Total Collapse

A number of recent articles make the case that the administration’s Syria policy is incoherent. Elliott Abrams says it’s worse than that: The White House’s position on Syria is duplicitous. Abrams looks at a series of recent interviews Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has given to the press about Syria, and identifies what appear to be the administration’s three reasons for not supporting the Syrian opposition.

First is the administration’s concern that, according to Clinton, al Qaeda may have infiltrated the opposition. Second, she contends that arming the opposition is futile because given the regime’s firepower there is no way the opposition can win. Finally, she says that the uprising is limited in scope, and more Syrians need to take to the streets before the White House knows the uprising is serious.

Clinton appears to argue that our intelligence agencies are so inept they cannot identify terrorists and cannot find any way at all to get arms to Syrians — as opposed to Palestinians from Hamas or other foreigners from al-Qaeda…. Second, she suggests that precisely because Assad is using tanks and artillery to attack the population, we cannot aid them because our military assistance would be too limited. They are better off dying, this argument logically holds, than fighting back. Their bravery in fighting for the past year with such limited arms is to be rewarded with the complaint that the odds are just too heavily stacked against them. Then comes the coup de grace: After saying we won’t help, after saying that outside “intervention” would only lead to more violence or “civil war,” after noting the disparity of arms between the citizens and the state, she demands that they rise up.

Thanks U-238. Elliott Abrams:

Clinton appears to argue that our intelligence agencies are so inept they cannot identify terrorists and cannot find any way at all to get arms to Syrians -- as opposed to Palestinians from Hamas or other foreigners from al-Qaeda... Second, she suggests that precisely because Assad is using tanks and artillery to attack the population, we cannot aid them because our military assistance would be too limited. They are better off dying, this argument logically holds, than fighting back. Their bravery in fighting for the past year with such limited arms is to be rewarded with the complaint that the odds are just too heavily stacked against them. Then comes the coup de grace: After saying we won't help, after saying that outside "intervention" would only lead to more violence or "civil war," after noting the disparity of arms between the citizens and the state, she demands that they rise up.

There are two actual reasons for El Zero's lack of interest -- number one, the collapse of the Assad regime would benefit Israel and hurt Iran; number two, the Islamofascist regime in Turkey doesn't want NATO intervention in Syria, because as a member of NATO, Turkey would have to choose (again) between supporting NATO and supporting fellow Islamofascists; Turkey would also be the natural best source of troops as well as the staging area. Russia's been raising its pressure on Turkey at least since Putin's Ossetian escapade, with the most recent bullying being over the offshore hydrocarbons being developed by Cyprus and Israel. Fascinating development, with Germany pushing Greece into the arms of Russia (the debt crisis), and Turkey helping, with Israel in unprecedented deals with both Greece and Cyprus.

I was not being antagonistic with my question; I truly want to understand their animosity toward each other. What is it based on, IOW, what are the major concepts that cause them to have differing belief sets and how do those differences impact the way they live their lives?

If you seriously want to understand why they hate each other, you will have to study Moslem theology, and why the two branches are incompatible, because that is what the hatred is based on. That is not something I know, because in the end, I don't care why they hate each other, I just accept the fact they do.

Okay, then, Mr. Grumpypants.

Some time back, I did spend about 40 minutes trying find out some info online, but I was not successful in getting to the heart of the matter. I guess I am curious but not curious enough to read a book about it, although I am an avid reader.

You have it backwards. Turkey is now run by Sunni Islamists allied to the Muslim Brotherhood. The opposition in Syria is composed of two groups, one of which being Muslim Brotherhood dominated in the north (ie on the Turkish border). Turkey wants the Iranian-allied Alawite-dominated Baathist regime to fall. Alawite's are a heretical Shi'ite sect viewed as non-Muslim by many Sunnis.

This is a religious war with no good sides. We should stay out. http://nycright.blogspot.com/2012/02/best-way-to-stop-iranian-nuclear-weapon.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.