Promote a NATO initiative by invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty against ISIS in Syria in retaliation for its terrorist attacks in Europe and America.
Oct. 24, 2016 4:01 p.m. ET
Regarding the letters of Oct. 12 responding to Sen. John McCain’s “Stop Assad Now—Or Expect Years of War” (op-ed, Oct. 5): There is a way to overcome these valid points about what is the endgame for the U.S. and how Syria will be governed. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. McCain would be able to promote a NATO initiative through invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty against ISIS in Syria in retaliation for its terrorist attacks in Europe and America.
First, NATO must stop the civil war in Syria by implementing the necessary no-fly zones and safe-haven enclaves. The new zone for President Bashar al-Assad and the Alawites must cover their area of influence, which is only about one-quarter of the country, in the West and North. This should stop the tidal wave of refugees to Europe.
NATO would take control of an existing airport in Syria, perhaps Deir Ezzour or Palmyra, thus countering the basing problem caused by Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s denial of operating use of Incirlik air base to America and NATO.
Bringing in NATO would mean European, not American, boots on the ground. The U.N. and relief organizations are encountering great difficulties in bringing in relief supplies to various locations in Syria, and this initiative would give them much improved security and access, and America would no longer be paying the full cost This initiative doesn’t require President Obama’s approval.
President Vladimir Putin is unlikely to try to block this. Indeed, it would be irrational for him to want to block an effective attack on ISIS.
Robert Laidley lays out several key points
-Make the destruction of Syria an admitted/open NATO operation through an invocation of Article 5
-Implement a no fly zone and designate safe havens for NATO to run- Leave Assad a tiny rump portion
-Take control of yet another airport. Or perhaps two? (There are already multiple US and French airbases in the Kurd annexed territory of Syria)
- No need for Incirlik as Turkey has denied operating use and the US has been pulling personnel out of Turkey for months now .If this no fly zone safe zone is implemented in Syria, complete with airports- Turkey will become an open target- NATO long turned it's back on this inconvenient ally
-NATO involvement would mean European boots on the ground not American, boots on the ground. Which, coincidentally, will really turn the middle east remake into yet another world war- History repeats?
- America would no longer be paying the full cost: Obama wouldn't need to approve it.
Who is this fellow Robert Laidley?
The presentation in WSJ is that of a 'concerned citizen'. Robert Laidley appears to have an interest greater then that of an average citizen. Robert Laidley is President of the Atlantic and Conservation Institute. Wow, the Atlantic and Conservation Institute! That must be an important institution? Yup, that's what your supposed to believe Wow! Important!
What we can know is better then believing
-Robert Laidley heads an NGO
-An NGO that has little money? Look here. Also look here
When I see NGO's with this type of profile (non existent)... I'm reminded of a front company for some other type of operation. A cover of sorts. With a label that is used strictly as an appeal to authority for perception management purposes
Robert Laidley has written articles that have been published by the Washington Times
How to Save the Euro
Austerity leads nowhere
Robert Laidley invites Ambassadors to talk security
Mr. President, Fix The EMP Mess!, by AMBASSADOR HENRY F. COOPER
Several months ago, Robert Laidley invited Dr. Peter Pry and me to speak about the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) threat at an Atlantic and Conservation Institute conference at The Explorer's Club in New York City. A few weeks later, he invited me back for a dinner at which I met Jen Bawden, who was already a member of the EMP Coalition formed by Frank Gaffney and others at the Center for Security Policy.In case your curious who Ambassdor Cooper is ?
Robert Laidley and Ambassador Cooper are Washington insiders. Therefore Robert Laidley's letter published by WSJ has to be considered for what it really is. An insider communicating with other insiders, for public consumption, to push or promote a desired agenda
Cognitive Dissonance aside: