« Culture and US Army Professional Military Education | Main | "Afghanistan The Death of a Strategy" Cordesman »

27 February 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dan Gackle

Just ran across this and was a little surprised at Hillary taking this position:

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday warned against the United States arming rebels in Syria. [...] Clinton poured cold water on such action. "We really don't know who it is that would be armed," the top US diplomat told CBS News during a visit to Morocco, as she noted that Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has expressed support for the Syrian rebels. "Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?" she said. "Hamas is now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria?"



Col: I wonder what a fair election in Syria would produce? Is it Syria's fate to have an illegitimate government fighting an even more illegitimate opposition?

I am reminded of a comment that my wife's late Palestinian Christian uncle made to me in Amman years ago: The Sunnis treated the Alawi women like prostitutes.

As you said in your piece, we Americans don't do the back-story well.


Who are the rebels? PL

If this has any relevance, then here are some of the instigators!

France opens negotiations with Syria to recover its 18 agents



By Col. W. Patrick Lang

Perhaps we have not learned because we imagine that their biliefs will soon disappear as a product of "globalization?"

Col, is that a symptom of the consumer mind set?

The public, will always buy into the next new and improved war (Back of the new cereal box.). Should the question be, how are we to educate the general public as to not fall for the next? If the public has no stake into the pain of the war, they will always buy into it, it is harmless (Hollywood movie). Unless and until, the US public pays for the war with their own blood and treasure (not just the few), there will be more.

They will always buy into “they will stand by on the street and greet us with flowers” or some such notions.

Charles I

Paul Easton says do so - but not directly - because of Responsibility to Protect as well as it would be a tactical blow against Iran.

The latter is explicitly discounted as a vital US national interest, the former not.

Basically Libya, sure harder facts all around, but lets go.

Not a mention of a potential Lebanon, just expanding protected areas, gradually armed to regime change capability; we'll ask the Turks or somebody to identify who is who for us during and later.

It'd be nice if there was somebody in charge, a unitary rebel command to address, but "a distributed, geographic focus would not be debilitating to the deployment of US logistic, political and diplomatic support."

Regional protected ammo dumps going to the most er, charismatic, locals to fight outward to expand protection sounds like winner. Don't the Syrians have an air force? He doesn't say who's gonna knock them down whilst we set up camp, or how much ransom we'll pay for every manpad pointable at the IAF goes missing. All in the details I suppose

No mention that latent in his position, aside from R2P, is Syrian civil war, further war and regime change in Iran.

No mention of who would fight that war, or how.

But a Syria op will foster long term regional stability by achieving negative consequences for a state that's condition not vital to US.

I see.

William R. Cumming

Is Syria anyway like Spain 1936-37? Outside nation-states wanting a certain outcome? Or just a war of religion? Or something else?



All of that. pl

William R. Cumming

Thanks PL!

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad