A quick reader on why military intervention in Syria is a big mistake--and what we should be advocating instead.
Regions / Middle East & North Africa
The White House has declared a strike upon Syria imminent without providing a clear rationale for military action, except as an attempt to satisfy an arbitrary “red line.”
Kicking a leg out from under the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah tripod could also undermine Iran President Rouhani’s diplomatic initiatives.
In dealing with the pretexts for war-making, not the real reasons, the Obama administration is underestimating the opposition.
Despite his better judgment, Obama is poised to make serious mistakes in Syria--all because he made words like "red line" part of his vocabulary.
With Assad's fighters vanished from northern Syria, Kurds fight jihadists for the future of Syrian Kurdistan.
It’s frightening how ready and willing President Obama is to operate outside of global legal frameworks.
How Syrian President Assad might read the U.S.: Ditch the chemical weapons and you can carry on with the carnage.
If the Assad regime were toppled, the aftermath would likely be characterized by deprivation of services and revenge killings.
Many – from alternative news outlets to mainstream to governments – find the Obama administration’s justification for launching an attack on Syria full of holes.