We don't have a Syria strategy. We have Syria talking points. Seriously, what's with this?
The Obama administration lent its support Monday to British and French plans to arm Syria's rebels, saying it wouldn't stand in the way of any country seeking to rebalance the fight against an Assad regime supported by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.
Secretary of State John Kerry said the longer Syria's two-year civil war goes on, the greater the danger of its institutions collapsing and extremists getting their hands on the Arab country's vast chemical weapons arsenal. With some 450,000 Syrians living in neighboring countries as refugees already, he said the conflict is becoming a "global catastrophe."
We won't stand in the way of Britain or France arming the rebels? What would we do otherwise? Invade France? And isn't the notion of "rebalancing" the fight just another way to keep the fight going longer--which we say creates a greater danger of bad things happening?
But if you think we are just wringing our hands and watching this war drag on into a third year, think again!
President Barack Obama and other officials [have in the past said] more weapons in Syria would only make peace harder. As the violence has worsened over the last year, Washington has tempered that message somewhat. It is now promising nonlethal aid to the anti-Assad militias in the form of meals and medical kits, and refusing to rule out further escalation.
Yes, we might escalate to providing desserts in addition to those meals.
And there's a bonus Kerry gaffe when he appears not to be completely clear about who is fighting on what side. No worries. He's a Democrat, so no conclusions about his brain are justified.
If we want to end the war faster, help one side win the war. Otherwise, we're just backing a balance of terror.
