That makes no sense, with no clear objective. And in any case, more forces on the ground would make everything worse and weaken America. I’m against weakening America, and therefore against more involvement in the Middle East.
The President is not getting thousands of Americans killed every year – that’s a pretty massive difference. In fact, I’d say that’s the most important consideration.
I’m against the quarter-in involvement we have now, but it’s a gnat’s fart in terms of cost, deaths, and how much it weakens America compared to the Vietnam War or the Iraq war.
A drunk staggering from one lamppost to another. That is our mid east policy.
This is one of the dumbest things ever written.
To follow up:
With **all **the U.S.-trained fighters dead, captured or missing and their leader in the hands of Al Qaeda, top U.S. commanders are scrambling this week to determine how to revive the half-billion dollar program to create a moderate Syrian army to fight the Islamic State.
Bold and underline mine. Wow.
Yep. Just get the hell out. We can’t do any good over there; we can only make things worse and weaken ourselves.
Um - there is nothing to actually get “out”. It’s all out already. $500M spent on training 50 fighters (who were supposed to be 5,000) who are all now killed/captured. $10M per fighter. Maybe I should put “fighter” in quotes since it is doubtful any “fighting” took place, really.
You’re saying we’re doing nothing in the region right now?
Yeah, I usually lean toward trying to help in cases like Syria, but the problem I see is the word “moderate” in front of “Syrian Army.” I may be exaggerating a little, but it seems that the moderate Syrians are camped out in train stations in Europe. Helping anyone still in Syria strikes me as being akin to helping the Taliban against the Russians and then being shocked when it ends badly for everyone.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is not true in the Middle East. Not for very long anyway.
Inside Syria? Pretty much nothing, AFAIK. There are no American military personnel in Syria. Or any American-supported forces. If you know something, cite?
Then I’m glad we’re out. We can do no good, except possibly very limited logistical support and humanitarian efforts.
With the wave of refugees recently, I’m honestly wondering if Syria (or at least the ISIS-held areas) are reaching a “Sodom & Gamorah” point, where the people who are still there are simply beyond hope. It seems as if everyone who is not willing to live under jihadist rule has fled the region. Maybe instead of trying to depose Assad, we should be helping him.
How much of that $500 million made it into Swiss secret bank accounts?
For short-term stability, sure, but it’s not like Assad is the kind of leader we want to be associating with. “Despots are better than terrorists” is a lousy slogan for foreign policy.
As a slogan, it’s lousy. As a policy (if that’s the choice) it’s sound.
Except for the American crews of US warplanes performing airstrikes against ISIS. Clearly, they’re inside Syria for much of their ingress and egress, although if their boots wind up on the ground something had to have gone terribly wrong.