A Fine Mess

In the complicated, kaliedoscopic Middle East, it is easy to make a misstep which carries unintended consequences.  The war in Iraq, for instance, appeared to be a straightforward proposition: a brutal dictator who routinely threatened our interests, violated terms of the cease fire of the Gulf War of 1990-91, and looked like he was marching down the path of acquiring WMD in a post 9/11 world.  We were faced with a threat, had a strategic interest, and the backing of our closest ally, Great Britain.  It turned out to be a messy, costly, and complicated affair, and while we removed one dictator, we enabled another tyrannical regime, Iran, to expand its influence.

Fast forward nearly a decade and we have yet another showdown with another brutal secular dictator.  And we are on the brink of pulling the trigger on yet another unforeseen set of consequences, and this time with even thinner support.  Yes, the Assad regime is brutally attempting to hold on to power.  Yes, he used WMD on his own people.  Yes, the world needs to understand that the use of WMD cannot go unpunished.  But I submit that the Obama administration has now maneuvered itself into a position where a good decision is no longer available.

Let's look at where the game board sits.  We have no UN Security Council Resolution, and no NATO support.  Russia (remember the "reset"?) is obstructing us and our closest historical ally, Great Britain has said nyet.  For all the self righteous chest thumping of Obama during his campaign against Bush, he has placed us in a position of being more out there alone on an issue than Bush ever was.  Obama finally caved last week and sought Congressional support, which he didn't bother to do before his infamous "lead from behind" intervention in Libya.  Now, there is even controversy over the death toll in the Syrian WMD attack, with independent groups claiming that the Obama administration is grossly inflating the number.

Obama failed to lead early in the Syrian civil war, before the rebels turned jihadist.  Now, as in Egypt, there are no good guys to choose from.  Do you really want to weaken the Assad regime so that Syria turns into a Muslim extremist led state (assuming Mr. Holder lets us use the term "Muslim extremist").  Do we want to risk strengthening Assad by launching a pinprick limited attack that he quickly rebounds from?  What if Syria, Iran, or Hezbollah attacks Israel?  What if Syria attacks us here?

It is hard not to feel a little schadenfreude over this.  The self righteous Obama administration has only the support of France (or as one pundit put it, the "coalition of the invisible").  Syria has not directly threatened us or our allies.  A limited attack will have no appreciable effect.  A larger attack risks toppling Assad and paving the way for the jihadists.  In other words, there are no good decisions on the table.

This box is a direct result of a president with limited experience and no leadership skills.  The Syrian situation was foreseeable and even predictable.  But Obama failed to build and cultivate close strategic alliances.  He made a "red line" pronouncement that he is now stuck with.  Then, he made matters worse by stopping in midflight to get Congressional approval.  Building a coalition with the international community and getting Congressional support are crucial.

And, as a side note, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, is on record saying that Assad is a reformer.  On top of the Benghazi debacle, this wrongheaded assertion should derail her candidacy.  But the MSM refuses to hold her accountable.

Syria.  Libya.  Iraq.  Iran.  Egypt.  Is there any place that the Obama foreign policy is winning?