Dozens of U.S. State Department officials have written a letter of dissent calling on the Obama administration to take military action against the Iran-backed regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and urging his removal as a necessary step to defeating the Islamic State, The Wall Street Journal reported (Google link) Thursday.
The letter was published on the department’s “dissent channel,” a forum that allows employees to express opposition to current policies without fear of retaliation, and called repeatedly for “targeted military strikes” against the Assad regime in light of the near-dissolution of a ceasefire reached earlier this year.
Such letters are not uncommon, but the number of signatories protesting the Obama administration’s Syria policy — 51 — was seen as a significant rebuke to the White House. “It’s embarrassing for the administration to have so many rank-and-file members break on Syria,” said one former State Department official.
While the letter noted that there has been significant debate over Syria since that country’s civil war began in 2011, the Journal characterized the internal cable as a “scalding internal critique of a longstanding U.S. policy against taking sides in the Syrian war,” which signals a move by “the heart of the bureaucracy” to break from the White House. The State Department acknowledged the existence of the confidential letter, but will withhold comment until “top officials” review it first.
The Journal observed that although both the Assad regime and rebel factions have violated the ceasefire declared on February 27, the death toll claimed by regime’s use of barrel bombs is much higher. The letter argued that neither the Assad regime nor its Russian sponsors have taken the ceasefire or negotiations seriously, and suggested that military action may be necessary to ensure a transition away from Assad.
The cable also warned that by failing to act against Assad, the U.S. risks alienating moderate Sunnis in Syria, who might otherwise be inclined to fight against ISIS. “Failure to stem Assad’s flagrant abuses will only bolster the ideological appeal of groups such as Daesh, even as they endure tactical setbacks on the battlefield,” it read. Daesh is the Arabic acronym for ISIS.
The letter further called on the Obama administration to form stronger alliances with moderate Sunni rebel groups, which the Journal noted have hesitated to partner with the U.S. because it was not targeting Assad. The New York Times reported in January 2015 that the Obama administration had sent a message to Assad that it was arming rebels to fight only ISIS, not him.
Andrew Tabler, an expert on Syria at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told The New York Times that the letter expressed “enormous frustration” with the Obama administration’s Syria policy within the State Department, and that “what’s brought this to a head now is the real downturn in the negotiations, not just between the U.S. and Russia, but between Assad and the opposition.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said in June 2014 that he resigned from his post because he was “no longer in a position where I felt I could defend American policy.” Frederic C. Hof, an Atlantic Council senior fellow who was formerly Obama’s special adviser for transition in Syria, wrote last month that the White House had failed to act against Assad to protect Syrian civilians because that would have conflicted with the “pursuit of a nuclear agreement with Assad’s premier long-term enabler and partner in mass murder: Iran.”
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani reiterated his nation’s continued support of Assad earlier this week, according to Iranian media reports.
[Photo: Syria & Iraq News / YouTube ]