Skip to comments.Syria’s plan to give up its chemical weapons could make things worse, not better
Posted on 09/10/2013 5:01:03 PM PDT by mojito
Few people depress me these days like Michael Doran. A Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, Doran has been a leading advocate among thoughtful foreign policy analysts for a more aggressive U.S. intervention to end the conflict in Syria. Agree or disagree with that policy (Im not sure I do, personally), its left him especially skeptical of the Obama administrations push for limited strikes against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons.
When Russia seized on U.S. Secretary of State John Kerrys offhand suggestion that Syria could avoid U.S. strikes by giving up its chemical weapons, I reacted, like many, with highly cautious optimism that this could offer a small but significant reprieve for Syrians and success for Obama. But Doran had a very different take: that this is a dishonest ploy by Russia and Syria that boxes in the Unites States and, more importantly, makes any relief for Syrias civil war far less likely.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
No Air Support for Al Qaeda. Boo-hoo....
Get Worse? Only if you’re Al Qaeda ...
streetwise Barry getting passed around the cell-block like a pack of cigarettes...!
SMART GUY, oh SURE...!
— > Punaho PUNK. < —
“Get Worse? Only if youre Al Qaeda ...”
They are probably already out of Syria. If we wanted to do something useful for the world we could of set up an ambush in Northern Iraq and when they crossed the border wipe them out.
Obama works for Mother Church of Russia now (official Church throughout Cold War) and Maronite Church of Hezbollah.
Don't be ridiculous. That would mean that Putin played 0bungles like the Jug-Eared Won was a 3 yr. old child.
Sure, and this from the same people who say the polar icecaps are melting.
Assad is no friend to the US, but at least he isn’t al Queda.
...and the crowd goes wild...
This is people on both sides who hate us killing each other instead of us.
Escalate it now!
It all depends on the definition of "relief." The best relief one could imagine is lending an overwhelming force to one side, so that the other side stops fighting immediately (it cannot win; it only can die.) Assad is the lesser evil here. If the proposal gets implemented, Syria will be teeming with foreign troops (primarily Russian, of course) and rebels' activities will be seriously curtailed. The war will stop, and the people can start rebuilding. Assad will have to seek political peace, but most likely the regime will stay - because it works well enough. Syrians now know firsthand what the alternative is - and I strongly suspect that they don't want it anymore.
Israel will be also satisfied to have Syria under control of Russia. This will dilute the influence of Iran, since Russia has no plans to "wipe the Zionist entity off the map." Israel and Russia have good relations. Russians and Ukrainians, for example, don't need a visa to go to Israel.
Brookings Institution = notorious nest of pinkos.
Whatever. I couldn’t care less if we are so called “boxed in” as far as Syria goes.
We’ll get a more serious president next time and an infinitely more compete team.
Let em have this round.
Not worth the trouble given the current bass turds and their phony intellectuals and mindless rope masquerading as high minded morality.
You know that there is no friends in politics. Every country cares for their own interest
When Obama should have been tough on the Syrian Regime, Obama was soft.
When Obama should have been diplomatic with the Syrian people, Obama threatened mass violence.
“..Well get a more serious president next time and an infinitely more compete team..”
Are you sure? Looking at the current situation I don’t see many choices.
And big bubba calling for shorts on the butt
Yep, no friends, just national interests.
With the Russians backing Assad, I expect the Syrian rebels to fade into the woodwork. Assad will never be well-beloved but I expect he will be more tolerable. The rebels know with Russian and UN "inspectors" in the country there's no possibility of US airstrikes and definitely no US boots on the ground. Better? For me, yes - since I don't want our troops anywhere near the place. It's not worth one drop of our soldiers' blood.
For the Saudis and Qataris, I suppose it's worse. Their pipeline is back on permanent hold, and they're boxed out of the European market. That's not bothering me too much, though.
For Israel? Better, I suppose. Assad is a known enemy, if he was deposed his successor would probably be hardline anti-Semitic. You could say that if Assad holds onto his job Syria could be an island of stability in a volatile region.
For Iran, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, et al, it's worse I suppose. These organizations seem to thrive on disorder and weak government. With Assad in charge there's no power vacuum for them to fill.
Well, Barry’s puppet masters are probably already onto the next scenario in trying to destabilize the world.
Yeah, it's breaking my heart...
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.