This article in the American Interest (a fairly middle of the road publication overseen by Walter Russell Mead) presents a useful, if exceedingly depressing, dissection of the Obama administration’s policy in Syria. I raised many of the same points, in real time. I think the most important ones are related to Iran: (1) that Syria was of strategic interest to the US precisely because it was Iran’s major Arab ally, and that a primary strategic rationale for intervening in a way that increased the odds of Assad’s downfall was because it would undermine Iran, but (2) that a major reason that Obama shied away is precisely because he was trying to achieve a rapprochement with Iran.
Strategically misguided, and a humanitarian disaster.
Read the whole thing.
Author Adam Garfinkle’s succinct summary about Obama’s policy also uses two words I have used, on more than one occasion: feckless and incoherent.
Recognizing this doesn’t require penetrating insight. Just an ability (and perhaps more importantly, a willingness) to recognize the obvious.
And it is only getting worse. The debacle unfolding in Montreux is so comical (in a tragic way) that it seems befitting, given the town’s most famous resident, Charlie Chaplin. (Psst. Don’t tell the Russians and the Iranians about the Freddie Mercury statue. Putin will try to outlaw it as gay propaganda and the Iranians will try to hang it.)