The main criticism of U.S. policy in Syria has long been that President Barack Obama should have used U.S. military force or more aggressive arms aid to strengthen the armed opposition to Assad.
The easy answer is that the whole idea that there was a viable non-extremist force to be strengthened is a myth – albeit one that certain political figures in London and Washington refuse to give up.
But the question that should have been debated is why the Obama administration acquiesced to its allies funding and supplying a group of unsavory sectarian armed groups to overthrow the Assad regime.
That U.S. acquiescence is largely responsible for a horrible bloodletting that has now killed as many as 400,000 Syrians.
Worse yet, there is still no way to end the war without the serious threat of sectarian retribution against the losers.
Read more: The U.S.-Syria Scandal: Supporting Sectarian War - The Globalist
The easy answer is that the whole idea that there was a viable non-extremist force to be strengthened is a myth – albeit one that certain political figures in London and Washington refuse to give up.
But the question that should have been debated is why the Obama administration acquiesced to its allies funding and supplying a group of unsavory sectarian armed groups to overthrow the Assad regime.
That U.S. acquiescence is largely responsible for a horrible bloodletting that has now killed as many as 400,000 Syrians.
Worse yet, there is still no way to end the war without the serious threat of sectarian retribution against the losers.
Read more: The U.S.-Syria Scandal: Supporting Sectarian War - The Globalist
No comments:
Post a Comment