NY Times article mentioned....will look for it.
Take your pick. We're not even talking about that choice in the one place where such policies are supposed to be discussed: Congress, the house of the people.
Well there's more to that choice. The Russians are invested in Assad, heavily. Further, to reduce and constrain Iranian influence in the Gulf means that whatever bilateral opposition within the Islamic world will have been eliminated. Do we really want a unified Islam? Or do we want them fighting each other internally with their own blood and treasure. Neither is very attractive. Yet there is ONE thing we can do that will slash the FUNDING available to perpetuate these conflicts: Deregulate our own economy in developing and delivering petrochemical fuels.
One would think that after defeating the Soviets by this very means that such an understanding would be on the tips of their heavily compensated tongues. Don't these idiots get it or is there some other agenda here? /rhetorical question
There is a piece of folk wisdom that says, “There ain’t a horse that can’t be rode, nor a man that can’t be throwed.”
With all the “interventions” the Feral Government has been involved in, there is one helluva comeuppance waiting in the bushes ahead of us.
Even “foreign aid” has done nothing better than make nations who despise us because we can give them aid.
fyi