CDZ Let's Take Over Syria!

[Indeependent]

Until 9/11 no News outlet wanted to admit that Muslims hate Christians as much as they hate Jews and much as they hate their fellow Muslims.
The Western media ignored a problem that was mushrooming out of control due to anti-Semitism and an addiction to oil.
It's too late now as the genie of Islam is out of the bottle and more than well equipped to cause great concern for Europe and Asia.
There's going to be a MAJOR war and it better not be politically correct.

 

[Nosmo King]

Here's what we do well. We can topple a dictator. We can help rebuild regions with a tradition of democracy.

Here's what we cannot seem to do. We cannot institute a democratic government in regions without previous experience in democracy.

We keep trying, but so far, no success on day two after the overthrow of dictators.

How about Japan and Germany after WWII? We took over these countries and managed them, because in the collective view of the world they were incapable of managing themselves. Now they're democracies. What was true for Germany and Japan is a thousand times truer for the countries of the Middle East. They cannot manage themselves, and their ineptitude is simple to destabilizing to be allowed to continue. Both Germany and Japan were much more advanced, industrial nations, though. That's why it would take so much longer in the ME. The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

I agree with you, in theory, however, how would we establish and maintain law and order? Marshal law? That would work for a while, until people started to get used to it, then eventually, revolt, maybe revolution (see Communist China as an example). The answer is to find a way to win the hearts and minds of the youth. That is the ONLY path to a stable and peaceful ME. OMHO.

I agree, but how do we get to the point where the countries of the region realize that they have to provide their youth with opportunity?

In the 19th-20th centuries everyone wanted a state. The Italians and Germans merged their principalities into countries. India sought independence. African nations threw off the shackles of colonialism. The Zionist movement sought a state for the Jewish people. And the Arabs wanted a Pan-Arabia.

So, how have they done? Germany had some well documented growing pains, but they seem stable now. Italy? Well, at least the food is great. India? Headed in the right direction, as well as some African nations. Israel? Beleaguered, but unbowed. The Arabs? Unmitigated disaster.

These regions sought statehood because they recognized the importance of the modern nation state. They sought this legitimacy, this recognition, from the other nations of the world. This recognition is not unconditional, and it is not irrevocable. The UN, which stands right now as the sanctioning body for sovereignty, has stated that countries which fail to live up to the doctrine of "the responsibility to protect", can have their sovereignty revoked.

There is not one ME nation which lives up to the UN's responsibility to protect doctrine.

"Sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility that holds States accountable for the welfare of their people."

It's time for the report card. It's time to stop pretending that Junior will find his feet on his own. The people of the ME have proven themselves to be incapable of managing modern nations. Their countries are collapsing before our eyes. ISIS is a symptom, not the disease. Wipe out ISIS and then do what? Install another al-Maliki? Doesn't that fit the classical definition of insanity?

I agree, but how do we get to the point where the countries of the region realize that they have to provide their youth with opportunity?

There enlies the problem, and I have no answers. I have not done the study, nor do I have the inclination to, in order to form a serious proposal. I leave that tho those who have the desire and expertise.

It's time for the report card. It's time to stop pretending that Junior will find his feet on his own. The people of the ME have proven themselves to be incapable of managing modern nations. Their countries are collapsing before our eyes. ISIS is a symptom, not the disease. Wipe out ISIS and then do what? Install another al-Maliki? Doesn't that fit the classical definition of insanity?

So, what would you propose?

"So, what would you propose?"
All I am seeking is a recognition of the failure of both the Arabs to manage their own countries, and the western world to properly manage these people. A recognition that purple fingers are meaningless. A recognition that none of these countries deserve to have their sovereignty respected. A recognition that these half-measures, from the first Gulf war to our current bombing campaign in Syria, have failed, and have indeed made things worse. The management paradigm that we have maintained since the end of WWI has failed. We need a new paradigm.

I think we need to go from covert to overt management. I recognize the impossibility of Russia and China, themselves less than civilized, recognizing the value of getting on the same page with us. Maybe if enough Russian planes get knocked from the sky they will come to their sense, but I doubt it.

Singapore, Hong Kong, the Philippines (the most apt example as it was an American attempt at nation building in the first third of the 20th century), Taiwan after the revolution. These are all states which suffered crippling corruption.

Surely we know how, why and when those cultures of corruption were turned around. We need the political will here to try the proven methods today in the Middle East.

 

[Tehon]

Until 9/11 no News outlet wanted to admit that Muslims hate Christians as much as they hate Jews and much as they hate their fellow Muslims.
The Western media ignored a problem that was mushrooming out of control due to anti-Semitism and an addiction to oil.
It's too late now as the genie of Islam is out of the bottle and more than well equipped to cause great concern for Europe and Asia.
There's going to be a MAJOR war and it better not be politically correct.

Except, 9/11 was political, not religious, as is terrorism in general. And whatever animosity exists in the minds of Muslims and Christians has been largely manufactured for political purposes, to forward the objectives of third party players.
There's going to be a MAJOR war and it better not be politically correct.
And on this I can't help but to agree with you.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism. Primitive, tribal, religious forces. With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how? ISIS?

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism.
Riiight......Did primitivism overthrow Mossadegh or was that the CIA? And what was the net result of that......the Ayatollahs. You probably think of them as primitive for their religious views and yet Iran still has a very modern society not unlike what Iraq had before we started intervening there. So did primitivism overthrow Saddam or was that the US military? And after how many years of crippling Western sanctions? Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s? And what was the net result of arming and training the mujahideen.......al qaeda. It's easy to criticize a society as primitive when their country is in ruins and there infrastructure destroyed from American made bombs, but these conditions weren't always so.
With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how?
Cooperation has to be between all the energy producing and exporting countries. There is enough energy in the ground and enough consumers to make accommodations for everyone to have a piece of the pie. The people of the world do not benefit from all the conflicts and it should matter not to the people where the energy comes from. Those that benefit are the same ones that use the military and economic superiority of our government to control the resources for their own profits, the corporations.

Primitives throw acid in the faces of little girls who want to go to school. Primitives treat homosexuals as criminals and execute them. Primitives smash artworks that offend them. Primitives subjugate women.

The fact that we are far from perfect does not negate the fact that we are the more advanced culture. That was not always so, but it sure as hell is true now. The difference between us is far from absolute, but it is very important. The most civilized people in Arab society are more civilized than the most primitive people in our society. Operation Ajax was a crime against all of humanity. Nonetheless, we Western nations represent an advancement in human culture, in human governance. The most enlightened people in Arab society want what we have, because they recognize it is superior, but they failed to get it, and the Arab Spring died. Mossadegh could have been the Atatürk that the Arabs so desperately need, but we thoughtlessly stepped on him. Both tragic, but we can't do anything about it now. They tried to leap forward, tripped and face-planted.

"Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s?"
ISIS is not a tool of Western states. The Mujahideen were. We created ISIS, but not intentionally, and we certainly don't benefit from them.

The primitives that you are speaking of in your first paragraph happen to share the same religious ideology as your allies in the KSA and some other Gulf countries. And of course ISIS benefits the US policy to remove Assad. Destabilization is the name of the game, don't you know?

To understand what I'm saying just ask yourself which countries are your primitives running around in and which are they not. The answer is telling.

My allies? Hmmn. Yeah, they're all the same, by and large. All states which reject secularism are essentially the same. So? Destabilization is not the name of the game, keeping the lid on is the name of the game. We are pathetically inept at doing so, but that's what we want. ISIS and Assad are equally unworthy of managing countries and we want neither. We did not create ISIS as a tool to remove Assad.

As far as your final question goes, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Every country in the world has primitives running around in it. The only relevant question is which countries have the primitives in charge of the government. Assad got the country from his daddy, like it's a freaking family heirloom or something. That is primitivism.

