06 October 2013
Is “Waffling” Always a Bad Thing?
When President Obama accepted the quick take-up by Russia and Syria of Secretary of State Kerry’s proffer that Syria’s relinquishing its chemical weapons stockpile would obviate America’s insistence on militarily punishing the Assad regime for using them in its civil war, it was indeed a change in policy. This might be characterized as “waffling,” as Vali Nasr did in his Opinion piece in the October 3, 2013 NYT, “America Mustn’t Be Naïve About Iran;” but the U.S. has bigger fish to fry than conforming with the Middle Eastern respect for intransigence as a sign of strength.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s pouncing on this opportunity suddenly to play an unusually collaborative role in resolving a humanitarian atrocity, presumably with the approval of Vladimir Putin, gave Obama an opportunity to recognize an end to years of Russian obstruction of international cooperation. Moreover, Bashar Assad showed admirable flexibility by readily going along with the Russians instead of continuing his vain covering charge that Syrian rebels had themselves dropped the poisonous gas bombs on their own supporters. He probably was thankful for a way to extricate himself from blame for the awful consequences of overreaching by his uncontrollable military.
There appears to have been waffling on all three sides of this potential diplomatic triumph. Sadly, it comes at the expense of 1400 lives lost in the tragedy.
When President Obama accepted the quick take-up by Russia and Syria of Secretary of State Kerry’s proffer that Syria’s relinquishing its chemical weapons stockpile would obviate America’s insistence on militarily punishing the Assad regime for using them in its civil war, it was indeed a change in policy. This might be characterized as “waffling,” as Vali Nasr did in his Opinion piece in the October 3, 2013 NYT, “America Mustn’t Be Naïve About Iran;” but the U.S. has bigger fish to fry than conforming with the Middle Eastern respect for intransigence as a sign of strength.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s pouncing on this opportunity suddenly to play an unusually collaborative role in resolving a humanitarian atrocity, presumably with the approval of Vladimir Putin, gave Obama an opportunity to recognize an end to years of Russian obstruction of international cooperation. Moreover, Bashar Assad showed admirable flexibility by readily going along with the Russians instead of continuing his vain covering charge that Syrian rebels had themselves dropped the poisonous gas bombs on their own supporters. He probably was thankful for a way to extricate himself from blame for the awful consequences of overreaching by his uncontrollable military.
There appears to have been waffling on all three sides of this potential diplomatic triumph. Sadly, it comes at the expense of 1400 lives lost in the tragedy.
Comments:
Post a Comment
