supporters, who infiltrated the U.S. Embassy compound in Damascus on July 11 while protesting a visit by the U.S. Ambassador to the town of Hama, erred.
Al-Mu'alem said that the protest was legitimate, and the regime was sympathetic to it, but as a country, they are responsible for protecting the embassy.
He added that if the U.S. Ambassador travels to other cities without the regime's approval, Syria would act like the U.S., which limits movements by certain diplomats serving in its territory to a radius of 25 km.
If Obama wanted to withdraw Ford, does anyone think he could get him out at this point (short of military action, which we know Obama would never take against any country other than Israel except maybe with UN approval)? What could go wrong?
In a posting from Sunday (at 7:10 am but that may have been US Eastern time rather than Syrian time) on the Facebook page of the US embassy in Damascus, US ambassador Robert Ford writes that the embassy has been attacked. And that apparently happened more than once on Saturday and Sunday. Obviously Monday's attack was not the first (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Outside the Embassy demonstrators complained about U.S. policy towards the Syrian government and my trip to Hama.
As I have said before, we respect the right of all Syrians – and people in all countries - to express their opinions freely and in a climate of mutual respect. We wish the Syrian government would do the same – and stop beating and shooting peaceful demonstrators. I have not seen the police assault a “mnhebak” demonstration yet. I am glad – I want all Syrians to enjoy the right to demonstrate peacefully. On July 9 a “mnhebak” group threw rocks at our embassy, causing some damage. They resorted to violence, unlike the people in Hama, who have stayed peaceful. Go look at the Ba’ath or police headquarters in Hama – no damage that I saw.
Other protesters threw eggs and tomatoes at our embassy. If they cared about their fellow Syrians the protesters would stop throwing this food at us and donate it to those Syrians who don’t have enough to eat. And how ironic that the Syrian Government lets an anti-U.S. demonstration proceed freely while their security thugs beat down olive branch-carrying peaceful protesters elsewhere.
Either the US embassy has been attacked before (and again, there may have been other attacks between the time that Ford's post was written on Sunday and the major attack on Monday) or the Obama administration has adopted the 'Palestinian' definition of 'non-violent,' which includes stone throwing.
This post was written earlier in the evening and queued. While it was waiting in the queue, Jennifer Rubin reported that the State Department has confirmed that the US embassy was also attacked over the weekend - and much more severely than appears in Ford's Facebook page.
A senior State Department official confirmed the weekend attacks on our embassy in Damascus, “The protest lasted 31 hours across Friday and Saturday with protesters calling for the ambassador to leave. Protesters eventually threw tomatoes, eggs, and later glass and rocks at the Embassy. Two Embassy employees were struck by food.” What did we do? We registered a complaint. No, I am serious. The official recounted, “Ambassador Ford registered U.S. displeasure with these events in an already scheduled July 10 meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister [Walid al-] Muallim. The meeting was requested by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus and had been scheduled since last Thursday. . . . In the same meeting, Ambassador Ford made clear that Syrian government incitement of Syrians against the United States, including through aggressive protesters in front of the Embassy, must stop, and the Syrian government must not use his visit to Hama — meant only to gather information and support freedom of expression — as propaganda.”
Over the weekend, food, glass and rocks were thrown at the US embassy in Damascus. On Monday, the 'protesters' broke in. What will happen on Tuesday? What could go wrong?
Obama's response to attack on US embassy in Damascus: He's going to file a lawsuit
In an earlier post, I reported on attacks on the American and French embassies in Damascus by pro-Assad 'demonstrators.' I now have some updates on that post.
The US State Department on Monday formally condemned Syria for failing to protect the US embassy complex in Damascus from a violent assault it said was encouraged by a pro-government Syrian television station.
"A television station that is heavily influenced by Syrian authorities encouraged this violent demonstration," a State Department spokesperson said in a statement."
So what does the world's only superpower do? Send in the Marines to get the ambassador out and protect the embassy grounds? Not in the age of Obama. In the age of Obama the US threatens... to file a lawsuit.
"We strongly condemn the Syrian government's refusal to protect our embassy, and demand compensation for damages. We call on the Syrian government to fulfill its obligations to its own citizens as well," the statement said.
"We are calling in the Syrian charge [d'affaires] to complain," said the US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"We feel they failed [in their responsibility to protect US diplomats]. We are going to condemn their slow response."
Spoke on condition of anonymity? The Secretary of State hasn't got the junk to stand up there and say we're withdrawing our ambassador and instead a low-level functionary speaking on condition of anonymity is trotted out to threaten to summon the Syrian Charge d'Affaires?!?
