will be forthcoming once I figure out what the hell the policy is.
My Reaction to Obama’s Syria Policy
9
Comments
Categories
Tags
9 responses to “My Reaction to Obama’s Syria Policy”
-
I think the US should do what it can to make the war in Syria end as soon as possible simple because the people in Syria are suffering too much. Even those that have fled to other countries are suffering. I actually don’t know what the US or any country can do to end this war.
My question to you, James, is: if you were someone like the Secretary of State or the National Security Advisor, what would your advise to the president be, on Syria?
-
@Barfour:
Or a slightly different build: James, you clearly (and many of us think rightly) objected to this idea. But if you had to implement this order, (broadly) how would you implement it? -
@Barfour: @matt bernius: My preference is to stay out of it. While I get the humanitarian angle, I’m not sure how we create a good outcome. And having Hezbollah and al Qaeda on opposite sides of a shooting war isn’t a bad thing.
Forced to “do something,” I’d do as little as possible. Maybe supply comms and intel. But I still don’t understand how we’re going to pick good guys in this thing. And, even if we know how to do that, there’s very little chance that our guys wind up running the show.
I’m highly confident that we can oust Assad, quite possibly without losing any American lives. But, as Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya have demonstrated: Then what?
-
Stoking the flames of a Shia-Sunni war is going to have some really nasty unintended consequences, like a spillover of the war into Lebanon, Iraq, and maybe even the Gulf States like Bahrain with its simmering Shiite majority under despotic Sunni rule.
IMHO, we’re doing this at the urging of neocons and Israeli Firsters, who want to do everything in their mind to protect Israel from the spillover of the conflict next door.
Heck, what can go wrong?
-
And having Hezbollah and al Qaeda on opposite sides of a shooting war isn’t a bad thing.
Except that Hezbollah is winning. If Hezbollah wins outright, it’s a bad thing.
Forced to “do something,” I’d do as little as possible. Maybe supply comms and intel. But I still don’t understand how we’re going to pick good guys in this thing. And, even if we know how to do that, there’s very little chance that our guys wind up running the show.
If the goal is to just bleed Iran (and Russia), then picking good guys isn’t vital. And Libya shows that its possible that our guys will wind up on top.
I’m highly confident that we can oust Assad, quite possibly without losing any American lives. But, as Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya have demonstrated: Then what?
May not be all that critical, if the goal is just to keep Russia and Iran out.
-
I fail to see how Hezbullah ‘winning’ is a bad thing. There is no chance that Assad and Hezbullah can achieve anything more than what was achieved in Lebanon (if that): an uneasy dominance. Hezbullah and the Assad regime sitting on top of a bubbling Sunni majority that views them as oppressive sectarians is a pure loss for Hezbullah relative to any ability to engage in further warfare or destabilisation. Unlike wargames / video games, this is permanent, winning the battle is the end of their problems, it is in fact (as the Americans learned in Iraq) merely the start.
Already they have lost their image with Sunni commentators and in the Mashreq, population, and a ‘victory’ will only further undermine.
Latest Posts
-
AK and MS Updates
-
Wounded Duck Presidency
-
Trump Begs UFC Head to be His Press Secretary
-
Gadi Eisenkot Will Get First Shot At Forming a Government
-
Ron DeSantis Planning 2028 Run
-
Susie Wiles Out, Stephen Miller In
-
Democrats Want to End Iran War: What Does That Mean?
-
Talarico’s Boots Were Made for Winning