The ugly truth behind Obama's Syria plan

Targeted strikes to punish Assad will only perpetuate the conflict – and that's exactly what the American government wants.

America's aims in Syria are not what the government wants you to think.

You can see the evidence in what action is being suggested. Jay Carney, the White House chief spokesman, yesterday categorically ruled out regime change as an objective. “The options that we are considering are not about regime change,” he said to the assembled White House press corps. “They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons.” But the targeted strikes being proposed will only perpetuate the butchery – and that is what they are designed to do.

A true solution to the conflict in Syria would have been difficult and incredibly complex even two years ago. It would take a long time, and more money than would probably be palatable to either Britain or America. Solving this problem would mean attempting rapprochement between two factions whose hatred for each other is drenched in the blood of thousands and steeped in years of murder. It is probably impossible.

But nobody is even talking about a solution, and there's a reason for that.

America is not interested in regime change. Obama does not want to be a war-time president. Nor is he interested in the humanitarian argument for intervention for any more than rhetorical purposes. A cursory glance shows his 'red line' of the use of chemical weapons to be ridiculous. The death toll in Syria stands at more than a hundred thousand people. The rhetoric has been that Assad must be “punished” for the use of chemical weapons, but why? The tools used to reach this number are immaterial in the face of that horror. Who cares whether people were killed with shells, mortar or gas?

The truth is that evening the odds in Syria – which the West has already been doing, by drip-feeding supplies and weaponry to rebel forces – has turned a brief if bloody resolution into an interminable meat-grinder, in which no side has the decisive edge, and flattening out some more of Assad's tactical advantages will only maintain this grisly status quo.

Here is why that is attractive to the American government. At the moment, the conflict in Syria is acting as a sort of sump; collecting the resources of America's enemies in a confined space. It's a black hole for extremists. When Assad's army re-took the town of Qusayr in June, they were supported by Lebanese Hezbollah. Iran, too, is supporting him: the Independent on Sunday reported in June that a contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops would be sent to fight alongside Syrian government forces. Tehran has even threatened to strike at Israel should America attack Syria, a move which could start a disastrous chain of events.

On the other side, Jabhat Al-Nusra, widely regarded the most effective and disciplined rebel group fighting the Assad regime, is openly linked with Al-Qaeda; another jihadist affiliate, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is a hugely powerful faction of the rebel Free Syrian Army.

As far as the White House is concerned, this is a zero-sum game. While these groups are spending money and resources fighting in Syria, the threat they pose to the West is greatly diminished. If Al-Qaeda is focussing on overturning Assad, it is not plotting the next 9/11; and it is even possible that it might be grateful to the US for even miserly airborne assistance. My enemy's enemy, so the saying goes, is my friend.

Obama and his advisers will also be calculating that victory for the rebels in Syria could allow anti-Western sentiment to resurface under an extreme Islamist regime. Another lesson from recent history: in Iraq, it was after Saddam was toppled that things went to hell in a handcart.

So that leads to the awkward conclusion: that a half-hearted airborne intervention in Syria is designed not to rock this deadly boat, but to steady it.

The situation for Putin is much the same. Perpetual civil war in Syria works almost as well for Russia as for the United States. Russia has enormous business ties with Assad's Syria – some 20 billion dollars worth, according to the Congressional Research Service, and they stand to lose this if Assad is toppled – as well as Russia's only military naval base outside of its borders, . But Syria is also a large-scale buyer of Russian arms; spending nearly five billion dollars in the four years to 2010, and that number has increased significantly since the conflict began, with Assad signing deals to buy advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missiles and MiG-29 fighter jets in just the last few months.

More importantly, the Syrian conflict allows Putin to tighten political support at home in an era of increasing unrest and protest by increasing anti-American, and anti-Western sentiment. With Russia and the US implacable on the UN security council, no resolution is likely, however much Russian foreign ministers may bluster about “catastrophic consequences” if the US and its allies were to intervene.

Russia doesn't want the rebels to win, because it will lose its business and its naval base. America doesn't want the rebels to win because the state they will most likely form will be an extremist Al-Qaeda backed breeding-ground for terrorism, led by the Al-Nusra Front.

So Syria has become effectively a straw man, by tacit agreement of both Russia and America. And as long as the straw man continues to burn, neither side cares how many civilians are lost in the inferno.

Barack Obama walking to the West Wing of the White House. Photo: Getty

Nicky Woolf is a writer for the Guardian based in the US. He tweets @NickyWoolf.

Getty
Show Hide image

After his latest reshuffle, who’s who on Donald Trump’s campaign team?

Following a number of personnel shake-ups, here is a guide to who’s in and who’s out of the Republican candidate’s campaign team.

Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, stepped down last week. A man as controversial as Trump himself, he has departed following the announcement last Wednesday of a new campaign manager and CEO for Team Trump. Manafort had only been in the post for two months, following another campaign team reshuffle by Trump back in June.

In order to keep up with the cast changes within Team Trump, here’s the low-down of who is who in the Republican candidate’s camp, and who-was-who before they, for one reason or another, fell out of favour.

