The Economist :
JUST when it seems that the war in Syria cannot get any worse, it does. On September 19th Syrian and Russian planes struck a convoy about to deliver aid to besieged parts of Aleppo. The attack wrecked the ceasefire brokered by America and Russia, and was followed by the worst bombardment that the ancient city has yet seen. Reports speak of bunker-buster, incendiary and white phosphorus bombs raining down.
Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president, is destroying his country to cling to power. And Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, is exporting the scorched-earth methods that he once used to terrify the Chechen capital, Grozny, into submission. Such savagery will not halt jihadism, but stoke it. And American inaction makes it all worse. The agony of Syria is the biggest moral stain on Barack Obama’s presidency. And the chaos rippling from Syria-where many now turn to al-Qaeda, not the West, for salvation-is his greatest geopolitical failure.
Mr Obama thinks that resolutely keeping out of the Syrian quagmire is cold, rational statesmanship. He may be “haunted” by the atrocities, but is convinced there is nothing he can usefully do. “Was there some move that is
beyond what was being presented to me that maybe a Churchill could have seen, or an Eisenhower might have figured out?” Mr Obama mused in a recent interview with Vanity Fair. Mr Obama is right to think that the world’s problems cannot all be solved by American power, and that ill-considered intervention can make them worse, as when America invaded Iraq. But Syria’s agony shows that the absence of America can be just as damaging.
As America has pulled back, others have stepped in-geopolitics abhors a vacuum. Islamic State (IS) has taken over swathes of Syria and Iraq. A new generation of jihadists has been inspired to fight in Syria or attack the West. Turkey, rocked by Kurdish and jihadist violence (and a failed coup), has joined the fight in Syria. Jordan and Lebanon, bursting with refugees, fear they will be sucked in. The exodus of Syrians strengthens Europe’s xenophobic populists and endangers the European Union. A belligerent Russia feels emboldened.
By sending warplanes to Syria to prop up Mr Assad, Mr Putin has inflamed the struggle between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Mr Putin and Mr Assad now seem determined to take control of “useful Syria”-the line of cities from Damascus to Aleppo, and the territories to the west, forsaking the desert and the Euphrates valley-before a new American president takes office next year. Hence the ferocity of the assault on east Aleppo, the last major rebel-held urban area.
None of this is in America’s interest. Being cool and calculating is not much use if everybody else thinks you are being weak. Even if America cannot fix Syria, it could have helped limit the damage, alleviate suffering and reduce the appeal of jihadism. This newspaper has long advocated safe areas and no-fly zones to protect civilians. The failure to strike Mr Assad’s regime after he crossed the “red line” on the use of chemical weapons damaged American credibility, as many around Mr Obama admit. Now it is Russia that sets the rules of the game. Western action that once carried little risk now brings the danger of a clash with Russia.
Mr Obama says that Mr Assad eventually must go, but has never willed the means to achieve that end. (Some rebel groups receive CIA weapons, but that is about it.) Instead he has concentrated on destroying the caliphate: its Syrian capital, Raqqa, is under threat, and the assault on the Iraqi one, Mosul, is imminent. The president wants to avoid thankless state-building and focus on fighting terrorists. This is important, but jihadism is fed by war and state failure: without a broader power-sharing agreement in Syria and Iraq any victory against IS will be short-lived; other jihadists will take its place. To achieve a fair settlement, the West needs greater leverage.
We still hope that Mr Obama will take tougher action. More likely, he will leave the Syrian mess in his successor’s in-tray. Any Western strategy must start from two realisations. First, the most important goal in the Middle East is to assuage Sunnis’ grievances enough to draw them away from the death-cult of jihadism and into more constructive politics. Second, Russia is not part of the solution, but of the problem.
The West must do more to protect Syrians, mostly Sunnis, who are still beyond the grip of Mr Assad. An undeclared no-fly zone over Aleppo may be feasible. America could retaliate against Mr Assad’s forces after particularly egregious actions. It could air-drop aid into besieged areas . In zones freed from IS, America should establish a secure hinterland where an alternative government can take root.
As a Dutch-led inquiry into the destruction of flight MH17 over Ukraine in 2014 makes clear , the challenge of Russia is not only, and not mainly, in Syria. The West must keep talking to Mr Putin, but resist his adventurism-starting with the maintenance of EU sanctions. Mr Putin is a bully, but not irrational. He will keep gambling for advantage for as long as he thinks the West is unwilling to act. But he will, surely, retreat as soon as he feels it is serious about standing up to him.
