Dithering over Syria

Horrors in Syria expose wishful thinking at the heart of the president’s foreign policy

See article

Readers' comments


Dale Napier

It is not satisfactory to criticize America on the one hand for sticking its nose where it does not belong, and on the other criticize it for not interfering enough. I double-checked the Constitution and found no mention of a presidential duty to intervene in the affairs of another nation. Indeed, until recent decades the idea was unthinkable.


Like it or not, there is a growing sense in the U.S. that the Middle East is becoming less important as time goes by since oil is being produced in so many other places. Put this against two other realities and you can understand why Obama is reluctant to take drastic steps. The first is the fatigue the American public is feeling after years of war (that cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of casualties) in the region. Second, is the confusion as to who exactly was responsible for the use of chemical weapons. Now we are hearing reports that the rebels may have instigated their use. Point is, the truth continues to be elusive and the lack thereof when we went into Iraq is not lost on Americans. In other words, who exactly do we trust? New reports? Our own government? So even if one discounts the oil issue and focuses on the human one, we simply don't know the truth nor whether wading into this will prove to accomplish anything.

hmy_ in reply to Oldwhiteguy

North America will be fully energy-independent by the end of the decade, and the US in on track to become the world's second biggest energy exporter (ahead of Russia even!) in five years.

Add to the mix Venezuelan oil and newly discovered Brazilian shale deposits, and the Americas will be major centers of energy production. And of course, the biggest oil exporter in the Mid East, Saudi Arabia, has always been a solid US ally.

So yes, the Middle East is completely unimportant to US interests already, and the Obama administration is pretty clearly aware of this given the fact that they've moved over 100k troops out of the region along with considerable air and naval assets. The US is preparing for a containment-oriented policy, where they simply allow the violence to continue while keeping it out of Europe, Israel, and Saudi Arabia/Kuwait.

Toma Eno

Oh well, this was only to be expected. Obama is a hapless Keynesian at home, and a foreign policy dilettante abroad. His "smart power" approach have now been exposed by the Syrian rogues for precisely what it is, namely weakness. He can claim to be as "nuanced" and sophisticated as no US president ever before him, but the school yard bullies on the world stage are not deterred. Why worry about a silly little man like that the Syrians and Iranians thugs must say, as the rest of the world worship the American wonderboy with fading hope. And the Russians are already laughing their heads off...

Obama my man, now it's time for another golf vacation, wouldn't you say?

Puntmeister in reply to Toma Eno

You fell right into the trap these Brits have drummed up. What better way for them to inspire Americans to action than to bash Obama, thereby getting instant support from all of the anti-Obama Americans?

You are being used.

Try to spend less time bashing your own people, and try to understand what all those darn fereners are up to.

If the British think there needs to be some sort of hands-on military intervention of Syria, they are free to go it alone. The U.S. will not attempt to deter them in any way. Heck, we might even sign a "coalition of the willing" contract, and send 300 troops as support....

Oldwhiteguy in reply to Toma Eno

I always have to laugh at anyone who talks about Obama's policies after the big-hat idiocy of George W. Bush. 6 trillion dollars, 4,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraquis lost, then into Afghanistan and he still couldn't catch Osama. Mistake after error after miscalculation, all done with total arrogance and disregard for long-term consequences. Obama could spend the day watching "Sponge Bob Square Pants" and he'd still be a welcome change from that clown.

happyfish18 in reply to Oldwhiteguy

Don't be silly and Bush is not that silly. He knows that his oil buddies needed that guy to keep the Oil price up so as to harvest the windfall profits year after year.
Now you can turn the question over to Putin why he is putting up with the mess sowed by Obama and Nato together with the Gulf Sheiks and their Oily friends in the region?
They are all in the same boat as sang by Hilliary.

Toma Eno in reply to Oldwhiteguy

Well Oldwhiteguy, happy to hear your "exellent take" on world affairs in general, and Bush in particular. Prezdint Bush was Prezdint Bush, but what does that have to do with Obama? Does not being Bush make Obama just wonderfully better? A sad piece of news for you; Obama may also be judged by his performance and leadership someday. (Not today to be sure, but just some time after he has managed to bankrupt America, give or take a year or two!) Feeling good about yourself for voting for Obama a couple of times may make you feel all warm and fuzzy about yourself, but that does not change the way the world works, whether the issue is economics or military projection of power. Brute power are still a currency to get realistic about, and very much so in the Middle East. Small wars are fickle things, easy to get into and difficult to get out of. Big wars even more so, so who wants to get into something big in the Middle East? Even Bush knew the pitfalls of that one. But drawing a line in the sand when the Syrians will call your bluff is plain amateur stuff, as Obama is about to find out. But do not worry, Oldwhiteguy, he'll probably finesse his way out of that one as well...


Brings to mind an interview I watched early in the Iraq war. Two soldiers were asked if they understood why they were in Iraq. Both answered that they were not sure. Asked whether they supported the reasons given by the administration, they responded that "it was complicated."

