| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| WashingtonÂ’s tilt toward SyriaÂ’s rebels will cause more harm than good |
| 2013-03-01 |
| John Kerry, the new U.S. Secretary of State, sat down with Syrian opposition chief Moaz AlKhatib on Thursday and announced that Washington will begin supporting those elements of Syria’s rebel opposition it deems palatable. First off, arming fighters battling against Bashar al-Assad’s regime is not on the cards. Flak jackets, “training” and, apparently, ready-made dinners, however, are. Where this will take place – what border country is willing to host the Americans – is still unclear, though an American presence has been in place in Jordan since last summer while to the north, rebels have more-or-less free reign over Syria’s border with Turkey. So what’s about to change? In all likelihood, very little. Washington, more specifically the White House, has refused to back rebel groups even when the State Department and the Pentagon privately pushed for such a move last summer. As a result, it would be unwise to expect the floodgates to open even after this new departure. It’s more likely President Barack Obama has realized that Mr. Assad’s days are numbered, and has been convinced it’s better to have a modicum of political leverage with the government that comes after Mr. Assad than to have none. (Let’s not kid ourselves into thinking Washington and other world capitals want to get involved in Syria to prevent a humanitarian disaster). |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #3 As per VARIOUS, the Syrian Rebs say they need Guns, N-O-T Butter from the US = POTUS Bammer. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2013-03-01 22:33 |
| #2 I think that since the Saudis are purchasing weapons somewhere and sending them through Jordan, the US really doesn't need to do anything about that part of it. With respect to providing nonlethal help, well that won't make us many friends in the rebel ranks but we wouldn't have many friends anyway. |
| Posted by: lord garth 2013-03-01 14:42 |
| #1 Very sad to say, but "humanitarian disaster" as used in this context is a both a short and long-term dividend. The only reason we're not wading fully in is the bear, and I quietly wonder if perhaps we are not in discreet communication and agreement with him. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-03-01 09:52 |