U.N. impasse leaves U.S. scrambling for Syria options

[bemildred]

Actually says: "coalition of the willing"

Reuters) - Beaten back by a double veto at the United Nations, the United States on Thursday sought to rescue its Syria strategy amid fears that the crisis was lurching into a dangerous endgame.

The Obama administration had fought for a U.N. Security Council resolution setting out consequences for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's failure to halt his crackdown, saying this was essential if international mediator Kofi Annan's fragile political transition plan was ever to take hold.

---

Some analysts said, however, that the United States and its allies might yet be drawn more directly into the Syrian conflict, with or without U.N. approval.

"The Friends of Syria could become the coalition of the willing. You lay down sanctions, and then you come up with military contingencies, that is Plan B," said Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/19/us-syria-crisis-usa-idUSBRE86I1MT20120719

[David__77]

1. Obama's policy of non-intervention should be praised.

The right-wing neocons want Obama to enter the quagmire in order to destroy his presidency.

Obama's administration has made its position clear and we should be thankful that insane McCain isn't president, leading the charge for foreign insurgents with US treasure and blood.

[Craig_Langford]

2. The US is already involved

The US is already involved indirectly in Syria. Last month, the US government met with the rebels to discuss providing weapons to the "Free" Syrian Army. Arms have already been funneled there indirectly through Saudi Arabia and US allies in the region:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-rebels-get-influx-of-arms-with-gulf-neighbors-money-us-coordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_story.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3a8057e8-7bf1-11e1-9100-00144feab49a.html#axzz218jpIgiO

This fits in well with America's historical pattern of arming a bunch of countries at once to always keep people on edge, but never allowing one side to become dominant. And after its criminal war of aggression and bloody occupation of Iraq who believes that the government as a whole is really interested in "humanitarian" interventions?

[David__77]

3. It's possible the US is involved.

Of course the US intelligence agencies have their own agenda and networks internationally. And Britain has been very much war crazy regarding Syria. It would be over simplistic to assume that the main center of intervention comes from the US - Turkey, the Gulf states, Britain all have their agendas.

It is clear that Russia is interested in peaceful settlement and the US is not. This policy of supporting disintegration of states will definitely result is blowback.

[bemildred]

4. Lots of countires are "involved".

Everybody in the Middle East, Russia, China, Turkey, and who knows who else.

The OP wants to turn it into another Iraq, that is, they think what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan was GOOD, and they want to do it again in Syria. Aside from the fatuous nature of such a proposition from the point of view of the real self-interest of the USA, Syria, or anybody else really, what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq is not going to be allowed this time around, everybody has seen what that looks like, and it's pretty ugly.