US officials are expressing sentiments similar to other analysts that in recent weeks, the Syrian government’s momentum has waned, and that President Assad faces even more risk from the assorted rebels.
The big surprise, however, is the admission from officials that Assad’s loss means gains for ISIS and al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, the two largest rebel factions, and that they will be the primary beneficiaries of a fading Assad.
US officials have often tried to present the war on ISIS and the war for regime change in Syria as separate things, and have insisted they could work simultaneously to undermine both Assad and ISIS.
In reality, the US simply doesn’t have any meaningful allies left in Syria, and they’re desperate to the point of trying to create a new rebel faction just so they have someone to back.
And despite admitting a huge problem with their current strategy, Gen. Martin Dempsey insists US policy toward Syria won’t change, and they’ll remain hostile to both ISIS and Assad at the same time.
Every slightest success re-ignites neocon triumphalism.
Fighting goes back and forth. It isn't all one way. Yet every fluctuation in their favor gets the neocons announcing victory all over again like they are on a carrier with Bush.
That's what the US establishment really wants anyway.
Pepe Escobar has called the US "The Empire of Chaos." It doesn't matter to the war dogs in DC who wins as long as they keep fighting. Gen. Dempsey admits the strategy is wrong but it won't change. Sounds like Vietnam, although Washington has figured out how to keep the slaughter going without US soldiers getting killed.
Not to mention controlling the flow of information, despite the global reach of the internet and a ready supply of bloggers and such. This they learned from Vietnam where the uncontrolled access to the battlefield by capable press (something there is a lack of today) facilitated the end of the US involvement by creating very bad optics for the politicians and military when nasty stuff started getting published. Today, nearly all of the nasty stuff is squelched…and the American people don't seem to be bothered by it when it does slip through the censors.
"This they learned from Vietnam where the uncontrolled access to the battlefield by capable press"
They learned the wrong lesson. They looked at WW2, and saw that it could not have been fought as it was if we'd allowed the same press we'd allowed in Vietnam.
They were right, but what they didn't see was that it might well have been fought better for the extra scrutiny. As an example in the Pacific War, Tarawa could not have been followed by the bloodbath of Pelileu and some others that followed. As with WW1, going in the same way again was only possible by hiding what was going on. There were other choices, and sometimes we made them. We could have done more of that other.
Been true since the beginning of the Saudi financed "uprising" in Syria.
The US government (and people) should be "objectively pro Bashar Assad" with respect to Syria.
His government (no more a 'regime' than another other state) requires no US taxpayer aid and its legal system no worse than any of its neighbors. Its most serious armed foes are both terroristic and barbaric, far worse than Assad's own forces.
While ruthless authoritarian leaders like Assad are no angels, he is arguably no worse than anyone else in the neighborhood. Far better at keeping ethic peace, as was the late Saddam Hussein.
Since the Middle East is largely made up of artificial post colonial "states" of widely varying sects and peoples, non sectarian dictatorship appears to work fairly well in keeping the peace and minimizing bloodshed. Not perfect of course. Even "democratic" Israel is highly sectarian and biased against disfavored ethnic groups, and a proven violator of human rights.
Leave Assad be. It is the Syrian rebels who have created chaos there. Some may be sincere and well intentioned, but the movement has been hijacked by ISIS and similar.
It's no longer the question of: from which university your diploma in politics/diplomacy is issued, but rather, where is your brain when yo make a diplomatic decision. In usg case regarding Syria and Libya it seams that people in charge have lost their brains along the way, but keep pointing at there diploma.