What happened to Teddy Roosevelt's 'speak softly and carry a big stick'? It looks like it's been replaced by Jimmy Carter's helicopter crash in the desert. Is this how Reagan would have responded? Is this how Bush II would have responded? Of course not. We would have seen Shock and Awe on all of Assad's palaces. Instead, Obama is going to file a lawsuit demanding compensation. What could go wrong?
The French guards fired into the air, wounding two, and the demonstrators stopped. Three French embassy workers were injured. At the U.S. embassy while Syrian guards fired teargas, the U.S. Marines didn’t fire and the mob surged into the embassy breaking windows and wrecking at least part of the building for two and a half hours as Syrian security forces stood by.
Those are the basic facts. The question is: what does this mean and what will the Obama Administration do about it.
And what will Obama do about it?
It should immediately drop the policy it has been following, lose its illusions, and return to a tough stance. A tough stance will not change the Syrian regime’s mind but it might help change the Syrian regime. Moreover, the soft policy makes things even worse.
The attack on the embassy was a response to very mild U.S. criticisms and the visit of the U.S. ambassador to Hama. A Western-style regime, even a dictatorship, would say: Great! The Americans are leaving us alone except for a few gestures and meaningless statements. Let’s play along with them.
But this is the Middle East and the Syrian regime demands of the United States and France what it also demands from its own people: total support or they get bludgeoned into submission.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is likely to do nothing and learn nothing. There will be harsh words and much stamping on the floor. But recognize that the Syrian regime is an enemy and act accordingly (and I am NOT repeat NOT talking about military responses)? Not going to happen.
And he'll file a lawsuit Barry. He'll file a lawsuit! (Barry and I know each other - if he sees this, he might get a kick out of it).
Israel Radio cites an eyewitness from the neighborhood in Damascus in which the US embassy is located who claims that four busloads of Alawites were bussed in from Tartus to attack the US embassy and that they used clubs to break down the doors.
Why were the Marines told to hold their fire (as Barry Rubin reported)?
It appears that the Obama administration approved this move, which has to make you wonder whether the administration has finally realized that 'engaging' Bashar al-Assad is foolhardy.
In any event. US Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, visited Hama on Thursday and Friday along with the French Ambassador to Syria, Eric Chevalier. The visit was 'unexpected' and the Syrians were not pleased about it.
Syria characterized Mr. Ford's visit as an attempt to incite unrest in Hama, deepening previous accusations by Damascus that U.S. sanctions on Syria are meant to derail its reform program. Bouthaina Shaaban, an adviser to Mr. Assad, said the visit was unauthorized and "an escalation" by the U.S. diplomat.
"The U.S. ambassador met in Hama with a number of the saboteurs and incited them to more violence and protest and to refuse dialogue," according to a statement on the official SANA news agency.
U.S. State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland called the claim "absolute rubbish."
For many Syrians, Hama is synonymous with the violent repression of the Assad family's four-decade rule. It has served as a reminder, in this uprising, of how far Syrians believe the regime could go to crush dissent.Syrian antigovernment activists say at least 1,700 people have been killed since protests erupted in mid-March.
"This was a signal from the U.S that Assad better not think of replicating the Hama massacre," said an official briefed on Mr. Ford's mission. "It was a gutsy move."
Ambassador Ford on Thursday visited Syrians injured by the security forces at a hospital. Ms. Nuland said he spent that day "expressing our deep support for the right of the Syrian people to assemble peacefully."
Mr. Ford's trip to the city was endorsed by the highest levels of the Obama administration, U.S. officials said. Ms. Nuland said that the U.S. had informed Syria's government that embassy personnel planned a visit to Hama and that to enter the city, Mr. Ford had passed through at least one military checkpoint and another one set up by Hama residents.
France's envoy to Syria, Eric Chevallier, also visited Hama on Thursday but returned Friday morning, a French government official said. His trip aimed to underline "France's commitment to be on the side of the victims," the foreign ministry said.
"We felt protected by their visit," said Abdelrahim al-Samaan, a Hama lawyer. "They obviously can't fire on crowds with Western officials here so it was calm and peaceful today, and the crowds were huge."
Here are a couple of news reports on Ford's visit. This is Reuters. Let's go to the videotape.
And here's CNN. Let's go to the videotape.
I think this visit was directed at Congress. Visits like this might justify Ford's being there, but only if they become more frequent occurrences. The Obama administration has done little about Syria until now, and they are apparently starting to feel the heat.
