“I’ve Got a Bad Feeling About This . . . “
Reuters is now reporting that the POTUS has formally approved US aid to Syrian rebels. Frankly, I’m not so sure that’s such a good idea.
Yes, Assad is a bastard. But Iran’s and al Qaeda’s fingerprints seem to be all over the Syrian opposition. And given Syria’s suspected WMD program, a takeover by either would not be good news for US interests.
Further, the possibility for a Syrian takeover by radical Islamic elements also can’t be dismissed. Events in Libya and Egypt have shown that quite clearly.
Sometimes the devil you know really is better than the devil you don’t. I suspect this may be one of those times.
Category: Foreign Policy, Military issues
You’re right. We need to just sit this one out.
Or, if we really, really, REALLY, feel that we MUST DO SOMETHING. . . .
Airdrop knives and bandaids.
I don’t see any reason the Iranians would fund the opposition, the Allawite ruling sect has been good to them and their proxies, like Hezbollah, for so long they have no reason to undermine the regime. The Iranians are about the only real friend the Assad regime has left. Al Qaeda’s support for any Sunni uprising against an entrenched non-Sunni autocrat is about a given, though.
Concurring with NSOM, Syria has been the pipeline between Tehran and Lebanese Hezbollah. LH has already felt the sting of having that pipeline interdicted by the uprising.
THe Assad regime may need to go, but we should not support the opposition. They are the usual mixed bag of Jihadists, Wahabbiis, and criminals. Basically, the pipeline into Iraq has reversed. Don’t believe for a second that Iran is not playing both sides. The new regime will be as hostile to us as the Assads, just not as well organized.
Look at the outcomes of the “Arab Spring” in Libya and Egypt. The Syrian people may not want to move from a secular dictatorship to an Islamic theocracy, but that is what they will get. Sucks if you’re a Copt, Chaldean, or a Syrian Maronite (where the purge in rebel held areas has begun already).
Let this drag out and consume as much time, blood and treasure as it will as long it isn’t American. Syria is not a strategic interest and the State Department will get played once again (yet another “good war” like AFPAK???). This isn’t Harvard and these folks play for keeps. Sounds cynical, but that’s reality there.
This doesn’t surprise me nearly as much as it being breathlessly reported in the MSM as being “secretly approved”. Hey jackasses in the media, it ain’t a friggin’ secret if you just splashed it all over web, airwaves and fishwrap. I would have thought with all the bad publicity from White House leaks they would have kept their mouths shut for once. I see that they still just couldn’t restrain themselves.
With #5 on this one! Why are we talking about it if it is a “secret?”
And I would like to see the list of those who thought this a good idea, but there are likely no surprises there.
When I think of Obama’s foreign policy all I keep hearing is “Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
Obummer is just continuing the US tradition of arming our future enemies.
How long has it been since the US was openly fighting a proxy war against Russia? Is this was the Obama reset button was all about?
What I find fascinating is that Obama told us that In Libya, and Egypt; they were carrying on the Arab Spring, but in Iran, they were malcontents and the government of Iran was just keeping the rabble in check. Now, he’s saying that Syrian rebels are part of the Arab Spring movement. I wish he would make up his mind.
Personally, I do not think America should involve itself in any country’s civil war. Seeing as how the UNinvited Nations recently finally declared that it was actually a civil war (after how many months of the country fighting itself?). Why we are getting involved is beyond me. Except, perhaps, to throw more of our money at the Islamic world to help boost their economies while throwing ours further down the drain.
What bothers me about this report, is that it was reported in the first place.
This WH has loose lips . And for all my non-Navy friends out there … “loose lips sink ships”. Translated good guys get killed and our objectives, missions, and taskings do not get completed.
We have national security interests around the globe and if we have interests there, and I believe (know) we might, then do it covertly, quickly, with the appropriate level violence and power required to get the job done.
Something needs to give: non-combatant civilians are dying; Syria said they will use chemical weapons; the regions ecocomies are paralyzed (to name only a few reasons).
Stop talking about what to do. Send an aircraft carrier to the region and get it done!
@12: Can’t agree at this point. I’m not convinced this administration has thought out precisely what it’s trying to accomplish in the first place. And they damn sure haven’t made the case for what they’re trying to do to either Congress or the US public.
IMO Clausewitz said it best: “No one starts a war – or rather, no one in his sense ought to do so – without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by the war and how he intends to conduct it.” We may know the latter, but I’m not yet convinced we’ve determined the former.
Sorry 12 was me!
I know the WH is having trouble with basic decisions: like mocca latte vise decaf green tea. But I have to believe (know) they are geeting the best counsel military and intel advisors.
MCPO–they’re getting it, they’re just not USING it.
Face it, if you’re going to listen to Valerie Jarrett over the Joint Chiefs, epic fail is going to be a way of life.
ALCON above … I agree.
NHSparky: Off the NH now to see my wife’s parents and cousins … Grantham is beautiful county … we go up 4 or 5 times a year!
I never thought I would say this, but this is a job for diplomats and politicians. The POTUS will do whatever he thinks will play best with the voting public, but all I’m comfortable sending into a civil war is words. We gain nothing here, and if we’re justifying our involvement on the deaths of noncombatants then there is plenty of other globe available for meddling.
“I’m not convinced this administration has thought out precisely what it’s trying to accomplish in the first place.” Much like Libya and Egypt.
” We gain nothing here, and if we’re justifying our involvement on the deaths of noncombatants then there is plenty of other globe available for meddling.” Yeah, Chicago needs “meddling” and it’s a lot closer. Oh, that’s right, Rahm is employing the Muslim Brotherhood, er, Nation of Islam. I agree, we gain nothing in Syria.
this is a job for diplomats and politicians
Unfortunately, this administration seems to be woefully short on both counts, but they’re loaded with hacks.
I fear the worst and my only instinct is to have some kind of skin in the game at this late date. We should not hand it all over to al-Qaida or Iran’s possible surrogates or for that matter both. But then who knows? It may be too late already.
[…] We Get from the Syrian Opposition September 18th, 2012 I’ve written a few times before (here, here, and here) on events in Syria. BLUF: I think we’re making a serious mistake in […]