Op-ed in the Deseret News: What every Candidate Must Learn from the Debacle in Syria

Op-Ed

Our public discussion of Syria in recent months has focused on the refugee crisis and on closing loopholes terrorists might use to exploit the crisis, as evidenced by the horrifying shootings in San Bernardino Dec. 2. Amidst this dialogue, it's important we don't lose sight of the cause of the Syria debacle. In future years, historians will use the Obama administration's handling of the Syrian Civil War as a case study in failure of leadership. The substance of his Syrian policy has been reactive (every U.S. action during the crisis has been in response to events initiated by our adversaries), his messaging naive (ISIS is the JV squad of terrorism), inane (Assad's days are numbered), insincere (the use of chemical weapons will result in U.S. military action against Assad), and duplicitous (U.S. Special Forces in Syria are not on a combat mission).

Substituting hope for strategy, President Obama has functioned as an observer in chief. Now it seems his primary goal is to run out the clock and let the next president deal with a strategic, economic and humanitarian disaster. The next president will not have such a luxury. As we enter an election year, it's critical that each candidate learn the right lessons from Syria.

There are at least three critical lessons to be learned.

First, as in every foreign policy crisis, the president must clearly define our national security interests. After more than four years, this president still has not done so. But our interest is clear: Syria cannot become a safe haven for terrorist organizations intent on destabilizing the region and attacking the U.S. and our allies. Yes, a unified Syria led by Bashar Assad is a problem for the U.S. But a fractured Syria split equally between Hezbollah, al-Qaida, and ISIS is a much bigger problem and poses a much greater risk. President Obama never understood or defined U.S. interests in Syria, and his inaction has made the problem worse.

Second, America must lead. History has shown that if we act decisively, our allies will join us. On the other hand, if America tries to "lead from behind," our allies will hesitate while our enemies observe our absence and take the strategic initiative, as Russia and Iran have. Early in the Syrian Civil War, the majority of the rebels were secular moderates. I had the chance to meet with their leaders and came away convinced they were sincere in their commitment to a secular government and reform. But because these moderates were the only potential government acceptable to the West, they were quickly targeted for extermination by both Assad and various radical terrorist groups. Our failure to support them doomed them to destruction and left us with no alternative but all of the bad options we face today.

Third, credibility counts. Starting in 2012, President Obama stated very clearly that the use of chemical weapons was a red line that would have very serious consequences. So it was that when Assad launched a chemical weapon attack that killed 1,400 Syrian civilians, the moderate rebels expected the U.S. to take direct action against the Assad regime. When President Obama -- who has an extensive history of executive overreach on issues he cares about -- punted that decision to Congress, the rebels were weakened and our enemies emboldened. Worse, by embracing the Russian initiative to work with Assad in removing his chemical weapons, we legitimized his continued rule. Partly because of our own actions, more than four years after Obama administration officials first claimed "Assad's days are numbered," Assad remains in power and will be for the foreseeable future.

And let's remember: other unsavory regimes are watching and taking note of the lack of U.S. leadership. Weak responses in one part of the world often trigger aggression elsewhere.

Is there a solution in Syria? Certainly not an easy one. There are a number of ideas worth considering, including a no-fly zone, safe zones, and better assistance to the Kurds, with whom the U.S. has a successful history of collaboration. These all have merit, but nothing this president does in the next year is likely to change the perception that his current rhetoric about the future of Syria is as worthless as his previous red line in Syria. It will take a new president, one who views the use of American power as a force for good in the world, and is willing to use it wisely, to restore our standing and secure our national interests.

If there is a silver lining in Syria, perhaps it is that we now have solid evidence of what happens when the U.S. shirks its role as a stabilizing influence in the Middle East. Let's hope the next president learns from this administration's mistakes.

Source