Now, whenever I hear that phrase I know that the people who were supposed to figure something out did nothing of the sort. If "dithering" is what people do before they figure something out then I am all for it.


Lexington: "Events are now exposing Mr. Obama's hubris..."


UN Investigator Carla del Ponte, former Swiss attorney general and prosecutor with the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia said today that testimony from victims of the Syrian conflict suggests it was the rebels who appear to have used nerve agents, while cautioning that they have concrete suspicions, but not yet incontrovertible proof of this assertion.

If "dithering" is the equivalent of not taking lethal action on evidence that doesn't exist, then "dithering" is fine by me.

Whatever else happens going forward, let's always be mindful not to be the very thing we claim to stand against.

Puntmeister in reply to Tinkersdamn

Why wait for hard evidence?

Shoot, we went into Iraq based on a copy of a receipt showing Saddam Hussein purchasing nuclear weapons supplies. Sure, it turned out to have been forged, but everything turned out well in the end just the same....


The current situation is very similar to that in Georgia in 2008. In the end Russia invaded Georgia. Again Russia has prepared itself now for an invasion of Syria and Israel is helping to fullfil this action. That will end the conflict but not in a manner preferred by NATO.
Remember: There is no proof of 70.000 people killed, just fantasy. The popular uprising against Assad never occurred. Not so many soldier defected in order to overthrow Assad. Instead mercenaries had to be sent to substantiate the rebellion. The Syrian people in majority are supporting the national army and not the rebels.

Puntmeister in reply to WME

The situation is not at all similar to the Russian invasion of Georgia.

Russia's interference in Syria has been unwelcome and unhelpful, but to suggest Russia is gearing up to invade Syria?!

WME in reply to Puntmeister

Unwelcome and unhelpful to whom? Like in Mali the government may ask a foreign country to assist in getting rid of terrorists or to protect it against foreign attacks.
Russia has moved most of its ships from the North to the Mediterranean and Black Sea, including many landing-crafts.

Georgia invaded the Republic of South Ossetia, shelled and bombarded the capital Tskhinvali to smithereens and Russian volunteers put a stop to the massacre. Russia is now trying to end the civil war in Syria and also to advise, with considerable tact, the Americans not to get into a war they don't understand.


well done to the Economist for staying true to its nature. but sounder arguments would benefit this piece of interventionist propaganda.


A simple majority of UNSC members should form a joint mission to help Syria. Former rulers of the region also have a moral responsibility to maintain order just like in Mali.They should convince Germany to transfer more weapons to Free Syrian Army, after the rebels publicly shun the al-Nusra front.



Under all other conditions the U.S. and the West should not supply troops or arms to the Syrian rebels. All recent reports that I've read have stated that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the Salafist oriented groups are now in the vanguard and may at this point represent the majority of the rebel fighters.






The Mideast ain't the Midwest.



Not backing up ones own words with actions exposes the hollowness of your words. We could have been helping the more moderate rebels over a year ago, maybe it would have worked maybe not. Maybe we would have led to a more moderate Syria but then again maybe it wouldn't. One thing is for sure, if you don't try then you can neither succeed nor fail. I suspect Obama's policies are more geared towards avoiding failure then trying to succeed...

Space Pope in reply to francisbjohn

I think you have it exactly right. I've not wanted direct intervention since I saw, in early 2012, that it really wouldn't help much. But it seems America has decided that if we aren't using our military, we shouldn't show up to the party. If you aren't involved on the ground, you cannot hope to influence the outcome. This 'non-policy' becomes a policy of complicity, of sorts.

If we were to help arm the rebel groups that WE like, that pulls other Syrians to where the money & arms are, making the groups stronger, which could help them dominate post-Assad Syria. If we don't, Qatar and Al Saud will continue, and their beneficiaries are less friendly to the kind of state we'd prefer Syria to be. We're hobbling our best option by assuming it can be solved by talking. We're making the best the enemy of the good.


Evil tyrannical Shias killing evil al-Qaeda linked Sunnis... FOR FREE? I rarely find myself agreeing with Mr. Obama, but that sounds like a deal for me.

Why should Assad do anything other than fight to the death after seeing the fate of Mubarrak and Gaddafi? Let them fight it out and create ethic/religious borders in Syria to accommodate Shias and Sunnis. Perhaps propose a two state solution openly. Certainly don't unify two groups of maniacs by giving them a common enemy in the US military.

Lexington only continues his tradition of poor analysis and worse advice.

Puntmeister in reply to 374ps8291ys07362

As you allude to, many of these Mideast conflicts are born out of artificial States drawn up by none other than the British. In their defense, the intensity of the modern-day struggles between the different religious sects may not have been obvious to predict - but it is their mess just the same.

We didn't set this mess up, we don't have to clean it up. Iraq was a British mess, and so is Syria. Let the British figure this one out on their own.

