The Mideastwire Blog

Excerpts from the Arab and Iranian Media & Analysis of US Policy in the Region

Anthony Cordesman: If US had attacked earlier it would have been better!

When you watch these folks writing from far far away, its amazing, but you understand how the US and other great powers continually make the same mistakes over and over again, continue to hurt their (our) interests, and continue to wreck havoc on the rest of the world as a result of the sometimes bad analysis and bad policies.

Cordesmen starts with this incredible graf:

“The U.S. has hard choices to make in Syria. Even if the U.S. does intervene militarily, the time window for its best option has already passed. President Obama may have had reason to be cautious and play King Log to President Bush’s King Stork, but the U.S. did not intervene when the rebels were strongest, the Assad regime most fragile, and limited U.S. support to the then dominant moderate rebel factions might well have pushed Assad out of power without dividing Syria along sectarian and ethnic lines.

Every option today comes up against the reality that Assad is now far stronger, the country is increasingly being split into Assad and rebel controlled sections, the rebels are fractured and rebel forces have strong Sunni Islamist extremist elements, and the nation is increasingly polarizing into an Alawite and more secular Sunni and minority bloc, a Sunni Arab bloc, and a Syrian Kurdish bloc. In practice, this means there is no way the U.S. can quickly use any amount of force to destroy the Assad regime with any confidence that Syria will not come under Sunni Islamist extremist control, or divide into Alawite, Sunni, and Kurdish blocs in ways that prove to be even more violent and lasting than such sectarian and ethnic divisions have in Iraq.”

— As some of us have long argued, the idea that the Syrian regime was weak last year, or at the start of the revolt is illogical. They have been greatly degraded over the last 2.5 years. They were much stronger, and a strike would have had far less legitimacy…. AND dont forget that the regime has always already had the WMD capabilities.

Indeed, the logical conclusion that follows from this is that a strike earlier would have provoked a stronger regime who would have had even more legitimacy to respond widely and strongly.

A strike now is still a dumb idea, but it was a really really dumb idea when the regime was much much stronger and the case by the US and others was weaker.

This is, in fact, the MAIN reason why there was not a strike earlier. If it had been easier as Cordesman suggests so effortlessly, then the Libyan option might have been exercised.

The military folks knew an earlier strike was stupid, however, and the political folks in DC agreed.

But Cordesman continues to circulate this nonsense.


Written by nickbiddlenoe

August 29, 2013 at 12:21 am

Posted in Uncategorized

%d bloggers like this: