ronmcd wrote:Mike_L wrote:And whose fault is that?
Russia attempted a negotiated end to the war as far back as 2012. The deal would've included Assad stepping down.
It was scuppered by the then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton... because she was foolishly confident that the US-backed 'rebels' would overthrow Assad in the same fashion that Gaddafi had been overthrown in Libya the year before. The Syrian war was perpetuated because sanguinary Hillary wanted to do an encore of
this.
You're pinning an awful lot on an attempt to negotiate Assad's ... retirement ... by Russia that a) didn't happen, b) had absolutely no guarantee of success. And Russia offering a negotiated settlement ... means what? That they wanted a negotiated settlement? Or that they wanted to appear to offer it, and then get into protracted arguments, and Assad would carry on, etc. Who knows. Assad isn't the leader of a historic Baathist party that runs Syria, not any more, he's the head of a dictatorship which still uses the name of the party. He would have said thanks, but no thanks. I imagine.
I wouldn't assume that because Russia offered to try, means it would have worked, or even been intended to.
No, we can't know for certain how it would've turned out. What we do know is that it was never given a chance.
(
This Huffington Post article gives the details).
Mike_L wrote:Which side is more principled? The one that attempted to end the war with a negotiated settlement. Or the one that continues to fuel it to this day?
Not sure about the former. The latter applies to both of your sides in this argument.
Well, sure. But then what choice does Assad have? Having seen what happened to Saddam and Gaddafi, he knows the fate of Washington's targets of regime change. And beyond interest in his own hide, he knows what those countries look like after the "humanitarian" interventions are all done.
And what about
now? General Joseph Votel, the commander of U.S. Central Command, admits that Assad and Russia have basically won the war...
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/03/13/syrian-regime-has-won-civil-war-centcom-commander-says.htmlFurthermore, the defeat of ISIS in Syria (Washington's pretext for occupying Syrian land in defiance of international law) is now practically complete. And yet the US maintains its occupation and is reportedly even considering the establishment of new US military bases in the country...
https://www.rt.com/news/423127-new-us-bases-syria/Just another of America's "forever wars". A war of choice on the other side of the world (America is not threatened by Syria) and screw the people who happen to live there...
12 Reasons America Doesn’t Win Its Wars
Too many parties now benefit from perpetual warmaking for the U.S. to ever conclude its military conflicts.
By JON BASIL UTLEY
America doesn’t “win” its wars, because winning a war is secondary to other goals in our war making. Winning or losing has little immediate consequence for the United States, because the wars we start, Wars of Choice, are not of vital national interest; losing doesn’t mean getting invaded or our cities being destroyed. The following are some of the interests Washington has in not winning, reasons for our unending wars.
...
Full essay at:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/12-reasons-america-doesnt-win-its-wars/