It is becoming clearer by the day that the U.S. is facing a strategic catastrophe in Syria. Should Bashar Assad prevail, he will be infinitely indebted to Iran and Hezbollah, and the “Shiite Crescent” will remain unbroken. Islamists have become the dominant rebel force due to the Obama administration’s decision to let “allies” like Qatar and Turkey take the lead. Non-Islamist rebels are losing faith in America, 2 million Syrian Christians are in peril and the conflict is spreading into Lebanon and Turkey. The disaster of today is likely a foreshadowing of the greater disaster of tomorrow.
Over 33,000 have lost their lives in the conflict, mostly civilians. This is just a fraction of the number of people who have been wounded or imprisoned, many being tortured while in captivity. About 1.5 million are now homeless and 300,000 have fled to Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. These numbers are especially breathtaking when you consider the fact that Syria only has a population of about 21 million.
The U.S. is “leading from behind” by letting Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia handle relations with the Syrian opposition. As these governments are Islamist, it should come as no surprise that they favor the Islamist rebels. Qatar is especially supportive of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, much like it supported the Libyan Islamists. The result of this outsourcing of U.S. influence is that the majority of arms shipped to the rebels are ending up in the hands of jihadists.
Read more here.
Comment by Dan Trabue on October 22, 2012 at 5:31 pm
What are you proposing we do? Throw more arms to one side or the other? Invade another nation? Nuke ’em?
We can all agree this is and has been a troubled region. The question is, what are the “right” answers?
Speaking for myself, I’m tired of the bin Laden/Pinochet solution (where we arm thugs in one side in a civil war… it generally results in those same arms/thugs coming back to bite us later), and I find the peace-through-invasion argument an uncompelling one, logically and morally.
What is your proposed solution?
Comment by Dan Trabue on October 23, 2012 at 10:03 am
Nothing?
This is why Romney lost the debate last night, you know?
You can only say, “You’re not doing it right! You’re not doing it right! Things are bad! You should do things differently! I’d be much tougher!”… so many times before someone is going to reasonably ask, “Well, what WOULD you do…” and if you have no answers, that speaks for itself. If you have answers that aren’t credible, that too, speaks for itself.
It was sort of funny when Romney finally got around to saying what he would do and, as it turns out, it’s nothing different than Obama.
Comment by dover1952 on October 23, 2012 at 8:48 pm
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil (Romans 13:14)
This is what Obama will do about Assad in Syria after the election. Mark my words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18_OIEpTMIw