Assad should NOT go.

One reason involves a pragmatic recognition of reality, in that Assad’s departure is simply beyond the ability of the United States or any player inside Syria to bring about any time soon (barring a full-scale U.S. military intervention, which would be folly for a host of other reasons). There are soft and brittle parts in this regime, but it would be useful to recall how many predictions of the regime’s demise since the Syrian war began have proven to be wrong.

A second reason is that in most conflicts it would be a prescription for failure, and/or for embarking on an incredibly costly enterprise, to take on simultaneously two different antagonists who are fighting against each other. Think about what World War II in Europe would be like if the United States had tried to take on Nazi Germany and the Stalinist USSR at the same time.  Pillar

***************

 "A third reason is that collapse of the current Syria regime under the pressure of war could easily mean the loss of the only structure separating Syria from anarchy that would be even worse than what exists there now. We should have learned some lessons in this regard from what happened in de-Baathicized Iraq and what is still happening today in Libya.

In recent months the Obama administration appears to have accepted an understanding of these realities and talks less than it did earlier about the ouster of Assad as a policy priority. Because of that, it has been criticized by some other governments in the region who have different priorities.

The United States needs to consider its own interests in setting its own priorities rather than bowing to the priorities of others. "  Pillar

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

 Paul Pillar is right in all of that, but as we know well on SST, he is still swimming against the tide of deep inner yearnings of the Obamanites and the Ziocons who continue to have great influence in US foreign policy.   Their influence is so great that a forthright statement that America should look to its interests first will probably have a significant price tag for Pillar.

The tyranny of special interest domination of the media continues to dictate the narrative for the self serving ideologues and careerists who are powerful players in the big game.  That narrative requires absolute condemnation of the Syrian government and the continuous application of crude but effective propaganda techniques that reek of big money applied to US PR companies.

Among the most egregious features of the PR campaign is the theme that declares that the Syrian Government and Assad personally are responsible for the existence and rise of the jihadi factions (Nusra and IS).  The supposed logic in this claim insists that if Assad had resigned at the very beginning of the civil war in Syria, he would have been succeeded by an administration of enlightened Westernized liberals who would have presided over a secular Syria friendly to Israel.    

This is an interesting argument.  One of the things it demonstrates is the inability of the Ziocons and the Obamanites to learn from experience.  Egypt, Iraq, Libya, these are  all examples of Arab states that failed when "summoned" to exactly the same kind of unrealistic projects of transformation. Tunisia is an exception so far but the balance now existing has been very difficult to reach.  How long will the Tunisian success last?

Are heads of state and government to be condemned for not surrendering to rebels and foreign enemies?  Such surrenders might prevent death and destruction. Should Lincoln have accepted Southern secession?  Should FDR have accepted the Japanese attack in Hawaii and sought peace with the attackers?  Should the French government have accepted the German invasion in WW I?

Any and all  of these "policy  decisions" would have saved life and property?  pl  

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/02/05/why-syrias-assad-must-not-go-yet/ 

Comments

[The Beaver]

All

Interesting interview of Assad by the BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31311896

Q: Let's talk about American attitudes. Your departure from office is still the official American policy, but there are signs that they are softening... Do you believe that you are now being seen as part of the solution?

A: First of all, we don't breathe through the Americans, we only breathe through our citizens. That's how we breathe, this is first. So it's not a lifeline for us.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31311895