A great summary of the United States' Syria policy
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
Representative Gary Ackerman (D-NY), of all people, does a great job of summing up what's wrong with President Obama's Syria policy (Hat Tip: Jennifer Rubin).
"Regarding Syria, I have a simple question: Is our policy ‘passive consistency,’ or ‘consistent passivity?’ Or don’t we have any Syria policy at all? I’m glad Ambassador Ford is in Damascus. I just wish he was doing more than conveying the usual feckless messages to the Syrians and reporting their contempt back to Washington."
We told you that's what he would be doing there, didn't we?
Michael Rubin lays out some of the consequences (or what should - but likely won't be the consequences) in the event that it turns out that Syrian pilots have been shot down over Libya.
But first, let's go to the videotape.
According to one of the comments on YouTube:
Full info: The plane that was shot down was a Su-24MK "Fencer-D" a downgraded version of the soviet version but still a capable ground attack aircraft made in the early 90s.
The gunner is on his first day on the job and one of the barrels of the gun (A ZPU-4 Designed in 1949!) was not working.
Make no doubt about it, either this guy is an AA god or he just got a really lucky shot.
And here's a translation of the video from French to English:
... We're about 600 kns from Tripoli. This zone is strategic and this is the important refinery in Libya. As we enter Ras Lanuf dam, people start pointing something out to us, it's one of #G's fighter jets flying overhead.
'Don't stay there, move out' ' Into the cards, quick!'
The rebels fire, the plane passes once more above the refinery.
Suddenly, there's a thick smoke that looks like a bomb. The men wait, scrutinize the horizon and then joy explodes. "The plane crashed over there, we hit the plane."
A man wants to show us the hero of the day, all the rebels surround him to celebrate his feat.
"There's only one working cannon (defective equipment) and I still managed to shoot it down anyway. I'm not trained, I'm not a soldier and I still hit it when it came back'
"Approximately 4kms from here there are 2 pilots, come see them quickly".
We follow the with our car in the desert.
At the scene, pieces of metal still smoking... the remains of the fighter jet that had been flying overhead... the bodies of the 2 pilots. According to their papers, 1 Libyan and 1 Syrian. The jet's wing is an unimaginable war prize for the rebels.
Overnight, these reports have taken a new twist: Al Jazeera is reporting that free Libyan forces have downed two Syrian planes in Ras Lanuf, about 400 kilometers west of Benghazi. Unconfirmed reports had earlier suggested that the free Libyans had downed two Sukhoi SU-22s, which is what the Libyans train on in Syria.
If these reports are true, it is time for President Obama to bring home Robert Ford, his recess appointment as ambassador to Syria. Successful engagement requires sincerity of both partners. Obama may be sincere, but it is clear that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is not. We do not need to cut off dialogue — we still have an embassy in Damascus and can pursue the daily requirements of diplomacy, whatever they may be, at a more junior level.
Many senators remain upset that Obama refused to address their concerns on Syria and dispatched Ford as a recess appointment. They gave Obama’s outreach to Syria three months. Rather than improve Assad’s behavior, however, engagement has only worsened it. This is true even if the rumors of Syrian participation are exaggerated.
If Obama refuses to bring Ford home, perhaps it is time for Congress to reassert itself and play hardball with the State Department’s budget.
With Republicans in control of the House, there's even a chance that could happen.
'Israel sends agricultural carcinogenic medicine and AIDS girls'
In this video, Hizbullah MP Ismail Sukariyya accuses Israel of sending Egypt "agricultural carcinogenic medicine" and "AIDS girls." He also accuses Israel of downing an American plane with 90 Egyptian generals on it. The video was shown on Syrian television on December 19, 2010.
Let's go to the videotape.
I wonder if new American Ambassador Robert Ford - who is scheduled to be in Syria by the end of January - will take up this broadcast and others like it with his Syrian hosts. Don't hold your breath.
You might be wondering since when Hezbullah is so concerned about the welfare of Egypt. I guess this is part of the improvement in their bilateral ties - yet another thing we can chalk up as a result of the Obama administration's weakness in this region.
I'm sure you'll all be shocked to hear that the Syrians don't seem very excited about the prospect of the first US Ambassador to Syria since 2005.
In response to the appointment of Robert Ford as the U.S. ambassador to Syria, which ended a five year hiatus, Syria's ambassador to Lebanon, 'Ali 'Abd Al-Karim, said that the appointment had come very late, and expressed hope for a change in the U.S. policy in the region.
The Syrian government press reported on the nomination only briefly, citing a French news agency.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
