The good news for hawks: If there’s any one member of the Bush administration you want making your case for you on Syria, it’s probably Condi. The bad news for hawks: You really don’t want any members of the Bush administration making your case for you on Syria. Rice, at least, gets a bit closer to filling in step two in the “underpants gnomes” plan for pacifying Syria:
Step one: U.S. intervention
Step two: ?????
Step three: Fighting declines and a peace settlement is reached
Intervene now to stop Assad’s momentum and then convince him to come to the bargaining table, when he’ll be willing to agree to a more equitable settlement for the rebels. Step two, essentially, is to put a hurt on him to the greatest extent possible, but it also presumably imagines leaving him in place as ruler of some post-treaty Shiite carve-out. How comfortable would the west be with that idea given the claims, which now include one by UN investigators, that he’s used chemical weapons on the enemy?
Her argument, like most calls for intervening in Syria, relies on three assumptions, none of which I’m sold on. First, that victory for Iran would be worse than victory for Sunni fanatics. Second, that a peace agreement between Assad and the rebels carving up Syria into Sunni and Alawite territories would hold. And third, that there remains a “small nucleus” of America-friendly rebels who, if empowered by the U.S. and placed in charge of the country afterward, might be able to maintain a cold peace between Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, and secularists. (Rice is sufficiently uncertain whether that faction of rebels exists that she hedges with the phrase “to the degree that they’re left on the ground in Syria” to describe them.) The third assumption seems ludicrous to me. Jihadists, after all, are salivating over having Syria as a new base of operations in the heart of the region. Libya is swell and all, but it’s on another continent. Syria’s where the action is, and even if a U.S. puppet/client were installed, they’ll fight for it afterward. At which point, what? Deeper western intervention?
Oh yeah, like the actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have worked out so well. Tell me again how many shots have to be fired at a US soldier before he can return fire?
Disagree wholeheartedly with Condi. We should do absolutely NOTHING to help either side. BOTH SIDES are enemies of America. PERIOD.
Who listens to this Affirmative Action Bush Administration hire? Condo Rice has been wrong about everything almost 100% of the time.
“Affirmative Action Bush Administration hire”
Keep expressing yourself like that and watch how much it helps Republicans in 2016.
(Hint: You’re not helping.)
We have absolutely no business getting involved with Syria and would gain nothing from it. The only aid I would support is humanitarian, to help refugees fleeing the conflict.