Syria

[devifemme]

I don't write often about public-policy issues, but am following the Syria mess. Today's WPost has a harsh lead editorial complaining about President Obama hitting "a dead end" on getting the Assad government to agree to peace talks. It says Libya-style airstrikes and Western arming of the hapless rebels. Closing, the Post argues, "If Obama is

Comments

[ggary]

Whenever I hear about the situation in Syria I just want to cover my ears and roll into a ball. It just seems to me that whatever decision the West makes will not have the desired effect of making everything 'better'. Assad is not, to put it lightly, a nice guy, but the rebels are not a bunch of freedom loving peaceniks either. Assuming that we do help the rebels to win, we will simply be ushering in a regime that is just as horrible for the average Syrian as the horrible ones that they have had for the past 43 years

[devifemme]

First, Gary, I gotta "own" the reply I just wrote to the other commenter, Bold Bob. Indeed, I failed to see I WASN'T signed into my own blog! So LJ's mad anti-interloper machinery sequestered (it USED to have a less-polemical meaning!) my reply, only deigning to put it down below after my duly-notarized click authorized my own words

[eqfe]

"Boldly" ?

[eqfe]

Brilliant, Bob! The single word -- practically! -- in the piece that shows my hand (boldly, as it were). But, yes, it IS bold to resist the martial answers to all those unarticulated questions. Admittedly, a "peace conference" where the principal players are convinced that peace serves the OTHER guy.

Tough to answer "what are you doing?" "Oh, non-lethal assistance..."

And that IS the problem for which the Post provides the answer, "anything but what you're doing!"

I think our bold Kerry deserves more scope to find more-realistic options, rather than reaching for what DIDN'T WORK in Libya.