Skip Navigation

Close and don't show again.

Your browser is out of date.

You may not get the full experience here on National Journal.

Please upgrade your browser to any of the following supported browsers:

Behind Obama’s Big 'No!' on Syria Behind Obama’s Big 'No!' on Syria

This ad will end in seconds
Close X

Want access to this content? Learn More »

Forget Your Password?

Don't have an account? Register »

Reveal Navigation


Behind Obama’s Big 'No!' on Syria

Despite terrible bloodshed and the risks of a wider war, the president is barely moving. Here’s why.


Syrian girls paint their faces with colors of the Syrian revolutionary flag during a festival in Aleppo on Wednesday. (AP Photo/Aleppo Media Center, AMC)

It’s too generous to say President Obama is “leading from behind” on Syria. A better description might be that he’s getting dragged in by the ear. Yet bit by bit, pressured mainly by France but also by shifting opinion in Washington, the administration is sending signals that it knows it can’t avoid involvement in the Syrian civil war forever.

Among influential figures on Capitol Hill who are putting new pressure on the president to better supply and arm the Syrian rebels is Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “The deterioration in Syria is breathtakingly bad,” Rogers told National Journal in an interview, saying the possible collapse of the Syrian state into chaos is his “No. 1 national security priority in the region right now.” Rogers added: “I am very, very concerned by the sheer level of al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and maybe elements of Hamas who are on the battlefield. If there is a free-fall collapse of the [Bashar] Assad government, a chaos could ensue that means that not just chemical weapons but other sophisticated weapons, some supplied by Russia, could proliferate on battlefields across the Levant.”


Currently, Rogers added, the U.S. has no input or diplomatic leverage to bring to bear inside Syria. The administration, he said, should pay heed to what happened in Mali and other neighboring countries after Libya’s weapons caches spread across the region. 

Yet the lesson of Libya’s weapons depots also helps explain why the administration is so reluctant to offer more than humanitarian aid, despite the horrific tally—more than 70,000 dead in two years. Obama’s dilemma can be summed up in two Washington Post headlines this week. On Tuesday, the newspaper reported on the mounting pressure to intervene: “UN: Syria’s humanitarian crisis is ‘dramatic beyond description.’ ” The next day the Post’s intrepid Liz Sly, reporting from the rebel-held city of Aleppo, wrote of the main reason why Obama doesn’t want to do more. The headline: “Islamist Law Takes Root in Rebel-held Syria.”

The administration’s central fear is that in a country that appears to be fissuring into ethnic fighting—like so many other countries in the region—the better-organized Islamist groups are making the most rapid military advances. Among the most fearsome of these: Jabhat al-Nusra , a Syrian rebel force that may have ties to al-Qaida and opposes elections as “anti-Islamic.” Hence, the center of Western opposition to arming the rebels appears to be holding, for the moment, even as Iran and Russia allegedly send weapons to shore up the besieged Assad regime.


So President Obama is still saying no, as is the European Union, which is likely to uphold its arms embargo. On Tuesday, Adm. James Stavridis, commander of U.S. European Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that NATO is "looking at a variety of operations" it could conduct in Syria, but the alliance's official position is "no way," too. "NATO as a whole has no plans for military intervention in Syria,” Col. Martin Downie, the NATO spokesman, told National Journal on Wednesday.

Despite the rising cry for intervention, U.S. observers also note that much of the current fighting involves various U.S. enemies who are attacking each other: Sunni jihadists in Syria are being joined by Iraqi Sunni insurgents across the border who are now sometimes fighting Hezbollah Shiites, as well as the Assad government. If it were not that tens of thousands of innocents are being killed and wounded, the conflict could almost be considered a “net gain” at this point in terms of “cold calculations of national interest,” says Douglas Ollivant, the former director for Iraq at the National Security Council during the Bush and Obama administrations.

The French government, which is hinting broadly that it may soon openly supply arms to the rebels, says the humanitarian disaster is too grave to ignore and the dangers of inaction—of a broader regional war that may already be dragging in Turkey and Lebanon—are now even greater than the risks of arming terrorists. France is urging the U.S. to at least shift its tone and threaten the delivery of arms in order to pressure Bashar al-Assad to the bargaining table. Secretary of State John Kerry appeared to do that, at long last, this week. "The United States does not stand in the way of other countries that made a decision to provide arms, whether it’s France or Britain or others,” he said, adding that the war is becoming a “global catastrophe.”

comments powered by Disqus