With President Obama winning reelection and the conflict in Syria remaining the stalemate that it is, the administration is reportedly re-examining its options for involvement in the bloody war.
But all of the elements that made the Obama administration express reluctance to engage in direct military action in Syria, or to directly send heavy armaments to Syrian rebels, continue to prevail.
The administration and the US military leadership explicitly denounced the viability of direct military action in Syria, going back many months before the election. Aside from the public’s aversion to another land war in the Middle East, officials openly admitted military action would worsen the situation.
The sectarian nature of the conflict in Syria brings back very fresh memories of the power vacuum and subsequent descent into chaos that broke out in Iraq. Furthermore, the opposition has elements of extremism and even al-Qaeda in it, and there’s no viable organized opposition for anyone to support.
Half measures like imposing a no-fly zone would also worsen the situation, given Assad’s considerable anti-aircraft capabilities, which are located in urban areas, putting more civilians at risk if the US were to try to take them out. This is also likely to expand the conflict outside Syria’s borders, something even war planners aren’t willing to risk.
The other option most often proposed by advocates of increased involvement is arming the Syrian rebels. So far, the administration has claimed it only provides non-lethal aid, while facilitating the delivery of some light weapons from allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.
All along, they claimed they had a proper vetting process which allowed them to pick and choose which of Syria’s disparate, unorganized rebel groups would receive the assistance, and avoid the thousands of jihadist fighters, many of whom are fighting under the banner of al-Qaeda. But this was a farce.
In October, the New York Times published an article confirming that “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists.”
The irony of all this was pointed out boldly by renowned Middle East journalist Robert Fisk not long ago. “President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, say they want a democracy in Syria,” Fisk wrote. “But Qatar is an autocracy and Saudi Arabia is among the most pernicious of caliphate-kingly-dictatorships in the Arab world.”
“Rulers of both states inherit power from their families – just as Bashar has done – and Saudi Arabia is an ally of the Salafist-Wahabi rebels in Syria, just as it was the most fervent supporter of the medieval Taliban during Afghanistan’s dark ages,” he added.
Washington has long had its sights on regime change in Syria. But greater involvement at this time is patently unworkable, in addition to being without legal justification.
The Obama administration has used UN Security Council vetoes from Russia and China as an excuse to stay out of Syria militarily. But if Washington wanted to intervene, if they thought war was a viable option, they would have disregarded the Security Council from the beginning.
Whatever re-examining is going on regarding Syria policy, the administration ought to be thinking about stopping the limited intervention it is already engaging in. Support for the rebels has legitimized them, helping to fuel continuing violence and fortify the stalemate.
The latest news is that French is the first European government recognizing the new built exile government by the decadent Syrians living in Europe and elswhere,. Now Syria once was the French colony, by recognizing this new "government" with no where or no one to govern is that means that French social democrats want their past colony back…, or it means that, as before and during the Yugoslavia war, the very same right wing from and within this social political entity of vulture capitalism that also called social democracy is again showing its real face, wanting to have no less then becoming the new European empire. Although there is a communist and maybe some other left wing within this new "government" without any legitimacy to govern anything.., but what has given to them by those who themselves lacking the legitimacy in being or able to govern their country, as Qatari, the Saudis, the European economic and social problems forcing these "government" to use all kind of non dsocial democratic measures to silence their own people, or even forcing people to take their life for what in reality is a vulture capitalism agendas yet using the name social democracy as a cover.., to get what they want. So what is different between zarkozi the french neo liberal fascism and Mr. Holland, what is different between Angella Markell true vulture capitalism economic policy toward European nations then USA wanting to be the dominator of the world economy.., absolutely nothing, theses people would do anything to keep the Europe as it is, a broken Europe with no legitimate idea how to solve their economic problem yet wanting for their colonialism to be restablished.
