In his foreign-policy speech yesterday, Mitt Romney said that as president he’d confront Syria’s Bashar al-Assad: “I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.”
Romney wouldn’t take office until January, and the Syrian revolt may be over by then. But his latest, bolder stance on a war that President Obama has largely been trying to wish away is more than reasonable.
And the problems with Obama’s stance only start with the Syrian rebel whom Romney quoted yesterday: “We won’t forget that you forgot us.”
The prospect of yet another Mideast regime with a grudge against America is a longterm concern. More immediate is the chance that the war will widen and pull us in anyway.
After all, Assad’s forces and the Turkish army are now engaged in a low-intensity exchange of fire. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyep Erdogan plainly doesn’t want the fighting to escalate — but another incident, say one like the Syrian shell that killed five women and children in the Turkish town of Akcakale a week ago, could force his hand.
Turkey’s parliament has already authorized the army to act across the country’s borders if necessary — a resolution clearly intended to warn Assad. And the Turks have just moved 40 of their F-16 fighters near the border.
On the other hand, the Turkish public is increasingly disenchanted with Erdogan’s support for the rebellion — or at least upset with the heavy influx of Syrian refugees. And Turkey’s allies — America and the rest of NATO — are quietly urging the Turks to sit tight.
Assad, meanwhile, has his hands full with his war on his populace, which has killed 30,000 over the last year and a half. Yet he’s also escalated his ruthless shelling of rebel strongholds near the border — what if another “errant” shot kills more Turks?
In war, the only thing we can expect is the unexpected. All manner of scenarios could still quickly drag Ankara into full-fledged war. And Turkey is a NATO member. If it’s attacked, we’re at least technically obliged to help defend it.
Yet the Obama administration’s only policy here seems to be to hope the whole Syrian mess will go away.
After boasting over America’s role in overthrowing Libya’s Moammar Khadafy, Obama has struggled to explain why we’re not similarly helping to overthrow Assad.
Washington officials endlessly explain what we shouldn’t do on Syria.
* After leaking to friendly news outlets that the CIA is secretly helping the Syrian rebels, the administration nevertheless urged the Saudis and the Qataris to refrain from arming the rebels with anything beyond rifles. Why? We don’t really know who these rebels are; there are some al Qaeda types in their midst.
* Team Obama won’t back a NATO no-fly zone over Syria. Assad’s anti-aircraft defenses are too dangerous.
* Erdogan wants a multinational force to set up humanitarian corridors inside Syria to protect fleeing civilians. The UN Security Council won’t authorize it.
You get the idea.
Obama’s entire policy on the region has been premised on the notion that Americans are sick of Mideast wars; staying above the Syrian fray is popular — for now.
But the Middle East won’t necessarily wait for Nov. 6 before handing us a crisis we can’t ignore. We may yet be forced to get involved in the Syrian mess — but any action will be harder after months, if not years, when our entire regional policy’s been running on autopilot.