The Edmond Sun


June 4, 2014

Why Obama has changed his mind on Syria

Los Angeles — President Obama’s foreign policy speech at West Point last week was in large part a list of all the things he doesn’t want to do. He doesn’t want to withdraw from the world. At the same time, he doesn’t want to use military force to solve every problem. Above all, he doesn’t want to get stuck in another war in the Middle East, or anywhere else, for that matter.

But there’s an exception to the Obama Doctrine of restraint: terrorism. Obama is ready and willing to use U.S. military power — indirectly if possible, directly if needed — against terrorists who pose a threat to the United States.

That’s why, even as he has withdrawn troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, the president has sent military advisers to Africa. And that’s why, almost unnoticed, he has approved a gradual but significant escalation of U.S. action on the most complicated and dangerous battlefield of all: Syria.

Only two years ago, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other aides proposed a U.S. effort to arm and train moderates among the rebels fighting the government of Bashar Assad, Obama rejected the idea. The rebels weren’t capable or well organized, he said. A commitment to their fight might draw the U.S. onto a slippery slope of military intervention, he worried.

But now Obama has taken the steps he once refused. Aides say the president has agreed to “ramp up” the modest weapons supplies the United States began last year. Perhaps more important, he wants to send U.S. troops to Jordan or other countries near Syria to train rebel units, assuming Congress and the other countries agree.

What’s changed? Not the moderate rebels’ chances of victory in their fight against both Assad and al-Qaida. After a series of military setbacks, those rebels are in worse shape on the ground than they were two years ago.

Instead, it’s the alarming growth and reach of extremist Islamist groups in Syria — some allied with al-Qaida — that is driving Obama’s decisions.

Last week, a man from Florida became the first U.S. citizen to die as a suicide bomber in the Syrian war. His death served as confirmation of the trend; as many as 70 Americans, a roughly equal number of Canadians and hundreds of Europeans may have joined jihadist groups in Syria, and, once trained and tested, some might return to attempt terrorism at home.

“What has concentrated our minds is the threat from foreign fighters,” a senior U.S. official told me. “That drives home that we’re talking about real national security interests now.”

And it lands Syria — formerly a humanitarian tragedy and a refugee crisis but not a direct U.S. threat — on Obama’s short list of “core interests” that justify the use of military force.

That doesn’t mean he’s planning direct U.S. strikes against terrorist groups in Syria — at least, not yet. But that option now appears “legally legitimate,” the official said.

For the time being, the U.S. focus is on tipping the balance, if possible, in the civil war; providing an alternative to al-Qaida for young Syrians who want to fight; and, importantly, providing helpers on the ground for U.S. intelligence agencies as they hunt for potential terrorists. Not on the list of goals: a rebel military victory. That’s way out of reach, officials say.

In an interview with NPR last week, Obama took pains to keep expectations low. “There are going to be limits to how rapidly we can ramp up the capacity of that opposition,” he said. “What we don’t want to do is make promises that we cannot keep.” And maybe the U.S. can shift the balance in favor of a political resolution, he added.

Has any president ever launched a military aid mission with objectives so carefully circumscribed?

What Obama is doing, of course, is trying to stay clear of the dreaded slippery slope toward full military intervention on the rebels’ behalf. Promise too much, officials fear, and sooner or later someone will ask the U.S. to deliver.

The kind of limited commitment Obama is offering Syria’s moderates takes the United States onto swampy moral ground. Once we train and arm “our” rebels, do we have an obligation to defend them against slaughter if they lose?

The United States has been here before. Earlier presidents have sent military aid to one side in a war, only to walk away — with regrets, to be sure — if our allies didn’t win. The fall of Saigon in 1975 was a major defeat for America, but it hardly mattered a decade later. The collapse of Angola’s Jonas Savimbi, a favorite of Ronald Reagan, is virtually forgotten now.

With American aid to the insurgency, Syria’s civil war is likely to continue for many years, and with it the country’s division into sectarian fiefdoms. But that might have happened without American help.

Obama should have heeded Hillary Clinton (and Leon Panetta and David H. Petraeus) and approved military aid to the rebels two years ago, before the number of jihadists had grown so large. But better late than never.

