OBAMA OUTFOXED BY RUSSIA

I can't complain about the recent developments in Syria. Fewer people will die in bomb blasts. But one must wonder at the serendipity of foreign affairs. One slip of the Obama lip got us caught up in war fever and another by John Kerry may have extricated us out of it. Secretary Kerry's off-the-cuff remark, "Let them get rid of their chemical weapons", in answer to a reporter's question on what would dissuade Obama from his determination to attack Syria did it. Kerry did not realize it then, but that statement was to make history.

The following is my analysis of why I think that Obama lost and the Russians won. (Well so far. We will have to see how this plays out.)

The long term Obama Middle East strategy was to somehow get rid of Assad, and in that way protect Israel, and importantly weaken and break up the "Shia Crescent", a zone comprised of Iran, Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Iraq. The Syria civil war was the best hope of the proponents of this strategy. As the war progressed the US secretly and with denials supported the anti-Assad rebels, through sending small arms, intelligence, cash flow by way of Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Turkey, and by "shoes" on the ground in the form of CIA and other agents provocateurs. For the pro-Israeli right and the AIPAC left this was a dream come true. Eliminate Assad and then deal with a weakened Hezbollah and the "evil" Iran.

But as the civil war deepened and intensified, the Syrian insurgency turned increasingly radical and fractured. There were no "reasonable centrists" fighting Assad. It seemed all the radical Sunni forces in the Moslem world had joined in to oppose the Syrian dictator. The logical answer was for the west to keep hands off Syria, but the political situation in the US made that option untenable. It soon became difficult for US operatives to distribute aid for fear it would wind up in the hands of dangerous al Qaeda elements and others. But the US persisted in its policies to weaken Assad in the hopes of a long war "al la Iraq-Iran" in which a third party can, by supporting the weaker element in a fight prolong the conflict and weaken both unpalatable combatants. A stalemate was what Obama was looking for that would weaken both Assad and the insurgency. This was not a politically strong position for our President for it opened him to criticism from both left and right. He was not satisfying the blood lust of the neo-con right or the passivity of the anti-war left.

On the home front, at this time, Obama's second term descended abruptly into political limbo. His political "mojo" appeared to be slipping through his long slim fingers. Several embarrassing scandals marred the early part of his first year. His popularity dropped to the lowest level of his presidency. About this time in August 2012 he made the off-the-cuff remark---the "red line"--statement which boxed him in to a response if Syria used chemical weapons. He also faced several severe domestic issues, immigration, implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the debt ceiling, etc.,etc. In effect Obama confronted both domestic and foreign stalemates. He feared if nothing changed, he was going to go down as a hog-tied president...with very little accomplished.

In Syria, Hezbollah and Iran had joined the Syrian forces in attempting to quell the insurgency. The war began to look like a proxy fight between the Sunni and Shia elements of the Moslem world. With the help of Russia, Hezbollah and Iran, Assad's prospects began to turn around and looked brighter. It seemed that Assad was going to be able to maintain his position. The idea of a fight to the death, was less likely and Assad, with Russian help looked to be gaining power and control. Obama and his allies were about to loose strategically, so they played down and ignored all efforts by the Russians and others for a diplomatic settlement.

Then someone fired off several canisters of Sarin gas into the suburbs of Damascus.

The tragedy, Obama's weak position at home, and his careless "red line"remark forced him to act belligerently or to appear weak and inconsequential. No president would want the latter so he was forced into the former action. The gas attack provided an opportunity--a causus belli--though for the US without a UN sanction it was an illegal one--to change both Obama's domestic and foreign policy stalemates. But how to do it? He decided to follow the Bush play book. Use the sarin gas incident to initiate a war with Syria. That might break up the Middle East log jam, get rid of Assad and have some positive out-come in the foreign policy area. It would also act to distract the public from the embarrassing in effectiveness of the administration's second term.

Obama announced his plan to bomb Syria, just the way Bush, Cheney and Don Rumsfeld would have. It was disappointing and disheartening to see Obama and his team morph into Neo cons. Their behavior overturned the will of the people in two elections in the blink of an eye. They should be roundly condemned for that.

The President's decision rightly faced a firestorm of criticism from all sides. Major allies chose not to participate. The UN labeled Obama's intentions "illegal", NATO, EU, the Arab League, and famously the UK, our obedient "shadow" in all of our, even foolhardy ventures, failed to join the march to war. The President stood all alone, in his illegal belligerency.

With few allies to follow him over the cliff (except the unfortunate Msr. Hollande of France) Mr. Obama finally paused to reconsider. After thinking long and hard, but not too deeply, he decided to throw the Syria bombing question to the Congress. He followed this stunning move with a pro-war propaganda barrage of lies, half-truths and innuendo that matched that of George Bush and Dick Cheney during the run up to the Iraq War. The people were unimpressed, his approval numbers did not rise, and polling in the House indicated an insuperable majority of "nays". It was apparent Mr. Obama's war proposal might pass the Senate, with arm twisting but not the House. Congress was not going to go with Mr. Obama's foolhardy war. This President would have to bomb Syria without Congressional approval.

But another slip of the lip by his new, war-zealot Secretary John Kerry blew all Obama's foolhardy plans away. A day after that, on September 10, the Russians and Syrians agreed to go ahead with a proposal for Syria to put its chemical weapons under international supervision. The President was boxed in again. Out foxed by Putin, he was not going to be able to bomb Syria. A new thrust for a diplomatic settlement would surely follow that Mr. Obama would have to acknowledge and support.

The Russians would still keep their economic ties and port facilities in Syria. Assad would probably not be unseated. The US would not have the opportunity to "degrade" Syria's military. It would not be able to shatter the Shia crescent. Iran would keeps it Syria ally (a bit weakened). Hezbollah would mainain its arms channel open to the east via Syria. The basic status quo would be reinstated. All negatives the way Obama saw it.

Mr Obama goes back to a hostile Congress, no longer distracted by foreign affairs and the Syrian war drum beat, with lower poll ratings and a weaker political position. He must still face the scandals of Benghazi, IRA, NRA, and the drip drip of embarrassing secrets from Mr. Snowden, etc. He must deal with the problems such as efforts to defund the ACA, lack of action on immigration, and the looming debt limit. His plan to further undermine and weaken a part of the world he (mistakenly in my view) sees as a threat to US interests has been avoided.

So this was not an Obama win. Though that is not how he and his minions will spin it. Expect them to claim the opposite. The truth is Mr. Obama brought us to the brink of war by his own bumbling and off the cuff remarks. For our deliverance we must thank the wise men of our own Congress and Senate (particularly Sen. Rand Paul), the British Parliament, the Russians(!) the cooler heads in the UN and the EU and others around the world for resisting the call to a senseless war. So Obama loses and perhaps those of us who see the world from a less parochial perspective have won. Let us hope we have learned a new lesson. The Bush style "cowboy days" are gone. In the future, a call to arms by the USA for no good reason may again result in the embarrassing silence and put down that Obama received.

Get the picture?

Rjk