The Refugee Blame Game

Assigning responsibility for foreign policy debacles is a popular game. In the 1990s, there were all kinds of questions about "Who Lost Russia?" as it descended into the authoritarian Putin-ism we see today? There was the hand-wringing about who was responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11? Had the Clinton Administration taken its eye off the ball? Why did the U.S. intelligence community fail to detect the plot before it happened? What about the response? Why was the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction so completely flawed? You can find a set of answers to things swirling around 9/11 in the 9/11 Report, but it also generated more finger-pointing.

Today's search to assign blame concerns the humanitarian crisis flowing out of parts of the Middle East, especially Syria, literally washing up on European shores. Whose fault is this crisis? The New York Times is asking the same question today in Ross Douthat's piece titled "Who Failed Aylan Kurdi?," the Syrian 3yr-old whose lifeless body was plucked of a Turkish beach by authorities after he drowned trying to get to Greece. Who's fault is Kurdi's death? Douthat's piece is less about who created this mess than it is about the responsibility to deal with a humanitarian crisis now that it's so obviously here. But what chain of events caused Kurdi's death? Can anyone or anything actually be blamed?

We want to blame someone for a long list of outrages we see around us. But whom shall we blame? The fact is, I am increasingly unsure.


It seems as though the answer depends an awful lot on who you ask. A small sample of those diverse arguments was represented this morning on NBC's Meet the Press. First up, former Secretary of State Colin Powell (scroll to about 6:45). In his mind, some of the culprits include Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin, and any number of groups contending for power in Syria. The clips (8:23) of the current crop of GOP presidential candidates squirming over the question of the 2003 invasion of Iraq are fascinating in and of themselves; all interestingly repudiate the war. Then at about 10:50, Chuck Todd plays a clip of then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in 1994 talking about why the United States didn't roll all the way to Baghdad in 1991 after tossing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Cheney seems like a clairvoyant.
Powell's response to the clip is pretty common these days: The intelligence was flawed. If we'd had better intelligence, there's no way we would have gone to Iraq. Moreover, there was a pretty good military plan put in place, but the aftermath was horribly bungled (a topic I've written about here). So, is George W. Bush somehow responsible for Aylan Kurdi's death? Maybe it was Paul Wolfowitz? Dick Cheney? Paul Bremer? The linkage is this: 2003 U.S. Invasion, leads to disastrous aftermath, a weak and corrupt U.S.-backed Iraqi government, little control over much of Iraq's territory. Meanwhile, Syrian Civil War spills over into these lawless Iraqi territories where it metastasized into what it is today. Is it Iranian meddling in Iraq that has undermined the Baghdad government? Is it really about strategic competition between Sunni Gulf States like Saudi Arabia or Qatar on the one hand and the Shi'a colossus of Iran? Good grief..... pick your villain.

Chuck Todd's next guest was former British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband.
When he's asked who's responsible for the mess, he is pretty clear: 1) Assad (okay, no argument there), 2) International powers (a vague collective), and 3) the European Union. Really, the European Union? Well, that's a new culprit, but then again, critiquing the EU is a popular pastime in the UK. Talk to other Europeans, including the Germans who just agreed to admit nearly 1million refugees, and you might get a different story about whose fault this is (Turks?, Hungarians?, the bankrupt Greeks?, the British?, the Gulf States?) More villains to choose from....

And, what about the Obama Administration's handling of the Arab Spring generally? He was pretty gung-ho about it when it all started with the Tunisians in late 2010. Then, Obama ushered long-time ally Hosni Mubarak aside in early 2011. That hasn't gone well since. Then Obama participated in the air-campaign to get rid of Muammar Ghaddafi in Libya in the summer of 2011. That has sort of gone off the rails too. And then there's the biggest debacle of them all, Syria, complete with red-lines crossed (Assad's use of chemical weapons), windows of opportunity closed, and now a civil war so messy that foreign intervention seems improbable. Is Obama to blame? Has he made things worse? Many now think so. Or has be simply been a victim here, having to manage the mess left by his predecessor? At what point did all of this become part of Obama's legacy?

So, who would I blame? Readers of this little blog will know that I haven't been the biggest fan of Obama's foreign policy. I think what I'd say is that his timidity with respect to Syria hasn't helped. There was probably a window in early 2012 where American power and influence might have been decisive, the lines between government, moderates, and extremists were still relatively clear. That window closed, but it was a small window. Does that mean it's Obama's humanitarian mess? I'm not sure.

But since we are looking these days to assign blame, I'll dig deep, pile on, and nominate Sykes-Picot (look it up).