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: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @03:57PM
When Assad was elected, I caught an interview with him, and the thing that struck me the most was that he was a pragmatist- very lucid on what it would take to keep Syria away from a theocracy, and one of the saner voices in the region.
10 years later, he is Satan incarnate.
So what has changed?
I'm not certain anyone else trying to maintain stability in the region wouldn't also end up with some blood on their hands.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Username on Saturday June 18 2016, @07:53PM
So what has changed?
Presidency.
Obama needed an easy win against someone in order to create better ties with his arab "allies," but was tricked into supporting ISIS. He made the mistake of surrendering the war in Iraq before seeing what his proxy fighters in Syria were doing, and now lost the Syrian proxy war, and created an enemy far more dangerous than Hussein or Assad.
These politicians are just trying to find a way to call it a win, no matter the cost.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 19 2016, @07:14AM
Bush signed the troop exit agreement, not Obama. Some argue he should have renegotiated, but we can't stay forever.
(Score: 2) by Username on Sunday June 19 2016, @09:26AM
Bush didn’t train and arm a portion of ISIS to overthrow Assad, or plan on the next president doing that. Most people would see how that ended in Afghanistan, and not attempt it again. Obama decided to roll that dice, and should have stayed in Iraq until the dust settled. There will be blowback from it as well, which Trump or post-trump would have to deal with.