Fmr. secretary of state Condi Rice had this to say regarding the generally escalating situation in Syria and specifically the continued reign of Bashar-al Assad as president.......
“There’s no doubt it’s time for the United States to make clear that it is going to engage in this effort to stop the difficult situation in Syria and to prevent its further spread,” she stated. “It’s already spreading across the region. So the United States doesn’t have an option of no action.”
We don't know who the opposition is in Syria. Are they Al-Qaeda? Muslim Brotherhood? Taliban sympathizers? Idiots?
We have no idea who will fill the power vacuum left by a hasty Assad exit into exile in Russia or somewhere. My guess is she's reacting to rumors, though unconfirmed, of chemical weapons being deployed on a limited basis against rebel forces, and that's a nice thought to have, but we don't know what the end-game is here. Do we occupy Syria to stop the chemical weapons use? What then, another 10 year occupation like Iraq and Afghanistan?
Condi is a Bush neo-conservative and neo-cons like to intervene, on a self-righteous combination of moral, ethical, and humanitarian reasons, into the affairs of other countries. Affairs which our media find unpleasant. We are spread far too thin as it is. We do not need another middle-east quagmire, even if Assad is using chemical weapons, albeit on a limited basis. Let his neighbors deal with him.
4 comments:
I say give war a chance. Intervening most often just prolongs the inevitable and ties us up in the mess. I see no positive for the US by intervening.
I know. As unpleasant as chemical weapons use is, thousands of dead Americans and trillions of dollars spent over the next ten years "securing democracy" in Syria is a fools errand.
It is just Syria's turn, they are next in line, pure and simple. Iran's turn comes later - if the inmates continue to control the asylum.
"...the former four-star general (Wesley Clark) recalls two visits to the Pentagon following the terrorist attacks of September 2001. On the first visit, less than two weeks after Sept. 11, he writes, a 'senior general' told him, 'We’re going to attack Iraq. The decision has basically been made.'
Six weeks later, Clark returned to Washington to see the same general and inquired whether the plan to strike Iraq was still under consideration. The general’s response was stunning:
‘Oh, it’s worse than that,’ he said, holding up a memo on his desk. ‘Here’s the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.’ And he named them, starting with Iraq and SYRIA and ending with Iran.”
While Clark doesn’t name the other four countries, he has mentioned in televised interviews that the hit list included Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan."
(source: libertariannews.org/2011/10/25/general-wesley-clark-us-planned-invasion-of-seven-countries-back-in-2001/)
That's just neo-cons being neo-cons. Not sure how to explain Obama's keeping with the neo-con's interventionist ideals in the middle east.....unless those decisions are made above the CiC's desk.
But I'm not saying there's a super-constitutional cabal of bankers, generals, and CEO's managing the affairs of the US.....or am I?
Post a Comment