Former Ambassador: Obama Allowing Slaughter in Syria to Preserve Iran Nuclear Deal
In an op-ed at the Atlantic
Council, former ambassador Frederic C. Hof condemns President Barack
Obama’s “passivity” during the bloody conflict in Syria, both on the
battlefield and before the public eye, for the sake of preserving the
Iran nuclear deal.
The administration’s failure to defend “a single Syrian civilian from the Assad-Russia-Iran onslaught,” he writes, “may well serve to define Mr. Obama—accomplishments at home and abroad notwithstanding—as a failed president.”
Hof continues, about White House press secretary Josh Earnest:
According to Earnest, “We’ve got a test case just over the border in Iraq about what the consequences are for the United States implementing a regime-change policy and trying to impose a military solution on the situation.” Warming to the subject, Mr. Earnest went on to say, “And look, there are some people who do suggest that somehow the United States should invade Syria.”
Shame on a news media that consistently permits this dissembling to go unchallenged. Mr. Earnest, if asked, would be unable to name anyone counseling the invasion of Syria. Mr. Earnest would be unable, if asked, to explain why limited military measures designed to end Assad’s mass murder free ride—such as that offered by the 51 dissenting State Department officers—amounts to “regime-change” and “trying to impose a military solution.” Indeed, if challenged, Mr. Earnest would be required to retract his subsequent false claim that no critic of the president’s Syria policy has ever offered specific, operationally feasible alternatives to a catastrophe-producing approach.
The administration’s failure to defend “a single Syrian civilian from the Assad-Russia-Iran onslaught,” he writes, “may well serve to define Mr. Obama—accomplishments at home and abroad notwithstanding—as a failed president.”
Hof continues, about White House press secretary Josh Earnest:
In his August 25, 2016 press briefing Mr. Earnest
was asked about the administration’s failure to protect Syrian civilians
in the face of what he described as the Assad regime’s “unconscionable
use of violence against civilians.” He clarified, using language that
defines vacuity, the administration’s policy as follows: “But our
approach to the Assad regime has been to make clear that they’ve lost
legitimacy to lead that country.” Claiming, in a sentence that defines
wishful thinking, that “Russia shares this assessment,” Earnest
suggested that the way forward toward ending mass murder is for Moscow
to live up to its commitments and rein-in its homicidal client. He did
not mention Russia’s own growing portfolio of war crimes in Syria.
In fact the administration’s policy toward Assad Syria (as opposed to ISIS Syria) rests on its desire to accommodate Iran—a
full partner in Assad’s collective punishment survival strategy—so that
the July 14, 2015 nuclear agreement can survive the Obama presidency.
In the case of ISIS, Earnest noted with evident pride that the United
States has put boots on the ground in eastern Syria and is at war with a
loathsome terrorist group. In the case of offering Syrian civilians not
the slightest modicum of protection from Assad, however, Mr. Earnest
had an excuse evidently not applicable to ISIS: Iraq 2003.According to Earnest, “We’ve got a test case just over the border in Iraq about what the consequences are for the United States implementing a regime-change policy and trying to impose a military solution on the situation.” Warming to the subject, Mr. Earnest went on to say, “And look, there are some people who do suggest that somehow the United States should invade Syria.”
Shame on a news media that consistently permits this dissembling to go unchallenged. Mr. Earnest, if asked, would be unable to name anyone counseling the invasion of Syria. Mr. Earnest would be unable, if asked, to explain why limited military measures designed to end Assad’s mass murder free ride—such as that offered by the 51 dissenting State Department officers—amounts to “regime-change” and “trying to impose a military solution.” Indeed, if challenged, Mr. Earnest would be required to retract his subsequent false claim that no critic of the president’s Syria policy has ever offered specific, operationally feasible alternatives to a catastrophe-producing approach.