JUST when it seems that the war in Syria cannot get any worse, it does. On September 19th Syrian and Russian planes struck a convoy about to deliver aid to besieged parts of Aleppo. The attack wrecked the ceasefire brokered by America and Russia, and was followed by the worst bombardment that the ancient city has yet seen. Reports speak of bunker-buster, incendiary and white phosphorus bombs raining down.
Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president, is destroying his country to cling to power. And Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, is exporting the scorched-earth methods that he once used to terrify the Chechen capital, Grozny, into submission. Such savagery will not halt jihadism, but stoke it. And American inaction makes it all worse. The agony of Syria is the biggest moral stain on Barack Obama’s presidency. And the chaos rippling from Syria-where many now turn to al-Qaeda, not the West, for salvation-is his greatest geopolitical failure.
Mr Obama thinks that resolutely keeping out of the Syrian quagmire is cold, rational statesmanship. He may be “haunted” by the atrocities, but is convinced there is nothing he can usefully do. “Was there some move that is
beyond what was being presented to me that maybe a Churchill could have seen, or an Eisenhower might have figured out?” Mr Obama mused in a recent interview with Vanity Fair. Mr Obama is right to think that the world’s problems cannot all be solved by American power, and that ill-considered intervention can make them worse, as when America invaded Iraq. But Syria’s agony shows that the absence of America can be just as damaging.
As America has pulled back, others have stepped in-geopolitics abhors a vacuum. Islamic State (IS) has taken over swathes of Syria and Iraq. A new generation of jihadists has been inspired to fight in Syria or attack the West. Turkey, rocked by Kurdish and jihadist violence (and a failed coup), has joined the fight in Syria. Jordan and Lebanon, bursting with refugees, fear they will be sucked in. The exodus of Syrians strengthens Europe’s xenophobic populists and endangers the European Union. A belligerent Russia feels emboldened.
By sending warplanes to Syria to prop up Mr Assad, Mr Putin has inflamed the struggle between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Mr Putin and Mr Assad now seem determined to take control of “useful Syria”-the line of cities from Damascus to Aleppo, and the territories to the west, forsaking the desert and the Euphrates valley-before a new American president takes office next year. Hence the ferocity of the assault on east Aleppo, the last major rebel-held urban area.
None of this is in America’s interest. Being cool and calculating is not much use if everybody else thinks you are being weak. Even if America cannot fix Syria, it could have helped limit the damage, alleviate suffering and reduce the appeal of jihadism. This newspaper has long advocated safe areas and no-fly zones to protect civilians. The failure to strike Mr Assad’s regime after he crossed the “red line” on the use of chemical weapons damaged American credibility, as many around Mr Obama admit. Now it is Russia that sets the rules of the game. Western action that once carried little risk now brings the danger of a clash with Russia.
Mr Obama says that Mr Assad eventually must go, but has never willed the means to achieve that end. (Some rebel groups receive CIA weapons, but that is about it.) Instead he has concentrated on destroying the caliphate: its Syrian capital, Raqqa, is under threat, and the assault on the Iraqi one, Mosul, is imminent. The president wants to avoid thankless state-building and focus on fighting terrorists. This is important, but jihadism is fed by war and state failure: without a broader power-sharing agreement in Syria and Iraq any victory against IS will be short-lived; other jihadists will take its place. To achieve a fair settlement, the West needs greater leverage.
We still hope that Mr Obama will take tougher action. More likely, he will leave the Syrian mess in his successor’s in-tray. Any Western strategy must start from two realisations. First, the most important goal in the Middle East is to assuage Sunnis’ grievances enough to draw them away from the death-cult of jihadism and into more constructive politics. Second, Russia is not part of the solution, but of the problem.
The West must do more to protect Syrians, mostly Sunnis, who are still beyond the grip of Mr Assad. An undeclared no-fly zone over Aleppo may be feasible. America could retaliate against Mr Assad’s forces after particularly egregious actions. It could air-drop aid into besieged areas . In zones freed from IS, America should establish a secure hinterland where an alternative government can take root.
As a Dutch-led inquiry into the destruction of flight MH17 over Ukraine in 2014 makes clear , the challenge of Russia is not only, and not mainly, in Syria. The West must keep talking to Mr Putin, but resist his adventurism-starting with the maintenance of EU sanctions. Mr Putin is a bully, but not irrational. He will keep gambling for advantage for as long as he thinks the West is unwilling to act. But he will, surely, retreat as soon as he feels it is serious about standing up to him.
