Is Assad A Better Strategy For The Us Than The Least Worst Rebel?

[georgephillip]

According to Graham Fuller, a former high-ranking CIA official, Assad is the least worst choice for the US in Syria:

"The Middle East today is in as big a mess as I've seen it in a lifetime. By most measures it still continues to worsen, as ever new enemies to the U.S. pop up onto the scene.

"It is attracting polarized youthful jihadis from both East and West ready to fight us -- all high on the blood aphrodisiac of beheadings and bombings..."

"The time has now come to bite the bullet, admit failure, and to permit -- if not assist -- Assad in quickly winding down the civil war in Syria and expelling the jihadis.

"We cannot both hate Assad and hate those jihadis (like ISIS) who also hate Assad.

"We fight, crudely put, with al-Qaeda in Syria and against al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"But restoration of order in Syria is essential to the restoration of order in the Iraqi, Lebanese, Israeli and Jordanian borderlands.

"Permitting Assad to remain in power will also restore a Syria that historically never has acted as a truly 'sectarian' or religious state in its behavior in the Middle East -- until attacked by Saudi Arabia for its supposed Shi'ism.

Embracing Assad Is a Better Strategy for the U.S. Than Supporting the Least Bad Jihadis Graham E. Fuller

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Not sure but just last year O was ready to blast him into the desert. Now, they're checking out tee times together.

 

[georgephillip]

Not sure but just last year O was ready to blast him into the desert. Now, they're checking out tee times together.

It is hard to keep track without a scorecard, isn't it?
A year ago Obama wanted to bomb Assad, and now O wants to bomb Assad's opponents; wonder what will happen two years from now?

 

[eagle1462010]

Given the number of deaths and the fact that half the population of Syria has been displaced there has to a winner on one side or the other.

Assad is the lesser of evils and if ISIS goes down along with the other factions the dictator will restore order back to Syria after it's done.

One side of the equation has got to be completely destroyed. No other way around it.

 

[Ibentoken]

Obama said Assad had to go. Still there and now Obama is helping him. Dumb ass liberals.

 

[Kosh]

According to Graham Fuller, a former high-ranking CIA official, Assad is the least worst choice for the US in Syria:

"The Middle East today is in as big a mess as I've seen it in a lifetime. By most measures it still continues to worsen, as ever new enemies to the U.S. pop up onto the scene.

"It is attracting polarized youthful jihadis from both East and West ready to fight us -- all high on the blood aphrodisiac of beheadings and bombings..."

"The time has now come to bite the bullet, admit failure, and to permit -- if not assist -- Assad in quickly winding down the civil war in Syria and expelling the jihadis.

"We cannot both hate Assad and hate those jihadis (like ISIS) who also hate Assad.

"We fight, crudely put, with al-Qaeda in Syria and against al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"But restoration of order in Syria is essential to the restoration of order in the Iraqi, Lebanese, Israeli and Jordanian borderlands.

"Permitting Assad to remain in power will also restore a Syria that historically never has acted as a truly 'sectarian' or religious state in its behavior in the Middle East -- until attacked by Saudi Arabia for its supposed Shi'ism.

Embracing Assad Is a Better Strategy for the U.S. Than Supporting the Least Bad Jihadis Graham E. Fuller

Under the rule of Obama that claimed Assad had to go, makes little sense to back anyone in Syria. Maybe back the humanitarian effort, especially since the red line has been drawn many times here.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Graham Fuller was instrumental in bringing the Boston Bomber family to America, so his judgment is suspect, but as with Obama and a stopped clock, it's possible that he's correct. I do think this suggestion is the most sensible on the table.

 

[georgephillip]

Given the number of deaths and the fact that half the population of Syria has been displaced there has to a winner on one side or the other.

Assad is the lesser of evils and if ISIS goes down along with the other factions the dictator will restore order back to Syria after it's done.

One side of the equation has got to be completely destroyed. No other way around it.

Peace without victory would seem to offer the fastest end to hostilities in Syria; however, I'm not sure it would have much affect in Iraq. If it's true the US is responsible for 80% of all arms sales in the ME, I suppose we should sacrifice those profits first if we have the slightest concern for ending the violence there.

 

[georgephillip]

Obama said Assad had to go. Still there and now Obama is helping him. Dumb ass liberals.

Obama will be gone before Assad, and then Money Mitt can saddle up and rid the world of Evil.

 

[georgephillip]

According to Graham Fuller, a former high-ranking CIA official, Assad is the least worst choice for the US in Syria:

"The Middle East today is in as big a mess as I've seen it in a lifetime. By most measures it still continues to worsen, as ever new enemies to the U.S. pop up onto the scene.

"It is attracting polarized youthful jihadis from both East and West ready to fight us -- all high on the blood aphrodisiac of beheadings and bombings..."

"The time has now come to bite the bullet, admit failure, and to permit -- if not assist -- Assad in quickly winding down the civil war in Syria and expelling the jihadis.

"We cannot both hate Assad and hate those jihadis (like ISIS) who also hate Assad.

