Obama faces unpalatable Syrian choices

[FarCenter]

The scenario Obama has presented to the world looks like then US president Bill Clinton's 1998 strikes against Iraq, but the reality may be that of an incremental, yet steady escalation of Vietnam-style US involvement.

If this eventual US military strategy in Syria appears risky, the political strategy is even more problematic. Getting rid of Assad may be difficult, but it is the easiest of the tasks facing Washington in Syria.

Syria has been divided into many enclaves, ruled by forces deeply hostile to one another. Whatever happens to Assad, the Iranian connection to Syria's Alawites and, more importantly, Lebanon's Hezbollah is unlikely to wither away.

As to Assad's foes, some of them, allied to Al Qaeda, are much more dangerous to the US and its interests than the current Syrian government has ever been.

In a conflict increasingly dominated by the Shia coalition of the Alawites and Hezbollah on the one hand, and the Sunni allies and affiliates of Al Qaeda on the other, making sure that a pro-Western secular and democratic force emerges as the winner will be tough.
...

There is no question that the use of chemical weapons, especially against innocent civilians, is a heinous crime. It stands to reason that those responsible for such a crime should answer for their actions.

However, an unconvincing case for swift punishment, either leaving the presumed perpetrators in place, only slightly bruised, or inviting the US to join a sectarian war in a Muslim country, should be dismissed.

Instead, establishing the truth about the attack should be the first step in the search for a political settlement in Syria. Pushing back another Geneva conference proudly announced by the US and Russia last May will only result in many more casualties in Syria. For the victims, whether they die by chemical or conventional weapons makes little difference.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8386936.html

[longship]

1. This is important for DUers to realize.

We hear all about how this is all about MIC, and President Obama and John Kerry are just like Chimp and Condi Rice. They're liars, neocons, warmongers.

But nobody saying these things seem to consider putting themselves in the shoes of the President.

As a citizen I am against any intervention in Syria. But hell if I could say that I would be able to ignore this if it were my decision.

That's why I have sympathy for what my president has to bear with this. It's the most difficult fucking job on the planet.

[David__77]

2. I don't see the point of sympathy.

Should we have sympathized with every president? Sure, it's a tough job - you don't just get to clock out. But you are responsible for making the right decisions.

[longship]

3. No sympathy for Bush II. None at all.

Sympathy only comes when it is deserved and earned and when I have empathy for the person.

So it is not universal with me.

Thanks for your response.