Akram, Angry Arab correspondent in Syria, sent met this:
"Here's the recipe to end the war in Syria as seen by Washington think tanks. In short: a Taliban-style state, or a puppet regime that is, especially, volatile and can explode at any moment.
The problem with the first option "is that helping the opposition “win” might end up looking something like Afghanistan in 2001" and that it may result of trading "one regime of persecution and slaughter for another". But for Mr. Pollack this shouldn't present a real problem. On contrary. It's worthy to start with it, "and if that fails to produce results, we will shift to the latter"
The piece is full of fallacies. The fact is that the writer has spared no effort to go against the ancient Chinese saying, which topped his essay: "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names". But naming things rightly must start by calling Kenneth Pollack and partners by their right name: villainous son-of-bitch murderers".
"Here's the recipe to end the war in Syria as seen by Washington think tanks. In short: a Taliban-style state, or a puppet regime that is, especially, volatile and can explode at any moment.
The first option: Bolstering the rebels with
effective military means that would make them able to end the war with
an indisputable victory. The shining example on this options is, of
course, the support offered by the United States to the Afghan
Mujaheddin against the Soviet Union and the regime of Najibullah
The second option : A direct military intervention that aims at "building a nation". If done right, with the full involvement of the citadels of democracy and secularism in the region, that is Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, "it can even pave the way toward real democracy (as the United States started to do in Iraq before its withdrawal last year), which results in greater stability in the long run". Other success stories regarding this option is the work done by Syria in Lebanon and by NATO in Bosnia
The second option : A direct military intervention that aims at "building a nation". If done right, with the full involvement of the citadels of democracy and secularism in the region, that is Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, "it can even pave the way toward real democracy (as the United States started to do in Iraq before its withdrawal last year), which results in greater stability in the long run". Other success stories regarding this option is the work done by Syria in Lebanon and by NATO in Bosnia
The problem with the first option "is that helping the opposition “win” might end up looking something like Afghanistan in 2001" and that it may result of trading "one regime of persecution and slaughter for another". But for Mr. Pollack this shouldn't present a real problem. On contrary. It's worthy to start with it, "and if that fails to produce results, we will shift to the latter"
The piece is full of fallacies. The fact is that the writer has spared no effort to go against the ancient Chinese saying, which topped his essay: "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names". But naming things rightly must start by calling Kenneth Pollack and partners by their right name: villainous son-of-bitch murderers".
