I’ve been listening to the Sunday morning talking heads programs and the more I hear people say what they think we should be doing with respect to Syria the more difficult I find it to figure out what the heck they’re thinking. Basically, I’ve heard the following strategies advocated:
- Assad must go; we should train and arm the “moderate rebels”. (the Obama Administration)
- We should create a “no fly” zone in northern and western Syria. (Hillary Clinton)
- We should create a “no fly” zone, arm the Kurds, arm the “moderate rebels”, and have forward air controllers. (John McCain)
- “Boots on the ground”. (AEI)
My own view is that we shouldn’t be arming, training, or supplying any opposition forces, that we should attempt to maintain a low profile, and that we should be grateful that Russia doing the heavy lifting. Assad is lousy but anybody in his regime will be just as bad and the present regime is the most acceptable among unacceptable alternatives. No president should say that, of course.
Can someone who holds one of the other positions please explain it to me?