It is all about destabilization. The destabilization that occurred when we took out Saddam and invited the Shia expansion led directly to the further destabilization of Iraq and Syria in an effort to counter the Shia expansion. And lets not forget the destabilization of Libya to fund and equip the war in Syria. ISIS is integral to this destabilization and the overthrow of Assad. I think our policy makers do want to keep a lid on it..... to a degree, that is why Obama's policy towards ISIS has been containment.

The final point I was making is that the worst of the actors in the ME are all acting in countries that the West has destabilized. The other countries, our allies, all have their bad actors under control. Just as Iraq, Syria and Libya did before US destabilization. It's not coincidence. US foreign policy is not benevolent and it is no accident things are as they are. The history of US foreign policies is replete with examples that support my position.

It's a matter of semantics, really. It is valid to call world efforts in the region destabilization. I think the very borders of these countries were chosen to maximize internal dissent, and thereby keep these people out of our hair. It's always done with very short term goals in mind. I saw an interview with Kissinger where he tried to justify the installment of the Shah on the Peacock Throne, by saying that the Shah kept the lid on things for twenty years, and that's pretty good, as these things go. How such short-sighted strategies work out in the long term seemed to be beyond his thinking. I've seen interviews with Arab leaders who have said that there isn't a child over ten in the Arab world who doesn't know what was done to Iran by the CIA. Twenty years of relative peace in exchange for eternal enmity doesn't make much sense to me, but to politicians, who see everything in the short term, it makes sense.

 

[baileyn45]

As to the original op. No, no, no, dear God no.

 

[Elvis Obama]

As to the original op. No, no, no, dear God no.

Fair enough. What's your suggestion, then? ISIS is spreading into Libya now. Half of Syria is displaced from their homes. Does the Pottery Barn doctrine not hold?

 

[baileyn45]

As to the original op. No, no, no, dear God no.

Fair enough. What's your suggestion, then? ISIS is spreading into Libya now. Half of Syria is displaced from their homes. Does the Pottery Barn doctrine not hold?

I'm not up on the pottery barn thing. But if you think this country(the USA) becoming solely responsible for this mess, I'll say it again No, no no, dear God no. My personal belief. Help the Russians crush the FSA and ISIS. The FSA is about as moderate as Al Nusra. The vast majority of non sunnis in that country are protected and happily so by govt force and the Kurds. This country taking the lead in Syria is never, ever going to work.. As far as Libya, another brain dead decision by this country. Of course if the US military had its way it would be over in a minute. There are enough local forces that would destroy ISIS. Not that they would be much better, but this adm will sit on it's hands and pretend all is well.

 

[Elvis Obama]

As to the original op. No, no, no, dear God no.

Fair enough. What's your suggestion, then? ISIS is spreading into Libya now. Half of Syria is displaced from their homes. Does the Pottery Barn doctrine not hold?

I'm not up on the pottery barn thing. But if you think this country(the USA) becoming solely responsible for this mess, I'll say it again No, no no, dear God no. My personal belief. Help the Russians crush the FSA and ISIS. The FSA is about as moderate as Al Nusra. The vast majority of non sunnis in that country are protected and happily so by govt force and the Kurds. This country taking the lead in Syria is never, ever going to work.. As far as Libya, another brain dead decision by this country. Of course if the US military had its way it would be over in a minute. There are enough local forces that would destroy ISIS. Not that they would be much better, but this adm will sit on it's hands and pretend all is well.

Well, my proposal, if you read it, makes it clear that this cannot be a unilateral US effort. I think we could have avoided much of the mess we find ourselves in if we had gone into Afghanistan at the head of a true international coalition, and stayed the hell out of Iraq. I wanted to see this idea tried then, after we kicked over the Taliban government. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and, with the help and cooperation of the rest of the world, turned it into the garden spot of the region. Instead we installed that worthless idiot Karzai, just as we did in Iraq with al-Maliki, so we could prop up the illusion that this is an independent state, capable of self-governance.

