In the days just after Saddam’s ouster in 2003, conditions were optimal (if nonetheless imperfect) for overthrowing Assad and replacing his regime with something compatible with American interests. We would not have needed to use U.S. ground forces. Our mere presence in Iraq could have precluded Iran — or, what we see today, an Iraq under Iran’s influence — from trying to protect Assad.
Significantly, U.S. intervention could not be confined to Syria and would inevitably entail confronting Iran and possibly Russia. This the Obama administration is unwilling to do, although it should.
So according to him, in 03 we should have tripled down and overthrown Syria along with Afghanistan and Iraq. It would have been crazy enough to think that back then. But he's had 9 years to see how shitty Afghanistan and Iraq have gone and still thinks it would have been and still is a good idea. That's bad enough.
He goes on to say we have to confront Iran, and that what the Obama administration has done with harsh sanctions apparently isn't enough of a confrontation. And beyond even that, he throws Russia in there for reasons I'm unaware of. Andrew Sullivan was mostly speechless when posting this and I am as well. This guy has never met a country he didn't want to invade. It's really amazing. And he'd probably have a fairly high up position in a Romney administration.
The Russia mention gives me the opportunity to bring up what Jonathan Bernstein has pegged on Twitter as #always1979 in response to inflation hawks. In my last post I said that phrase might be applicable to more than just inflation hawks. I think this, along with Romney's statement a while back about Russia being our greatest geopolitical foe, demonstrates that many Republicans still think it's 1979 on foreign policy issues. Obama may not be the change we wanted. But at least he's living in this century.