"U.S. intervention in Syria appears unlikely, say officials" Washpost

"... the Obama administration is resisting scattered calls in Europe and from the Free Syrian Army rebels to provide weapons and to establish an internationally protected humanitarian corridor or a buffer zone for displaced Syrians inside their country. “The bottom line is that [such protected areas] would necessitate a no-fly zone,” a second administration official said. No humanitarian organization would enter Syria without guaranteed protection from air attacks and, the official said, “that would require taking out Syrian air defenses. This is a very slippery slope.” "  Washpost

-------------------------------

Who are these officials?  NSC staffers?  I think that the US  government will face a great crisis after the November election.  Will a vctorious BHO decide to deliver maximum lethal and non-lethat aid to the jihadi rebels?  Will Romney the First press BHO to do this in his remaining months in office?  You tell me.  pl

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-intervention-in-syria-appears-unlikely-say-officials/2012/09/02/c1cd4e9a-f2bb-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_story.html

Comments

[E L]

OK. Colonel, you asked for a guess. So.... BHO will do what he did in Libya if asked by NATO and approved by US military staff, most importantly Gen. Dempsey. Romney will consult Bibi and his Neocons advisors who will advise US to lead an assault to implant an anti-Iran régime... never mind their great "success" in Iraq.

[par4]

The U.S. government is not going to ignore Russia's and China's vetoes in the Security Council. Assad will remain in power for now and Hillary can run around bitching and moaning.(About all she is good for.) O/T Col.Lang: Any thoughts on the proposed Pacific pivot if it entails arming Hanoi to irritate the Chinese?

[turcopolier]

par4

"You can't have too many friends on a battlefield." So long as I don't have to eat VN food anymore I would be favorably disposed. pl

[Mongoose]

Well, if Romney wins, Condi's speech at the RNC indicated where the GOP would go in foreign policy--a continuation or perhaps an intensification of the failed policies of W. A "just" settlement of most outstanding issues in the region doesn't start on the "Road to Damascus" anymore than the silly argument that peace in Jerusalem started on the road to Baghdad. (For the sake of argument I'm assuming a reasonably 'just' settlement could be effected--not that I believe it realistic). And add to that all the "ignorant morons" in Israel and the U.S. who want to go after Iran! The "tail" (Israel) will "wag the dog" (the U.S.) even more than under Obama with Romney as President.

As for Obama's foreign policy, errrrr, I mean ad hoc reactions to overseas developments, who knows? Is there some kind of grand "strategery" lurking there in terms of national security that escapes my midwestern parochialism? I'm skeptical. I much admire General Dempsey's willingness to bow his neck and stiffen his spine in public--but my question is this: is Dempsey stating Obama's views or, and this is pure speculation on my part, is he trying to stiffen Obama's spine when it comes to U.S. national interests in the region? Regardless of who wins in November, U.S. foreign policy will apparently rarely coincide with U.S. interests.

[Mongoose]

Almost forgot--props for the Rothko.

[mbrenner]

There is strong reason to expect that neither Obama nor Romney will 'act' belligerently. Since we have no strategic conception of our interests in the Middle East, along with no understanding how the fragmented developments in the region interact, there is no logic as such pointing to risky intervention. To the question: how and to what end? there is no answer possible when the thinking is so inchoate.

That leaves impulse and personality. Neither of our esteemed candidates is a risk-taker or particularly corageous. Audacious ambition does not make one brave. Obama clearly prefers muscle flexing where damage limitation is readily available. That is true even in Afghanistan - not to speak of the 21 other places where he, and we, are playing cowboys and Indians. A Syrian intervention would be very serious, very messy, and very unpredictable. That is not his cup of tea, nor Romney's.

[turcopolier]

mbrenner

I think you are right. IMO BHO is follwing a path in which he is tryng to use un-war and near war to fulfill his ambition of re-shaping history. pl

[Phil Cattar]

However IMO it will not work.Obama and perhaps Romney will be forced to react.Obama is not an alpha male.He is a counter puncher .Something unexpected will happen or things will simply continually drift into a situation where we as a country will be forced to act to protect our own interests.We do not live in a vacuum...There are other serious players in this play.Russia,Iran,Israel,Turkey the Gulf States etc.Chances are something dramatic will occur ie. an assassination(an Arabic word),Turkey invading Syria,Israel attacking Iran that will scramble the pieces on the chess board and force the US to get in. .

[Bill H]

"He [Obama] is a counter puncher." More, I think, a practicioner of footwork and fancy jabs.

[Alba Etie]

Col Lang
I believe that BHO will be re-elected . I also believe that General Dempsey is speaking for BHO re the ziocons . And not only has BHO refused to be swayed by AIPAC I also believe that the Wilsonians & neocons in BHO's cabinet re HRC, have for less influence then is thought . I also believe that BHO is more then just a counter puncher. During the debates in 2008 -he said he would go to Pakistan and kill the Shiekh if he had the opportunity .
Having said what I believe regarding BHO - I also believe he is still captived to the Wall Street thieves among many other short comings -and that his Attorney General Eric Holder still wants to be in my gun safe taking inventory for later seizures.

[William R. Cumming]

Agree with Phil Cattar!

[Phil Cattar]

Good Point! But you can be both,a counter puncher and a practicioner of footwork and fancy jabs.They are not mutually exclusive......Basically he wants to win the fight by being smooth,by thinking,being cerebral and using diplomacy.He wants to win without taking a chance of getting his nose blooded.But Putin and Netanyahu know how to fight AND think.Obama might fall into the trap of being too clever by half........We shsll see

[confusedponderer]

I think Putin fights because he thinks he has to. He is probably correct in thinking that he has to fight, be it only to defend Russia from what can be fairly described as routine American overreach and double-cross (if anybody recalls NATO expansion, or for instance the rather recent Libya resolution). And yes, Putin knows Judo.

Netanyahu is a different animal entirely. He has declared publicly that the US is something that is easily moved, i.e. he thinks he can play the US and play Obama, not at last because of Israel's powerful fifth column and the massive pressure they can generate. The Israelis lost face on the Iran issue with their constant sabre-rattering, hoping to have the US fight a war the Likudniks want but cannot fight themselves. That suggests to me that certainly Bibi is too clever by half, and that Obama called his bluff. Bibi's loss of face is a completely self-inflicted wound.

The Likudniks, being what they are, will now probably try to restore that lost face and regain their tough guy image by beating up someone weaker than Iran.