More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration’s policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country’s five-year-old civil war.
Yes, there's nothing like military strikes to help preserve a cease-fire...
I agree with the fifty-one U.S. State Department bureaucrats that US policy in Syria is not productive. The Obama administration calling for the ouster of Assad but taking no military action to back that up makes me speculate that they fear the consequences of the government falling. Based on recent misadventures in Iraq and Libya they should, mightily. However the U.S. has intervened by arming certain rebel groups, by brokering a chemical weapons deal with Russia, and by launching airstrikes against ISIS.
The aforementioned dissent memo in the State Department of course invokes ISIS in its justification - namely that to defeat the proto-state the civil war must first be resolved. I happen to agree with that point. Once there is a clear winner among the "legitimate" belligerents, the world will unite (or at least stop interfering) with the winning party to defeat ISIS. However the Obama administration's reluctance to use decisive force makes me wonder if they suspect that the rebels, having triumphed over Assad with U.S. help, would nonetheless be unable to effectively rule the country and defeat ISIS.
So here we stand in a great policy blunder: the U.S. officially opposes Assad thanks to old rivalries and a careless remark on the campaign trail, but President Obama's temperance won't allow the U.S. to double down. I appreciate his instinct to keep the U.S. out of a quagmire. I also mourn for the people of Syria who must endure this prolonged conflict.
"First as tragedy, then as farce", but now we're on to the third or fourth iteration.