Syria: ‘Suspended step of the American stork’

“We have gone from the victory-at-any-cost mindset of World War II to the exit-at-any-cost mindset of the [Barack] Obama years,” wrote David Rothkopf, editor of Foreign Policy, in his latest commentary on the persistent American immobility vis-à-vis Russian prop-activity about Syria.

He elaborated: “Obama’s plan is now becoming clear. We’ll leave Syria and Iraq to the Russians and the Iranians. Both of the war-torn countries are a mess. There is no political will in the United States to get more involved. What could go wrong? What could the long-term implications be of allowing the Russians and the Iranians to continue their clear and thus far successful strategies of extending their influence in their overlapping neighborhoods by fueling fractures within their neighbors and then stepping in and gaining influence over chunks of those neighbors, thereby also weakening their opponents? It is an approach that has given Russia bits of Georgia and Ukraine and has explained muscle-flexing in Belarus and the Baltics. It is the approach that has expanded Iranian influence from Lebanon to Yemen (not to mention, of course, Syria and Iraq).”

Years ago, when the Arab unrest penetrated the borders and the Obama administration started to send its first signals of non-involvement, I had also commented along the lines that there was no room for the luxury of the US leaving the Middle East to its own devices, because the vacuum would rapidly enough invite its rivals to be its fillers — no matter the mess former US President George W. Bush left behind him in Iraq or the US opinion in disfavor of boots on the ground. Leaving the rivals to fill in the vacuum would also jeopardize the reasoning and position of its allies and shatter delicate balances in a larger scale.

The past days have showed how. And the coming weeks and months will invite even stronger consequences.

Questions have been asked from the US sphere and are now being done with bolder tones.Republican Sen. John McCain said, “This administration has confused our friends, encouraged our enemies, mistaken an excess of caution for prudence and replaced the risks of action with the perils of inaction.”

McCain added that Russian President Vladimir Putin had stepped “into the wreckage of this administration’s Middle East policy’.

“Syria is primarily not Obama’s fault or responsibility,” wrote David Aaaron Miller in Foreign Policy.

“But it’s unlikely that history will be as forgiving. The cruel reality is that as time passes, the complexities of the Syrian tragedy will fade and only one question will likely remain: Why didn’t the world, and particularly the world’s greatest power, do more to stop the killing?

“If Obama were going to have real regrets about the Middle East, he’d have to believe that he was responsible for the mess there (he doesn’t) and that there were other reasonable options (he doesn’t believe they existed). Instead, Obama believes that George W. Bush’s Iraq War created a good deal of the mess he now faces and that the Arabs themselves created the rest with the uprisings of 2011 that ended up being more a winter than a spring. Given his risk-aversion and the Middle East mess, he probably doesn’t think much about do-overs.”

But, in our immediate neighborhood, a new reality is emerging. It may be so that Obama’s rationale may over time be proven right. If so, much will depend on how Vladimir Putin will play his cards about the fate of Bashar al-Assad, and Syria as a whole. The game being set will surely involve a very keen Iran whose assertiveness will encompass both Iraq and Syria.

And the final response will be whether or not Putin’s stated goal of fighting against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria will turn the ground to a new Afghanistan for the ruler in Moscow. Putin, with a strong memory may not go as far as engaging land troops, and he has already signaled that he has his eyes on the Kurdish militia. That, if any, is a common ground he has with the Americans and some Europeans, which, in due time, may be increasingly attractive.

Sadly, this new game taking shape brings the alienation of Turkey to a point of completion. Its “precious loneliness” is almost sealed, its “out of the loop” status is strengthened by Putin outplaying Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, ruthlessly adding to the isolation of Ankara, which is still stuck in an invalid idea of no-fly and safety zones. Its short-sighted obstinacy also overshadows Turkey’s benevolent role in hosting a huge amount of refugees.

With the suspended step of the American stork, all one can hope is Turkey and Saudi Arabia seek a “reset” of their roles, and adopt a realistic, interest-based strategy. But then, you have the undying habits of ostriches. Not much ground for hope.

Advertisements

About yavuzbaydar

Yavuz Baydar has been an award-winning Turkish journalist, whose professional activity spans nearly four decades. In December 2013, Baydar co-founded the independent media platform, P24, Punto24, to monitor the media sector of Turkey, as well as organizing surveys, and training workshops. Baydar wrote opinion columns, in Turkish, liberal daily Ozgur Dusunce and news site Haberdar, and in English, daily Today's Zaman, on domestic and foreign policy issues related to Turkey, and media matters, until all had to cease publications due to growing political oppression. Currently, he writes regular chronicles for Die Süddeutsche Zeitung, and opinion columns for the Arab Weekly, as well as analysis for Index on Censorship. Baydar blogs with the Huffington Post, sharing his his analysis and views on Turkish politics, the Middle East, Balkans, Europe, U.S-Turkish relations, human rights, free speech, press freedom, history, etc. His opinion articles appeared at the New York Times, the Guardian, El Pais, Svenska Dagbladet, and Al Jazeera English online. Turkey’s first news ombudsman, beginning at Milliyet daily in 1999, Baydar worked in the same role as reader representative until 2014. His work included reader complaints with content, and commentary on media ethics. Working in a tough professional climate had its costs: he was twice forced to leave his job, after his self-critical columns on journalistic flaws and fabricated news stories. Baydar worked as producer and news presenter in Swedish Radio &TV Corp. (SR) Stockholm, Sweden between 1979-1991; as correspondent for Scandinavia and Baltics for Turkish daily Cumhuriyet between 1980-1992, and the BBC World Service, in early 1990's. Returning to Turkey in 1994, he worked as reporter and ediytor for various outlets in print, as well as hosting debate porogrammes in public and private TV channels. Baydar studied informatics, cybernetics and, later, had his journalism ediucatiob in the University of Stockholm. Baydar served as president of the U.S. based International Organizaton of News Ombudsmen (ONO) in 2003. He was a Knight-Wallace Fellow at University of Michigan in 2004. Baydar was given the Special Award of the European Press Prize (EPP), for 'excellence in journalism', along with the Guardian and Der Spiegel in 2014. He won the Umbria Journalism Award in March 2014 and Caravella/Mare Nostrum Prize in 2015; both in Italy. Baydar completed an extensive research on self-censorship, corruption in media, and growing threats over journalism in Turkey as a Shorenstein Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
This entry was posted in Turkey. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s