Posted on 04/27/2011 6:45:25 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
...a push for aggressive action wasn’t necessarily the State Department's position at the end of the day. Multiple sources said that, when the Syria discussions reached the deputies or principals level, State was often viewed as taking a cautious line, not wanting to give U.S. critics ammunition to claim the protests were driven by the West."
So, with hundreds being mowed down by the Assad regime, the U.S. had to act slowly lest "U.S. critics" attribute the demonstrations to us. What "critics" would those be? Officials of the murderous Assad regime? Iranian ayatollahs?
The Administration's total misunderstanding of the situation in Syria continues, as a final quote regarding Syrian President Bashar al Assad reveals: "'He sees himself as a Westernized leader,' one senior administration official said, 'and we think he'll react if he believes he is being lumped in with brutal dictators.'"
...As the days go by the Administration's failure to grasp the importance of the Syrian situation, and the reasons for that failure, become clearer. An alternative policy would not rely on Assad's feelings or be guided by the fear that someone, somewhere would accuse the United States of being behind the protests in Syria. It would instead rely on America's interests in seeing a barbaric dictatorship replaced by a democracy, having Iran weakened by the loss of its only Arab ally, and celebrating the end of a regime that helped jihadis kill hundreds and hundreds of American servicemen and women in Iraq.
That would be a better policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.cfr.org ...
Dean Smallwood responds: One of those "critics" might be none other than Imad Moustapha, the Syrian Ambassador to the United States . He made his views very clear in an Al Jazeera interview on 13 May, 2008 when he said "It amazes me that my enemy [the U.S.] is so naive, superficial, and stupid."
Just a thought...
We’re moving slowly because if we uncover evidence that Saddam moved his WMDs to Syria before the fall of Iraq, the entire American liberal machine is screwed. Imagine ten years of “Bush lied!” being laid bare on the world stage as a complete and utter lie, and you begin to get an idea of why the US and UN aren’t anxious to send troops in.
a nyt mag about 2004 painted the assads like the fashionable beckhams of london and los angeles.
the left seems enamored with the family dynasties of thugs.
[whoops, missed your replies]
/bingo
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.