The pottery barn analogy was used by Colin Powell before we invaded Iraq. "If you break it, you own it". We broke it, and now we're responsible for fixing it (or at least trying to fix it).

I agree that there is nothing to choose from between the different blades that make up the Syrian meat grinder. Assad is incapable of keeping order. If restoring him to power was ever a viable option, that time is long gone. The only question is what we're going to do after the next president breaks the back of all the pretenders to Syrian power. Install another idiot with no credibility who will do nothing but try, unsuccessfully, to prove his independence from America? That is a failed approach, and there is absolutely no point in trying it again.

So, again, what would you want to see happen, after the US military has its way? The same approach which failed in Afghanistan and Iraq?

 

[baileyn45]

As to the original op. No, no, no, dear God no.

Fair enough. What's your suggestion, then? ISIS is spreading into Libya now. Half of Syria is displaced from their homes. Does the Pottery Barn doctrine not hold?

I'm not up on the pottery barn thing. But if you think this country(the USA) becoming solely responsible for this mess, I'll say it again No, no no, dear God no. My personal belief. Help the Russians crush the FSA and ISIS. The FSA is about as moderate as Al Nusra. The vast majority of non sunnis in that country are protected and happily so by govt force and the Kurds. This country taking the lead in Syria is never, ever going to work.. As far as Libya, another brain dead decision by this country. Of course if the US military had its way it would be over in a minute. There are enough local forces that would destroy ISIS. Not that they would be much better, but this adm will sit on it's hands and pretend all is well.

Well, my proposal, if you read it, makes it clear that this cannot be a unilateral US effort. I think we could have avoided much of the mess we find ourselves in if we had gone into Afghanistan at the head of a true international coalition, and stayed the hell out of Iraq. I wanted to see this idea tried then, after we kicked over the Taliban government. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and, with the help and cooperation of the rest of the world, turned it into the garden spot of the region. Instead we installed that worthless idiot Karzai, just as we did in Iraq with al-Maliki, so we could prop up the illusion that this is an independent state, capable of self-governance.

The pottery barn analogy was used by Colin Powell before we invaded Iraq. "If you break it, you own it". We broke it, and now we're responsible for fixing it (or at least trying to fix it).

I agree that there is nothing to choose from between the different blades that make up the Syrian meat grinder. Assad is incapable of keeping order. If restoring him to power was ever a viable option, that time is long gone. The only question is what we're going to do after the next president breaks the back of all the pretenders to Syrian power. Install another idiot with no credibility who will do nothing but try, unsuccessfully, to prove his independence from America? That is a failed approach, and there is absolutely no point in trying it again.

So, again, what would you want to see happen, after the US military has its way? The same approach which failed in Afghanistan and Iraq?

 

[baileyn45]

I agree, particularly with Afghanistan. If it had been up to me I would have poured all resources into there. Not iraq. Although that could hsve worked if it wasn't fot debaathification. Idiocy.

As to the original op. No, no, no, dear God no.

Fair enough. What's your suggestion, then? ISIS is spreading into Libya now. Half of Syria is displaced from their homes. Does the Pottery Barn doctrine not hold?

I'm not up on the pottery barn thing. But if you think this country(the USA) becoming solely responsible for this mess, I'll say it again No, no no, dear God no. My personal belief. Help the Russians crush the FSA and ISIS. The FSA is about as moderate as Al Nusra. The vast majority of non sunnis in that country are protected and happily so by govt force and the Kurds. This country taking the lead in Syria is never, ever going to work.. As far as Libya, another brain dead decision by this country. Of course if the US military had its way it would be over in a minute. There are enough local forces that would destroy ISIS. Not that they would be much better, but this adm will sit on it's hands and pretend all is well.

