George F. Will: Obama's words don't do justice to his sensible Syrian policy

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 3, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    We don't even have a surety yet that chemical weapons were used, who, if they were used, even used them, how much was used, and how that ended up happening (maybe someone went rogue for all we know). There are a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of uncertainty about what all makes up the rebels themselves. This requires a cautious approach. Let's not screw anything up.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 3, 2013 6:00 a.m.

    The Mujahideen forces who battled the soviets. led by Ahmed Shah Massoud, joined forces with Mullah Mohammed Omar to form the Taliban after the departure of soviet troops - and to win control of the country from the rival Shia groups. At least that is my read of what happened....

    Were they called the "Taliban" back then.... same people.... same tactics.... same US weapons.... until Mr. Bin Laden showed up with another source of funding.

    End result... lots of powerful weapons ended up in the wrong hands.... no matter what you call the group - which is the danger in Syria.

    Thanks for the perspective Tekakaromatagi

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    May 3, 2013 4:59 a.m.


    I think UtahBlueDevil is hinting at the fact that we armed the Afghan resistance to the Soviets. When the Soviets withdrew and various factions within the resistance started fighting each other, some formed the Taliban, others formed the Northern Alliance, others went with independent warlords. We didn't arm the Taliban directly, but we armed the folks who later became the Taliban. Not quite our fault that they went the direction they did, but we need to recognize the blowback that happened as an indirect result of our involvement in the '80s.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 2, 2013 9:35 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil: The US did not arm the Taliban. They were not in existence in the 1980's. They were created by Pakistan after the Afghan war so that Pakistan would have an ally leading the Afghan government. At one time the head of the Pakistani military introduced the Taliban to someone and said, "I want to introduce you to my children."

    Having said that, we should not go willy-nilly into countries and arm insurgents. Afghanistan is an example. We helped them and then a successor government (the Taliban) help people launch an attack against us.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2013 5:28 p.m.

    He could cowboy like bush and spend a trillion and torch the economy like his predecessor.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 2, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    George... our countries credibility on intelligence on WMD or chemical weapons is already in the gutter. We have no credibility... haven't since 2003.

    When we went in at the cost of over 100,000 lives to pursue what was later very hard to find, the world rightfully looks at our intelligence with skepticism. The UN bought our stories, gave us the keys to the war machine.... and we drove it into a ditch in Iraq. We made ourselves, and our "partners" look foolish.

    So forgive the world, and this administration if they approach this situation a little more measured. The last thing we want to do is make the mistake the Reagan administration did by arming one of our enemies - the Taliban - so they could fight our other enemy for US, the then Soviet Union. Arming militants is a very risky proposition... and one that should not be rushed into. We armed the Taliban against the Soviets. We armed the Iraqi's against Iran. Both times we were snake bit.

    Let's be a little smarter, and a little less emotional this time.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 2, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    Perhaps - if GW Bush hadn't LIED and invaded Iraq, killing 500,000 Iraqis, spenign $3 Trillion we don't have, and used false/fabricated intelligence about Iraq having and using Chemical Weapons...Pres. Obama wouldn't be so "Gun-Shy", "Quick to the Gun", or "Jumped the Gun".

    I can't help it, but I STILL blame it on GW Bush.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    Leadership is taking responsibility and finding a solution. Playing the blame game is feel-good rhetoric for his sycophants, but it leads nowhere except to further polarize the voters.