Opinion
Lawrence Journal-World l LJWorld.com l Friday, December 16, 2016
5A
Middle course in Syria bound to fail
EDITORIALS
Water park enthusiasm Clinton Lake development might not be the right fit, but residents should keep an open mind now.
L
awrence ought to get excited about the prospects of a $70 million whitewater rafting and outdoor adventure center at Clinton Lake State Park. That does not mean local governments should start writing checks to developers or making promises to support the project. But it would do the community no harm to be excited, enthused and even a bit flattered that the project is considering Lawrence. Instead, when officials with the state of Kansas and Plei — the company that operates the U.S. National Whitewater Center near Charlotte, N.C. — came to town this week to talk about the project, local enthusiasm for the idea seemed a bit muted. Heaven help us if officials read comments on social media or other websites. Commenters there almost sounded insulted that someone would even propose such an idea for Lawrence. Simply put, it is too early to know whether this project would be a good one for the community. The concept — which involves a manmade whitewater rafting course, zip lines, a conference center, an amphitheater, a restaurant and other amenities — is intriguing. How the project would be financed, how much government would need to incentivize it, and which governments would be providing the incentives are all key questions in determining whether this a good fit for Lawrence. Those questions will get answered, or else the project won’t move forward. There is plenty of time to fret about what the answers will be. Right now, though, should be the fun time in this project: Dream about the possibilities and express appreciation that the opportunity to consider the project has come our way. It should be particularly encouraging the state of Kansas has brought this project to Lawrence. State officials could have steered Plei officials to another community. But state officials view Lawrence and Clinton Lake highly enough that they’re pushing for this major investment to be made in Douglas County. Whether it be the completion of the South Lawrence Trafficway, or something else, Lawrence has caught the eye of state leaders. That has not always been the case. There have been major economic development projects that landed in other Kansas communities that Lawrence never got the opportunity to compete for because state officials did not think it would be worth the time. This project is definitely worth our time to consider. It may not end up being the right fit for Lawrence. Further study may show such a water park isn’t that feasible. The community should not mortgage its future to build it. Right now, however, we are not being asked to do that. We’re being asked to have an open mind and look for ways to make this successful for all involved. We should be excited to do so.
Washington — The fall of Aleppo is a human catastrophe. It’s also a demonstration of the perils of choosing the middle course in a military conflict. Sometimes it’s possible to talk and fight at the same time. But in Syria, America’s decision to pursue a dual-track, halfway approach made the mayhem worse. A battered Secretary of State John Kerry made one more plea Thursday for a peaceful evacuation of what’s left of Aleppo. At a State Department briefing, he used the strongest language to describe the situation: “Another Srebrenica ... nothing short of a massacre ... indiscriminate slaughter ... a cynical policy of terrorizing civilians.” But for five years now, America’s actions haven’t matched its rhetoric. Kerry’s only real weapon now is the gruesome suffering of the Syrian people and the shame it engenders in everyone who watches. That shame hangs over this administration, too. Kerry’s critics argue that his efforts to negotiate a settlement were always doomed to failure. Maybe so, but after the Russian military intervention in September 2015, the administration concluded that diplomacy was the only viable strategy in Aleppo. Having made that decision, officials needed to make it work. Instead, they continued to toy with an armed opposition they weren’t prepared to fully support. In the annals of covert warfare, the CIA’s sup-
David Ignatius
davidignatius@washpost.com
“
Kerry’s only real weapon now is the gruesome suffering of the Syrian people and the shame it engenders in everyone who watches.” port for the Syrian opposition deserves a special, dark chapter. The effort began late — nearly two years into the war — after extremists had already begun to dominate the fight against President Bashar al-Assad. It was a hodgepodge of different regional states and their pet fighters — nominally coordinated from operations centers in Jordan and Turkey but in reality controlled by more than 80 local militias whose commanders were often corrupt and protojihadists themselves. The CIA and its partners were never willing to give the opposition the weapons — especially the shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles — that could have won the battle. The agency did provide anti-tank weapons that were potent enough that Assad was rocked in the summer of
2015, and analysts began to worry about “catastrophic success,” with the regime collapsing and jihadists filling a power vacuum in Damascus. Soon after that, Russia intervened. The CIA’s biggest problem was that its allies couldn’t stop the dominance of al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra. The “vetted” opposition groups might pretend otherwise, but they were fighting alongside Nusra, which rebranded itself this year as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. The extremists attracted the other opposition groups for a simple reason: Their fighters were the most willing to die for the cause. The U.S. tried to straddle this problem. In 2014, I visited the leaders of one of the vetted groups, known as Harakat al-Hazm, at a safe house along the SyrianTurkish border. The fighters were despondent. The U.S. had just bombed a Nusra camp nearby, seeking to kill militants from its so-called “Khorasan Group.” The CIA-backed fighters said this action had destroyed their credibility. They were right. Nusra soon chased them from their headquarters. Kerry was an early advocate of using military force against Assad. But after the Russians intervened decisively last year, he began to see the CIA program as a hindrance to the diplomatic deal that he saw as the only realistic option. Kerry didn’t want to abandon the “vetted” fighters altogether, and he argued for
giving some groups more weapons. But he thought the U.S. should make continued assistance conditional on their willingness to separate from Nusra — something that few of the groups were willing or able to do. So the straddle continued. Kerry met frantically through this year with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, to implement the “cessation of hostilities” negotiated on paper last February. The CIA meanwhile continued to push a program that targeted Russia and its Syrian and Iranian allies — and helped shield Nusra. Kerry negotiated a near cease-fire in September, but it was conditioned on a pause in fighting — demanded by skeptics at the Pentagon — that neither he nor Lavrov could deliver. The Russians didn’t restrain Assad or the Iranians. And Kerry couldn’t deliver on his promise to separate the “moderate” opposition from Nusra. The opposition forces, good and bad, were “marbled” together in the Aleppo region. The U.S. couldn’t undo the anti-Assad alliance it had fostered. Kerry had the impossible job of trying to manage a policy that was going in two directions at once. Perhaps he should have quit, if he sensed it was undoable. But it’s Kerry’s strength and weakness that he believes he can move mountains. Not this time. Instead, he got crushed in the rubble of a confused policy. — David Ignatius is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.