"We fight, crudely put, with al-Qaeda in Syria and against al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"But restoration of order in Syria is essential to the restoration of order in the Iraqi, Lebanese, Israeli and Jordanian borderlands.

"Permitting Assad to remain in power will also restore a Syria that historically never has acted as a truly 'sectarian' or religious state in its behavior in the Middle East -- until attacked by Saudi Arabia for its supposed Shi'ism.

Embracing Assad Is a Better Strategy for the U.S. Than Supporting the Least Bad Jihadis Graham E. Fuller

Under the rule of Obama that claimed Assad had to go, makes little sense to back anyone in Syria. Maybe back the humanitarian effort, especially since the red line has been drawn many times here.

It's hard to imagine anyone making more mistakes than Obama has in Syria; hopefully, he will spend his last two years on the golf course.

 

[georgephillip]

Graham Fuller was instrumental in bringing the Boston Bomber family to America, so his judgment is suspect, but as with Obama and a stopped clock, it's possible that he's correct. I do think this suggestion is the most sensible on the table.

Fuller has devoted a large part of his life to deceit in the Middle East:
"Graham E. Fuller is an American author and political analyst, specializing in Islamic extremism.[1]

"Formerly vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council,[2] he also served as Station Chief in Kabul for the CIA.

"A 'think tank piece' that Fuller wrote for the CIA was identified as instrumental in leading to the Iran–Contra affair.[3][4]..."

"After the Boston Marathon bombings, it was revealed that Fuller's daughter Samantha Ankara Fuller (married Tsarnaev) was married in the 1990s to Ruslan Tsarni (born Tsarnaev), the terrorists' uncle.[15]

"They divorced on 26 April 1999, in Orange County,North Carolina.[16]

"Ruslan Tsarni worked for companies connected to Halliburton.

"He was also a consultant for a company contracted by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in the former Soviet Republic of Kyrgyzstan."

Graham E. Fuller - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Ibentoken]

Obama said Assad had to go. Still there and now Obama is helping him. Dumb ass liberals.

Obama will be gone before Assad, and then Money Mitt can saddle up and rid the world of Evil.

I hope not. Romney is much better than obama, but I want a conservative.

 

[blackhawk]

According to Graham Fuller, a former high-ranking CIA official, Assad is the least worst choice for the US in Syria:

"The Middle East today is in as big a mess as I've seen it in a lifetime. By most measures it still continues to worsen, as ever new enemies to the U.S. pop up onto the scene.

"It is attracting polarized youthful jihadis from both East and West ready to fight us -- all high on the blood aphrodisiac of beheadings and bombings..."

"The time has now come to bite the bullet, admit failure, and to permit -- if not assist -- Assad in quickly winding down the civil war in Syria and expelling the jihadis.

"We cannot both hate Assad and hate those jihadis (like ISIS) who also hate Assad.

"We fight, crudely put, with al-Qaeda in Syria and against al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"But restoration of order in Syria is essential to the restoration of order in the Iraqi, Lebanese, Israeli and Jordanian borderlands.

"Permitting Assad to remain in power will also restore a Syria that historically never has acted as a truly 'sectarian' or religious state in its behavior in the Middle East -- until attacked by Saudi Arabia for its supposed Shi'ism.

Embracing Assad Is a Better Strategy for the U.S. Than Supporting the Least Bad Jihadis Graham E. Fuller

Sadly that is probably true.

 

[georgephillip]

Obama said Assad had to go. Still there and now Obama is helping him. Dumb ass liberals.

Obama will be gone before Assad, and then Money Mitt can saddle up and rid the world of Evil.

I hope not. Romney is much better than obama, but I want a conservative.

Can you think of any conservative who would end the Long War in the Middle East when the US economy is addicted to "defense" spending and oil?

 

[georgephillip]

According to Graham Fuller, a former high-ranking CIA official, Assad is the least worst choice for the US in Syria:

"The Middle East today is in as big a mess as I've seen it in a lifetime. By most measures it still continues to worsen, as ever new enemies to the U.S. pop up onto the scene.

"It is attracting polarized youthful jihadis from both East and West ready to fight us -- all high on the blood aphrodisiac of beheadings and bombings..."

"The time has now come to bite the bullet, admit failure, and to permit -- if not assist -- Assad in quickly winding down the civil war in Syria and expelling the jihadis.

"We cannot both hate Assad and hate those jihadis (like ISIS) who also hate Assad.

"We fight, crudely put, with al-Qaeda in Syria and against al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"But restoration of order in Syria is essential to the restoration of order in the Iraqi, Lebanese, Israeli and Jordanian borderlands.

"Permitting Assad to remain in power will also restore a Syria that historically never has acted as a truly 'sectarian' or religious state in its behavior in the Middle East -- until attacked by Saudi Arabia for its supposed Shi'ism.

Embracing Assad Is a Better Strategy for the U.S. Than Supporting the Least Bad Jihadis Graham E. Fuller

Sadly that is probably true.

It certainly appears impossible to control events in any real sense in today's Middle East.

