Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett
Think about what toppling the Assad regime would mean, specially right now. The country is already in ruins and torn apart in war. The rebels alone can not stand up to ISIL or what ever they are called this week.
Lets say Assad is taken down.. then what? A race to fill the power vacuum by the Rebels & ISIL? Even at best case if the Rebels managed to get control of most of what is left of the Assad regime how long do you think they could continue on against ISIL while taking full brunt of their attacks?
Look how hard it was for the US to deal with the insurgency in Iraq and Afghan with all our military weight to throw around. Even Iraq has not been able to hold their own since we left and they had many years to get prepared.
As screwed up as it is for the people there, I think military strategist have likely decided it's best to let groups like ISIL get tied up in a drawn out fighting so they are at least distracted until they start wearing down.
either way the mess will still be there in 5 years or 10. That area of the world never seems to stop fighting and doesn't seem to ever progress. As long as they are ruled by Religious law all of those countries will be doomed to failure..
|
look at everything you just pointed out and ask yourself if BO's focusing on forging the path for IRan having nuclear capability makes sense while ignoring allies in the region and consequential disruptions and promises by other countries to get nukes if the iran deal is finalized. and do you really want the next president to be the primary backer of this failed policy?