What is it about our Leader of the free world that causes chaos to erupt every time he makes a foreign policy decision? Take Syria, for instance. Just a few days ago, it was documented how both sides of the aisle were frantically rushing to pass three separate bills to stop Obama from aiding the Islamic militant rebels, with known ties to al-Qaeda, in their quest to remove President Assad from power. What precipitated Obama’s sudden shift in policy towards Syria? Was it because Assad had crossed the “red line”? Apparently not, because news has been released that the State Department approved a visa for a new Syrian diplomat– submitted by Assad’s regime weeks go–but was quickly revoked. This new info has Washington scrambling for answers. The diplomat in question, Ali Daghman, had already boarded his flight for D.C., and was deported before his plane even landed.
According to the The Daily Beast (emphasis mine):
“… Daghman’s visa was not revoked until after Daghman had already departed for D.C. and after Congressional offices and Syria opposition groups protested to the State Department, urging them not to let a regime loyalist diplomat into the country. The State Department was also considering approving the visas for two more diplomats being sent to Washington by the regime, but those visa applications have not been granted or denied and sit in bureaucratic limbo…”
The important key words in that statement: “after protests”. Does this mean that if there had been no public outcry, a new Syrian diplomat under the auspices of the Assad regime would be safely ensconced within the Syrian Embassy in D.C.?
“This is a prime example of our dysfunctional Syria policy,” said one senior staffer for a Senate Republican, who added that there was outrage on Capitol Hill that the State Department granted Daghman a visa in the first place and confusion over why they finally decided to revoke it. “We’re supposedly arming the opposition to overthrow Assad yet we are granting visas to regime loyalists to come to Washington? This makes the U.S. look at best incompetent and at worst incoherent.”
In one statement, a senior staffer has summed up the reality of (or lack of) Obama’s foreign policy with a few good adjectives thrown in: dysfunctional, incompetent, and incoherent. On one hand, Obama says he wants to arm rebels and send troops to Jordan to oust Assad. On the other hand, Obama sends mixed signals to Assad, who is looking at every move our government makes to determine whether Obama is really intent on sanctioning a rebel insurrection against him.
“Regardless of the reason why they gave the new diplomat a visa, it sends a message to Assad that the U.S. is not serious when they say the Assad regime is no longer legitimate,” said Mouaz Moustafa, executive director of the Syrian American Task Force, an NGO that works closely with the Syrian opposition. “It says there is still a relationship. That is the most destructive thing.”
No, the most destructive thing is that Obama has no foreign policy when it comes to intervening in foreign civil wars. Once again I will say, Mr. Obama, stay out of Syria–especially if you don’t know whose side you are on.
Trending Now on Politichicks
Sorry. No data so far.