I really don't find myself agreeing with Kissenger that much, although he usually manages to be interesting, but this theoretically detached, realpolitik rumination on all the sabre rattling noise viz Syria strikes me as pretty well put.
That being said, I deny the Chosen One and support Romney - yet Romney wants to arm the 'rebels' while Obama clearly wants nothing to do with Syria - what do I make of that?
Well, as for Romney, his position to me is clearly political, which should offend me I guess but then it would be naive to pretend this kind of game playing is avoidable when it comes to politics - I will say, though, that if intelligence reports suggest that Assad is doomed no matter what and the only chance we have of keeping an extremist Islamist regime from filling the vaccum is by inserting ourselves proactively now - well, then I could see myself entertaining the possibility of arming the rebels - but I'd still be highly skeptical - to me unless we're willing to commit to a bigger, more complex, much more dangerous military role down the road, which I don't think the American military has the desire or wherewithal to do right now and wouldn't be charged with doing anyways with Obama as president - unless you're willing to make a commitment like that you must stay clear of that bloody place. We just fought two long and costly wars in the benighted lands of Allah and in the long run the real winners of those wars likely turn out to be Iran and China. Without a clear, coherent, achievable strategy in mind you can't go in because the only strategy that makes any sense viz a Syria involvement is one that thwarts Iran's ambitions while preventing a noxious and destabilizing Sunni Islamist regime rushing in to fill the void - the only way to do that is through invasion and occupation, which didn't work in Iraq [although we entirely botched the occupation part, so...] and is clearly not in the cards here.
As for Obama, if he's staying out because of reasons stated above, then I could praise him for that - but of course, given his nature, his staying out probably has more to do with political calculations than strategic ones - I guess though since I'm forgiving Romney from possibly doing the same I must then forgive Obama too - but that's not gonna happen because Obama has completely muddied the water through an utterly confused reaction to putative Arab Spring, the politicizing of the Afghanistan campaign nee withdrawal and his idiotic involvement in Libya [one could possibly rationalize Obama's caution viz Syria if he hadn't foolishly established an entirely contradictory narrative for himself and the country in Libya] which combined make America look like a weak, incoherent, irresolute, hapless superpower in retreat. I can forgive Romney because he ain't president yet and therefore his hyperbole is probably not in the long run important - but Obama's foreign policy can be defended only if one envisions and possibly longs for a future where America is not a dominant and integral power - and since I don't see or long for such a thing Obama will be getting no praise from me. Some conservatives seem willing to concede that Obama's only successes have come in foreign policy, but I don't see that at all - at best it's a poorly if not incompetently executed muddle, at worst political agendas [and naive ideological abstractions aka Libya and the 'drone wars' which I alone seem to have figured out is the only kind of war a liberal can like] have trumped strategic coherence resulting in a significantly weakened America.
[So, what... we're just supposed to stand aside and let the slaughter of innocents continue? There's no evidence of a slaughter going on here - absolutely we're seeing the kind of bad, ugly stuff that happens in an urban based civil war - but we're not seeing Serbia-like atrocities - we're not seeing the beginnings of genocide - and if we did the situation would clarify on its own because at that point Russia and China and maybe even Iran would have no choice but to withdraw their support and I'm sure they've made that very clear to Assad. But... ah... we're just gonna pass on this chance to stymie Iran's ambitions then? Sure, taking Syria away from Iran is a set back - but don't assume too much here - because the sectarian problems that are causing the violence will still be there after Assad is hypothetically gone - which means you're like to see Sunni on Shia carnage - which means Iraq gets dragged into the conflict, pushing Iraqi Shia closer to Iran - and that probably then makes Russia and China much bigger players on the side of the Iraq/Iran alliance - which to my reckoning doesn't exactly add up to a weakened Iran - and let's not forget, at that point won't it be virtually impossible to stop Iran's nuclear program? So all these people thinking taking Syria away from Iran amounts to a death blow to the theocracy are making assumptions that could prove disastrously wrong]