OLD HOME TOWN
100
From the Lawrence Daily Journal-World years for Dec. 16, ago 1916: “Fire from IN 1916 an unknown origin started at 4:27 o’clock this morning at the home of McKinley Jackson at 615 Third street North. The department was summoned immediately and the blaze was quickly extinguished. About $20 damage resulted. It is covered by insurance. The house is owned by Riley Rogers.” — Reprinted with permission from local writer Sarah St. John. To see more, go online to www.facebook.com/ DailyLawrenceHistory.
Human rights likely would take a beating under Tillerson President-elect Donald Trump’s decision to nominate ExxonMobil’s CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state is sounding alarm bells among human rights groups. And there are good reasons for it. Tillerson, 64, who like Trump has no government experience, is best known for his close ties with Russia’s authoritarian President Vladimir Putin, who awarded him the Kremlin’s Order of Friendship prize in 2013. As an lifetime Exxon employee, Tillerson has befriended some of the world’s worst human rights offenders — including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Equatorial Guinea — as part of his mission to find lucrative oil exploration or extraction deals abroad. It is often said that oil executives are not guided by ideology, but by geology, and Tillerson may be a poster boy for that saying. Amnesty International, a human rights advocacy group, said that Tillerson’s nomination is “deeply troubling and could undermine human rights in the U.S. and abroad.” Human Rights Watch, another advocacy group, said that under Tillerson, Exxon “has been hostile to U.S. laws
Andres Oppenheimer aoppenheimer@miamiherald.com
“
Much of Tillerson’s rise to corporate stardom was due to his close ties to the Russian government.”
requiring greater financial transparency and stronger human rights standards for companies — laws that the State Department has supported.” Much of Tillerson’s rise to corporate stardom was due to his close ties to the Russian government. In 2011, he signed a huge deal with Russia’s Rosneft oil company, in which the Russian government has a majority stake. Putin attended the signing ceremony.
Asked about Tillerson, Trump said his nominee is “much more than a business executive, he’s a world class player.” In an interview with Fox News, Trump said that “to me, a great advantage is he knows many of the players, and he knows them well. He does massive deals with Russia. He does massive deals for the company, not for himself.” But will the skills that helped Tillerson move up the corporate ladder at Exxon by cozying up to oil-rich dictators help him when it comes to implementing sanctions against Russia for the 2014 invasion of Crimea? Will his long ties with ruling families in Saudi Arabia and Qatar undermine U.S. policies in the Middle East? Even some key Republican legislators are worried about Tillerson. “Being a ‘friend of Vladimir’ is not an attribute I am hoping for from a Secretary of State,” tweeted Florida Sen. Marco Rubio on Dec. 11. The Russian strongman is not only the target of U.S. sanctions for invading Crimea, but is being accused by U.S. intelligence agencies of hacking the recent U.S. elections, planting false news reports and stealing
campaign e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign to pass them on to WikiLeaks. Rep. Eliot Engel, the ranking Democrat in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, told me in an e-mail that Tillerson’s Russia connection also raises serious questions about how Tillerson would deal with Russia’s increasing influence in Latin America. “I fear that a Secretary Tillerson could reduce our approach to a diverse and vibrant region to a singular focus on oil production. This would set us back many years,” Engel said. What worries me the most is that Tillerson wouldn’t help counterbalance Trump’s disregard for human rights as a U.S. policy principle, which has been upheld by Democratic and Republican administrations for the past four decades. Trump said in a June 20 interview with The New York Times that “I don’t think we have a right to lecture” other countries on human rights. Asked specifically whether that meant that he would not make democracy and liberty a cornerstone of his foreign policy, Trump responded, “We need allies.” The idea of a corporate-driven
U.S. foreign policy whose only objective is maximizing U.S. companies’ profits — no matter what — has been tried before. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, it led to questionable U.S. interventions in Central America on behalf of U.S. companies. But that created a backlash that led to the 1959 Cuban Revolution and a wave of anti-American governments in the region. Without a human rights-conscious secretary of state, Trump is likely to repeat the mistakes of the past. — Andres Oppenheimer is a columnist for the Miami Herald.
LAWRENCE
Journal-World
®
Established 1891
Scott Stanford, Publisher Chad Lawhorn, Editor Kim Callahan, Managing Editor Kathleen Johnson, Advertising Manager Joan Insco, Circulation Manager Allie Sebelius, Marketing Director