In response to Is Any Syria Strategy Really Viable?:
Yes. It is in the vital strategic interest of the United States that the Iranian regime be replaced. To the extent that defeat for Bashar al-Assad means that the Iranian regime is weakened, it is a goal the U.S. must seek.
Syria has also been a repeated threat to U.S. and our allies–whether by acting as a conduit for jihadis going to Iraq, by arming Hezbollah with missiles, or by building a nuclear facility with the help of North Korea.
Having said that, the present U.S. policy–arming the terrorist-ridden rebels–is a disaster. One wonders what Obama will say when the first atrocities are committed with U.S. weapons? “Shocked, shocked.”
Let us review the major recent mistakes in U.S. policy towards Syria:
- Failing to attack the Syrian nuclear facility and trying to discourage Israel from doing so (Bush).
- Attempting to rehabilitate Assad by opening a U.S. embassy in Damascus (Obama).
- Defending Assad as a “reformer” when the Arab Spring began (Obama–actually, Hillary Clinton).
- Dithering as the Assad regime wobbled, leaving an opening for Russia and Iran to intervene (Obama).
- Sending weapons to Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels already suspected of gross atrocities (Obama).
If you start to take Vienna–take Vienna. There is a winning strategy here, and it is quite different from what President Obama is doing now, and what Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are applauding.
Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.