USA TODAY International Edition
Obama decision to arm Syrian rebels wise or foolish?
The Wall Street Journal, editorial: “It took two years, 93,000 casualties, the use of chemical weapons and the growing prospect of victory by strongman Bashar Assad and his Iranian patrons, but President Obama has finally decided to arm the Syrian rebels. ... But the question now is whether Obama is going to do just enough to prevent a rebel defeat but not nearly enough to help them win. The official justification for the policy switch is the administration’s new confidence that Assad’s forces have used sarin gas against the rebels. ... The U. S. will only provide small arms, ammunition and possibly anti- tank weapons. ... The halfway measures suggest that Obama still isn’t fully behind the rebels.” Bloomberg View, editorial: “U. S. officials have acknowledged in briefings that the motivating factor in their decision was the recent intervention by forces from Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah to turn the war in favor of Assad, although in public they cited the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons. ... A diplomatic settlement is possible only if both sides understand they cannot win. Hezbollah changed that calculus; Assad no longer has an incentive to negotiate an end to the fighting. ... There would be significant costs to U. S. interests in letting the war rage on until Iran and Hezbollah secure a victory for Assad.” Kevin Drum, Mother Jones: “A couple of months ago, Obama caved in to the hawks and announced $ 127 million in ‘ nonlethal’ aid to the Syrian rebels. ( Last week), he caved in again. ... We’ll now be sending some decidedly lethal aid. ... The next step, of course, is to cave in to the hawks and send the rebels the anti- tank and anti- aircraft weaponry they want. I figure, what? Another couple of months before Obama decides to do that? Then the no- fly zone. Then … something else. ... We’re committed to continuing escalation until Assad cries uncle and agrees to come to the table. That strategy doesn’t have a sterling track record.” Andrew Sullivan, The Dish: “Once you start arming one side of a civil war, you become part of that civil war; the other side may target you. ... The U. S. will be seen as a Sunni power fighting Shiites. I cannot think of a worse policy position for this country — to take a stand on the sectarian fault line of the Muslim world and back one side over another. ... We should have zero interest in that ancient religious dispute; zero.” M. K. Bhadrakumar, Asia Times Online: “The United States may have administered one of the biggest ever snubs to the Kremlin in the post- Cold War era. ... Obama’s momentous decision on military intervention in Syria, which could well launch a new Cold War, is a desperate diversionary move when his administration is caught up deep in the cesspool over the ( surveilance) controversy.” David Rohde, Reuters: “But viewing every situation in the region as another Iraq is not productive. The U. S. options go beyond doing nothing in Syria or launching an American- ground invasion. Arming one side in a conflict, as occurred in Bosnia, can help produce a diplomatic settlement. ... We focus too much on the fundamentalists and too little on the moderates. ... The U. S. should view these moderates as allies, listen to them and bolster their standing where possible. Responding to the pleas of moderate Syrian commanders for weaponry is one small step. ... Now, the rebels must unify and seize their opportunity.”