What people are saying about revolution against Assad regime.
Los Angeles Times, editorial: “It might seem the height of naivete for the United States to join Russia — the protector and arms supplier of (Syrian) President Bashar Assad — in trying to arrange an international peace conference. But, given the alternatives, the Obama administration is right to pursue that possibility and to press Syrian opposition groups to participate. … Prospects for the proposed conference … worsened Thursday when opposition leaders said they wouldn’t send representatives until … ‘massacres’ stopped. … Meanwhile, the Syrian president said that Russia was honoring its promise to supply his country with weapons. … Yet despite these obstacles, a conference might prove useful.”
Gayle Lemmon, Foreign Policy: “The one thing the opposition agrees upon is their need for a guarantee that if Assad does not step down before talks … he will step aside as a consequence of them. And if the Syrian president remains determined to fight to the end, opposition leaders expect the international community to provide them with weapons to defeat him on the battlefield. As of now, however, President Obama’s administration does not look at all prepared to take that step.”
Boston Herald, editorial: “(Last week) Sen. John McCain slipped over the Turkish border to meet with (Syrian) rebel leaders. … McCain … knows better than most that not all the rebels are good guys. The opposition to the … Assad regime has its share of terrorists. … But there are no ideal options here. Assad has long been a supporter of the Hezbollah terrorists. … With at least 70,000 Syrians killed in the conflict … and the potential for regional conflict growing more dangerous by the hour, the situation cries out for U.S. leadership. … McCain’s mission wasn’t merely to chitchat with rebel leaders. … It was to turn up the heat on a do-nothing White House.”
Michael Weiss, Real Clear World: “Assuming the West is serious about tilting the balance of power, it really has only one option left: grounding the Syrian air force through direct action either through a no-fly zone or strategic bombing campaign. … The skies are the main portal for Iranian and Russian resupplies to the regime. Although the White House is doing nothing to build a consensus in Washington for another war in the Middle East, it is taking the debate about a multilateral intervention far more seriously than some had previously imagined.”
Michael Rubin, Commentary: “After more than two years of preventable slaughter, the Obama administration has finally begun to consider imposing a no-fly zone in Syria. ‘Considering’ in governance parlance, of course, is one of two ways the White House countenances doing nothing while pretending to do something (the other is attending conferences). Had Obama blessed a no-fly zone two years ago, it might have decided the outcome in Syria before the Syrian opposition radicalized to the degree that it poses as much of a threat to U.S. interests as Assad himself.”
Daniel Larison, The American Conservative: “Destroying Syrian air defenses is essential to creating a no-fly zone. A no-fly zone cannot be enforced successfully without doing this. … Doing that means that the U.S. must start a war against the Syrian government. … Threatening to shoot down Syrian aircraft while failing to create the conditions necessary to do that is nothing more than a bluff that would soon be called.”
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.