The first element of such a strategy should be to recognize that, if any prospect remains to change the calculations of Assad and his gang, it will be because of bold leadership from Washington, not Moscow — specifically, the use of limited military force, such as airstrikes, to neutralize Assad’s airpower, protect civilians in liberated areas and underscore that the Syrian leader’s cause is hopeless.*A negotiated settlement won't be achievable for the simple reason that US/NATO/Israel do not want to achieve a negotiated settlement. This stand explains Khatib's flip flop on talks with the Assad government - Syrian opposition says Bashar al-Assad cannot be part of deal
Just as a diplomatic settlement was impossible in Bosnia until NATO airstrikes pushed Slobodan Milosevic to the negotiating table, the same may prove true for Syria.
Second, we need to accept the possibility that a negotiated settlement won’t be achievable and start working to mitigate the most sinister consequences of state collapse.
Cairo: The opposition Syrian National Coalition is willing to negotiate a peace deal under U.S and Russian auspices to end the country's civil war but President Bashar al-Assad cannot be a party to any settlementQuite the change form his offer just a couple of weeks back-
Back to WP article.
This leads to the question of U.S. support for the Syrian opposition. Proponents of arming the rebels — who, as of last fall, we now know, included Obama’s last secretary of state, defense secretary, CIA director and chairman of the Joint Chiefs — have argued that doing so could help tip the balance against Assad, empower moderates and build leverage with the opposition.
These arguments still hold. But there is another, more compelling reason now: Lethal assistance is our last, best tool to help determine whether the post-Assad vacuum is filled by a unified, military opposition that can maintain something resembling order — or a patchwork of ethnic and sectarian militias over which we have no influence.
What nonsense! Lethal assistance is our last, best tool for a unified military opposition.
This is Libya redux. The US does not want a unified intact Syria. The US/Israel/NATO benefit from weakened Syria, fraught with dissension.
Any hope for the former will require not just funneling weapons to guerrilla groups in the shadows but also a large-scale, transparent U.S.-sponsored effort to train, equip and mentor a new Syrian army.
Such a shift in strategy would run against the instincts of the Obama administration — its aversion to nation-building and military intervention, and its preference for letting others lead.The US averse to nation building and military intervention? Is this writer delusional? Or hoping you, the reader of this piece of arrogant tripe, are delusional. In denial? Or just plain stupid?
If John Kerry hopes to save Syria, the leader whose calculations he will need to change is not Vladimir Putin nor even Bashar al-Assad but the president of the United States.Hopes to save Syria? I shudder reading that. It is the US that has brought this rain of terror on Syria.
At the beginning of this article the Washington Post author writes this regarding Russia and China's non compliance regarding Russia
This is not because of Russian arms sales or naval facilities in Syria, nor for any lack of U.S. engagement with Moscow. Rather, the Kremlin believes it has a broader interest in thwarting another U.S.-engineered regime change — seeing such interventions, stretching from Serbia to Libya, as a threat to international stability and as a precedent that could someday be used against itself.I have mentioned this very fact, repeatedly. Here on the blog. In several previous posts.
* "thwarting another US engineered regime change" "stretching from Serbia to Libya"
*Russia is already under attack and has been for some time via NATO's Islamist mercs in Chechnya.
This is why a negotiated settlement for Syria, enabling Syria to rebuild over time and allowing Russia to gain influence in the Middle East is the best case scenario for Russian interests. And Syrian interests at this point.
However, it looks as if NATO is not going to let that happen, for what should be very obvious reasons.
One more issue that needs addressing:
Are the NATO mercs beginning to attack Lebanon?
NATO mercs, Brand FSA, have claimed they will "retaliate" against Lebanon.
The need for retaliation is a very familiar meme, or narrative, if you prefer.
Here is the claim
"We [FSA] are announcing and warning that if Hezbollah will not stop shelling the Syrian lands, villages and civilians from inside the Lebanese territories within 48 hours of issuance of this statement, we will respond to the sources of fire by our hands and eliminate it from inside the Lebanese lands,"And the counter claim: Political analyst and Geo-strategic expert Amine Hotait
"It's all fabricated lies. Hezbollah has courage enough to announce its plans and actions. Besides, everybody knows that there are 23 Lebanese villages on the Lebanese- Syrian borders, but they are inside the Syrian territories, and these villages are inhabited by Shiite Lebanese. Those Shiite Lebanese, who support the Resistance of Hezbollah, are being targeted by An-Nusra front fighters and the Free Army. These people are defending themselves; and they cannot allow the free army to invade them and kill their families. This would never happen," he told RT Arabic.
I see. So, the Shiite Lebanese residents are being attacked by the NATO mercs (Sunni Islamists of the Salafi/Wahabi ilk) who are not supporting the NATO terrorists.
Well, well, well doesn't the counter claim sound much more realistic then the FSA claim?
In fact it reads and is most certainly a replay of the scenarios that have played out all over Syria.
NATO's mercs lay seige to a town, whether it is Christians or Shiites, then claim they are being attacked. Often times these 'stories' play out right in front of the compliant western media stooges.
Should we believe that this is just some random threat made by the FSA rebels without the permission, endorsement or encouragement of NATO?
It's not a belief I hold.
UPDATE! NATO HAS NO QUALMS ABOUT USING CHILD SOLDIERS
A Muslim teenager from Ireland who joined rebels in Syria last year has been killed, it was reported. Shamseddin Gaidan, 16, Libyan born , who lived near Dublin, died last week, his father Ibrahim said.
"We don't know where or how he was killed and we don't know where his body might be," Mr Gaidan told the Irish Times.
"It is very difficult to get any information. This confusion makes our grief much worse."
Shamseddin reportedly moved to Ireland from Libya with his family in 2001. His father runs a Halal grocery shop in Navan, Co Meath.
The teenager spent his summer holidays in Libya last year and was supposed to fly back to Ireland via Istanbul in mid-August.
This child was 4. Just 4 years old when his family moved to Ireland. He had no connection to this fight what so ever but appears to have been most likely brainwashed into supporting the cause. I am sure he was told it was honourable, just and correct. And as a gullible minor lapped it up.