Naturally, the Obama administration does not want to supply groups that are too weak to protect their supplies from radical forces. But it was the administration’s unwillingness to arm the non-radical groups early on that ensured their weakness. The American-backed rebels have been on life support since Obama pulled the rug out from under them by negotiating with Assad over his chemical weapons instead of punishing him for using them.
As Max Boot says:That the non-Islamist opposition is collapsing is utterly predictable given the administration’s hesitancy to provide it with more backing. The Islamic radicals are the obvious winners on the rebel side, while Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds Force grow stronger on the other end.Where do Obama and John Kerry go from here? They would like to go to, you guessed it, Geneva for “peace talks.” But the Islamist rebel forces have no interest in making peace with Assad. And the more moderate forces are now too marginalized to be partners in a meaningful peace agreement.An agreement between those forces and Assad, in the unlikely event one were reached, would essentially ratify Assad’s triumph over them. It would thus help consolidate the power of the regime and its partners Hezbollah and Iran.
Out of control, on middle-east policy as with everything else.
You want another Nam? We have actually had another Nam with Iraq and Afghanistan, the only difference is the military draft, hence the absence of mass protests.
ReplyDeleteWant to read about out of control in the Middle East, try Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks, who was a reporter for WSJ for 17 years, so don't discount him as a rainbows and unicorns type you scorn. Highly critical of your beloved hawks who apparently screwed things up royally, likely for decades to come. And I presume you want the same players back in power, dontcha?
ReplyDeleteOh, so, since the Iraq mission was mishandled in some key respects, that means the current administration's Syria policy is great and succeeding wonderfully?
ReplyDeleteOr let's frame it this way: Does the way the W administration handled the Iraq situation have any lessons for the MEC regime's Syria policy and, if so, what are they, and if not, what is the point of mentioning it? Not saying there are none, but they aren't immediately apparent, it seems ot me.
ReplyDeleteRead the book. It is clear to me that we do not want to repeat that history which we likely would be doing by arming a minority in a country where there are very long odds that the majority is just going to scurry wherever you try to chase them to. Want to throw our weapons money at a hornet's nest? The Cong did not lay down and take what we threw at them and since we unloaded more firepower on them than the combined Allied bombs dropped on the clear and present danger then, the aggressors, which is what we were in Nam and would be in Syria. You want to arm and support a minority force in the region. Talk about another Nam.
ReplyDeleteIn Syria at this point, I don't see that the US has anybody to arm. Per this post, the non-jihadist opposition is gone.
ReplyDeleteVietnam, that was another story. Iraq, too, for that matter.
Correct me if I am incorrect, but I was thinking the reason they were gone now was that we did not flow guns to them. If we had they would still be there fighting and we would still be there probably then sending military advisers and then troops. Thus went Iraq and Nam, essentially the same shit, different day.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most shameful moments in this nation's history occurred in 1974, when Congress, sensing they didn't have to listen to Nixon's views on anything anymore, voted to suspend financial aid to South Vietnam, even though it had rebuilt its military and was at a point where victory over the North was possible. The following spring, Communist tanks knocked down the gates of the presidential palace in Saigon.
ReplyDeleteBut, of course, if we'd had the will to apply sufficient force, victory could have been achieved by the end of 1965.
Over 7 million tons of bombs were dropped by the US during the Vietnam War; over 2 million tons were dropped during WW2. NOTE: A US B-17 Flying Fortress over Germany in WW2 carried about 10 airmen and possibly 17 bombs. A US B-52 Stratofortess flying over North Vietnam carried 6 crewmen and could carry 108 750 pound bombs. ONE Vietnam War B-52 was equal to about SIX WW2 B-17s. One F-4 Phantom jet fighter bomber, manned by two crewmen, could carry as many bombs as a WW2 B-17 bomber (with a 10 man crew).
ReplyDeleteFrom http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_tons_of_bomb_were_dropped_in_Vietnam_War#slide2
Admittedly great for the military-industrial complex though.
ReplyDeleteWise move to a volunteer army thereafter though. It has clearly muffled protest since.
ReplyDeleteDon't feel bad though, the French couldn't get er done either. About them Ho said "You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it." But I'll wager that the captains of industry stateside saw a glorious opportunity to win. Regardless, they took it to their banks. It was all about patriotism and independence. You can understand that, can't you, when you place their shoes on your feet.
ReplyDeleteSeems you hawks who decry the paddy cake of diplomacy often bluster as if war is some kind of bravery when in fact it is clearly and quite often simple stupidity. But real people, often of civilian inconsequence die, and die hard.
ReplyDeleteWe need to make that always at the core of US foreign policy is resolve to never appease states or actors that embrace ideologies that pose threats to the Western way of life.
ReplyDeleteStatecraft is not appeasement.
ReplyDelete