+

Cookies on the Business Insider India website

Business Insider India has updated its Privacy and Cookie policy. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the better experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we\'ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Business Insider India website. However, you can change your cookie setting at any time by clicking on our Cookie Policy at any time. You can also see our Privacy Policy.

Close
HomeQuizzoneWhatsappShare Flash Reads
 

'The devil made me do it': Obama's foreign policy just reached a new low

Sep 19, 2015, 19:46 IST

U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House in Washington September 18, 2015.REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Advertisement

The Obama administration's policy toward Syria and its more than four-year civil war is rapidly becoming a black mark on the president's legacy.

And a scathing new report by Peter Baker of The New York Times details the mind-boggling decision by the White House to refuse to accept any responsibility.

The blame for the failed US effort to train Syrian rebels to fight ISIS "should be pointed not at Mr. Obama but at those who pressed him to attempt training Syrian rebels in the first place," administration officials told Baker.

There are only "four or five" US-trained rebels left fighting in Syria after a group of 60 were ambushed in August by al Qaeda in Syria, the Nusra Front.

Advertisement

'The devil made me do it'

Obama's argument, according to Baker, is that "he reluctantly went along with those who said it was the way to combat the Islamic State, but that he never wanted to do it and has now has been vindicated in his original judgment."

But some people who worked in Obama's administration disagree - and they're calling him out.

"How un-presidential that sounds - 'We didn't want to do it, we thought it was unsound but you made us do it,' " Crocker told The Times. "It's just indicative of their whole approach to Syria, which is not to have a policy. This is the worst thing they could say."

Institute for the Study of War

The administration's new argument also flies in the face of a furious push to secure funding for the proposal last year. Obama pressed Congress to pass $500 million amid widespread suspicion from his own Democratic allies. The legislation ultimately ended up prompting more than 80 Democrats to vote against the president's priority.

When it passed through Congress, he hailed it as a the best option to help "destroy ISIL without American troops fighting another ground war in the Middle East."

Advertisement

'Doctors, farmers, pharmacists'

Obama has always been skeptical about supporting nationalistic Syrian rebels attempting to topple Assad.

Obama famously told The New York Times that the notion arming the rebels would have made a difference has "always been a fantasy" because the opposition of "former doctors, farmers, pharmacists, and so forth" was fighting "a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, [and] a battle-hardened Hezbollah."

In 2014, Hof wrote that the recommendation to arm the moderate opposition was offered in some form by Clinton - who is now running to succeed Obama in the White House - as well as then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, then-CIA Director David Petraeus, and outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey.

U.S. President Barack Obama attends the Armed Forces Farewell Tribute in honor of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (L) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey (R) at Joint Base Myer-Henderson in Washington February 8, 2013. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

"From the beginning there has been no shortage of criticism - both internal and external - and alternatives, culminating in our Atlantic Council April 2015 'Syrian National Stabilization Force' study," Hof told Business Insider.

Advertisement

"Obama's approach with Syria has consistently been risk-averse, try not to get sucked into a crisis where there are no easy answers ... but then as consistently respond when the pressure to 'do something' becomes to great."

Critics argue that Obama's strategic foreign-policy missteps - dealing with the Syrian conflict and with Russia and unpredictable President Vladimir Putin - are merging as Russia and Iran double down on their support of Assad's regime.

U.S. President Barack Obama meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin during the G8 Summit at Lough Erne in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland June 17, 2013.REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Obama may not see the end of the Syrian crisis before he leaves office after next year; Defense Secretary Ash Carter certainly doesn't think so. And so now, incidentally, he's been forced into perhaps the only realistic option he's sewn with his strategy.

"The United States doesn't have the economic or military will to change the balance of forces on the ground themselves," Bremmer said. "And we don't have the potential allies in Syria to act as an effective proxy. Accordingly, we've just announced we're going to start talking to the Russians about Syria."

Advertisement

"I'm sure that was an incredibly unpleasant decision for the Obama administration to make - especially after all that talk of isolating Russia for their bad behavior. But in terms of accepting the reality of the situation, better late than never."

NOW WATCH: A mysterious lost Nazi train - supposedly filled with gold - may have been found

Please enable Javascript to watch this video
You are subscribed to notifications!
Looks like you've blocked notifications!
Next Article