[CivilWarBrewing]

0dunga never wanted to oust Assad, just wanted to give the impression that he did. What he REALLY wanted he got: Keeping the Syrian civil war ALIVE so as to FORCE AS MANY MUSLIMS INTO EUROPE AND THE U.S. AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE TO EXPAND THE MUSLIM CALIPHATE!!!!!

[ronnietherocket3]

We've known for years that the CIA was urging President Obama to arm the largely secular Free Syrian Army in 2012 to give them a chance to overthrow President Bashar Assad of Syria.

Is this one of the not-quite ISIS, but still are extremists group of Islamic rebels?

But eventually, the president refused and the plan was rejected.

I am tepid to say this, but it looks like Obama made the right call here.

Laux, an Indiana native who joined the CIA in 2005 at age 23, says he wrote an "ops plan" that included all the elements he believed were necessary to remove Assad. He was not allowed to describe the plan, but he writes that his program "had gained traction" in Washington. His boss, the head of the Syria task force, regularly briefed members of the Congressional intelligence committees on what Laux was seeing, hearing and suggesting.

So a 23 year old things he can write a plan to overthrow a government and will bring peace and stability to the Middle East?

* It wouldn't be enough to overthrow Assad. The entire Ba'ath party political and government structure needed to have been rooted out as well -- a possible super-Libya with chaos that would have resulted in all the problems we're experiencing today.

So basically we would have had to put boots on the ground and run the country like we ran Iraq? No thanks.

Would we be better off today if Obama had approved the plan? In all likelihood, ISIS would have split from AQ anyway. Their differences had little to do with the Syrian civil war. The refugee problem may not be as bad today, but it would still be a humanitarian crisis. And armed Islamist militias would be fighting for control of small slices of Syria -- much the same situation we are seeing today.

But Assad would be gone and at least the possibility would have existed for some kind of settlement. That's not much to hang your hat on if you favored overthrowing Assad, but it highlights the poor options we've always had in dealing with the Syrian civil war.

Assad would be gone, but who would be there in his place? The only options look like one of his henchmen, ISIS, and not quite ISIS but still extreme. No thanks. Especially since it would look exactly the same.

[map]

I don’t believe I agree with Obama. I need a shower.

[JimSEA]

Assad wasn’t that dangerous to begin with and not a Saddm by a long shot. Now we have ISIS which is worse than Saddam. The situation for Israel is significantly degraded. Iraq is hopeless. All of which is Obama / Clinton foreign policy.

[butlerweave]

Obama just sits on the Fence and only approves something if it’s against the Law

[Lurker]

There are not now, nor were there ever, any “moderate” rebels.

L

[PGR88]

David Petraeus recommended a program to secretly arm and train moderate Syrian rebels in 2012 to pressure Assad.

Which worked out SOOO well.

[onedoug]

Enemy islamist pig-dog ø.

[DesertRhino]

I see no reason for puttering overthrowing Assad anyway.

[wayoverontheright]

Information leaked in order to position the narrative that Hillary and/or Petraeus are to blame. Certainly not Obama.

Damage control. Plausible deniability.

Perhaps FBI, in investigating Hillary, found something on Obama.......

[VitacoreVision]

An ISIS-like group would fully control Syria if Obama overthrew Assad.

Look what happened in Libya.

[DoughtyOne]