Is Obama’s Syria Policy a Failure?

Parallax News presents big issues broken down into multiple perspectives. This brief looks at 3 different perspectives on Obama’s approach to Syria.

The Obama administration is facing renewed criticism over its Syria policy. Last week, the U.N. released a report accusing the Syrian military of continued use of chemical weapons against rebel forces, citing incidents in late-2014 and 2015. Critics of Obama say the U.N. report is further evidence that the president failed to adequately respond the first time Syria crossed his “red line” by allegedly carrying out chemical attacks on opponents in 2013. One of the Obama administration’s stated achievements in Syria had been the ostensible destruction of the national government’s stock of chemical weapons in June 2014. The new report calls the value of that achievement into question.

I. Robert Ford

Robert Ford, former U.S. Ambassador to Syria, is an outspoken critic of Obama’s Syria policy. Ford believes that, by failing to carry out the “red line” ultimatum, the President allowed the Syrian government to continue its deadly attacks, including those involving chemical weapons, with near impunity. Ford also argues that, had the U.S. backed moderate rebels more vigorously in the early period of the conflict, they would not have been outnumbered by the extremist groups, like ISIS, that now control parts of Syria. At the same time, the ongoing war, with no end in sight, has caused a refugee crisis that is threatening America’s allies in Europe. This side effect, for Ford, helps demonstrate how Obama’s failure is doing serious harm to U.S. interests beyond Syria and the Middle East.

II. Josh Earnest

Josh Earnest, the White House Press Secretary, rejects accusations that Obama’s diplomacy in Syria has been ineffective. Earnest notes that the new U.N. allegations involve chlorine gas, an industrial chemical that can be creatively repurposed as a weapon. Earlier gassings involved sarin, a much deadlier chemical banned under international treaties. Earnest argues that, by getting Syria to acknowledge and destroy its sarin supply, U.S. and Russian diplomacy removed the threat of the invisible nerve agent being captured and used by terrorists. More broadly, Earnest points to the 65-member coalition the U.S. has helped create in order to contain the terror threat in Syria. Citing the Iraq invasion of 2003, which resulted in one of America’s longest and most expensive wars, Earnest believes the Syria policy is ultimately a more prudent course than pursuing aggressive intervention.

III. Gordon Adams

Gordon Adams, a professor and foreign policy expert at the Stimson Center, argues that “regardless of what Obama had done, the [Syria] crisis would have progressed the way it did.” This is because, according to the professor, the U.S. lacks leverage over the major players in Syria, including the national government, Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Prior to the outbreak of war, the U.S. had not invested as much to gain influence in Syria. By contrast, Russia had close ties to the government, as well as military outposts there. Adams argues that, if any U.S. policy could have been effective, it would have been cooperation with the Russians. The professor notes that the U.S. and Russia share the broad goals of destroying terror groups and bringing stability to Syria.

***

Further Reading: White House / Deutsche Welle / New York Times

This brief was written by Jared Metzker.

Parallax News has been able to grow because of our readers. If you have friends who like to see more than one side to a story, tell them to subscribe to the brief.