Former Middle Eastern affairs consultant for Romney suggests funding both sides of the Syrian war so
9 replies, posted
[quote]Analysts agree that the erosion of the Syrian regime’s capabilities is accelerating, that it continues to retreat, making a rebel breakthrough and an Islamist victory increasingly likely. In response, I am changing my policy recommendation from neutrality to something that causes me, as a humanitarian and decades-long foe of the Assad dynasty, to pause before writing: [B]Western governments should support the malign dictatorship of Bashar Assad.[/B] [/quote]
[quote]The Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88 created a similar situation. After mid-1982, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s forces went on the offense against those of Saddam Hussein, Western governments began supporting Iraq. Certainly, the Iraqi regime had started the hostilities and was more brutal, but the Iranian one was ideologically more dangerous and on the offensive. The best scenario was that the hostilities hobble both sides and prevent either one from emerging victorious. In the apocryphal words of Henry Kissinger, [B]“It’s a pity they both can’t lose.” [/B]
In this spirit, I argued then for U.S. help to the losing party, whichever that might be, as in this May 1987 analysis: “In 1980, when Iraq threatened Iran, our interests lay at least partly with Iran. But Iraq has been on the defensive since the summer of 1982, and Washington now belongs firmly on its side. … Looking to the future, should Iraq once again take the offensive, an unlikely but not impossible change, the United States should switch again and consider giving assistance to Iran.”
Applying this same logic to Syria today finds notable parallels. Mr. Assad fills the role of Saddam Hussein, the brutal Baathist dictator who began the violence. The rebel forces resemble Iran — the initial victim getting stronger over time and posing an increasing Islamist danger. Continued fighting endangers the neighborhood. Both sides engage in war crimes and pose a danger to Western interests.
[/quote]
[quote]The Obama administration is attempting an overly ambitiously and subtle policy of simultaneously helping the good rebels with clandestine lethal arms and $114 million in aid even as it prepares for possible drone strikes on the bad rebels. Nice idea, but manipulating the rebel forces via remote control has little chance of success. [B]Inevitably, aid will end up with the Islamists and airstrikes will kill allies. Better to accept one’s limitations and aspire to the feasible: propping up the side in retreat.[/B]
[/quote]
[quote]On the happy day when Mr. Assad and Tehran fight the rebels and Ankara to mutual exhaustion, Western support then can go to non-Baathist and non-Islamist elements in Syria, helping them offer a moderate alternative to today’s wretched choices and lead to a better future.
[/quote]
[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/11/pipes-argument-assad/[/url]
I think I've seen this guy on Facepunch
And the the US will swoop in with [I]FREEDOM[/I] and take care of all those pesky oil reserves.
Wait I thought that was the goal all along
I mean you can practically see US and Russia winking at each other as they plan to carve up all that black gold
[QUOTE=Van-man;40454304]And the the US will swoop in with [I]FREEDOM[/I] and take care of all those pesky oil reserves.[/QUOTE]
That's would be interesting, seeing as Syria has barely any oil
[editline]29th April 2013[/editline]
[url]http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=sy&v=88[/url]
[QUOTE=ksenior;40454456]That's would be interesting, seeing as Syria has barely any oil[/QUOTE]
All American wars are because of oil.
If there isn't any there from before they'll put it there. They'll pump the ground full of oil so that they can create fake WMDs so that they can get the oil.
The whole "war for oil" thing doesn't make sense.
It would if the U.S desperately needed oil from Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria,
but we don't. Our imports recently fell to their lowest level since 1987.
We get our oil from Canada, South America, Australia and Africa.
(Really anything to avoid Saudi Arabia. They highball the price)
For perspective:
U.S uses about 7 billion barrels of oil a year, the biggest deposit in
Australia is about 230 billion barrels.
[quote=NPR]
America is one of the world's largest oil producers, and close to 40 percent of U.S. oil needs are met at home.
Most of the imports currently come from five countries: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.
[URL]http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised[/URL]
[/quote]
[quote=Washington Post]
Other Persian Gulf countries also contribute to U.S. oil imports, but make up a relatively small share overall.
"People have tended to exaggerate how much oil we imported from the Middle East," says John Duffield, an energy expert and professor of political science at Georgia State University.
"In the long term, it may look like a historical anomaly that the U.S. became so involved in the Persian Gulf," he adds.
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/19/where-the-u-s-gets-its-oil-imports-in-one-map/[/URL][/quote]
[IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/ucCkfY.png[/IMG]
i feel like this is the kind of plan that will backfire spectacularly
[QUOTE=ksenior;40454456]That's would be interesting, seeing as Syria has barely any oil
[editline]29th April 2013[/editline]
[url]http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=sy&v=88[/url][/QUOTE]
That's current oil production, they have significant reserves too. As if it's not cheaper to just arm both side than to import from them.
I mean, you honestly believe there's no ulterior motives for either country? As if they would care otherwise.
What a clever impersonation of 1980's foreign affairs doctrine
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.