Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
I got the idea from these sentences:



Again, I see little to be gained by urging mediation when neither party wants it and we've no power to make it happen. Just makes us look impotent. Not much to be mediated, either: if Assad stays, under any terms, he wins and the opposition loses. If he goes, he loses and the opposition wins, though they will presumably fragment as soon as they do. What's to mediate?
I have not idea what "neither party wants", and neither do you. That is your opinion. My opinion is that most Syrians prefer a peaceful way of getting to a better future; and Assad is showing indications of being open to some degree of reasonable compromise. This is not about Assad winning or losing, this is, for Syrians, about getting to a better situation of governance. If they can do that without breaking what they have in place now they will be better off. The idea that creating a power vacuum is the best first step to getting to better governance is not one I would advocate.

For the US it is simply about not having an unstable situation expand to where it disrupts vital interests in the region. We profess we want to exercise "global leadership." I find that to have a great deal of hubris to it, but if we are to lead, then I recommend we find some more effective approaches than those applied over the past several years. There is little reputation or influence at stake is we publicly recommend that Assad engage his people in guided talks, and that he should initiate a ceasefire as a show of good faith. No "or else" at the end that we have to back up. He will get his "or else" from his own populace in good time if he continues on this path. In the recent path we have opted for regime change, calling for regime change, and providing air power to support regime change. I would put all of those well down on any list of COAs. We do not want to make an enemy of a state or a populace either one unnecessarily; but if the choice is pissing off a weak state or a strong populace, piss off the state. At least we have effective tools for dealing with enemy states. We're still shooting at noises in the dark when it comes to non-state threats.

As to my opinion that the Saudis are not a good choice, that is my opinion. I certainly never said we should pick or work to exclude any party from that role, just that IMO some would be more effective than others.