Der Waffenstillstand in Syrien wird scheitern – was dann?

„The breathless reports this weekend that a ceasefire for Syria had been reached ‚in principle’ reveal once again how unrealistic our thinking has become about this particular national security issue. If a temporary ceasefire can help get food to the starving, that is excellent news. Beyond that, however, it is almost certain that there can be no lasting cessation of hostilities. Indeed, I would venture to go further and argue that peace negotiations are actually dangerous and counterproductive, because they make us feel that current policy has a realistic chance at success when in fact it does not.


Once it becomes apparent in coming days that – as is almost surely inevitable – any ceasefire in Syria will be short-lived, we need to get beyond our twin delusions: that we have a serious Syria policy today, and that our current largely hands-off approach that seeks to contain the problem is viable. Such thinking is making the United States oblivious to the slow-motion genocide of our day. It is also allowing strategic risks to our allies and our own homeland, already significant, to grow each year. We need to get serious about Syria. It is too late for President Obama to solve the problem on his watch, but it is not too late to begin the process.“

Michael O’Hanlon von der Brookings Institution plädiert für eine realistische Einschätzung der bislang gänzlich gescheiterten Syrien-Politik der Vereinigten Staaten: „Getting serious about Syria: What to do when containment doesn’t work“.

Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar

Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar

Sie müssen angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.