Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
From the start, President Obama's Syria policy has foundered because of a gap between words and deeds.The director of national intelligence has testified that the opposition to the Bashar Assad regime is comprised of 1,500 separate militias.ISIS controls about one-third of the country, and the other militias control a little less than 20 percent.The non-jihadist groups collectively control less than 5 percent of Syria.An American strategy of escalating airstrikes in Syria – even if coupled with ground forces – would wish that the weakest and most disorganized forces in the country somehow become the strongest, first defeating ISIS, then the Assad regime, all the while fighting off the Nusra Front and Khorasan. It's true that the demonstrations against the Assad regime in the initial months seemed to be carried out by more secular and liberal people.For any strategy to work in Syria, it needs a military component and a political one. This is not something that the United States can engineer in Syria.The Obama administration is pursuing many elements of this strategy.
Brexit will mark the end of Britain’s role as a great power
How diversity can rescue democracy
U.S. bitter polarization exacts price on our credibility abroad
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE