09-01-2014, 09:45 AM
"US HAS NO STRATEGY ON SYRIA YET"
Obama's getting hit by all sides for that admission.
Democrat Diane Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made these statements to NBC this weekend:
-"I think I've learned one thing about this president, and that is he's very cautious. Maybe in this instance, too cautious."
-"I do know that the military, I know that the State Department, I know that others have been putting plans together," the senior lawmaker added.
-Feinstein also deviated from Obama's characterization of the Islamic militant group that is laying siege to parts Iraq and Syria as a "JV team," saying "I think it's a major varsity team," and, "I see nothing that compares with its viciousness." "This is really the first group that has the wherewithal in terms of financing, the fighting machine in terms of a structure -- a heavy equipment, heavy explosives, the ability to move quickly,"; "this is a group of people who are extraordinarily dangerous. And they'll kill with abandon."
There is, however, bi-partisan agreement with the Obama administration that Syria is the most dangerous country on the planet. There is united awareness and concern that Syria is home base for IS, and breeding/training ground for a number of other designated terrorist groups fighting each other under the rebel umbrella and fighting Assad's Syrian military for control of the country. However, what action, if any, should be taken is not agreed-upon.
What's the problem?
-Obama cites lack of intelligence and a desire to address the terrorist threat as part of a united coalition rather than a single country as reasons for not taking action prematurely. He also contends that hasty military action has proven to be counterproductive.
-He and others warn that the US can not simply bomb IS in Syria because there is entwining of IS, philosophically US-backed rebels, and possible civilian populations that would be hit in the process.
-Then there's the sticky problem of empowering US-condemned Assad by weakening the IS terrorist faction of what's labeled the "rebel freedom group"; there is no solid partner with whom the US can collaborate within Syria.
Refs:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/29/politi...-strategy/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/30...42552.html
Obama's getting hit by all sides for that admission.
Democrat Diane Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made these statements to NBC this weekend:
-"I think I've learned one thing about this president, and that is he's very cautious. Maybe in this instance, too cautious."
-"I do know that the military, I know that the State Department, I know that others have been putting plans together," the senior lawmaker added.
-Feinstein also deviated from Obama's characterization of the Islamic militant group that is laying siege to parts Iraq and Syria as a "JV team," saying "I think it's a major varsity team," and, "I see nothing that compares with its viciousness." "This is really the first group that has the wherewithal in terms of financing, the fighting machine in terms of a structure -- a heavy equipment, heavy explosives, the ability to move quickly,"; "this is a group of people who are extraordinarily dangerous. And they'll kill with abandon."
There is, however, bi-partisan agreement with the Obama administration that Syria is the most dangerous country on the planet. There is united awareness and concern that Syria is home base for IS, and breeding/training ground for a number of other designated terrorist groups fighting each other under the rebel umbrella and fighting Assad's Syrian military for control of the country. However, what action, if any, should be taken is not agreed-upon.
What's the problem?
-Obama cites lack of intelligence and a desire to address the terrorist threat as part of a united coalition rather than a single country as reasons for not taking action prematurely. He also contends that hasty military action has proven to be counterproductive.
-He and others warn that the US can not simply bomb IS in Syria because there is entwining of IS, philosophically US-backed rebels, and possible civilian populations that would be hit in the process.
-Then there's the sticky problem of empowering US-condemned Assad by weakening the IS terrorist faction of what's labeled the "rebel freedom group"; there is no solid partner with whom the US can collaborate within Syria.
Refs:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/29/politi...-strategy/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/30...42552.html