Well, my proposal, if you read it, makes it clear that this cannot be a unilateral US effort. I think we could have avoided much of the mess we find ourselves in if we had gone into Afghanistan at the head of a true international coalition, and stayed the hell out of Iraq. I wanted to see this idea tried then, after we kicked over the Taliban government. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and, with the help and cooperation of the rest of the world, turned it into the garden spot of the region. Instead we installed that worthless idiot Karzai, just as we did in Iraq with al-Maliki, so we could prop up the illusion that this is an independent state, capable of self-governance.

The pottery barn analogy was used by Colin Powell before we invaded Iraq. "If you break it, you own it". We broke it, and now we're responsible for fixing it (or at least trying to fix it).

I agree that there is nothing to choose from between the different blades that make up the Syrian meat grinder. Assad is incapable of keeping order. If restoring him to power was ever a viable option, that time is long gone. The only question is what we're going to do after the next president breaks the back of all the pretenders to Syrian power. Install another idiot with no credibility who will do nothing but try, unsuccessfully, to prove his independence from America? That is a failed approach, and there is absolutely no point in trying it again.

So, again, what would you want to see happen, after the US military has its way? The same approach which failed in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I agree whole heartedy with your take on Iraq. All resources should have been poured into Afghanistan, Iraq was a colossal mistake

On Assad you are wrong. Whatever you think of the man or the regime, their forces are the only non sunni(muslim brotherhood) forces in country, with the exception of the sunni kurds(I don't believe quite taken by the
. Even many sunnis fight with Assad. If the Obama adm has it's way there will be no one, and I stress no one that lives through this other than sunni wahabi forces. Look into the percentage of the Syrian population and see where they ran to. From every source I can find they are only protected by the govt forces or the kurds. The US backed filth is wahabi, period.
.

 

[Tehon]

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism.
Riiight......Did primitivism overthrow Mossadegh or was that the CIA? And what was the net result of that......the Ayatollahs. You probably think of them as primitive for their religious views and yet Iran still has a very modern society not unlike what Iraq had before we started intervening there. So did primitivism overthrow Saddam or was that the US military? And after how many years of crippling Western sanctions? Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s? And what was the net result of arming and training the mujahideen.......al qaeda. It's easy to criticize a society as primitive when their country is in ruins and there infrastructure destroyed from American made bombs, but these conditions weren't always so.
With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how?
Cooperation has to be between all the energy producing and exporting countries. There is enough energy in the ground and enough consumers to make accommodations for everyone to have a piece of the pie. The people of the world do not benefit from all the conflicts and it should matter not to the people where the energy comes from. Those that benefit are the same ones that use the military and economic superiority of our government to control the resources for their own profits, the corporations.

Primitives throw acid in the faces of little girls who want to go to school. Primitives treat homosexuals as criminals and execute them. Primitives smash artworks that offend them. Primitives subjugate women.

The fact that we are far from perfect does not negate the fact that we are the more advanced culture. That was not always so, but it sure as hell is true now. The difference between us is far from absolute, but it is very important. The most civilized people in Arab society are more civilized than the most primitive people in our society. Operation Ajax was a crime against all of humanity. Nonetheless, we Western nations represent an advancement in human culture, in human governance. The most enlightened people in Arab society want what we have, because they recognize it is superior, but they failed to get it, and the Arab Spring died. Mossadegh could have been the Atatürk that the Arabs so desperately need, but we thoughtlessly stepped on him. Both tragic, but we can't do anything about it now. They tried to leap forward, tripped and face-planted.

"Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s?"
ISIS is not a tool of Western states. The Mujahideen were. We created ISIS, but not intentionally, and we certainly don't benefit from them.

The primitives that you are speaking of in your first paragraph happen to share the same religious ideology as your allies in the KSA and some other Gulf countries. And of course ISIS benefits the US policy to remove Assad. Destabilization is the name of the game, don't you know?

