The following testimony was presented to the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs on April 27, 2017, by Charles Lister
http://www.mei.edu/content/article/t...policy-options
Selected excerpts and my comments - Part 2/2:
Washington will go with choice “b”. Even if a commitment on the order of Western Europe, Japan and South Korea is the most sensible choice, Americans will balk at the up-front costs. The war in Afghanistan is not even over, but according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, development aid to Afghanistan has already cost the U.S. more than the Marshall Plan in equivalent U.S. dollars. That is a damning indictment of “leading from behind”, leaving a “light footprint” or whatever American bureaucrats call a limited and restricted intervention. Note that today, Japan, Western Europe and South Korea are all American allies and host U.S. forces; they all contribute to American and global freedom, peace and prosperity. Conversely, we all know what losing the peace meant in the former Confederate states, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and what limiting the war effort meant in South Vietnam.Originally Posted by Charles Lister
Regarding:Originally Posted by Charles Lister
(2) What about the existing pro-Assad zone around Aleppo and the Kurdish zone around Afrin? Assad would have to give up Aleppo to Turkish/FSA forces and the Kurds would be surrounded by Turkish or FSA forces on all sides of their enclave.
(3) Yet there is evidence of ethnic and sectarian cleansing by the YPG against non-Kurds, and Turkey would not be particularly tolerant about a PKK-aligned statelet bordering its restive southeastern Kurdish region.
(4) Why Israel? Nothing brings Syrians of all ethnicities and faiths closer together than the presence of Israeli forces on their soil.
(5) This is a terrible idea. Having Shias and Kurds occupy Sunni Arab areas is a recipe for endless insurgency. It would be preferable to cede this area to Jordan as well. Assad should be confined to his western enclave.
Yet confronting Iran brings with it serious risks, such as the abrogation of the JCPOA with the looming cloud of war to disarm Iran, as well as a spoiling of the anti-Daesh efforts in northern Iraq, which are dependent upon Shia militias subject to a great deal of Iranian influence. In addition to Iraq, Iran could also make life difficult for the U.S. in Afghanistan and turn Hezbollah’s attention back toward Israel.Originally Posted by Charles Lister
Bookmarks