My guess is that Obama’s Syrian foreign policy is crumbling. Mr. Obama does not realize the mistake he made by striking ISIL without striking Assad. By the time he does, it will be too late for the US the same way it was too late to act on Syria when he turned a blind eye to the terror of Assad against his own people.
The Wall Street Journal accentuated the complexity of Syria when Siobhan Gorman wrote in her latest articles:
Thousands of civilians and rebels across Syria protested allied airstrikes against extremist militants that continued on Saturday, underscoring the challenge the U.S.-led campaign faces in dealing with complex ties among rival rebel factions.
The reality is that every Sunni in the Arab world is protesting in his/her heart the strikes against ISIL, Nusra, and Khorasan (Where did that name come from? Never heard of Khorasan before) when Obama, at the same time, has refused to strike the ultimate terrorism of the Nazi-like Assad regime. It is truly much worse than the WSJ puts it.
Here is another paragraph that expresses more succinctly how Syrians view Obama’s one-sided policy to save Baschar al-Assad.
Many of these moderate Syrian rebels—a linchpin of the Obama administration’s Syria strategy to better train and arm the opposition—accuse the U.S. of excluding them from the West’s strategy on Syria and of undercutting their efforts to oust President Bashar al-Assad.
The moderates are not only confused, but also angry because it finally dawned on them that the real reason Obama requested $500m to train them has but one goal: Deceive them into thinking he intends to help them ouster Assad when in fact he is protecting Assad as he continues to massacre the Sunnis.
Now they get it that Obama’s job is to save terrorists and mass murderers like Assad, Khamenei, Mishaal, and Nasrallah, not oust them or strike them.
Now the best paragraph:
So, many of these Syrian rebels say they view the U.S.-led campaign as a misdirected attack on forces the population supports for protecting the country’s Sunni majority from mainly Shiite-linked government forces when the international community failed to intervene over 3½ years. Meanwhile, many of these people charged, regime military units and their allies—including the militant Hezbollah group—got a pass.
As I have said so often, the Arab street views the whole debacle in Syria from the sectarian prism of Shia massacring Sunnis. What Obama just did by attacking ISIL, Nusra, and Khorasan is convert every Sunni in the Middle East into a sympathizer of these terror groups because he gave a free pass to the terror of Assad.
Everyone knows this reality except Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Denis McDonough, and Ben Rhodes. Who will benefit the most from Obama’s ignorance? Who else but Iran.
Whomever said Obama is smart, he/she is as dumb as a post.
Finally, the paragraph that should put this Shia vs. Sunni debate to rest:
On Tuesday, nearly a dozen of the FSA’s most powerful groups signed a declaration denouncing the strikes, demanding they target the Syrian regime, too. In a heated meeting with the Syrian opposition in Istanbul Thursday, U.S. officials demanded an explanation for the statement condemning the American-led coalition, an opposition official said.
On Social Media the anger spilled over against the US for its attacks against the extremists without attacking Assad (Really worth reading). Many Tweets criticized the Gulf countries participating. Some Tweets also referred to the US strikes killing Syrian children.
Not only Obama’s Syrian foreign policy is crumbling, I am predicting the protests we saw in Syria will expand in the next few weeks across few countries in the Arab world.
Just wait and see.