From Michael Totten: ‘The Syrian War Gets Even Uglier’

Full post here.

Totten notes a NY Times article which highlights how Syria has become a magnet for Saudi Salafis, Al Qaeda, and various others:

‘But the most likely outcome will continue to worsen the longer this lasts. And if Al Qaeda, the Qataris, and the Saudis have the most on-the-ground influence when the dust clears, the odds that Syria will remain a terrorist-sponsoring enemy of the United States even after regime-change are substantial.

Addition:  From Walter Russell Mead’s piece:

‘The larger point here is that anarchy and chaos in Syria is inherently destabilizing and offers many routes to a wider international conflict. Israel can’t allow Hezbollah to inherit Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles. Russia has citizens, military assets and significant economic interests in the country. Turkey cannot allow the Kurdish areas to be used as bases against it. Iraq fears (and with very good reason) that a Sunni government in Damascus would start exporting weapons and fighters to Sunnis inside Iraq. With Assad out of power, the delicate political arrangements in Lebanon are completely unbalanced; historically, Lebanese politics are adjudicated through the mechanism of civil wars that, from time to time, draw in outside forces as well’

There’s a lot going on.

Related On This Site:  What are some downsides of liberal internationalism?: Richard Fernandez At PJ Media: ‘The New Middle East’

Adam Garfinkle At The American Interest: ‘Is Manaf Tlass’s Defection a Sign That Assad’s Regime Is Cracking?”  Thursday Quotation: Jeane Kirkpatrick – J.S. MillFrom Foreign Affairs-’Former Syrian General Akil Hashem on the Uprising in Syria’From Slate: ‘In Aleppo, Syria, Mohamed Atta Thought He Could Build The Ideal Islamic City’Michael Totten At World Affairs: ‘Syria’s Regime Not Worth Preserving’

Add to Technorati Favorites

5 thoughts on “From Michael Totten: ‘The Syrian War Gets Even Uglier’

  1. So when do we pack up our tents (sorry) and come home? It is obvious that in shoet time we, as a nation comprised of a majority of entitlement seekers who pay no federal taxes and who could care less about national defense or international threats, will elect a President and a Congress who believe it best to become isolationists and glean what spoils they can from a bloated bureaucratic federal government and sit back and hope (not pray) for no suicide bombings, nuclear detonations, chemical warfare incidents or repeats of 9/11.

  2. Well, we’ve got interests (economic, educational, trade, security, cultural, diplomatic) all over the globe! I’m not an isolationist, simply because with so many interests isolationism does not seem practical. I do appreciate some of the sentiment, though, that compels many of us in everyday life to question the reasons, ideas and politics that draw us in to conflict and greater involvement in many areas. Isolationism is deep and often moves in cycles.

    What’s actually going on with Al Qaeda, nuclear and biological weapons is enough to scare any of us. We’re still working as hard as we can on the nukes (we’ll need help from others) and weaponry, and we need to balance our fears with our freedoms and the threats to our freedoms from within and without. Smart policy is smart policy and there are always unintended consequences.

    The current liberal internationalist U.S. foreign policy will pass, as will the current administration, hopefully sooner rather than later.. It has some truths to tell us, but what I consistently see is that many of its ideals are inherently flawed, and lead to dysfunctional institutions that expose us to unnecessary risks internationally while here at home lead to less personal liberty, less economic opportunity (the two are deeply connected) and eventual political dysfunction, cronyism and failure. I knew domestic policy would be bad, but I didn’t know it would be this bad. The makers and doers, though, are riding out the storm and the economy is on everyone’s minds.

    Many facts remain in a dangerous world, beyond administrations, and those facts can change daily.

    That’s my long-winded response…

    • I enjoyed your response Chris. It reflects an deep understanding of what truly is involved in isolationism and the current attempt by the present administration to remove those critical personal freedoms all the while dismanteling the free enterprise system in the name of ‘social justice’ ‘spreading the wealth’ and ‘paying your fair share!’
      I will admit that I often condense my opinions and frustrations into handy and somewhat effective ‘sound bites’ that I find effective in making the first foray into arguing with liberals.

  3. Understood, sir. As always, I appreciate you reading and commenting.

    Personally, if I ever approach liberalism, it’s from a classical, maybe Lockean foundation.

Leave a Reply