To understand what I'm saying just ask yourself which countries are your primitives running around in and which are they not. The answer is telling.

My allies? Hmmn. Yeah, they're all the same, by and large. All states which reject secularism are essentially the same. So? Destabilization is not the name of the game, keeping the lid on is the name of the game. We are pathetically inept at doing so, but that's what we want. ISIS and Assad are equally unworthy of managing countries and we want neither. We did not create ISIS as a tool to remove Assad.

As far as your final question goes, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Every country in the world has primitives running around in it. The only relevant question is which countries have the primitives in charge of the government. Assad got the country from his daddy, like it's a freaking family heirloom or something. That is primitivism.

It is all about destabilization. The destabilization that occurred when we took out Saddam and invited the Shia expansion led directly to the further destabilization of Iraq and Syria in an effort to counter the Shia expansion. And lets not forget the destabilization of Libya to fund and equip the war in Syria. ISIS is integral to this destabilization and the overthrow of Assad. I think our policy makers do want to keep a lid on it..... to a degree, that is why Obama's policy towards ISIS has been containment.

The final point I was making is that the worst of the actors in the ME are all acting in countries that the West has destabilized. The other countries, our allies, all have their bad actors under control. Just as Iraq, Syria and Libya did before US destabilization. It's not coincidence. US foreign policy is not benevolent and it is no accident things are as they are. The history of US foreign policies is replete with examples that support my position.

It's a matter of semantics, really. It is valid to call world efforts in the region destabilization. I think the very borders of these countries were chosen to maximize internal dissent, and thereby keep these people out of our hair. It's always done with very short term goals in mind. I saw an interview with Kissinger where he tried to justify the installment of the Shah on the Peacock Throne, by saying that the Shah kept the lid on things for twenty years, and that's pretty good, as these things go. How such short-sighted strategies work out in the long term seemed to be beyond his thinking. I've seen interviews with Arab leaders who have said that there isn't a child over ten in the Arab world who doesn't know what was done to Iran by the CIA. Twenty years of relative peace in exchange for eternal enmity doesn't make much sense to me, but to politicians, who see everything in the short term, it makes sense.

Twenty years of relative peace in exchange for eternal enmity doesn't make much sense to me, but to politicians, who see everything in the short term, it makes sense.
Let's be clear here that Kissinger's concern was not peace. His concern was to keep the oil flowing and to that end he supported the Shah and the Savak, who disappeared anyone with intentions of getting in the way. So really what else can he say besides that his policies in the ME were a colossal failure whose implications are still reverberating today. I get your point about the shortsightedness of it though and thank you for your efforts to view things from my perspective.

 

[Tehon]

As to the original op. No, no, no, dear God no.

Fair enough. What's your suggestion, then? ISIS is spreading into Libya now. Half of Syria is displaced from their homes. Does the Pottery Barn doctrine not hold?

I'm not up on the pottery barn thing. But if you think this country(the USA) becoming solely responsible for this mess, I'll say it again No, no no, dear God no. My personal belief. Help the Russians crush the FSA and ISIS. The FSA is about as moderate as Al Nusra. The vast majority of non sunnis in that country are protected and happily so by govt force and the Kurds. This country taking the lead in Syria is never, ever going to work.. As far as Libya, another brain dead decision by this country. Of course if the US military had its way it would be over in a minute. There are enough local forces that would destroy ISIS. Not that they would be much better, but this adm will sit on it's hands and pretend all is well.

Well, my proposal, if you read it, makes it clear that this cannot be a unilateral US effort. I think we could have avoided much of the mess we find ourselves in if we had gone into Afghanistan at the head of a true international coalition, and stayed the hell out of Iraq. I wanted to see this idea tried then, after we kicked over the Taliban government. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and, with the help and cooperation of the rest of the world, turned it into the garden spot of the region. Instead we installed that worthless idiot Karzai, just as we did in Iraq with al-Maliki, so we could prop up the illusion that this is an independent state, capable of self-governance.

