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: 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.