We read this article in the NY Times in which Secretary Clinton, speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations, was compelled to lamenting diplomatic failures to stop the carnage in Syria.
As Secretary, Mrs. Clinton takes her marching orders from the President; and while many may blame her for Syria, we do not. Saying Assad is a “reformer” in the midst of killing his own people was a mistake. However, one has to give her the benefit of the doubt while staying cautious.
Will she act in the same manner, as Commander-in-Chief, will be the question many internationalists need to ask themselves. The problems the region will be facing between now and 2016 will acutely increase.
After all, it was her husband, President Clinton, who saved the world from Milosevic. We tend to think had she been in control of the Syrian file, she would have administered a similar necessary medicine to kill the Assad virus.
Lamenting Diplomatic Failures in Syria
The last few paragraphs of the NY Times article spell the failure clearly:
Lamenting diplomatic failures over Syria could be boring to those of us immersed in the Syrian conflict; however, it is the only way to get across the message of how weak Barack Obama has been as President.
Had the Obama Administration ventured outside its lambskin to show political determination, instead of political weakness, by arming indirectly the liberal-minded Free Syrian Army as soon as defections started to materialize, not only many more would have defected, but it would have also accelerated the demise of the violent, anti-American Assad regime. It would certainly have nipped at the bud the extremism that followed to fill the big vacuum left by the Syrian policies of Obama.
Instead, we stand in front of the world lamenting our weakness and our incapacity to shape history for the better.