The pottery barn analogy was used by Colin Powell before we invaded Iraq. "If you break it, you own it". We broke it, and now we're responsible for fixing it (or at least trying to fix it).

I agree that there is nothing to choose from between the different blades that make up the Syrian meat grinder. Assad is incapable of keeping order. If restoring him to power was ever a viable option, that time is long gone. The only question is what we're going to do after the next president breaks the back of all the pretenders to Syrian power. Install another idiot with no credibility who will do nothing but try, unsuccessfully, to prove his independence from America? That is a failed approach, and there is absolutely no point in trying it again.

So, again, what would you want to see happen, after the US military has its way? The same approach which failed in Afghanistan and Iraq?

just as we did in Iraq with al-Maliki, so we could prop up the illusion that this is an independent state, capable of self-governance.
Again I will take exception with this idea that it was just a hapless mistake. Nouri al-Maliki was a top leader in the Daawa party, a party with close ties to the Iranian revolutionaries. He exiled for a number of years in Tehran. It can be reasonably assumed that US intelligence was aware of this connection. And it is clear that Saudi King Abdullah warned Bush of Maliki and Iranian influence in general. Yet the Bush administration tapped Maliki anyway, the man King Abdullah dubbed an "Iranian agent". In my mind it had to be done with intent, knowing full well the implications.

 

[Tehon]

As to the original op. No, no, no, dear God no.

Fair enough. What's your suggestion, then? ISIS is spreading into Libya now. Half of Syria is displaced from their homes. Does the Pottery Barn doctrine not hold?

I'm not up on the pottery barn thing. But if you think this country(the USA) becoming solely responsible for this mess, I'll say it again No, no no, dear God no. My personal belief. Help the Russians crush the FSA and ISIS. The FSA is about as moderate as Al Nusra. The vast majority of non sunnis in that country are protected and happily so by govt force and the Kurds. This country taking the lead in Syria is never, ever going to work.. As far as Libya, another brain dead decision by this country. Of course if the US military had its way it would be over in a minute. There are enough local forces that would destroy ISIS. Not that they would be much better, but this adm will sit on it's hands and pretend all is well.

Well, my proposal, if you read it, makes it clear that this cannot be a unilateral US effort. I think we could have avoided much of the mess we find ourselves in if we had gone into Afghanistan at the head of a true international coalition, and stayed the hell out of Iraq. I wanted to see this idea tried then, after we kicked over the Taliban government. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and, with the help and cooperation of the rest of the world, turned it into the garden spot of the region. Instead we installed that worthless idiot Karzai, just as we did in Iraq with al-Maliki, so we could prop up the illusion that this is an independent state, capable of self-governance.

The pottery barn analogy was used by Colin Powell before we invaded Iraq. "If you break it, you own it". We broke it, and now we're responsible for fixing it (or at least trying to fix it).

I agree that there is nothing to choose from between the different blades that make up the Syrian meat grinder. Assad is incapable of keeping order. If restoring him to power was ever a viable option, that time is long gone. The only question is what we're going to do after the next president breaks the back of all the pretenders to Syrian power. Install another idiot with no credibility who will do nothing but try, unsuccessfully, to prove his independence from America? That is a failed approach, and there is absolutely no point in trying it again.

So, again, what would you want to see happen, after the US military has its way? The same approach which failed in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Assad is incapable of keeping order. If restoring him to power was ever a viable option, that time is long gone.
This is not true either, Assad has a history of keeping order. Remove all the foreign mercenaries from his country and I see no reason why he cannot lead his country again. It is up to the Syrian people to decide how they should conduct their affairs, not Western Zionist governments and their mercenary armies.

That is a failed approach, and there is absolutely no point in trying it again.
That is an excellent observation but what you are proposing seems akin to the Israeli occupation of Palestine which is also a failure. Why don't we try something truly unique.........cooperation, and end all this meddling for control of land and resources.