As was said, the current "approach" is "working" for some.
I don't think anybody is happy about the current Syrian situation except maybe Al Qaeda. Even Saudi Arabia and Qatar would probably like things to be going differently.
APF doesn't come in screaming at others about how stupid they are. APF doesn't spam NST with the same tired topic 30 times a month. APF doesn't link to some kook in his mom's basement telling you how to, "Be afraid. Be very afraid" of the world falling down around you. And, when APF is proven wrong, he acknowledges he made a mistake and moves on, rather than harping about "sheeple."
I don't think anybody is happy about the current Syrian situation except maybe Al Qaeda. Even Saudi Arabia and Qatar would probably like things to be going differently.
Any companies that might see benefit? Any gangs, or entities of any scope? Any longer range plans on the Caspian Sea's resources that may be furthered by a different Syria? Were any benefits ever received by stabilized regions from interacting with destabilized regions at any point in history?
APF doesn't come in screaming at others about how stupid they are. APF doesn't spam NST with the same tired topic 30 times a month. APF doesn't link to some kook in his mom's basement telling you how to, "Be afraid. Be very afraid" of the world falling down around you. And, when APF is proven wrong, he acknowledges he made a mistake and moves on, rather than harping about "sheeple."
What the hell did we do? Syria and Egypt both have been completely internal battles that the US only wishes it could play a role in. The simple fact is that us doing as little as we have is not only the best course but a HUGE departure from past US administrations who very likely would have just propped up the now deposed dictators which was always a TERRIBLE policy that always cost us more in the long run.
What actions would you have prefered the US to take? There wasn't a lot of other options other than to sit on the sidelines and be cheer leaders for the revolutions (pick that side because it was the side that was going to win).
Our mostly hands off approach to these situations IMO is great foriegn policy that I hope the US adopts moving forward. We essentially accomplished the same type of regime change in Libya that we spent 3000+ American lives and countless billions of dollars to obtain in Iraq.
As Iraq proved, having US forces on the ground doesn't stop the type of civil wars that need to happen in these countries to eventually reach democracy. In fact having US forces there seemed to make the civil war bloodier and longer.
People need to do a little research into our own fight for freedom 200+ years ago. Do a little research on Torries and realize that the type of changes needed to make a democracy is always bloody and there is always a large segment of the population that will fight to the death for the status quo.
The problem with that analysis is that the groups coming to power share neither our values or interests.
You have a variety of players Iran, Russia, SA, Qatar, US, Turkey, Iraq, AQ...supporting various elements (across the entire spectrum) in order to advance their interests.
Bookmarks