Suppose that the Russian ambassador to the U.S. openly supported and encouraged anti-government groups in this country, traveled around, met with them, and assured them that the Russian government stood behind them and would provide various kinds of material support to their revolution. How long would he last before pro-government Americans began pelting him with eggs and before the State Department lodged a formal protest and told him to leave?
Hillary’s ambassador to Syria did just that, fomenting revolution in Syria. It wasn’t long before he was pelted with eggs. Clinton decided against introducing American forces outright into Syria. Instead she and Obama adopted a strategy of subversion. The point man in this effort was Robert S. Ford, made ambassador to Syria in December, 2010. After 8 months of Ford’s subversion efforts in Syria, Obama declared publicly that Assad must go. At the same time, he authorized material support to rebels in Syria.
This policy failed to dislodge Assad. The rebels splintered. Many were terrorists. The most effective fighters were terrorists. The rebels could not and did not form a coalition that would or could institute Hillary’s preferred style of government. All along, Syrian support for Assad remained strong. The rebels were seen, and justifiably so, as interlopers and outsiders, using terror tactics. Whatever homemade and moderate anti-government elements there may have been have long since been lost in the shuffle. Hillary (and Obama) over-estimated their strength, under-estimated Assad’s support, and failed to understand the potential dynamics that involved more radical groups.
In September of 2013, a gas attack near Damascus gave Obama and his new Secretary of State, John Kerry, a pretext to bomb Syria. This was averted when Syria agreed with Putin’s proposal that Syria dispose of all its chemical stores. Public opinion in America turned strongly against intervention.
On Dec. 11, 2013, a former State Department official (Frederic C. Hof) who had worked for “a political transition in Syria” acknowledged openly that there was no viable moderate coalition of rebels: “For all practical purposes, the moderate armed opposition that the administration really wanted to support — albeit in a hesitant and halfhearted way — is now on the sidelines.” Hillary Clinton’s Syrian subversion policy had contributed to untold misery in Syria but had failed at its goal.
Two days later, another report made it crystal clear that U.S. policy in Syria was shredded, a complete failure. Ironically, Robert S. Ford was still talking it up with rebel groups, this time with more radical ones: “Robert Ford, met last month with leaders from the recently formed Islamic Front – a coalition of seven groups fighting for a strict Islamic state in Syria.”
The U.S. influence has now been reduced to a farce in which it attempts to manipulate a Geneva conference by excluding Iran and declaring again that the agenda must be the departure of Assad.10:40 am on January 25, 2014 Email Michael S. Rozeff