Expert says no u-turns in US stance on Syria can be expected under Trump

[Bleipriester]

The reverberation of five years of 24h anti-Syrian propaganda is still haunting in many heads. Must be terrible.
A Russian expert believes there will be no radical change. At least he also believes Trump will not impose no fly zones and bomb the Syrian army in favor of terrorists like Hillary wanted to.

""Some say Trump must implement his election promises and cooperate with the Syrian authorities this or that way. It means to put up with the fact that Syrian President Bashar Assad stays in office and not to stake on his stepping down like it is done now, to cooperate with those forces that are fighting against Islamic State, bearing in mind that Trump has cited it as one of his major tasks," he said.

"Other say, ‘No, Assad is unacceptable, we cannot cooperate with him by any means, so it is necessary to look for other ways.’"

Trump has not yet announced his official position on Syria, Naumkin noted. "We can guess it will differ from Hillary Clinton’s position at least concerning possible air strikes against the Syria army and a no-fly zone in Syria’s northern and southern territories. I don’t think Trump will do that," he said."

Expert says no u-turns in US stance on Syria can be expected under Trump

 

[Blackrook]

I seriously have no idea why the United States should be sponsoring a war against Syria.

 

[Borillar]

The US really needs to get out of the regime change business. It hasn't worked out well at all.

 

[Google]

The US really needs to get out of the regime change business. It hasn't worked out well at all.

I agree to an extent. I believe the American electorate rejected libertarian isolationism. I think America has an obligation to act in the good interests of global security. When I say to an extent, I agree that regime change should not be the goal, and if it is it should be done in the context of a war or covert actions taken by the CIA. Regimes that are not a direct threat to the security of the US should not have direct military action taken against them. Regime change destabilizes a country, and there is not a plan there is going to be inevitable chaos (Libya) . Regimes may not respect the rights of their citizens, but if there is not outright genocide or threat to the US it is best to not take direct military action.

That said, the regime in Syria offered stability and protection. The US supporting rebels, making half-hearted statements of red lines, arming rebels--this has caused perpetual civil war in Syria. What the hell is the end game? Russia is trying to bring stability to a region where ISIS is attempting to take hold. Obama's foreign policy has been an abject failure. The media reports on the atrocities in Syria without every mentioning the culpability of the soon to be defunct Obama presidency.

 

[numan]

The US really needs to get out of the regime change business. It hasn't worked out well at all.

It has worked out very well for the Military-Industrial Conspiracy and the war profiteers.
.

 

[Preacher]

Experts also said Trump would never be president either....