Nobody has a scorecard:

"It is beyond the capabilities of U.S. intelligence, or any other western states for that matter, to gain the complex strategic and tactical insight and the instinctive feel to successfully manipulate the conflict in the directions we want.

"These conflicts are riven by extremely intertwined ideological, personal, regional, religious, tactical, and tribal differences that outsiders cannot control in any convincing fashion.

"Thus Washington has been reduced to the crude instruments of bombing and providing support to jihadi attacks against other jihadis.

"Nobody has a score card.

"And it all grows worse.

"Washington's fear of the Islamic State has now come to supersede the fall of Assad as the primary U.S. goal.

"Yet it is nearly impossible to succeed in Syria when many of the forces we support against Assad also support the Islamic State, directly or indirectly."

Embracing Assad Is a Better Strategy for the U.S. Than Supporting the Least Bad Jihadis Graham E. Fuller

 

[paulitician]

I've been saying that from day one. But the West and some Sunni Nations in the region became obsessed with 'Regime Changing' him. It's very much like America's obsession with 'Regime Changing' Hussein in Iraq. Assad is a secular well-educated man. He is not a Muslim Fundamentalist. In fact, he despises the radicals.

It was a huge blunder pushing 'Regime Change' there. It opened the door to Terrorism chaos. It's just more Blow Back. We need to stop meddling and come home. We've done enough damage over there.

 

[georgephillip]

I've been saying that from day one. But the West and some Sunni Nations in the region became obsessed with 'Regime Changing' him. It's very much like America's obsession with 'Regime Changing' Hussein in Iraq. Assad is a secular well-educated man. He is not a Muslim Fundamentalist. In fact, he despises the radicals.

It was a huge blunder pushing 'Regime Change' there. It opened the door to Terrorism chaos. It's just more Blow Back. We need to stop meddling and come home. We've done enough damage over there.

We're in complete agreement regarding the outcome of US regime change in the Middle East; however, what if the chaos we see there today was not a blunder, at all, but an example of the neocon plan working to perfection? Does the "arc of instability" end in Iraq or is Iran still slated for the same fate as Syria, Libya, and Iraq? Ukraine ??

 

[paulitician]

I've been saying that from day one. But the West and some Sunni Nations in the region became obsessed with 'Regime Changing' him. It's very much like America's obsession with 'Regime Changing' Hussein in Iraq. Assad is a secular well-educated man. He is not a Muslim Fundamentalist. In fact, he despises the radicals.

It was a huge blunder pushing 'Regime Change' there. It opened the door to Terrorism chaos. It's just more Blow Back. We need to stop meddling and come home. We've done enough damage over there.

We're in complete agreement regarding the outcome of US regime change in the Middle East; however, what if the chaos we see there today was not a blunder, at all, but an example of the neocon plan working to perfection? Does the "arc of instability" end in Iraq or is Iran still slated for the same fate as Syria, Libya, and Iraq? Ukraine ??

It's a Ruling-Class Elite Global Chess Match. And they don't care how many people die. It's all about the power and money. They will always prosper from the chaos they create. It's average people who do all the suffering. They pay for the Elites' Wars with their money and lives. They don't benefit at all. It's very sad. The People need to demand an end to Permanent War. Otherwise, they'll just go on suffering.

 

[bendog]

I've never understood our hard on to get Assad gone. He's not attacked us. He hasn't allowed terrorists to train there to attack us. Hell, he hasn't even attacked Israel.

 

[georgephillip]

I've been saying that from day one. But the West and some Sunni Nations in the region became obsessed with 'Regime Changing' him. It's very much like America's obsession with 'Regime Changing' Hussein in Iraq. Assad is a secular well-educated man. He is not a Muslim Fundamentalist. In fact, he despises the radicals.

It was a huge blunder pushing 'Regime Change' there. It opened the door to Terrorism chaos. It's just more Blow Back. We need to stop meddling and come home. We've done enough damage over there.

We're in complete agreement regarding the outcome of US regime change in the Middle East; however, what if the chaos we see there today was not a blunder, at all, but an example of the neocon plan working to perfection? Does the "arc of instability" end in Iraq or is Iran still slated for the same fate as Syria, Libya, and Iraq? Ukraine ??

It's a Ruling-Class Elite Global Chess Match. And they don't care how many people die. It's all about the power and money. They will always prosper from the chaos they create. It's average people who do all the suffering. They pay for the Elites' Wars with their money and lives. They don't benefit at all. It's very sad. The People need to demand an end to Permanent War. Otherwise, they'll just go on suffering.

Apparently, it is the chaos they profit the most from. The Anglo/American/Israeli roadmap for the New Middle East requires an "arc of instability extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan." The state of eternal war in the Middle East ensures huge profits for arms sales which are used to spike the price of oil. You're right. The elites are playing all the rest of us, and Republicans AND Democrats depend on elites to finance their election campaigns and retirements. What are we going to do about it?
Plans for Redrawing the Middle East The Project for a New Middle East Global Research