[QUOTE]
Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
Well I was hoping I would not have to explain this...

Yes, another failure.
Another failure for who? Another way to look at it as another failure for us was avoided.

No, no, no. That does not follow.
Contraire, it follows perfectly as we have experienced (but apparently not learned) many times before.

The US meddled ... go back and see (Google is your friend), the US and the West contributed to the resulting cock-up.

As the US had a hand in what has developed it DOES have a responsibility to help fix it.
Ethically you can make that argument and to some extent I agree, but that isn't how we work in the U.S. We meddle and F up a lot of places and don't assume responsibility for it. Just because Powell made an argument that if you break it you own it after we invaded Iraq doesn't mean its true. Bush wanted to stay, so the argument was convenient, another President could have told Powell to pound sand.

Politicians will make the decision on whether we get involved or not, and they will based that decision largely on perceived support of the American people to do so, and that element is not there. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is just the way it is. The only time politicians will violate that is if critical American interests are really at risk that the American people may not understand.

In their own minds they certainly see themselves as being 'smart-guys'
Since I occasionally interact with some of these policy advisors your statement is true for some of them, while others are as frustrated as everyone else and are open to a solution. You and Carl calling for intervention is not a solution. Intervene to do what exactly, and what is the probability our intervention will work? What will our intervention put at risk? Is it worth the risk? Saying we should intervene is quite simple, but without a plan for doing so effectively no leader in his/her right mind is going to sign up for it.

posted by jmm99

The Obama administration is again doubling back on its Syrian war policy, this time engaging in a secret approach to the Islamic Front, the most powerful force now battling the Assad regime. Recently set up by six Muslim militias with 40-50,000 fighting men, the new front is led by Hassan Aboud Abu Abdullah al-Hamawi and his Ahrar al Sham militia. Debkafile’s counter-terrorism forces report that, although its Salafist members aspire to impose Sharia law on Syria, in common with Al Qaeda, they are against its methods of warfare.
Part of the President's desired goal for Syria regardless of the outcome was that minorities would be protected, those minorities are principally the Alawites, Christians, and moderate Sunnis. I'm not sure what the Islamic Front's objectives are post Assad, but I suspect they won't be anymore interested in protecting religious minorities than the Muslim Brotherhood were in Egypt.