Skip to comments.Romney calls for arming Syrian opposition, as part of Middle East course change
Posted on 10/08/2012 3:19:52 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
Mitt Romney called Monday for a change of course in America's Middle East policy, accusing President Obama of sitting on the sidelines in the face of a "profound upheaval" across the region. The Republican nominee pledged that, if elected, he would prosecute a far more engaged foreign policy, including helping to arm the opposition in Syria's bloody civil war.
"Hope is not a strategy," Romney said.
Romney spoke at the Virginia Military Institute in what was billed as a major foreign policy address. After aggressively challenging the incumbent on economics at last week's debate, Romney is looking to build on that performance with a more robust explanation of how he'd lead in the world, not just America.
The nominee argued Monday that Obama has watched passively as the Middle East has transformed, describing the recent deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya as part of that upheaval.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Not an appropriate use of American resources. Where is the evidence that a regime change in Damascus would further the interests of America? All I can think of is that it might reduce the influence of Iran both in Syria and in Lebanon.
a good rule to live by is to stay out of other peoples’ civil wars.
once we do that we will own the resulting mess.
So both candidates now support Jihad and creation of Islamic states?
This is a lose-lose proposition.
Bad move, indeed. Like you said: and the persecuted-church group I correspond with put out a HUGE alert this month — that the opposition to Assad has now been totally infiltrated by the most radical islamists there are. And the Christians there are terrified about it.
If anything, “rescue and protect the Christians”
Romney will be chewed up and spit out on this (unless he is just trying to smoke the obamanistas out).
given that Romney recently met with Israel’s prime minister (unlike Obama who was on the View), I would suggest that this is what was discussed.
If we don’t arm the non-religious in Syria, then the Taliban/Al Queda will form an alliance and help them.
Of course, you make sure you arm the right segments, with small arms, etc.
BTW, the syrian opposition is sunni, not shi’ite based
In his defense, I will say that Romney mentioned evaluating these groups before we embraced them.
But in Syria, I don’t think there are a lot of them that are non-religious (that is, non-Islamists).
The big concern with Assad from our point of view is that Iran is courting him. I think what we need to do, rather than support people who are our enemies (and one might say, even worse enemies than he is), would be offer him more enticements to move away from Iran. Also, in terms of reforms,like the Libyan and Egyptian semi-secular dictators, he had already started to move in the direction of loosening things up.
The problem is that the Islamists always rush in and take over, and it’s not going to be a plus for us if we support them, thereby destabilizing the ME even more.
IMO both are religious fanatics who will murder at the drop of a hat.
Don't worry though, Egypt has a democracy that Syria can emulate after the fall of Assad. /sarc
When will people wake up and realize these supposed freedom and democracy loving "rebels" aren't walking around in three corner hats proclaiming the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but are instead wrapped up in yashmaghs proclaiming the desire for 72 virgins and death to infidels?
Romney needs a better explanation. Assad is an Iranian stooge, which means he needs to be replaced. But replacing him with an Al Qaeda stooge isn’t an improvement, especially if it means that the Christians are subsequently slaughtered.
Which is what is happening right now. It isn’t much better in Egypt.
“This is a bad move by Romney.”
Of course it is, but this is POLITICS and Romney is now going for the juggler. It’s like Obama with domestic spying and Gitmo. He NEVER was serious about shutting down either, but it gave him points to get elected.
It’s about time the Republicans started doing it back.
I figure it is to make yet another of Obozos foreign policy decisions look like the wrong thing to do.
“I figure it is to make yet another of Obozos foreign policy decisions look like the wrong thing to do.”
Exactly, I can’t read Romney’s mind, but I can’t think he’s stupid enough to think that the opposition in Syria will be any different - that is once they get through exterminating the 5 million or so Christians there.
He’s just on a roll and having fun making Obama squirm. He knows the media cannot protect Obama on Syria - so it’s a free shot - and I’m glad to FINALLY see a Republican stop being nice and start taking advantage of them.
You can’t trust either brand of Islam.
That being said, they have been kept in check for 100+ years by infighting.
Sunnis have lost territory recently, and encouraging them in Syria will work (i believe) to our larger purposes.
Also, we need to get OUT of Afghanistan, as there is no end game there. Just educate the locals that if they allow the Taliban to come after us again, what just happened will be a walk in the park.
Meanwhile, we need to do something about IRAN. They have had it coming for 30 years. It’s payback time.
The credibility of NATO is at stake. Assad still doesn't have enough incentive to step down, because he preceives Putin and the Iranians as having more resolve than NATO.
Mitt didn't say the U.S. should directly or unilaterally arm the rebels. The delicate maneuver would be to get NATO countries to provide enough defensive firepower to the FSA to maintain a stalemate (not an escalation), and hold Aleppo, Homs, etc. until a relatively nonviolent political solution could be reached.
Ideally, there would be a transition from the military to a civilian government. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is not as strong as in Libya, and there are so many other factions involved in the jigsaw puzzle, that the MB could be kept at bay. If Turkey becomes the major power broker here, so be it; it's better than allowing Iran to play that role.
Now, if the Western countries continue to do nothing (Obama leading from behind), it will be like the Bosnia mess again. The bloodbath will continue.
don’t do it Mitt. One side is as bad as the other. To side with the rebels is to side with the Muslim Brotherhood and their offshoot - AQ.
This a civil war - let it be!!
A) this is a win-win move Romney, because Zero is now fenced in; he has to choose between agreeing with Romney/sending military aid directly, and condemning Romney’s remarks while doing nothing but wagging a finger at Assad, and making himself look like the big-talking imbecile that he is
B) the US is already sending support anyway, via proxy, but is denying such involvement
McCain was just on Fox (Gretta) calling for a “no fly zone”.
Those Syrian aircraft and anti-aircraft sites will likely be manned (certainly supported) by Russians -not whats left of Assad’s incompetent military.
Who would want to suffer those potential loses when you wouldnt ultimately support either side?