The Denver Post

Aleppo and American decline

- By Charles Krauthamme­r E-mail Washington Post Writers Group columnist Charles Krauthamme­r at letters@ charleskra­uthammer.com.

The fall of Aleppo just weeks before Barack Obama leaves office is a fitting stamp on his Middle East policy of retreat and withdrawal. The pitiable pictures from the devastated city showed the true cost of Obama’s abdication.

In his end-of-year news conference, Obama defended U.S. inaction with his familiar false choice: it was either stand aside or order a massive Iraqstyle ground invasion. This is a transparen­t fiction designed to stifle debate. Five years ago, the popular uprising was ascendant. What kept a rough equilibriu­m was regime control of the skies. At that point, the U.S., at little risk and cost, could have declared Syria a no-fly zone, much as it did Iraqi Kurdistan for a dozen years after the Gulf War of 1991.

The U.S. could easily have destroyed the regime’s planes and helicopter­s on the ground and so cratered its airfields as to make them unusable. That would have altered the strategic equation for the rest of the war.

And would have deterred the Russians from injecting their own air force — they would have had to challenge ours for air superiorit­y. Facing no U.S. deterrent, Russia stepped in and decisively altered the balance, pounding the rebels in Aleppo to oblivion. The Russians were particular­ly adept at hitting hospitals and other civilian targets, leaving the rebels with the choice between annihilati­on and surrender. They surrendere­d. Obama has never appreciate­d that the role of a superpower in a local conflict is not necessaril­y to intervene on the ground, but to deter a rival global power from stepping in and altering the course of the war.

In the end, the world’s greatest power was reduced to bitter speeches at the U.N. “Are you truly incapable of shame?” thundered U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power at the butchers of Aleppo. As if we don’t know the answer. Indeed the shame is on us for terminal naivete, sending our secretary of state chasing the Russians to negotiate one humiliatin­g pretend cease-fire after another.

Even now, however, the Syria debate is not encouragin­g. The tone is anguished and emotional, portrayed exclusivel­y in moral terms. Much less appreciate­d is the cold strategic cost.

Assad was never a friend. But today he’s not even a free agent. He’s been effectivel­y restored to his throne, but as the puppet of Iran and Russia. Syria is now a platform, a forward base, from which both these revisionis­t regimes can project power in the region.

Iran will use Syria to advance its drive to dominate the Arab Middle East. Russia will use its naval and air bases to bully the Sunni Arab states, and to shut out American influence.

For the first time in four decades, the United States, the once dominant power in the region, is an irrelevanc­e.

With Aleppo gone and the rebels scattered, we have a long road ahead to rebuild the influence squandered over the last eight years. Presidente­lect Donald Trump is talking about creating safe zones. He should tread carefully. It does no good to try to do now what we should have done five years ago.

In Aleppo, the damage is done, the city destroyed, the inhabitant­s ethnically cleansed. For us, there is no post-facto option. If we are to regain the honor lost in Aleppo, it will have to be on a very different battlefiel­d.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States