Posted on 06/17/2016 7:16:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
Protesting the Obama administration’s policy in Syria, dozens of State Department officers have signed an internal document calling on the administration to order targeted military strikes against Damascus to force regime change as the only way to defeat ISIS, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The “dissent channel cable” was signed by 51 State Department officers involved with advising on Syria policy in various capacities, according to an official familiar with the document. The Wall Street Journal reviewed a copy of the cable, which repeatedly calls for “targeted military strikes” against the Syrian government in light of the near-collapse of the ceasefire brokered earlier this year.
The views expressed by the U.S. officials in the cable amount to a scalding internal critique of a longstanding U.S. policy against taking sides in the Syrian war, a policy that has survived even though the regime of President Bashar al-Assad has been repeatedly accused of violating ceasefire agreements and Russian-backed forces have attacked U.S.-trained rebels.
While use of the ‘dissent channel’ is not unique, according to U.S. officials, the number of diplomats signing on was.
“It’s embarrassing for the administration to have so many rank-and-file members break on Syria,” a former State Department official who worked on Middle East policy told the Journal.
The cable warns that the U.S. is losing prospective allies among Syria’s majority Sunni population in its fight against the Sunni extremist group Islamic State while the regime “continues to bomb and starve” them. […]
It calls for the U.S. to change course and create a more robust partnership with moderate rebel forces to fight against both Islamic State and Mr. Assad’s government. Many Syrian Arab rebels have been reluctant to join the U.S.-led coalition because of its singular focus on Islamic State and not on the regime.
Such a force would shift “the tide of the conflict against the regime [to] increase the chances for peace by sending a clear signal to the regime and its backers that there will be no military solution to the conflict.”
The Obama administration has attempted to steer clear of attacking Assad’s regime because they argue it could embroil the U.S. in direct conflict with Russia and Iran.
But in the cable, officials say Russia and Assad have not taken past negotiations and ceasefires seriously; thus, they suggest a “more muscular military posture” going forward, the Journal reports.
“Failure to stem Assad’s flagrant abuses will only bolster the ideological appeal of groups such as Daesh, even as they endure tactical setbacks on the battlefield,” the cable reads.
Nicely timed, with the Saudis conducting a major visit to DC.
what gives them the impression Obama cares what they, or anyone else, thinks?
Ah, I get it. We will back off on the Assad attack strategy if you make the gun control argument go away.
Too late for that.
Putin supports Assad.
Putin has all of Hillary’s emails.
Obama will not be bombing Assad.
Why do we need to change the leader of Syria, in order to defeat ISIS???
I am pretty sure the leader of Syria DOES NOT WANT Isis to take over his country too.
If Odumbass gets rid of Assad, I bet ISIS takes over with 6 months.
Probably
I don’t get it either. My understanding is that Assad was fighting ISIS. Perhaps they think that if we get rid of Assad, ISIS will like us then...
Is the document available to the public or are we only allowed to be told about it?
After 7 years and now they speak up???
For once, the Obama regime is correct. The Assad government opposes ISIS, has done nothing to the USA, and at least offers the remaining Christians some chance of survival. And there are no “moderate” rebels who would not be at the mercy of the pacifist/isolationist American left if the USA were to support them.
I get it. Since ISIS is slaughtering Christians in the middle east, and Americans here at home, we need to bring down Assad, who is also fighting them.
We will do it by aiding the Syrian “rebels”, who self-identify as Al Qaeda.
The primary reason to bring down Assad is that he is Iran’s ally, which we are helping Iran get a nuke.
Nuke Damascus. Do it now!
The primary reason to bring down Assad is that he ........
.........stands in the way of the pipeline the Saudis want to build. That has always been why the US gov’t. has been trying to oust Assad. Doing the bidding of their Saudi masters.
Taking out Assad makes as much sense as toppling Quaddafy and will have similar results.
The concern shown by Foggy Bottom denizens for the Middle East Sunni Muslims is touching.
Their lack of support for Middle East Christians and Jews is disturbing.
These State Department persons are demented. We aren't attacking ISIS like they want to attack Asad.
Sick.
Goody gumdrops!
Let’s create more hell in Syria so we can import more useless eaters, unvetted rabid muslims living on welfare.
Wait, so they only way to defeat ISIS is to bomb their enemy?! Personally, I think we ought to be supporting Assad.
Oh surprise surprise the neocons at State want another useless war to make Syria safe for ISIS. President Trump “Newt your first job as SoS is to fire everyone in the State Department.”, “Everyone?”, “Yes EVERYONE!”
State seems to have a vested interest in Assad’s fall, having made some particularly unsavory (and unsuccessful) alliances to that effect. It may be less than a great idea to allow people whose diplomatic efforts have proven disastrous to start directing military operations as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.