Barack Obama unlikely to be swayed over Syria policy

Exasperated US diplomats are in open revolt over Barack Obama’s Syria policy, but radical change is unlikely in the twilight of his presidency.

More than 2,80,000 people have been killed in Syria. Millions more have fled their homes.

A relentless drumbeat of cluster bombs, barrel bombs, chemical bombs, murder, rape and torture has turned swaths of Syria to dust.

Humanitarian aid so-metimes drips into the beleaguered cities, but when it does, President Bashar al-Assad’s regi-me makes sure “punishment” bombings quickly follow. “The Assad regime’s actions defy all definitions of hum-an decency,” said one US official. There are ominous signs the regi-me is moving to strangle food production.

Through it all, the Obama administration has insisted only Mr Assad — and his Russian and Iranian sponsors — can end the madness. But privately, even senior diplomats admit that their inability to stop five years of butchery has challenged their conscience. They say that whatever comes next, Syria will have left an indelible stain on their years in public service.

In a deliberately leaked memo, 51 serving US diplomats have now said “enough,” insisting that Mr Obama has a moral obligation to stop the carnage. To force Mr Assad into real peace negotiations, they say the 44th President must launch airstrikes against the Syrian regime.

The White House has quickly signalled it is not ready to embark on such a 180 degree shift.

“The President has always been clear that he does not see a military solution to the crisis in Syria and that remains the case,” White House spokeswoman Jennifer Friedman said in response to the memo.

The White House has stuck fast to a credo — borne from the folly of the Iraq war — that the US should not, indeed cannot, solve all the world’s crises.