Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin is
reporting that the Obama administration has moved
to expand its interactions with exiled Syrian opposition — led by
the Istanbul-based Syrian National Council (SNC) — and domestic
resistance including the Revolutionary Councils and scattered Local
Coordinating Councils.
Much of this outreach will concern speeding “humanitarian
and communications assistance” to Syria’s civilian opposition, and
buttressing the SNC’s new defense committee which may serve as a
satellite hub for the future coordination of military and technical
assistance.
Despite calls for a U.S.-led intervention in Syria by
Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham
(R-SC), the administration is unwilling to engage the Free Syrian
Army directly, given well-founded apprehensions that the command
structure is hopelessly
jumbled and rank-and-file fighters may have
“contacts” with “extremist elements” (i.e.,
spent the past few years planting IEDs around Iraq’s highways and
bi-ways).
For his part, Speaker John Boehner sided
with Mitt Romney against military intervention, stating simply and
succinctly “the situation in Syria is pretty
complicated.”
Granting credit where it’s due, even Sen. Graham was
sufficiently perceptive to admit, “I don’t think there’s a market
for that right now,” when asked whether Americans could stomach a
unilateral intervention to liberate Damascus.
Suffice to say that the senators’ impetus for action in
Syria has more to do with the Iranian menace than aspirations of
any homegrown opposition to the Assad regime. However, if we’re
going to engage Tehran in a proxy war on Syrian soil, I’d advise
making full partners of the international community and an
all-too-willing Arab League before we stomp in guns
blazing.
Needless to say, depriving Iran of its critical client
state and last-ally-standing makes all the sense in the world. Put
simply, Assad’s exit would advance our ability to contain Iran’s
power projection by limiting access to militant proxies in southern
Lebanon and Gaza.
But with weapons
pouring in by the truckload from Iran, Russia and
the Saudi peninsula, America’s best bet for the moment is to stay
free and clear of a gathering internecine client war fought from
the region’s neighboring capitals.
C Bowen | 3.6.12 @ 6:39PM
McCain hates Christians almost as much as Lieberman. How many times has this duo called to bomb regimes friendly to Christians, or in the case of Serbia, bomb an Orthodox Christian nation, in support of radical Islam and Al Qaeda (okay, in Serbia/Kosovo, it was also in support of a white slavery, organ selling, drug trading regime)?
Making another radical Islamic state in Syria hurts Iran how? Iran won the Iraq war based on this type of limited thinking and not quite "needless to say."
With the Strafor e-mails which I don't believe you have brought up yet and the Tabin-Goldstein wing posturing that Obama has been bad for Israel, they really come across as, well, either partisan liars for political advantage, or really, too ignorant to be commenting on this subject.
If the US/NATO, via the Stratfor e-mails (and Sibel Edmonds dare I mention), are the opposition in Syria (with some hired locals), what are we really watching play out?
Fred V.| 3.6.12 @ 6:45PM
Bowen,what has happened to Christians in the middle east is a disgrace. Whether it be Coptics in Egypt,or in Iraq,wherever,they are under attack. I often wonder why we hear almost nothiong from bot only the left,but evangelical leaders. DO they only care about evangelical victims of persecution? Do they not considr orthodox or Catholics,who predominate in the ME,to be Christian enough? Can't figure it out.
C Bowen | 3.6.12 @ 8:43PM
Follow the money...best guess I have.
Bob K.| 3.6.12 @ 6:55PM
Yes, Syria is still a mess.
What did you expect?
Reid Smith| 3.6.12 @ 7:06PM
Let's just say I titled this post with tongue firmly in cheek.