In this Thursday, Feb. 6, 2013 photo, a Syrian woman sits on the ruins of her house, which was destroyed in an airstrike by government warplanes a few days earlier, killing 11 members of her family, in the neighborhood of Ansari, Aleppo, Syria.
We know that President Obama's national-security team overwhelmingly supported providing arms to the rebels in Syria. On Thursday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told a Senate committee that he and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed a plan that would have vetted, trained and armed selected opposition groups, which have been pleading for such U.S. support for more than a year.
According to the New York Times, the strategy was developed by former CIA director David H. Petraeus and supported by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The rationale for such action is compelling. Syria's civil war, which has killed more than 60,000 people, grows steadily worse and more dangerous for the United States and its allies. An opposition that once was a peaceful prodemocracy movement has been all but overtaken by jihadist organizations, including an Al-Qaida affiliate, that receive ample funding and weapons supplies from abroad.
As Obama administration officials have frequently said, the longer Bashar Assad's regime survives, the worse the outcome will be for Syria, its neighbors -- all of which are U.S. allies -- and the United States.
So why was the Petraeus plan rejected? According to the Times, Petraeus and Clinton were rebuffed when they presented the plan to the White House. At the time, Obama was in the midst of a re-election campaign in which he frequently assured voters that "the tide of war is receding." Hopes of reviving the plan after the election were thwarted when Petraeus resigned and Clinton was sidelined by illness.
Obama's reasons for quashing the Syria plan were surely not purely political. But the president's only public explanation for his resistance, in a recent interview with the New Republic, amounted to excuse-making. He wondered why he should concern himself with Syria and not the civil war in the Congo, as if the United States cannot intervene in any war unless it does in all; he asked whether providing weapons to rebels would "trigger even worse violence," ignoring the testimony of his own aides that, under his present policy, the carnage "every day ... it gets worse," as new Secretary of State John F. Kerry put it.
Kerry and some other administration officials continue to talk up far-fetched hopes that the Syrian war will be ended by a negotiated settlement in which Assad voluntarily steps down. Even that unlikely ending would require the regime to conclude that it cannot defeat the rebels, and for moderate forces to rise among the fragmented opposition. As long as the United States and its allies refuse to directly supply those forces with money, training and more powerful weapons, that is very unlikely to happen.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.