It’s just possible, incongruous though it sounds, that al-Qaida — by drawing the United States into the fight — might yet save Syria’s democratic opposition from utter defeat.

DOYLE McMANUS is a columnist  for the Los Angeles Times. Readers may send him email at

Text Only
  • RedBlueAmerica: Is parenting being criminalized in America?

    Debra Harrell was arrested recently after the McDonald’s employee let her daughter spend the day playing in a nearby park while she worked her shift. The South Carolina woman says her daughter had a cell phone in case of danger, and critics say that children once were given the independence to spend a few unsupervised hours in a park.
    Is it a crime to parent “free-range” kids? Does Harrell deserve her problems? Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, debate the issue.

    July 24, 2014

  • Technology that will stimulate journalism’s future is now here

    To say technology has changed the newspaper media industry is understating the obvious. While much discussion focuses on how we read the news, technology is changing the way we report the news. The image of a reporter showing up to a scene with a pen and a pad is iconic but lost to the vestiges of time.
    I am asked frequently about the future of newspapers and, in particular, what does a successful future look like. For journalists, to be successful is to command multiple technologies and share news with readers in new and exciting ways.

    July 23, 2014

  • New Orleans features its own “Running of the Bulls”

    On July12, the streets of the Warehouse District of New Orleans were filled with thousands of young men who were seeking to avoid being hit with plastic bats wielded by women on roller skates as part of the annual “Running of the Bulls” that takes place in New Orleans.
    The event is based on the “Running of the Bulls” that occurs in Pamplona, Spain, that is  part of an annual occurrence in which a group of bulls rampage through the streets of Pamplona while men run from them to avoid being gored by their sharp horns. That event was introduced to the English-speaking world by Ernest Hemingway, who included scenes from it in his critically acclaimed 1926 novel “The Sun also Rises.”

    July 22, 2014

  • OTHER VIEW: Newsday: Lapses on deadly diseases demand explanation

    When we heard that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had created a potentially lethal safety risk by improperly sending deadly pathogens — like anthrax — to other laboratories around the country, our first reaction was disbelief.

    July 22, 2014

  • Holding government accountable for open meeting violations

    A few weeks ago I wrote about the recent success of three important government transparency proposals which will go into law this year.

    July 21, 2014

  • GUEST OPINION — Oklahoma GOP voters want educational choices

    A Braun Research survey released in January showed that Oklahoma voters — Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike — favor parental choice in education.

    July 21, 2014

  • HEY HINK: IRS interferes with citizens’ rights of free speech

    The patient is gravely ill. We have detected traces of a deadly venom in the bloodstream. We don’t know how widespread the poison is, but we know, if not counteracted, toxins of this kind can rot the patient’s vital organs and could ultimately prove fatal.

    July 19, 2014

  • 130408_NT_BEA_good kids We're raising a generation of timid kids

    A week ago, a woman was charged with leaving her child in the car while she went into a store. Her 11-year-old child. This week, a woman was arrested for allowing her 9-year-old daughter to go to the park alone. Which raises just one question: America, what the heck is wrong with you?

    July 17, 2014 1 Photo

  • RedBlueAmerica: What should the U.S. do about illegal immigrant children?

    The crisis along the southern U.S. border has politicians and immigration officials scrambling. More than 52,000 children, mostly from Central American nations, have arrived so far this year. The Department of Homeland Security is running out of space to hold them all.
    President Barack Obama is asking Congress for $3.7 billion in borrowed money from taxpayers to cover the growing “care, feeding and transportation costs of unaccompanied children and family groups” when our own veterans are not taken care of. Texas Gov. Rick Perry criticized the president’s plan, saying more money should go toward securing the border.

    July 17, 2014

  • VA scandal highlights the need to change Pentagon spending priorities

    The ongoing Department of Veterans Affairs scandal raises an important question: When our veterans are being denied access to basic health care, why is the Pentagon squandering billions of dollars on programs that do not benefit our military forces? Is there a link in organization attitudes?

    July 16, 2014


If the Republican runoff for the 5th District congressional seat were today, which candidate would you vote for?

Patrice Douglas
Steve Russell
     View Results