> The warmongering Republican McCain's position makes far more
> sense than that proposed by the Democrat Nobel Peace Prize
> laureate. If you want to send in the military, do so in a way
> that it makes a meaningful difference and ends this senseless
> civil war.
And what would that way be?
It looks to me like what happened in Syria is an old story: an ethnic minority is placed in power by imperialists and finds that only through brutal repression can they stay in power. Eventually, this gets old for the repressed majority, and they revolt. And they are terribly pissed off, such that if/when they tear down the castle wall, they will kill each and every last one of them. In response, now that the dictator is literally fighting for his life and those of his minority members, he ratchets up the ferocity of his attacks. Lather, rinse, repeat. My prediction is that Assad will find himself, sooner or later, in a "spider hole" and if he's lucky (!) he'll get to beat his chest like Saddam did just before they pulled the lever.
There's a way to solve this that doesn't involve a huge amount (more!) of bloodletting?
Syria is fucked if we do, fucked if we don't. 7 *million* Syrians are now displaced, 2M of them outside Syria, according to the latest UN estimate. That's like 1/3 of the country.
-----
The only interesting point, to me, on this issue is Obama's decision to let Congress decide what to do. Obviously he can't risk what happened in Parliament to Cameron, so what's his angle? Maybe it's to try to break the wall of "every Republican the same" and split the crazies like McCain from the more politically savvy? It smells like a trap to me, so I'm interested in the outcome. Or maybe it's just as simple as calling Boener's bluff: "Hey, you can't do that without asking us!" "Ok, well, can I?" "Well, sure, you can!" ... plus, there's talk that Britain might vote again!
... stay tuned!
/jordan