It’s unclear exactly how a rebel victory, the chances of which might improve in the event of missile strikes by the United States, would help the Syrian people. On August 26 at Syrian Comment, Joshua Landis provided three reasons why it wouldn’t. First: The opposition...
I’ve always thought that Bashar Al-Assad often has an uncomfortable look on his face, as if he never envisioned he would be Syria’s president, and never quite got accustomed to the idea. This make sense, inasmuch as he only seemed destined for the role after his elder...
The threat of a reckless, dangerous, and illegal US or US-led assault on Syria is looking closer than ever. The US government has been divided over the Syria crisis since it began. Some, especially in the Pentagon and some of the intelligence agencies, said direct...
The Obama administration’s decision to directly supply weapons to the Syrian opposition may end up torpedoing the possibility of a political settlement. It will almost certainly accelerate the chaos spreading from the almost three-year old civil war. It will also align Washington with one of the most undemocratic alliances on the planet, and one that looks increasingly unstable. In short, we are headed into a perfect political storm.
The United States should not get involved in a civil war with unknown and dangerous ramifications for the region. It should not get involved in supporting an opposition that is ready to inflict a bloodbath on Syrian minorities, and it should not abet the rise of extremist al-Qaeda-affiliated groups.
To caring citizens of the world, the helplessness of watching a people suffer is a form of torture.
Syria’s civil war has inspired some in Congress and in the media. Stupidity or insanity? Some people don’t learn from past mistakes. Why start another body count in a Middle East conflict with no direct relationship to U.S. security?