Formalizing the status quo As Syrians are well aware, Washington prefers to retain the Assad regime, a politically useful ally for decades, than to lose it 01-02-2014: ...The shift in priorities at Geneva, away from transition of power to second-order objectives like humanitarian relief, is supported by an emerging consensus in the US foreign policy establishment according to which removing Assad from power is not just difficult but also undesirable. ...The idea of a partnership with Assad is a recurring fantasy that has deep roots in the American foreign policy establishment, well predating the Syrian uprising. Indeed, engaging Assad and involving him in a process, no matter how recalcitrant he proves, has been the default position for US policymakers since the days of Hafez al-Assad. This position cuts across the partisan divide: the Bush administration similarly collaborated with Assad, mainly on counterterrorism, though they knew he was sponsoring attacks against the US in Iraq. Instead of taking action, senior officials advised dialogue to see if an accommodation could be reached; this approach prevailed for most of Bush’s term, except for a short interruption in 2005-2006. Then, instead of punishing Assad for his support of Hezbollah in the 2006 war, the administration looked the other way and invited him to take part in the peace process with Israel. This policy of engagement was precisely what the policy establishment, embodied in the 2006 bipartisan Iraq Study Group report, had recommended. For its part, the Obama administration, even before it came into office, made it known it would follow the same course, and continued engaging the Assad regime on counterterrorism and pursuing the Syrian-Israeli peace process. ...In the end, if it wasn’t before, it should now be obvious that Geneva is not a process that will end in Assad’s departure: instead, it is designed to formalize the status quo with Assad in power and to normalize dealing with him. The redefinition of objectives in Syria is geared toward that end, affording the White House the ability to walk back the position it staked out in 2011 [supposedly supporting the opposition], a position it now regrets.
Posted on: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:26:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015