WASHINGTON POST LOSING PATIENCE WITH OBAMA OVER SYRIA

Obama is arming the al Qaeda rebs in order to grind down the resistance from the Syrian military. But it is not working. The competent Syrian Arab Army was, is and will continue kicking al Qaeda butt, particularly if Hezbollah and Iran assist, and Russia is invited into Syria, as recently proposed by Jim Fetzer in Press TV.

Editorials by The Washington Post on Obama's policy on Syria used to appear once every month or two. But they are now appearing almost every week. The Washington Post is losing patience with Obama over Syria. The latest editorial paints a picture of virtual armageddon if Obama doesn't intervene and intervene now.

What will unfold in Syria if the Obama administration persists with its policy of providing humanitarian and other non-lethal aid while standing back from the fighting? The most likely scenario is that Syria fractures along sectarian lines. An al-Qaeda affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, is already consolidating control over a swath of northeastern Syria; remnants of the regime, backed by Shiite fighters from Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, could take over a strip of the western coastline.

Such a splintering would almost certainly spread the sectarian warfare to Iraq and Lebanon, as it has to some extent already. That could cause the collapse of the Iraqi political system that was the legacy of the U.S. mission there. Chemical weapons stocks now controlled by the Assad regime would be up for grabs, probably forcing further interventions by Israel in order to prevent their acquisition by Hezbollah or al-Qaeda. Jordan, the most fragile U.S. ally in the Middle East, could collapse under the weight of Syrian refugees. Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which have been imploring the Obama administration to take steps to end the war, could conclude that the United States is no longer a reliable ally.

[source : What if the U.S. doesn’t intervene in Syria?, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-if-the-us-doesnt-intervene-in-syria/2013/05/08/18e8cb80-b73a-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html, 9th May 2013]

The editorial suggests "an air campaign as well as arms for the moderate opposition".

But the most outrageous demand is made when the editorial claims the interests and national security of the USA are at risk if Obama fails to "take decisive action to end the Assad regime."

On Tuesday President Obama said his job was to “constantly measure” what actions were in the best U.S. interest. It’s not an easy calculus, to be sure. But for two years, as Mr. Obama has heeded the warnings about U.S. engagement, the situation in Syria has grown more dangerous to U.S. interests. There are no good options, as everyone likes to say. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that the greatest risk to the United States lies in failing to take decisive action to end the Assad regime.

The consequence of this last sentence must be illegal, a blatant, naked regime change without UN authorisation?

This adds to the growing desperation of the Anglo-American Establishment that manifested last weekend when Israel claimed to be bombing missiles bound for Hezbollah but actually coordinated an attack with the al Qaeda rebs on divisions of the Syrian military in and around Damascus.

The easiest way to avoid this alleged armageddon in Syria is to allow the competent Syrian military to continue wiping the cutthroat al Qaeda off the face of the earth, and to stop supplying the rebels with arms, finance, and support, be it political, moral, logistical or any other kind of support.