Personally I think the advice is foolhardy and dangerous, risking confrontation with the Russians, who would certainly nt sit idly by while their ally was attacked. And to what end? The regime represents a substantial number of Syrians who aren’t just going to disappear when Assad falls.
Have these people learned nothing from the disaster that was Iraq post-Saddam?
An Apache Sqd destroys a column of Syrian Arab Army, killing amongst others Russian Special Forces. Putin orders the VVS to provide cover for Russians and they shoot down American planes, which results in the US attacking Russian Airbases in Syria, the Russians retaliate by sinking a CV in the Med, the Amewricans launch strikes against the Russian Naval Base… and so on until it ends with Minuteman on a 30 kin flight to Russia.
We’ve done more than enough military adventuring in that part of the world. I would bring our troops home and stay the hell out of it. People have been killing each other over there for thousands of years, and will likely still be at it at the heat death of the universe.
You must have heard that on Fox news because I know it to be a heinous lie. Why just the other day I see Obama on the tube telling me the Syrian situation was settled down and we were winning.
It seems that whenever we take out some dictator who kills and tortures have the people, some religious weirdos take over and kill and torture everyone.
You’d think we’d learn taking out the strong man and plunging the country into civil war doesn’t work very well. Syria is already in civil war with who knows how many inside and outside factions in play. How is getting rid of Assad supposed to help?
We should probably help Assad reestablish control, stop the mass exodus of refugees and go back to nagging about democratic reforms.
Okay so there’s 51 as opposed to 13,000 Foreign Service employees and 11,000 Civil Service employees (according to wiki). The best CNN can do is try to equate the fringe views of a tiny minority of junior folks that want to go full on regime change to department leadership that is leaning towards an unspecified more aggressive stance without going that far. That overall stance isn’t new. This memo really isn’t meaningful news either. The memo does offer a chance to use some hyperbole and implication to drive traffic.