I think appearing impotent is the least worst strategy for the American administration, and if the problem of Syria is cast as one of the willingness of the US to intervene military, as the suffering worsens, so will US intervention seem more credible as the solution.
"But if the Clinton strategy in response to the Arab Spring failed, it was at least a strategy. Now, with Clinton gone, US foreign policy reads like a series of random events off the pages of the Homeland screenplay.
Call for a military strike on Syria. Lose a vote in the British parliament. Call for a vote in congress. Place an extra random caveat on the action, in an impromptu speech, which becomes the basis of a new, strategic agreement brokered by Russia. Fail - as looks likely - to get even that deal backed by the threat of force, at the UN, should Syria renege on it.
When Roosevelt, in 1936, signed the non-intervention pact on Spain it was at least the consequence of design. Clear statements of policy backed it up. Today seasoned diplomats shake their heads. As one put it to me: this is not a strategy at all."
No comments:
Post a Comment