Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans and Europeans don't want NATO to widen its war against embattled Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. So long as the West's low-and-slow approach to regime change continues to weaken the dictator, there is good reason to stick with President Barack Obama's strategy of limited intervention. Yet as international cameras focus in on Libya, a prospective tipping point for the future of the Middle East becomes all the more visible in Syria, despite that country's ban on international journalists. And although Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has taken an admirably tough line regarding the Baath regime's "continued brutality," the White House still expresses more concern over Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza than over Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's increasingly bloody crackdown against protesters there.
Regrettably, it appears that the Obama administration's judgment has become mired in a fog of misconceptions about what regime change in Syria would really mean for the region and larger world. As a result, Washington may squander the biggest opportunity to date amid the Arab Spring to rehabilitate our image there as a force for positive change. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $9 monthly or $59/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Global Insights: Syria Crisis Overshadows Broader Turkey-U.S. Tensions
- The Realist Prism: China the Likely Winner if U.S. Intervenes in Syria
- Russia Tries to Manage Arab Awakening From the Outside
- The Realist Prism: Narrowed Focus in U.S.-Russia Relations Proves Productive
- World Citizen: Israel’s Syria Strike Reflects Favorable Cost-Benefit Calculus