The “official” positions of myriad Western nations on the Syrian Civil War have been demands for the unconditional surrender of the Assad government. This has been the US position as recently as a few days ago, when the State Department reported US and British officials met and agreed Assad has to go.
But they seem to be getting flexible on that matter suddenly, with British Premier David Cameron now reportedly in favor of keeping Assad in power for the sake of forming a “unity government,” which is the exact same Russian plan that the US and Britain have been repudiating for months.
US officials, after spending the past couple of weeks railing at Russia for still being on board with this plan, today report that Secretary of State John Kerry met with Russian FM Sergey Lavrov to discuss a “political transition” which US officials were insisting just days prior was totally impossible.
It’s unclear where this sudden momentum is coming from, but the UN has been working at getting some local ceasefires in place, and a deal whereby secular rebels would get on board with a power-sharing deal and President Assad would remain in some form seem to have found respectability anew as officials head to the UN General Assembly.
It may reflect the worsening of the war prospects of the secular rebels, or the virtual lack of “pro-US” rebels who didn’t turn out to be in that program simply to loot the weapons and give them to al-Qaeda, but as ISIS continues to grow, this sudden shift suggests a deal could finally be possible.
The question then becomes if it is “too late.” ISIS has held over half of Syria since late spring, and al-Qaeda is also growing in power in the north. The secular rebels, barely existent at this point, are unlikely to significantly bolster the Assad government, and that government’s ability to fend off defeat after defeat is in increasing question.
i'm hoping someone, somewhere announces that obama has lost
all legitimacy, and has to go….and furthermore, they will be setting
up training camps in mexico and canada to train teaparty rebels.
I guess the liberals were right and teabaggers really are a pack of America-hating traitors.
How Obama can claim that Assad is uniquely evil is just beyond me. If Obama faced a vicious, violent rebellion, I guarantee that Obama would lay waste to American "rebels." And plenty of civilians would be "collateral damage."
Wondering if this is one of those things where this side picked up descriptors it shouldn't: When I see 'allow' in this the context of a Usraeli/'Western' regime-change-op, I'm really hearing something like 'deign.' That is, a bunch of scumbags are being-magnanimous in letting someone be… …should we really go along with them saying they'll 'allow' something? Well I won't …I even want a damn apology for arming terrorists in Syria. Oh, and regime changes all around for those who did go along.
And what choice does Syria; not Assad who did not start this war; but the peoples of Syria still remaining have but to do as told or get your ass blown away. Hell you will do whatever your fn abuser tells you to do for fear of his getting pissed off and becoming even more cruel and viscious than before.
US fu**ed a whole nation into oblivion and did it just for militRy prCtice and show ME and world not to get US pissed.
It cost them nothing , their criminal acts and barbaric actions will never be punished, they are lauded for the blood they spill and the fortunes they dispurse stolen from foreign peoples.
Nah Syria once they open doors to negotiations they admit they are whipped, just as Iran recently did.
Oh he people left in Syria will no longer be Syrians but small tribal groupings each to wrak to refuse any controls imposed upon them byforeign masters. ON E ASSAD SITS AT TABLE HE WILL BE DICKERING TO SAVE HIS AND A FEW CRONIES DICKS WHILE THE POPULACE GETS TRAMPLED UPON AS IF NON HUMAN.
Assad needs to be kept so as to force Putin to bog himself down in Syria. He claims he's defending Assad, so Assad has to be kept.
Obama will due everything to save his face even when he is blasting Russia engagement to bring peace by destroying Isis. These, what is called, world powers have lost their legitimacy when they supported the Saudis and Qatari state sponsored terrorism to Syria and Libya, they lost their legitimacy when Nicolas Sarkozi, David Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, Turkish Erdogan regime, Angela Markel, that Swedish monarchist far right political party bet on regime change in Syria. The only legitimate government on the ground fighting these barbarians are Syrian people, Kurdish PKK, Iranian and other Kurdish fighters; therefore they are one with all the legal legitimacy rights defending Syria, not the USG nor the English David Cameron nor that Swedish far right monarch party or the Swedish King have any rights whatsoever to suggest for the Syrian legitimate government, nor for Syrian people that are fighting these barbarians, state sponsored barbarism by Saudis and Quatari self proclaimed king and queen.
As the Russians have explained, the agreement they all signed in 2012 did NOT mention removal of Assad, but the F/UK/US gang have insisted on this up to now, despite it being the worst way of fighting IS.Will the gang actually listen to Russian sensible policies, or is Putin still "more dangerous than ISIS and ebola", to quote Obama.
A takeoff from Hamlet. The choice for Western governments now is "to Assad or not to Assad that is the question". GB has chosen "to Assad" at least for now. The French, who desperately want to regain their completely destroyed influence in Syria which they once ruled have chosen "not to Assad". It is totally within the world of modern socialist leaders to start bombing in other countries which the French bastard-socialist Hollande is now doing. It is no wonder that ISIL propaganda trumpets that the bombings of US, UK, and now France are a modern form of a Christian crusade to destroy Islam.