Some tweets I collected during the day.
Sam Dagher Wall Street Journal
#Syria opposition leader tells @malas_n US diplomats told him: Forget no-fly zone, forget mil intervention, forget US will provide u w/ arms
Andrew Hammond Reuters
#Qatar PM, #turkey FM appealed in closed sessions for #syria opposition to unite but seems only a fig-leaf 'agreement' will emerge at most
Basma Al Jazeera English
The Turkish foreigh minister just walked out of the meeting in Doha and refused to give any statement
Shadi Hammid Brookings Doha
Just bumped into someone who just left the Doha #Syria talks. He had a look of resignation. "Its a mess," he said.
Blake Hounshell Foreign Policy
It's almost like the Obama administration deliberately sabotaged its own initiative #Syria
Could that indeed be intended?
No, Hounshell gets that wrong.
Yes, the U.S. does want to kill the SNC. But that is necessary to create a viable Syrian opposition that allows for a political solution for the situation in Syria. Largely because of Libya the aim and plan of the U.S. has changed from regime change in Syria to regime-led change.
Clinton made clear that she thinks the SNC is worthless. She used quite undiplomatic language to express her disdain about their disunity. The SNC reacted to that by including some more groups and by electing a new executive committee:
Syria's main opposition bloc elected an all-male leadership team early Thursday, undermining its own bid to showcase itself as a more diverse group that can represent all those trying to oust President Bashar Assad.
With 42 members the new executive committee includes 0 women, 0 Christians and 0 people from other Syrian minorities. It is still an exclusive Muslim Brotherhood shop. I doubt that this will win them Hillary's support.
The current SNC is adamant against a compromise solution in Syria in which president Assad keeps his job at least until the next Syrian presidential election. But for Russia and China keeping Assad will be the only acceptable political solution. Rejecting pressure from Britain, Turkey and the Gulf monarchies for the use of force the U.S. now also seems to want such a solution:
Another Syrian National Council official at the talks said [U.S. ambassador] Ford had emphasized that Washington is seeking a “political solution” to the 20-month-long national uprising.
Washington is no longer following the Brookings Doha Center advice. Shadi Hamid, the Brookings Doha man, is furious about this. He wants a military intervention and his most important issue now is to further arm the rebels. That is understandable for two reasons. The rebels can no longer hold ground and had to revert to terror tactics because they did not follow the steps of guerrilla warfare. They are likely to fail and the false hope is that more weapons would help them.
The other reason is money. Brookings Doha Center is a paid piper for the Emir of Qatar. Its director Salman Shaikh was: "Director for Policy and Research to Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al Missned, the Consort of the Emir of Qatar". The center is largely financed by Qatar and: "The Brookings Doha Center International Advisory Council is co-chaired by H.E. Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-Thani, prime minister and minister of foreign affairs of the State of Qatar."
What the Brookings Doha people now express shows a serious break between the U.S. and Qatar.
Qatar wants an armed overthrow of the Syrian government. It wants regime change at any price. It does not care about the day after. In principle the U.S. is not against a forceful regime change BUT, and that is big but, it wants to know, and if possible control, what happens after the overthrow. It does not want another Middle East war with U.S. troops on the ground and it does not want uncontrolled Syrian chemical weapons flowing around.
The experience from Iraq, and especially the fresh and personal experience from Libya, is that there needs to be a viable plan for the day after. One dead ambassador is enough. No one, including the SNC, Qatar or Brookings Doha, has a viable plan for Syria the day after Assad is gone. Any day after scenario the U.S. can now accept requires to keep the Syrian state intact. That requires an opposition that will accept a temporary continuation of Assad's rule.
As the unofficial spokesperson David Ignatius explained today:
What does [Obama] want to accomplish? My list: […] a deal for a political transition in Syria (a shorthand Syria summary would be to organize the opposition so that it’s strong enough to bargain, then help win a Nobel Peace Prize for Vladimir Putin).
Clinton will soon leave her job. A usable Syrian opposition could be her last big achievement. It will be a better legacy than being remembered for starting another war.
The liberal-interventionist Susan Rice was poised to replace Clinton. But after her Benghazi blunder, claiming that no terrorism was involved, she is unlikely to get the job. Senator John Kerry now seems to be the favorite choice. It would be a very good one. Someone who personally experienced a real war is less likely to start more of them. My hunch is that it is he who is behind the change in the U.S. position and the new talk of a "political solution" and regime-led change in Syria.