Obama's Syria Scheme: Mad, Bad and Dangerous

Barry Rubin, who wrote a book about Syria, says Obama's response to the problems there isn't only bone-headed, it is dangerously bone-headed:

Now the administration has unveiled a new and equally terrible policy. I’ll let the New York Times’ reporters explain it:

“President Obama will push for the departure of President Bashar al-Assad under a plan that calls for a negotiated political settlement that would satisfy Syrian opposition groups but that could leave remnants of Assad’s government in place. The success of the plan hinges on Russia, one of Assad’s staunchest allies, which has strongly opposed his removal. Obama, administration officials said, will press the proposal with President Putin of Russia at their meeting next month. Obama’s national security adviser raised the plan with Putin in Moscow three weeks ago.”

Good grief! There are four different acts of strategic insanity involved in this paragraph...

He goes on to itemize them, and concludes that

the Obama policy shows three characteristics that have wider implications for the president’s strategies. It favors Islamist enemies; it “leads from behind” by giving the initiative to those who wish America no good; and it shows no interest in helping genuinely pro-American moderates who are fighting for their lives.

And that, friends, is why I spend so much time bashing Obama’s Middle East policy, because it is so very bad and dangerous.

Mad, too, making it the Byronic trifecta.