As I mentioned elsewhere, we (the U.S.) should be perfectly willing to sign a coalition of the willing, and offer at least 300 support troops and five (5) tanks for the invasion.

João Filipe

Wisdom is not a gift of everyone.

The majority of human being, government leaders, wake, live, work and see through superficies of physical life.... But some of us, we are able to transcend our physical world and come above of our birth to understand and see how our physical world environment as been for so many years controlled by Spirit world.

Understanding this matter allow every wised person to analyze and seeing that most of world leaders decisions regards to the events occurring out in front of the world lighters are take before in spirit realm and the touch of the world lighters transmit does decisions to channel of each society. Does channel are guided by the four lighters standing out in four corners of the world holding the key and meaning of each human event in earth.

Anny decision, or action, take by an world leader, special does who are son of the lighters, are not his or her decisions, he or she is just following the guidance or is only a vehicle by wish the lighters use to expose their wish, decisions as well as issues discussed early in spiritual realm.

The earth has been for a thousands of years a battle of game power not for human beings but for the spirit world power.... we all are only a vehicle of manifestation of does spiritual realm.

Therefore, does not make sense to say that, it is not in the gift of politicians—even American presidents—to choose their own trade-offs. He will not choice, because he himself is under the world spirit realm, also controlled by the lighters of the four corners of the world.

The current Syria’s horrors are not Mr Obama’s fault as well as not Mr Bashar Assad fault... are just events which were already decided long ago by the lighters.

Every one who act as a channel regards the place he/she live, because for us there are no space and time, we can see and read through underlying lines that the current Syria is only the begging of end... when the Mom meet the Sun, there are small period of time of darkness, and than the lighter come above, to allow the young´s, elder´s, and women's to smile again.

There are no reason to say that the slaughter still mocks Mr Obama’s pieties about interdependence, and his glib plans for win-win diplomacy, because all actions e steps followed by Mr Obama are only different, ways by which the lighters are experienced their wish. Is not hard for Mr, Obama balancing the world interests and values.

The currents horrors in the region special in Syria are advancing step forward of what as been decided in spirit realm and does action and decision will not be stopped by any human decision. Their only reflect the end of the road.


At times, I find it entertaining to hear armchair quarterbacking and prognostications from self-described and actual pundits. I find it a bit irritating and ridiculous, though, when those who are not remotely qualified insist on broadcasting what they think governments and their militaries ought to be doing in regards to war. I wonder if anyone contributing to the Lexington or some of the posters here have served in some capacity other than taxpayer and/or reader of a few books and articles. It's like someone with training or a degree in sociology spouting off their views on what actions central bankers should take or what data they should be focusing on.

As of late, it seems Israel has delivered strikes in Syria. Perhaps in the coming days and weeks, there will be voices speaking of the virtues of an Israel led campaign to precipitate the ouster of Assad.

cynical reader

I wish I could find old newspapers from 1860's when America had a raging civil war. It would be cool to see what the Syrians thought about it.

Garaboncias in reply to cynical reader

Most of the people living in what is today Syria in the 1860's were subjects of the Ottoman Empire; and the overwhelming majority of them were illiterate. You would be extremely hard pressed to find any paper from the 1860's in the Ottoman Empire, even in Istanbul, that would have made any attempt at educating its readership about the issues over which the American Civil War was fought. Good luck, though.
May we dither over Syria for another decade or so...
Hey TE, what about the horrors of the Eastern Congo? We have been dithering over that one for quite a while now with far worse horrors than in Syria, you know...


Conjecture: Many people are watching Mr Assad, Assad used Chemical weapons ? Israel attacks ? Suspect, Mossad ?


Based on the Byzantine geo-politics of bedding whatever allies in their interference of other people affairs, the Zionists and neo-liberals are finding themselves caught in an impossible position that the chemical weapons will either fall into the hands of current allies like Al Qaeda linked insurgents or perenial foe like Hezbollah, and possibly both whatever may be the outcome for the Syrian regime.


The US is smart to stay out of the Syrian conflict. No matter how horrific the conflict, there is no national security interest of the US at stake. The argument for intervention put forward by the Economist is without merit. The horrors in Syria do not expose wishful thinking on the part of Obama. This is not a conflict that America needs to be involved in. And I do not feel obligated to waste my taxes on it.

Massive Tax

I think Obama's handling of the economy has been very poor, but on this issue I completely agree.

If some militant extremist hides a bunch of weapons or terrorists inside of a childrens' school, sickeningly using them as human shields, the US is blamed by the world when the drone hits (not to trivialize the death of innocent civilians which is a tragedy).

Similarly, if in 2006, some disgruntled Sunni/Shia walks into a market and kills 100's with a bomb, the US is blamed entirely, as if a US marine went up to them and shot them.

It's best to completely stay out of these conflicts as there are no winners and both sides are generally equally bad. If it's not Assad it will be some sort of Islamist dicatator as we see everywhere else!



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

