Trump, the Republicans, the neo cons etc all are trying to blame Obama for the Syrian gas attack
Syria is a huge mess. The roots go back to the break up of the Ottoman empire, but the more immediate events that triggered the disaster were the invasion of Iraq, made even worse by how the Bush team did not plan for the day after Hassan fell. The US sponsored provisional government excluded any former Baathists (Saddam's party and a huge percent of the Sunnis, whose tribral area straddles the Iraq/Syria border) from the military, ppolice and any government job. Another root was the Arab Spring where many, especially the youth, in many Arab countries demanded more "democratic" rights.
Trump has a different answer -- "Obama did it". Obama is apparently responsible becausehe did not solve all the problems everywhere in the world. There is no denying that Syria's civil war was a disaster - from 2011 through now. Neither Obama or Kerry ever claimed that this was not so. What is clear is that Obama approved Kerry investing a huge amount of time, effort (heart, mind and soul) to trying to get a diplomatic solution. This when it was clear that they had a terrible hand to play - with Russia, Assad and Iran having all the high cards in the deck.
The Obama administration worked for ceasefires and getting the players in Syria to the negotiating table against huge odds.As limited as any small victories - such as ceasefires that soon failed, the UN resolution that may still be used - they were far beyond what experts thought possible. In the last year, one could wonder if Trump's positive comments on Russia and Assad during the summer and fall actually hurt those efforts. Consider that these comments were made as Syria bombed a UN aide convoy, that Syria had given permission to be exactly where it was - with at least covert Russian approval.
Tillerson is in over his head and is the worst Secretary of State ever - however, as Trump turns - no one should let Trump blame him for signalling (as a modern day April Gillespie) that Syria could do what ever it wnated. Saying the Syrian people will decide if Assad stays is not the same as saying it was OK for Syria to commit war crimes. (I doubt he knew or understood the significance of the agreement - including from Iran and Russia - of the UN resolution including a provision that Syrians who fled Assad would be allowed to safely vote. THAT is part of the reason that western countries, including the US, said that in the long run, the government of Syria must be decided by the Syrians. (Obama and Kerry both then argued that by including those who fled and having the UN monitor the election, Assad could not win given all the destruction he caused.)
As to the decision in 2013, there are people on all sides - the Republicans, Trump, Democratic neo cons - who are trying to rewrite history. They are saying that this use of chemical weapons mean that Obama/Kerry were wrong (or even lied) when they said that all the known chemical weapons that were declared or that the UN organization who took the lead in gathering them could find were removed. The fact is that at least 600 tons were removed by mid 2014 and destroyed by the US. Imagine what an additional 600 tons of chemical weapons could have done in the last 2 and a half years! Not to mention - everyone when questioned readily admitted that, of course, more could have been hidden, but that there was no doubt this was the bulk of it.
Now, consider that the alternative was that the US would strike Syrian assets connected with using these chemical weapons. The magnitude of that effort was described as like the Bill Clinton bombings of Iraq. It was soon clear that doing this did not have Congressional approval, support of the country or international support. In addition, it would have removed much less of the chemical weapons, at far greater risk of casulties. In fact, people (and middle eastern Sunni coutries) that have argued that the attacks would have been better, really did not want a measured response, but the US to fight their war to remove Assad.
I read a great article that puts the 2013 choices into contect - especially as the author includes something he wrote in 2013. It is worth reading as Trump and others try to rewrite history. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/05/obama-was-right-to-abandon-red-line-on-syria-s-chemical-weapons.html
While it is obvious that the most important thing is what will the US, Syria, Russia, Turkey et al do now, it is important to defend Obama's and Kerry's accomplishment in getting rid of humdreds of tons of chemical weapons that the US destroyed. First of all, it is entirely possible that the chemicals used are new chemicals that Syria was able to obtain in violation to their signing on to the UN convention against chemical weapons in 2013. Even if Assad had been able to successfully hide some portion of his chemical weapons from the world, the fact is that he also did not use these banned chemicals while Obama was President. (That does not excuse using chlorine - or barrel bombs, for that matter.) What is clear is that Obama's reaction in 2013 DID lead to changed behavior on chemical weapons for the rest of his Presidency. Not to mention, how can the Republicans give Reagan permanent credit for destroying the Soviet Union -- given the malignant government of former KGB officer Putin - but argue that Obama should not get credit (rarely given anyway) for removing hundreds of tons of chemicals, because either some were hidden or a new supply was obtained?
Could it have been Trump's comments before the election - when Russia and Syria were committing war crimes in Aleppo - might have been what made Assad think he could gas civilians in rebel held areas now without consequences?
= new reply since forum marked as read
