SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Dozens of U.S. diplomats have urged bombings of President Bashar Assad's forces in Syria in order to make him more likely to step down. The memo, sent to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, was not necessarily intended to be public, and was sent through a "dissent channel":
More than 50 U.S. State Department officials have signed an internal memo calling for a change in the way the United States approaches Syria — specifically, advocating military pressure on Bashar Assad's regime to push him toward the negotiating table.
The diplomats expressed their opposition to the current U.S. policy through a cable on the State Department's dissent channel — which exists for just that reason. But NPR's Michele Kelemen reports that it's unusual for so many officials to sign on to such a cable. "Secretary of State John Kerry says he respects the process and will study their views," Michele tells our Newscast unit.
"The cable reportedly calls for targeted military strikes against the Assad regime, something the Obama administration has been reluctant to do," she reports. "Such action would also put the U.S. on a collision course with Russia at a time that Moscow is backing the Assad regime — and working with Secretary Kerry on a cease-fire and a diplomatic path that has faltered."
The New York Times , which has seen a copy of the memo, reports that the diplomats say they aren't advocating a confrontation with Russia. But a credible military threat against Assad is necessary to pressure him to negotiate, the officials argue. "The moral rationale for taking steps to end the deaths and suffering in Syria, after five years of brutal war, is evident and unquestionable. ... The status quo in Syria will continue to present increasingly dire, if not disastrous, humanitarian, diplomatic and terrorism-related challenges," the cable says, according to the Times.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday June 18 2016, @03:18PM
So what is the post Assad plan? What is the Plan B when that doesn't work? Assad is a monster, but only a monster can rule in that part of the world so again, what is the plan? Has nobody at the State Dept ever even studied the reasoning behind Sykes/Picot? You should understand a thing before setting out to dismantle it. That is one of the basic Conservative Ideas, Chesterton's Fence.
The opposition to Assad is an assortment of terror groups, sit them down at a negotiating table with Assad and things will get better how? Continuing to backdoor fund terror groups to keep the civil war in Syria going is going to help who? How? What the F*ck are they thinking? What is their actual goal?
Let Assad stay on an unstable throne depending on the Russians. It is the least bad option. If you don't like that idea, I really don't give a damn because I don't like it either. Suggest a alternative and if I can't shoot it down, maybe I'll agree.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday June 18 2016, @03:34PM
Both of the two earliest posts here are completely correct. There is no good option here, and did we learn nothing at all from Iraq? Even if we think some harebrained plan to eliminate Assad is a good idea, when it doesn't work out so great, guess who's to blame? "You break it, you own it" applies here.
Where are these morons coming from who think it's a great idea to back Al Qaeda and ISIS just so the "monster" Assad can be overthrown? All the groups opposing him are even worse than he is, usually far far far worse.
And now they want to put us in a position directly opposing Russia? Yeah, that sounds like a great idea!
This is what we'll get if we elect warmonger Hillary.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @04:35PM
The USA is one of the main parties responsible for the mess in Syria (and the region in general):
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-syria-wikileaks-idUSTRE73H0E720110418 [reuters.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]
Thing is, the mess seems to be what they expected and wanted from their actions (I'm not very sure why).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq [theguardian.com]
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html [washingtonsblog.com]
Yes the washingtonsblog etc are spinning it a bit - but doesn't take a genius to know what would happen (not like similar stuff hasn't happened before) and they still went for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @09:33PM
business, what they really mean is 'chaos and uncertainty.' Outright war is a good method for steady income if you are an impartial third party either selling weapons or 'offering assistance' in exchange for future favors. However when you ensure chaos and strike uncertainty into the hearts of the indigenous populace, you in addition gain the ability to manipulate a region for much larger goals, be they inciting rebellion or terrorism, keeping your adversaries (regional or abroad) busy quelling the conflict, or simply creating many opposing groups with which you can negotiate ruthlessly to get the best deal over the local resources, be it now (in exchange for military aid), or later in exchange for ending the conflict (usually by replacing it with a government far more restrictive than your own, thus allowing you to benefit both from totalitarianism while you officially spout the opposite as well as uncontested control of the resources because dissenting against you will have you reincite the chaos you previously fomented allowing a new organization to replace the rebellious previous one.)
(Score: 1) by pvanhoof on Sunday June 19 2016, @11:35AM
Divide et impera.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tisI on Sunday June 19 2016, @12:10AM
You are not alone in asking WTF is going on with Syria, America, and US political rhetoric.
Unfortunately you will not get any truth out of the american political propaganda media stream.
Syria is the last obstacle in American efforts to get a natural gas pipeline through the middle-east to European gas supply hubs in Turkey. The US is funding ISIS (yes, those wacky lovable terrorists that want only to kill your children) and the soviets are backing Assad's regime. The largest remaining gas pocket on the planet is below Iran and Qatar. American corporations want to tap out of Qatar. The Soviest want to tap out of Iran. It all boils down to a pissing contest between the US & Russa.
None of this has anything to do with "fighting terror".
Your favorite elected official (actually every last cocksucker in DC) is actually a puppy on a leash. A whore if you will. The holder-of-the-leash/master is Monsanto, Dow Chemical, General Mills, Exxon, Carlyle Group, Halliburton, the entire collective insurance industry, Utility Corporations, Kroch Bros, etc, etc. All the important people are being well taken care of, corporations are people now, by the bastards you cast your ballots for.
Were does that leave you?
Your favorite republican asswipes this last go-round handed Americans a turd called "Healthcare Reform" that the insurance lobby wrote. You are now obligated to pay the insurance industry an insanely high monthly fee for absolutely nothing in return. Even if your job has been off shored to China by the same bastards, and you're unemployed. Now you have the most expensive and shittiest health care system in the world. Pretty sweet deal the the insurance corporations though.
So, basically you are being sodomized every-single-day by the government you allowed to happen, right before your eyes, while you were busy catching all the latest episodes of Dancing with the Stars, The Real Bush People Of Alaska, and letting Fox and Fiends turn your mind into mush.
.. the short version
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."