Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
I have no problems with the DC deciding 'do not arm the insurgents'.
Well who knows what the WH is thinking? Does anyone? Do they themselves?

See this:

Advanced U.S. Weapons Flow to Syrian Rebels

But then at least the same DC could come to its senses and stay completely out of the situation.
Too late... up to their elbows in blood and getting deeper. Clearly the situation is now so serious and complex that its beyond the WH... and probably the 'analysts' at the CIA too.

After all - just ask Dayuhan, he'll be happy to explain it to lenght - there are 745.396 (probably 745.397 meanwhile) reasons to stay out of there.
I call that the 'condom solution' ... instead of one size fits all, rather one policy (in this case hiding under your bed) fits all situations regardless of the situation on the ground.

Instead, they are following the WORST POSSIBLE SOLUTION, which is, 'well, we're going to arm them, a little bit', and doing so while doing even more to hinder others from 'arming the insurgents'. Coupled with bi-products of such behaviour (see 'let the Iranians kill insurgents' and see 'let Russians re-arm the regime, Iranians are bledding themselves to death by paying the bill'), that's just resulting in ever more suffering and destruction.

As such, effectivelly, that cannot but result with 'creating your own enemy of tomorrow' - which is insane, to put it mildly.
This, I suggest, is as a result of having no policy to start with. The situation has spun out of control and we now see a misguided and misdirected patch-job in a desperate attempt to control the damage.

The situation should never have got to this... it now demands action which will be resisted by Russia... which means the US won't do it.