When it comes to Syria the Obama administration is in a no-win situation, but it is partly a no-win situation of there own making.
If Obama fails to intervene and Assad defeats the rebels this will be a victory for the Iranian bloc, including Hezbollah, and a true defeat for both the Syrian people and for any confidence that anyone could have in Obama's ability to influence events.
On the other hand if Obama does intervene militarily this will be handing Syria over to the Muslim Brotherhood backed groups that are a major part of the rebels.
Either way the administration loses and the Syrian lose.
What he should have done was back the secular moderates from the beginning, but just as in Egypt they were ignored or pushed to the side.
So here’s the situation: Obama has painted himself into a corner regarding a two-year-long civil war in which more than 70,000 people have been killed. He understandably doesn’t want to intervene and now a new element is added. For finally his government came to the realization that the forces it has been backing are radical Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood and even more extreme Salafist groups. The moderates were neglected, even rudely shoved aside. And now it is too late – though official policy pretends otherwise – to boost the moderate rebels.
We know that there are secular moderates in Egypt because they were throwing shoes at Hillary Clinton's motorcade.
In Syria? Ya got me, but Barry Rubin seems to think so.
As Brian of London on Isreallycool notes, all Israel has done is fulfill the legal requirements accorded it un UNSC-1701 which states Israel can operate to enforce
– no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its Government;
I did see this, from Tariq Alhomayed the former EiC of Asharq Al-Awsat which notes almost sardonically, if Israel can do what it did so efficiently to Iranian missile shipments in Syria then it is simply a lie and a failure that the so called red lines mean anything and that the west (by the way just like the Arab world) is mouthing platitudes and they truly don't care what happens in Syria. In short the west could topple Assad almost at will if they wanted to.
http://www.aawsat.net/2013/05/article55300816
Pushing aside his hardcore Saudi credentials and the fact that he uses a mythology of a 'weak' Israel to demonstrate that Assad is even weaker it's fairly obvious that the US could get rid of the Assad regime in about 3 days. Can he be harder to remove than Manuel Noreiga? I don't think so. In fact I lobbied years ago for a study that would demonstrate that a force about the size of a low end Marine MEF (Marine Expeditionary Force) or even something smaller like an MEB (Marine Expeditionary Brigade) could probably crush Hezbollah for forever in 4 weeks. What stops anyone from doing that is pure politics.
When it comes to Syria the Obama administration is in a no-win situation, but it is partly a no-win situation of there own making.
ReplyDeleteIf Obama fails to intervene and Assad defeats the rebels this will be a victory for the Iranian bloc, including Hezbollah, and a true defeat for both the Syrian people and for any confidence that anyone could have in Obama's ability to influence events.
On the other hand if Obama does intervene militarily this will be handing Syria over to the Muslim Brotherhood backed groups that are a major part of the rebels.
Either way the administration loses and the Syrian lose.
What he should have done was back the secular moderates from the beginning, but just as in Egypt they were ignored or pushed to the side.
Secular moderates? All 3 of them? ;)
ReplyDeleteI don't know. Maybe.
DeleteThis is what Dr. Rubin says:
So here’s the situation: Obama has painted himself into a corner regarding a two-year-long civil war in which more than 70,000 people have been killed. He understandably doesn’t want to intervene and now a new element is added. For finally his government came to the realization that the forces it has been backing are radical Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood and even more extreme Salafist groups. The moderates were neglected, even rudely shoved aside. And now it is too late – though official policy pretends otherwise – to boost the moderate rebels.
We know that there are secular moderates in Egypt because they were throwing shoes at Hillary Clinton's motorcade.
In Syria? Ya got me, but Barry Rubin seems to think so.
As Brian of London on Isreallycool notes, all Israel has done is fulfill the legal requirements accorded it un UNSC-1701 which states Israel can operate to enforce
ReplyDelete– no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its Government;
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701
Section 8, sub item 5
I did see this, from Tariq Alhomayed the former EiC of Asharq Al-Awsat which notes almost sardonically, if Israel can do what it did so efficiently to Iranian missile shipments in Syria then it is simply a lie and a failure that the so called red lines mean anything and that the west (by the way just like the Arab world) is mouthing platitudes and they truly don't care what happens in Syria. In short the west could topple Assad almost at will if they wanted to.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aawsat.net/2013/05/article55300816
Pushing aside his hardcore Saudi credentials and the fact that he uses a mythology of a 'weak' Israel to demonstrate that Assad is even weaker it's fairly obvious that the US could get rid of the Assad regime in about 3 days. Can he be harder to remove than Manuel Noreiga? I don't think so. In fact I lobbied years ago for a study that would demonstrate that a force about the size of a low end Marine MEF (Marine Expeditionary Force) or even something smaller like an MEB (Marine Expeditionary Brigade) could probably crush Hezbollah for forever in 4 weeks. What stops anyone from doing that is pure politics.