Tony Badran, Tablet: What the United States Is Really Doing in Syria
Tag-teaming with Russia and dumping regional allies and NATO, the White House tells the rest of the world to go take a hike.
Whether they support or oppose it, most observers converge on viewing President Barack Obama’s Syria policy as generally marked by passive detachment. After all, the president ignored the recommendations of many of his cabinet members and close advisers to arm Syrian rebels in 2012, or to enforce his “red line” against the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons to massacre civilians. Worried about being sucked into another Middle Eastern War—one that would pit the United States against one of Iran’s key allies in the region—Obama said no. Whatever happens in Syria can hardly be America’s fault, when we tried our hardest to stay out of the entire mess, right?
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Tony Badran gives the White House far more credibility than what they deserve. I do not see a master U.S. plan in action .... what I see is an administration that does not want to get involved in another major Middle Eastern war, avoid all the hard decisions, and try their best to hand this mess to the next administration .... and let them pay the political price for what may transpire.
6 comments:
Thats Obamas legacy, weakness... If he had enforced his "red line" he could of used military strikes to weaken assads war machine and pressured him the negotionating table and forced a ceasefire way before russia entered the mix... In a way he should bare some blame for the hundreds of thousands of people killed in that war thus far...
Maybe he should look to Kadyrov for some guidance.
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/russian-spetsnaz-infiltrates-isis-and-targets-airstrikes-among-their-ranks-video/ri13140
Badran is totally wrong.
The WH was (illegally) arming anti-Syria forces in 2012. That's why Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi on Sep 11, 2012 when he was killed.'
Obama didn't enforce his "red line" first because he had no authority to do so, but mainly because there is no evidence that Syria used chemical weapons. Even the CIA never backed that crazy claim. Also General Dempsey was against air strikes b/c Syria had string air defenses. In fact the "red line" was used by others (probably Turkey) to involve the US, and it didn't work.
The master US plan, which Washington continually thought would work b/c the highly qualified (heh) Sec of State H. Clinton was in charge of it has been and still is to weaken Syria because (as with Iraq) that's what Israel wants. Syria is an ally of Iran, and a conduit to Hezbollah which Washington has dutifully labeled "terrorists" on Israel's orders.
The US ought to be hauled before the UNSC as aggressors in Syria for what it is "really doing,", but of course that will never happen. Meanwhile Russia has struck a blow for the UN Charter.
Don has this nailed,
This whole narrative of "they just don't know what they are doing" is completely belied by the evidence.
Once again, a swing and a miss,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
Post a Comment