Obama's Syria dilemma
P.J. Crowley, President Obama's former State Department spokesman who has become a critical outside voice since resigning earlier this year, called out his old boss over Syria on his Twitter feed this morning.
"It's odd that Obama thinks RepWeiner should resign, but not Assad. Sending lewd tweets violates public service, but not killing people?"
Leaving US politics aside, the Obama administration's stance toward Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must be getting increasingly uncomfortable. Evidence is mounting of atrocities being carried out across that country. Obama publicly said longtime US ally Hosni Mubarak had to leave power on Feb. 1, eight days after the Egyptian uprising began. It took the president 18 days from the start of the Libyan uprising to say the same about long-time US antagonist Muammar Qaddafi.
Yet we're more than three months into a Syrian uprising that has been nearly as bloody as Libya's conflict, with at least 1,300 deaths so far, and the US position has remained nuanced.
Obama has repeatedly condemned Assad's use of violence, and directly sanctioned the Syrian leader and some of those closest to him. But so far he's avoided "must go" rhetoric. The closest he's come to it was a speech in the middle of May when Obama said, "President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition [to democracy] or get out of the way."
The US is no friend to Assad, who is pals with Iran, a supporter of Hezbollah, and an enemy of Israel's. But there is great fear about the post-Assad environment in Syria, not unreasonably. Regime support is far stronger than it was in Libya, and there are sectarian issues at play.
But the gulf between public American speech on Syria and Egypt and Libya is growing more glaring, as evidence of atrocities pile up. A "must go" moment probably wouldn't do much aside from mollify some of the president's critics (it's hard to see it having any effect on Assad's intentions) but it's probably coming soon.