Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cqo_000

(313 posts)
Sat Dec 14, 2013, 02:02 AM Dec 2013

Assad win may be Syria's best option: ex-CIA chief

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON: The sectarian bloodbath in Syria is such a threat to regional security that a victory for Bashar al-Assad's regime could the best outcome to hope for, a former CIA chief said Thursday.

...Michael Hayden, the retired US Air Force general who until 2009 was head of the Central Intelligence Agency, said a rebel win was not one of the three possible outcomes he foresees for the conflict.

"Option three is Assad wins," Hayden told the annual Jamestown Foundation conference of terror experts.

"And I must tell you at the moment, as ugly as it sounds, I'm kind of trending toward option three as the best out of three very, very ugly possible outcomes," he said.

Read more: http://dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Dec-13/240934-assad-win-may-be-syrias-best-option-ex-cia-chief.ashx#axzz2nLYWizru

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Assad win may be Syria's best option: ex-CIA chief (Original Post) cqo_000 Dec 2013 OP
Michael Hayden, the retired US Air Force general who until 2009... madinmaryland Dec 2013 #1
Don't know that I agree with his 3 most likely options. Igel Dec 2013 #8
Good analysis thanks!..nt Jesus Malverde Dec 2013 #10
I think the best we can do is focus on the effort to get rid of the chemical weapons davidpdx Dec 2013 #2
You mentioned that elsewhere too David. dipsydoodle Dec 2013 #5
This whole Syria thing really isn't working out the way it was supposed to. Comrade Grumpy Dec 2013 #3
With all due respect Sir azurnoir Dec 2013 #4
The way it was supposed to? JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2013 #7
I totally agree with this guy. n/t cosmicone Dec 2013 #6
DUH. We should have left Iraq alone. jsr Dec 2013 #9

madinmaryland

(64,933 posts)
1. Michael Hayden, the retired US Air Force general who until 2009...
Sat Dec 14, 2013, 02:07 AM
Dec 2013

was a Bush/Cheney sycophant says what. He needs to go hunting with Cheney.

Igel

(35,359 posts)
8. Don't know that I agree with his 3 most likely options.
Sat Dec 14, 2013, 01:37 PM
Dec 2013

Still food for thought.

Option 1 is "more of the same." We don't like that. It's just more protracted warfare in which a lot of people die. Status quo. While it's possible there'll be a sudden unified push to take out Assad, it's not something I think is likely, either. (There--somebody'll say I'm on Hayden's side, and therefore a Bush/Cheney support, because we both agree on something that's butt-obvious.)

Option 2 is having the state and therefore the borders unravel. Not likely on the N, E, or S. Don't really care about Lebanon, to be honest, but neocolonialist France won't let that happen. Neocolonialism is cool now that it's wrapped in the right flag (old colonialism was cool, too, when it was wrapped in the right flag.)

If France does get involved, then there's the question of how. Will it impose the sort-of secularist National Syrian group, and help it win power? Will it allow for a partition of the country so that the Xians, Alawites, Sunnis, modernists can all coexist in their own geographical and political spaces? (This was sort of the Lebanese solution that France had long ago, in you recall.) Or will France go for the sadistic Bosnian solution, forcing everybody to live in a small commonwealth for the sake of a single group that couldn't be viable if alone, but saying that it's because everybody will, dammit, get along and be thankful for it because that's what we think is the way humans are meant to live (5000 years of human history saying pretty much the opposite).

Option 3 is having Assad reassert control. It was okay in 2007-8, it seems, and only really became a problem for many when there was something "we" thought we had that Assad would be taking away, a government that we approved of set up by the protest movement from 2-3 years ago. (Granted, opposition to Assad grew when it stopped being a sine qua non of domestic US politics; the same happened in Europe, for the same reasons--it was no longer necessary to oppose certain players in US politics. This coming from a person who wanted the old Assad gone, saw the eye-doctor ungroomed son as little better and who wanted him gone about 2 minutes after he was in charge, and who still wants him gone.)



Other options:
--Islamists win.
--Suicide attack takes out Assad and, to avoid an Islamist win, the Alawite/Xian/pro-Assad groups manage to make friends with the slightly secular Sunni non-extremists and join forces against the Islamists.
--And my favorite, slightly secular Sunni non-extremists swallow their pride and make peace with Assad for an interim government that might not guarantee them power but might lead to a better, if not perfect, future.


Then again, I have a hunch "my favorite" would be a bandaid on a very, very large boil--it might be okay and fade away, but odds are it'll wait a bit and then erupt.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
2. I think the best we can do is focus on the effort to get rid of the chemical weapons
Sat Dec 14, 2013, 02:51 AM
Dec 2013

and help refugees, and let the rest play out internally.

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,367 posts)
7. The way it was supposed to?
Sat Dec 14, 2013, 12:37 PM
Dec 2013

Was there ever a vision of how it was supposed to work out?

Or was it just "Assad is bad"?

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Assad win may be Syria's ...