IN

Kellyanne Conway, campaign manager

Kellyane Conway is a Republican campaign manager with a history of clients who do a line in outlandish statements. Former Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, whose campaign Conway managed in 2012, is infamous for his comments on “legitimate rape”.

Despite losing that campaign, Conway’s experiences with outspoken male candidates should stand her in good stead to run Trump’s bid. She is already credited with somewhat tempering his rhetoric, through the use of pre-written speeches, teleprompters and his recent apology, although he has since walked that back.

Conway is described as an expert in delivering messages to female voters and has had her own polling outfit, The Polling Firm/WomanTrend for over 20 years and supported Ted Cruz’s campaign before he was vanquished by Trump in May. Her strategy will include praising Trump on TV and trying to craft an image of him as a dependable candidate without diminishing his outlier appeal.

She recently told MSNBC, “I think you should judge people by their actions, not just their words on a campaign trail”. Given that Trump’s campaign pledges, particularly those on immigration, veer towards the completely unworkable, one wonders what else besides words he actually has to offer.

Perhaps Conway, with her experience of attempting to repackage gaffes will be the one to tell us. Conway also told TIME magazine that there is “no question” that Trump is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. Given Trump’s frightening comments on abortion, to name just one issue, it’s difficult to see how this would prove true.

Stephen Bannon, campaign CEO

While Conway may bring a more thoughtful, considered touch to Trump’s hitherto frenetic campaigning, Stephen Bannon promises to bring just the opposite.

Bannon is executive chairman of right-wing media outlet Breitbart, also the online home of British alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. Once described by Bloomberg as “the most dangerous political operative in America”, the ex-Goldman Sachs banker can only be expected to want to up Trump’s rhetoric as the election approaches to maintain his radical edge.

Trump has explicitly stated that: “I don’t wanna change. I mean, you have to be you. If you start pivoting, you’re not being honest with people”.

As Bannon leads a news site with sometimes as outlandish and insensitive views as Trump himself, one can safely assume that Bannon will have no problem letting Trump “be himself”.

The Trump Brood, advisers

While his employed advisers come and go, the people that have been unwaveringly loyal to Trump, and play key advisory roles, are his four adult children: Donald Jr, 38, Ivanka, 34, Erik 22 and Tiffany, 22. With personalities as colourful as their father’s, the Trump children have been close to the campaign since its inception.

Donald Jr personally delivered the bad news to Lewandowski, the younger Trumps describing him as a “control freak”. Although it’s common for the offspring of politicians to take part in their parent’s campaigns (see Chelsea Clinton), in Trump’s case the influence of his children goes undiluted by swathes of professionals. This, despite his actual employed campaign directors being experienced establishment figures, adds credence to the image of Trump’s brand as family-based and folksy, furthering also his criticism of Hillary Clinton as being “crookedly” in the sway of bankers and elites.

Lewandowski’s ultimate downfall has been attributed to his attempts to spread negative stories in the media about Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and husband of Ivanka. Ivanka and Kushner were long-time critics of Lewandowski for his indulgence and encouragement of Trump’s most divisive instincts, and apparently they were integral to his firing.

Whether any good came from this is hard to discern, as Trump still managed to insult the Muslim community all over again with his comments last month about the late solider Humayun Khan, also insulting veterans and “gold star” families in the process.

OUT

Paul Manafort, former national campaign chair

Although Trump called his departing campaign manager “a true professional”, Manafort has recently been beset by personal controversy and criticised for failing to deliver results. Manafort has taken the blame for the poor polling results that have followed Trump’s awful last few weeks, with Trump’s recent (lacklustre and unspecific) apology representing a complete change of tack.

Despite his many years of experience in politics, Manafort fell out of favour with Trump partly because of his spending on media, such as a $4 radio appearance in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina. Trump was judging these investments worthwhile.

Manafort’s personal cachet was also diminished by his dodgy links to ex-clients including Ukrainian former prime minister, the pro-Russian Victor Yanukovych. As Trump has already racked up a number of Russia-related gaffes, continued association was Manafort would have likely proven electorally unwise.

Corey Lewandowski, former campaign manager

Campaign manager until Trump’s team shake-up in June this year, Lewandowski was not the picture of a calm and collected operative. With a list of antics behind him such as bringing a gun to work and then suing when it was taken away from him and lacking the experience of ever having directed a national race, Lewandowski was a divisive figure from the start of Trump’s bid for the nomination.

Although Lewandowski most often accompanied Trump on the nomination campaign trail, it was Manafort, even then, who was in charge of most of the campaign’s logistics, making use of his 40 plus years of experience to do so.

Trump was clearly taken with Lewandowski’s aggressive campaign techniques, as he stood by him even when Lewandowski was charged with battery against former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields. Although the charges were later dropped, these kind of stories do not bode well for Conway’s hopes for a more women-friendly Trump.

***

Perhaps this latest round of hiring and firing will do him some good, but with only three weeks to go until absentee voting begins in some states, the new team doesn’t have much time.