After the careful and reasoned consideration usually given to foreign affairs by the neocons, the AIPAC-founded Washington Institute for Near Policy (WINEP) has come to a conclusion: we need to bomb Syria. In an article titled, "A New Approach to the Syria Crisis," the neocons at WINEP offer not only a very old approach to the crisis, but actually their only approach to any crisis: bombs away!
The author, former US ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey (2010-2012 -- heckuva job!), is listed as the "Philip Solondz distinguished visiting fellow...[focusing] on U.S. strategies to counter Iran's efforts to expand its influence in the broader Middle East."
In English, that translates to "here's lots of money to argue for a US attack on Iran."
This time Ambassador Jeffrey turns his sights on the warm-up to the neocons planned Iran attack, Syria. He argues that the Obama administration "overstate[s] the risks of serious engagement" in Syria, though he concedes that this is understandable "given the precedent of Iraq and Afghanistan." Nevertheless, he cites the great success of US military actions "in Libya, against al-Qaeda, against Somali pirates, and against targeted foes in Iraq in 2011" to make his case that, "Why not against Syria?" As in, attack.
Nevermind that each of these "successes" he rattles off are unmitigated failures -- Libya? Iraq? Really? And let us not forget that US military actions against al-Qaeda in places like Yemen and Pakistan have not only not been unsuccessful, but have actually created more al-Qaeda than they have been able to kill. And as we know, the al-Qaeda that did not exist in Iraq before the US attack on that country has come back to Fallujah and the Anbar province in recent months, putting truth to the myth of "the surge."
Jeffrey argues that the US should attack "soft targets" like the electrical infrastructure of Syria (war crime?) while providing to "trusted opposition factions" advanced weaponry such as MANPAD missile systems, and actively "taking direct action against regime aircraft and missiles." He seems unconcerned by numerous reports of al-Qaeda affiliated groups getting their hands on US weapons designated for "moderates" in Syria.
A direct US attack on Syria, coupled with serious arming of the rebels would, he argues, "convince Damascus, Iran, and Russia that they must begin negotiating seriously."
So obsessed is WINEP with overthrowing the secular government of Assad that they encourage direct confrontation with Russia and accept the probability of al-Qaeda rule in Syria. Perhaps they are convinced that this time, finally, they will get one right...?