Oh, yes, please, let's escalate US military involvement in yet another Middle-East conflict
Because, of course, first you start with providing arms. Then advisors. Then maybe some boots-on-the-ground special forces teams (to protect, or rescue, the advisors, or maybe lend a hand). Then bombing campaigns. Then …
And all with promises that the next escalation will bring down the existing regime / rebels / bad guys.
I guess Romney remains so pro-Vietnam War that he wants to see another one in Syria. And just as that one conflict was a proxy war with the Soviet Union, this one's a proxy war with Iran. Because if anything will make Iran back down it will be US military intervention in Syria …
I'll confess, I don't have a ready answer for the best course for Syria. I'd be quite pleased if an anvil fell on Assad's head and all that, but it's not at all clear to me (or as clear as it is to Romney's Neo-Con advisors) that arming the rebels will actually make a difference, or that doing so will garner us the permanent, fervent US allies that Romney's claiming we'll get out of it.
Embedded Link
Ewen MacAskill
Republican presidential candidate is to call for an escalation of the conflict in Syria in a major foreign policy address
Google+: View post on Google+
He's got his war mongering hat on now because he thinks people will see him as a strong leader. His total lack of foreign policy experience ( other than outsourcing jobs to China and India) really scares me.
Plenty of money for that once he cancels half the teacher, police and firemen force. #MittTheTwit What is it with these people and wars? Is it something in their magic underwear that itches?
Don't worry, +Paula Jones — he has plenty of Neo-Con advisors from the Bush Administration to help advise him in his ignorance.
Romney wasn't calling for direct U.S. action, was he? As far as supplying weapons and such?
He's talking about supplying heavier weapons to be able to address Assad's tanks and jets. (Not unlike what we did with the mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet presence there). He also said that we should only give these arms to the rebels who "share our interests" (please fill out this form).
My contention is that you can't simply air-drop SAMs to rebels. You are going to end up with some boots on the ground — instructors, advisors, whatever — and things have every likelihood of escalating from there, especially given his framing of all of this as a proxy war vs. Iran and given the folks he has advising him on this kind of stuff.
(Updated article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/08/romney-arms-syria-rebels?intcmp=239)
Well, not that I agree with that method 100%, but something clearly needs to be done. These past few weeks have proved that quite clearly and all we've been getting from the White House has been spin.
Isn't Assad a secular leader? Meaning that it would stand to reason that the opposition would, to some degree, involve Islamist elements? There is no way to make sure our weapons don't end up in their hands. Whatever they think of the West, I suspect they would kiss our ass if it meant weapons.
I think everyone would agree that it's a tragic circumstance.
But saying "Well, something needs to be done, so let's do something" doesn't really solve the issue. Indeed, it begs the question of whether we should be doing something about it at all, even assuming we fully understand who, if anyone, are the "good guys" and "bad guys".
Romney (and his advisors) are quick, rhetorically at least to rattle sabers. The folks he has on his team were the ones swearing up and down that Iraq would be a cake walk and that we'd be home in time for corn flakes, and that we can cow Iran by simply rolling a few more aircraft carriers into the Indian Ocean. I simply don't buy it.
Assad is, largely, a secular leader. Syria (like Lebanon) is a hodgepodge of religious and secular groups, and you still get into that whole Shia / Sunni conflict (among others) there. And, depending on who you talk to, at least some of the rebels are hardly poster kids for truth, justice, and the America Way. I seriously doubt that, operationally, weapons we gave to any one faction would not end up with other factions instead.
But since Iran ostensibly supports Assad, and Iran delenda est, that's all that the Romney camp needs to know.
Was this what you were talking about?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/world/middleeast/us-military-sent-to-jordan-on-syria-crisis.html?_r=0
No. That's providing assistance within a relatively stable country to help keep neighboring turmoil from spilling over into it, and to deal with refugees coming across the border. A bit different from providing arms (etc.) to the "good" (but not "bad") rebel forces inside of a civil war.