Last year, I took a less aggressive approach on the merits of US intervention in Syria. However, with the conflict assuming an increasingly unrestrained character (both in terms of chemical weapons and conventional brutality), I've since changed my opinion. I'd support the following:
- Arming select rebels (Recognizing the risks of terrorists gaining access to weapons, I nonetheless believe this action is necessary).
- Engaging air/stand off missile platforms in low intensity, high impact operations - pursuing a condition of psychological instability in Assad affiliated military formations.
- Utilizing CIA SAD teams to support select rebels and to conduct direct action/US air sorties against key regime targets/regime enablers inside Syria.
- Taking deliberate steps to challenge the Lebanese Hizballah.
- Unifying regional and international opinion against Assad and his sponsors. In essence, attempting to shame the Russians into reducing their support for his regime. Admittedly, with Capo Putin at the helm, Russia is unlikely to budge.
It's worth noting that the US Military leadership are skeptical about the merits of increased US intervention in Syria. C-JCS Dempsey especially. But while I have a great deal of respect for Dempsey, I also believe that the US must not allow others to determine the outcome of the Syrian civil war in pursuit of malevolent interests. I also respectfully disagree with analysts like Max Fisher, who suggest that the US has better non-military options to apply in Syria. Fisher is right about humanitarian aid, but I cannot see how actions like intelligence sharing would succeed without an embedded US ground-liaison component.
In short, I think it's time for the US government to take risks and show initiative.
Other MENA writings.
Other MENA writings.
Bully for you. What a load of garbage. What are you going to do when the your unfavored rebels/terrorists attack your selected rebels and take their shiny new weapons off them?
ReplyDelete