Bashar al-Assad acquired and retains power through bloody electioneering characterized by crafting superior alliances of human cunning and animal brutality. For him dazzling spectacle and mercurial oratory belie a principled commitment to a continuum where politics is war without bloodshed, and war is politics with bloodshed. When al-Assad’s actions beleaguer the feebleness of U.N. oratory, he is simply reacting to those he sees as similar to the opponents he trampled in rising to power. Why should he abandon the intricacies and chicanery of this unorthodox diplomacy when it so successfully befuddles the U.N?
Effective diplomacy against emerging opponents like him would be methodical, covert, multi-faceted, and predictably lethal. Talks, conferences and economic measures serve as war without bloodshed; war serves as diplomacy with bloodshed. Intelligence, propaganda, and espionage invigorate all options. The result would be to frustrate plans, break alliances, isolate governments, and sow dissention among government branches.
Unless offered compelling enticements, or confronting unanswerable force, al-Assad’s best strategy remains endless mendacity and violence, while the international community debates interests into ever-narrower parameters.
When war and diplomacy remain mutually exclusive, then war becomes the bewildering, tragic, accidental consequence of failed diplomacy descending into appeasement. If force must disarm an opponent, deliberate battle must first be prepared by measures consistently cultivating the opponent’s internal and international isolation.
We cannot expect the current administration to lead in that direction. Into this contentious environment, Obama brings his newly minted Nobel Peace Prize. He and the nominating committee consider al-Assad received a crushing blow as Obama lead Western countries in saying al-Assad must go to benefit the Syrian people. However, al-Assad shares the perception of Greg Lewis in American Thinker, who portrayed Obama as displaying classic beta male behavior.
The alpha male dog approaches directly, while the beta male displays acquiescent gestures signaling uncompromising submission. Lewis saw submissiveness in offering conciliatory gestures to Sudanese leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir, in sending John Kerry to meet Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, in bowing to King Abdullah, in airy discussions with Hugo Chavez and David Ortega, and in generally ridiculing the U.S. whenever he appears on an international stage.
These actions appear constructive within the worldview vetted by the European elites Obama cherishes. For them the highest expressions of diplomacy and politics reside within modern game theory for which John Nash and others received their Nobel prizes. Clearly, al-Assad should realize the brilliance of Western conflict resolution and entertain peaceful, meaningful dialogue. However, it does appear he is going to stay with the strategies that have always worked before.
I think that Obama and NATO ever expected Assad to comply. They are only waiting for a suitable excuse to send in NATO Forces a la Libya.
By the way, we have as of this morning, told all US citizens to leave Syria. That, my friend means that aerial bombardment is going to commence very soon.