AngryCanadian
01-23-2016, 06:53 AM
How regime change can work (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/13/opinions/khalilzad-regime-change/)
During last year's presidential candidate debates, hopefuls from both parties dismissed the idea of removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power. But they did not stop there -- they also questioned the idea of regime change as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, arguing that the lesson of interventions in Iraq and Libya is that overthrowing dictators risks protracted civil conflicts and ungoverned spaces for extremists to exploit.
lol >
Of course, Republicans are not the only ones wary of regime change following the experiences in Iraq -- the Obama administration also appears to have been chastened, backing away from the President's 2011 assertion that Assad must step aside.
-Yet thats why the majority of the Republicans still want the same regime change?
There is, of course, the option of direct U.S. intervention. Yet while there is a compelling moral and geopolitical case for ousting the Assad regime, the benefits of a massive and prolonged U.S.-led invasion and indefinite occupation of Syria do not outweigh the costs. U.S. intervention on this scale would enjoy the support of some Syrian groups and some regional powers, but Russia would block any U.S. attempt to secure a U.N. mandate. Iranian and Iraqi opposition to a U.S. invasion would also allow Moscow to benefit from escalated tensions with the United States.
During last year's presidential candidate debates, hopefuls from both parties dismissed the idea of removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power. But they did not stop there -- they also questioned the idea of regime change as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, arguing that the lesson of interventions in Iraq and Libya is that overthrowing dictators risks protracted civil conflicts and ungoverned spaces for extremists to exploit.
lol >
Of course, Republicans are not the only ones wary of regime change following the experiences in Iraq -- the Obama administration also appears to have been chastened, backing away from the President's 2011 assertion that Assad must step aside.
-Yet thats why the majority of the Republicans still want the same regime change?
There is, of course, the option of direct U.S. intervention. Yet while there is a compelling moral and geopolitical case for ousting the Assad regime, the benefits of a massive and prolonged U.S.-led invasion and indefinite occupation of Syria do not outweigh the costs. U.S. intervention on this scale would enjoy the support of some Syrian groups and some regional powers, but Russia would block any U.S. attempt to secure a U.N. mandate. Iranian and Iraqi opposition to a U.S. invasion would also allow Moscow to benefit from escalated tensions with the United States.