- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pres. Obama's Speech This Morning... We're still going after Assad.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 11:15 am to FT
Posted on 9/23/14 at 11:15 am to FT
If anything, this makes it clear that we
A. Have no long term plan.
B. Have no exit strategy.
C. Are a destabilizing force, not a stabilizing force, in the Middle East
D. Will end up making more enemies than we destroy and alienating more current and potential allies than we gain.
A. Have no long term plan.
B. Have no exit strategy.
C. Are a destabilizing force, not a stabilizing force, in the Middle East
D. Will end up making more enemies than we destroy and alienating more current and potential allies than we gain.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 11:38 am to kingbob
LINK
This is a September 4, 2014 opionion piece from Aljazeera America. I found it will trying to research about the dynamics of different groups in Syria and the ME. I found it interesting.
"As an alternative to razing Assad’s Ba’athist regime, the White House has long touted a transition model similar to Yemen, whereby the government would be left largely intact but Assad would be forced to resign. This is also a bad idea. Assad has served, however inefficiently, as a reformer — or at least as a bulwark against the more aggressive elements of the “deep state,” such as the mukhabarat (intelligence services) and shabiha (pro-government civilian militias). Hence, if Assad was removed, while leaving much of his government in place, we could expect a similar outcome in Syria as in post-Mubarak Egypt: The worst elements of the regime would rise up to fill the vacuum, undermining any transitional government and erasing even the modest reforms instituted under the longstanding ruler. Today, Egyptian leader Abdel Fatah El Sisi is a more repressive despot than Mubarak ever was. Similarly, someone more tyrannical than Assad could as easily replace him from within the Ba’athist party apparatus."
This is a September 4, 2014 opionion piece from Aljazeera America. I found it will trying to research about the dynamics of different groups in Syria and the ME. I found it interesting.
"As an alternative to razing Assad’s Ba’athist regime, the White House has long touted a transition model similar to Yemen, whereby the government would be left largely intact but Assad would be forced to resign. This is also a bad idea. Assad has served, however inefficiently, as a reformer — or at least as a bulwark against the more aggressive elements of the “deep state,” such as the mukhabarat (intelligence services) and shabiha (pro-government civilian militias). Hence, if Assad was removed, while leaving much of his government in place, we could expect a similar outcome in Syria as in post-Mubarak Egypt: The worst elements of the regime would rise up to fill the vacuum, undermining any transitional government and erasing even the modest reforms instituted under the longstanding ruler. Today, Egyptian leader Abdel Fatah El Sisi is a more repressive despot than Mubarak ever was. Similarly, someone more tyrannical than Assad could as easily replace him from within the Ba’athist party apparatus."
Posted on 9/23/14 at 12:03 pm to kingbob
quote:
Are a destabilizing force, not a stabilizing force, in the Middle East
That's the whole point.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)