A large-scale military intervention was, as you say, ruled out from the beginning. But there was unqualified political support for the FSA and other so-called moderate factions, along with limited military and humanitarian aid. Until now, the two parties were united in calling for the immediate ouster of Assad, but that’s been taken off the table as a precondition for an agreement with Iran and Russia.
On Dec 16, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 12/16/15 1:14 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: >> Despite their macho schoolboy bluster, the Republican presidential >> candidates are no more eager than the Democrats to repeat the chaotic US >> efforts at regime change in Iraq and elsewhere which fell far short of >> producing stable pro-American puppet governments enjoying popular >> legitimacy. Last night’s debate saw all of the candidates, including Trump >> and Cruz, join with Obama and Kerry in opting to keep the Assad regime in >> power rather than letting it fall to the Syrian rebel opposition. >> >> US foreign policy is more bipartisan than domestic policy, and the American >> defence and foreign policy establishment has belatedly recognized that even >> popular uprisings not led by the left can have unintended radicalizing >> consequences which are inimical to US interests. As a result, both major >> parties have swung from their early encouragement of what they hoped would >> be a pro-Western uprising in Syria against the Assad regime to support of >> the regime against what has become an insurgency led by ISIS, Jabhat >> al-Nusra, and other radical Islamist militias. >> >> As the report linked to below notes, “Cruz argued that the revolutions in >> Egypt, Libya and Syria demonstrated that overthrowing dictators often >> results in the kind of chaos and instability that gives terrorists space to >> take root” while “Trump, for his part, gave an impassioned argument against >> the human and financial costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that could >> just as easily have come from the mouth of Bernie Sanders or other >> progressive politicians.” >> >> http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/16/fps-six-top-moments-of-the-gop-debate/ >> > > > What shift? At least as far as Obama is concerned. > > In fact there was zero interest in a large-scale intervention in Syria > in either civilian or military quarters. All this is documented in a NY > Times article from October 22nd 2013, written when the alarums over a > looming war with Syria were at their loudest, that stated “from the > beginning, Mr. Obama made it clear to his aides that he did not envision > an American military intervention, even as public calls mounted that > year for a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians from bombings.” > > The article stressed the role of White House Chief of Staff Dennis > McDonough, who had frequently clashed with the hawkish Samantha Power. > In contrast to Power and others with a more overtly “humanitarian > intervention” perspective, McDonough “who had perhaps the closest ties > to Mr. Obama, remained skeptical. He questioned how much it was in > America’s interest to tamp down the violence in Syria.” > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
