Obama's Lose-Lose Arab Spring Policy

The al-Assad army entered Aleppo this morning at dawn, hoping to retake the important rebel district of Salahhedine. The battle went on all day, with the al-Assad forces taking five streets in the district, only to have three of them retaken in the afternoon by Free Syria Army forces, reinforced with men coming for other districts of Aleppo.
With al-Assad sending tanks, artillery and 20,000 troops to Aleppo, one wonders how long the rebel forces can resist. There have already been unconfirmed reports of rebel soldiers being taken prisoner by al-Assad troops.
At the same time, after the formal meeting yesterday between Said Jalili, the secretary of the Iranian security apparatus, and al-Assad, who made a public appearance for the first time since four of his generals were killed in a bomb attack on the Damascus security headquarters of the regime, Jalili announced that Iran would not let Syria fall away from the “axis of resistance” and has called for a meeting in Teheran on Thursday of 12 nations who are also considered to be part of the axis.
The third prong of today’s Syria story is the commentary of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning preparation for a Syria “after Assad.”
Mrs. Clinton spoke to the media while in South Africa, saying that those working "to exploit the misery of the Syrian people, either by sending in proxies or by sending in terrorist fighters, must recognize that that will not be tolerated, first and foremost by the Syrian people."
Clinton said that the opposition "is becoming increasingly coordinated and effective," holding territory from northern Aleppo to the Turkish border and seizing regime weaponry such as tanks.
She called for a united international effort of planners to begin talking about what happens after the regime falls, even though there's no timeline.
"The intensity of the fighting in Aleppo, the defections, really point out how imperative it is that we come together and work toward a good transition plan," she said.
"We must figure out a way to hasten the day when the bloodshed ends, and the political transition begins."
Dear readers, I won’t go on with her statements, because they are rather sadly out of touch with the world of the Arab Spring. It reminds me of the Monday morning quarterbacks who know exactly how their losing football team should have played to win.
First, we must remember that Hillary Clinton has no official personal opinion about Syria or the Arab Spring. She is the US Secretary of State, following the policy guidelines set out by her boss, President Obama.
What is sadly out of touch are those guidelines.
Barak Obama has allowed the United States to be eased into a position that places America outside the engagement for the future of the Middle East.
He delayed so long in Libya that the French and British moved ahead and he had no choice but to follow. He delayed again in Egypt, allowing the Islamists to take the high ground and elect their leader as the new President.
It may be academically interesting to wait until we know exactly who the rebels are and what their goals are before intervening in any of the Arab Spring conflicts. But, it has cost America her position as leader in the region.
There are times when the “sea change” is so great and obvious that allowing the ships to list in the water without changing direction will lead to their being capsized. That is what President Obama has done in Libya, Egypt, and now Syria. Instead of recognizing the sea change and moving to stay afloat, he has forced the United States diplomatic and military systems to float without direction in these very important troubled waters.
I do not agree with those who say that America could not act because she didn’t have enough details about the rebels and their goals.
Unless the US was planning to provide her state-of-the-art military and nuclear technology (obviously not the case), what the US would have risked was the putting into place of governments that may not have been as democratic as she would have preferred - perhaps they would even have been Islamist. America deals with these kinds of states every day, so I really do not see the problem, taken compared to doing nothing.
By standing on the sidelines, America has delivered the message, intended or unintended, that she is indifferent to the plight of peoples in the Middle East living under dictatorships. She has made it clear that she is not an ally to depend upon when the question of human rights is in issue. She has suggested that known dictators are to be preferred to unknown revolutionaries trying to free themselves from tyranny.
The result?
The United States is in exactly the same position she would have been in if she had entered the fray, tried to help the rebel causes in the Arab Spring countries and they had lost.
Just what is the difference between being excluded for acting and being excluded for not acting to support Arab Spring rebels?
It is not a Zero Sum Game.
The result is that America has lost the Middle East to new faces who are skeptical about America’s intentions and interests.
Not a good place to be in a region of great strategic importance that will never again be as it was before Tunisia sounded the Arab Spring starting bell.