Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday June 18 2016, @02:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the late-to-the-party dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday June 18 2016, @03:34PM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Saturday June 18 2016, @03:34PM (#362107)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5