On August 24, conservative (sorta) author and defense-policy wise man Edward Luttwak published an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that the optimal U.S. strategy for the Syrian civil war is to let all the parties to the conflict continue to bleed each other.
The room in Damascus is clean, neat, symmetrical. The table has almost the exact circumference as a circle that it stands on in the regionally inflected rug. The skinny dictator, the precise eye surgeon who didn’t like the site of blood, sits straight, pointing with erect fingers. All that’s off is the rumpled American Southerner questioning him. But Charlie Rose came ready. He did not appear as he frequently does on his late-night show—a sometimes soothing, sometimes baffling mix of docile and self-aggrandizing. He asked tough questions, and he let Syrian President Bashar Assad respond.
Syrian President Bashar Assad’s alleged chemical weapons attack on his own people last month provoked President Barack Obama's use-of-force resolution in Congress, but if the United States should strike Syria, its goal probably will not be to blow up lots of chemical agent (a self-evidently hazardous proposition) or even to focus on facilities related to such weapons.
I know you’re running for a job, Ms. Cheney, but your past record on Syria is complicating!
Paris has become Europe's leading hawk. It actually isn't an anomaly
With the British parliament’s no vote on Syria intervention, France has become President Obama’s most important ally as he plans strikes against Bashar Assad’s regime. And if the U.S. Congress follows in the footsteps of their British counterparts and votes against a military operation, France would emerge as the major military power most willing to intervene to punish the Syrian regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons.
President Obama has just declared his decision to launch military strikes against Syria, after seeking approval for Congress, in order to hold the Syrian government accountable for its recent chemical weapon atrocities.
U.S. backsliding on red lines regarding Syrian chemical weapons only encourages the Assad regime to make choices that increase the likelihood of direct U.S. intervention.
About midway through a White House conference call Thursday on Syria, the Wall Street Journal email newswire sent out a quick update. It had reported that the United States was proposing a no-fly zone in Syria—a massive step that would represent a severe escalation of U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, and an explicit militarization of that involvement. Not so fast! The Journal update noted merely that a U.S. military proposal calls for a no-fly.
A reporter who visited the White House last week brought back the news that the criticism of President Obama’s immobility about the Syrian disaster has “begun to sting.” Good. Something got through.
The bombing of weapons in Syria has as much to do with Iran
How the bombing of weapons in Syria sends a message to Iran, too.