Glaser…you just don't seem to 'get it'… Don't worry, you are with what seems to be the vast majority of the "American People" here–which is driving me insane, because I don't understand why/what is complicated about this, as I would expect a 5 year-old to pick up on what is going on, since the "Administration" and its associated lackeys aren't all too 'swift' with the deception here from my perspective…
A few basic points (I could go on forever, but the likely end result of non-registration would be the same) :
1. The claim: "if Washington wanted to intervene, if they thought war was a viable option, they would have disregarded the Security Council from the beginning" is flawed for several reasons…
a) Washington does want to "intervene"–as they already are "intervening"
b) The Obama Administration wants to circumvent the US Congress–this is why they wanted a UN Resolution to work with, and did not simply "ignore" the "Security Council"… I'm guessing they have given up on this for all intents and purposes (unless they are retarded), and will most likely go the NATO protocol route if the decision to directly intervene militarily in Syria is ultimately made (which looks more likely than not at this point in time)
c) Obama clearly didn't want to get heavily involved in this prior to the Election…this was a timing issue. Today is a brand 'new' day…the fundamentals have completely changed, and things seem to be moving very quickly–keep in mind the elections were just last week if you recall
2. You may have noticed this: there is excessive amount of double talk and obvious unreality associated with all the "official" 'claims' surrounding Syria. For example: Mr. Pannetta has described direct military involvement in Syria (even a 'limited' "no-fly zone") as a "major policy decision"; however, 'we' commoners–if taking the crap that is 'officially' "said" by the Administration day after day at face value–'we' are expected to believe the Ooopa Loopa Syrian "rebels"
http://media.commercialappeal.com/media/img/photo…
can accomplish something on their own which would, allegedly, challenge the US Military. This defies all logic and common sense. This absurdity seems self-evident to me.
3. Following up on point # 2: everything that is "said" and done by Administration officials, and 'officials' of associated so-called "Allies", and even Syrian 'Officials' and 'Officials of their allies, are not what they appear to be, and should not/cannot be taken at face value. All of this is a 'game' (it would take longer to explain my meaning with this, but I think this is one of the key fundamentals, if not the most important, to keep in mind)…. I think the best way to be clued into what is actually going on here is to focus on 'actions' rather than "words"…although information can be gained from "words", it's not from the literal sense of what is being said…
But hey…you don't have to listen to me here….
Since you (Glaser), along with many others, seem stuck on what General Dempsey "said" several months ago (and what he, and other 'Officials' "say" in general), I think it would be wise to take the General's own guidance…
The following is a direct quote spoken by General Dempsey–taken strait from "The Independent" article you continuously cite (he is referring to Iran in this particular instance; however, this 'guidance' interestingly most aptly applies to himself, and all associated "Officials" in these 'kinds' of situation, from my perspective):
"They are saying all the right things, but then you have to look at their actions. We know they are involved inside Syria, they are involved in…militias. So we have to examine their real motives."
–General Martin Dempsey (8/31/2012)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/…
Just listen to the General…since his 'word' seems to be interpreted as some sort of 'divine wisdom' and key to all of this…
I agree with Ben_C. It's ridiculous to believe that the US ruling elites don't want to attack Syria.
They have MASSIVE REASONS to do so!
1) It will damage Iran.
2) It will remove Syria (and eventually Hizballah) as effective actors in an Iran war.
3) It will enable Israel to have a "cheap war" as Iran would be the only enemy capable of firing missiles at it.
4) It will be PROFITABLE – just think of all those bombs and planes that will have to be replaced before the Iran war can start.
5) It will help Israel in general because Israel wants ALL the countries in the Middle East fractured and in chaos.
Anyone who thinks Obama doesn't have his marching orders on Syria is a fool.
As for the notion that Obama used the Russian/Chinese vetos as an "excuse" note that Obama REPEATEDLY put Chapter 7 language in the draft resolutions. If they didn't want a Syrian intervention, they wouldn't have put such language in at all. Saying they used the vetoes as an excuse is interpreting the events bass-ackwards…
We can only hope Russia and China and others finnaly show America and Israel they will not take no more.It could lead to WW3 but it's better to go down fighting than wimpering.I don't think America and Allies after over 10 years of illegal war can win against Russia China,Pakistan,North Korea the enitre Mid East and many more.The world is sick of these illegal wars mostly for Israel were Americans not Israelies fight and die.Not just American Canadians Eroupeans all muder and get murderd for Israel.It's SICKNING.