Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,651 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,151,207
Pageviews Today: 2,943,069Threads Today: 647Posts Today: 13,339
10:38 PM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject Five Reasons Why Obama Hasn't moved on Syria
User Name
 
 
Font color:  Font:








In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
Original Message 1.Domestic politics means high risk, low reward: Within Washington, Obama has "little to gain and lots to lose" for trying to help Syrian civilians. Recent history suggests that the same political figures who call for the White House to take big foreign policy risks appear quite willing to punish the administration if anything goes wrong. US efforts to reach out to Islamist groups in Egypt and Tunisia received criticism at home, while its leadership on Libya became a major political liability when US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi.

2.Danger of committing to the rebels: Washington is cautious about arming, funding or even vocally supporting a rebel movement that could potentially turn against the West. Extremists make up a growing share of the Syrian rebel movement, with some of the most prominent allied with al-Qaeda. The White House has seen what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s when it backed extremist militant groups against the Soviets. It did not pay off for the US in the long-term.

3.Stability, not escalation: The measures taken by the US so far appear to be aimed at maintaining a balance between the rebels and the regime. America does not want to see an outright Assad victory but equally it isn't thrilled about the idea of US-armed rebels pushing him out. The White House clearly fears what would happen if the country imploded into the chaos of a failed state.

4.Need for a negotiated settlement: With the aim of creating stability in Syria, the US has said it would like to see a peace deal between the rebels and the regime. This would mean leaving some elements of the government in place – though not Assad himself. Ostracising the president would make this harder.

5.Muddying the 'red line': Since issuing its 'red line' warning last year, the Obama administration has been softening its language when talking about where it should be drawn. It seems to be in a fix as it tries to uphold its condemnation of chemical weapons without forcing itself to intervene more forcefully in Syria. Squaring those two goals has led it into "some real contortions" – at times playing down the red line and at other times playing it up. Assuming the latest reports are true, says the Washington Post, this strategy is getting tougher as the Assad regime continues to call its bluff. ·

[link to www.theweek.co.uk]

If intervention does happen, it will be a battle ground between Russia and the United States.
Pictures (click to insert)
5ahidingiamwithranttomatowtf
bsflagIdol1hfbumpyodayeahsure
banana2burnitafros226rockonredface
pigchefabductwhateverpeacecool2tounge
 | Next Page >>

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!