Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By BARRACUDA (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Will The U.S. Take On The Russians To Take Out Assad?

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:41
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

American Thinker

By Shoshana Bryen

There are two reasons for the U.S. to seek the demise of Bashar Assad’s regime — for what it would mean to Syria and for what it would mean to Iran. The first is insufficient reason for the U.S. to involve itself directly. The second raises the elephant-in-the-room question: “Would the Obama administration act against the expressed interests of Putin’s Russia to achieve a victory against Iran in Syria?”

The administration currently takes the approach that a serious American strategic objective can be achieved without direct American military involvement. Arming the “good rebels” is supposed to oust Assad and provide later influence in Damascus. But while the CIA was looking for the good guys (we didn’t have a serious presence in the area until August), the administration was outsourcing the political conversation and the transfer of aid and weapons from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to increasingly openly Muslim Brotherhood-supporting Turkey. That gave the Sunni-related — and maybe al-Qaeda-related — jihadi rebels a head start. So now we have to assume that the “good rebels” can defeat the Assad government and the “bad rebels.”

It would be simpler to aim a cruise missile at Syrian military HQ or have a USAF jet drop something heavy on Assad’s palace. We did it in Libya, where the strategic interest was much, much less. Why not Syria?

Because for the Obama administration, Syria is as much about Russia and the relationship with Vladimir Putin as it is about Syria, Iran, and the Shi’ite Crescent. This would be a good time to note that Russia is steadfastly opposed to the removal of Assad and resistant to White House cajoling, threatening, and attempts to embarrass Putin. He doesn’t embarrass, and he hasn’t moved.

  • On 1 June, ABC News reported that Mrs. Clinton warned of “catastrophic” possibilities in Syria. “My argument to the Russians is — they keep telling me they don’t want to see a civil war, and I have been telling them their policy is going to help contribute to a civil war.”
  • Just two days later, she was asking the Russians for help. “My message to the foreign minister was very simple and straightforward … we all have to intensify our efforts to achieve a political transition and Russia has to be at the table helping that to occur.”

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 2 comments
  • I think that Hitlery has some wet dreams about Syria/Russia/China!
    Hitlery stop watching Crappywood propaganda & start living in a real world!

  • Anonymous

    IF the russians are already in the usa (and they are) how is america going to take on the russians when there already here,seems like there getin ready to take on america if you ask me………..

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.