Related to speech, word also comes down that Obama is looking to step up support for the good Syrian rebels - to which my response would be good luck finding the 'good guys' in that mess of shit and regardless how the hell does this make any sense? One of the arguments for early involvement in this war was that that was the only way to keep the conflict from turning into a breeding ground for radicalized Sunni jihadists - I'm not at all sure that would have worked but at least there was some sense to it - but now? Talk about trying to kick shut the jihadist barn door long after the virgins in paradise seekers have thoroughly run amok. I don't get this one, other than it again being an image management calculation. Is this some attempt to put pressure on Iran viz the nuke deal? That seems highly unlikely, and I wouldn't see the strategic sense of it even if it were feasible. Besides, isn't this war essentially over? Doesn't a token effort to fluff up the putative 'good guys' just guarantee more carnage that changes nothing? And how exactly without American boots on the ground do you expect to serve the dubious interests of 'good' insurgents without at the same time serving the interests of the 'bad' insurgents as well?
And then let's consider how all the parties that don't like America and have vested interests in the outcome of this war will look upon this effort - Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and the various al Qaeda affiliates - a halfhearted commitment from Obama could get ya nothing but a hornets nest rattled for no good reason - and could inspire those vested interests to engage in some escalatory behavior designed to make you look weak and foolish, which is exactly what will happen if you're trying to do war by the half measure without a coherent strategic outcome as the goal.
I just don't see how you get a coherent strategic outcome here without a viable proxy, strongly backed, that can serve America's interests against Iran's and Russia's - where in this mess do you see a viable proxy? Even if there are 'good' insurgents one can sort of trust, do you really think AQ etc etc are gonna let them prosper at their expense in the mad scramble for influence that Syria would become should Assad go bye bye and there's no American force on the ground to impose something resembling a peace? I don't think so.
Sorry, this looks like more window dressing to me, image management - that's what Obama's about, either because when it comes to foreign policy he is by nature and ideological predisposition not qualified to lead - or because he has a specific goal here and it has very little to do with serving America's interests, at least not in terms that the average American would understand or agree with.
And then let's consider how all the parties that don't like America and have vested interests in the outcome of this war will look upon this effort - Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and the various al Qaeda affiliates - a halfhearted commitment from Obama could get ya nothing but a hornets nest rattled for no good reason - and could inspire those vested interests to engage in some escalatory behavior designed to make you look weak and foolish, which is exactly what will happen if you're trying to do war by the half measure without a coherent strategic outcome as the goal.
I just don't see how you get a coherent strategic outcome here without a viable proxy, strongly backed, that can serve America's interests against Iran's and Russia's - where in this mess do you see a viable proxy? Even if there are 'good' insurgents one can sort of trust, do you really think AQ etc etc are gonna let them prosper at their expense in the mad scramble for influence that Syria would become should Assad go bye bye and there's no American force on the ground to impose something resembling a peace? I don't think so.
Sorry, this looks like more window dressing to me, image management - that's what Obama's about, either because when it comes to foreign policy he is by nature and ideological predisposition not qualified to lead - or because he has a specific goal here and it has very little to do with serving America's interests, at least not in terms that the average American would understand or agree with.
