It is difficult to come up what to say in regards to John Kerry’s testimony at a Senate hearing where he states that “Arab countries” want to bankroll a full scale invasion by the US and just take over Syria completely. What was so astonishing is John Kerry’s reaction:
With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes... They have. That offer is on the table.
In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost, That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.
No one’s talking about it, but the offer is on the table.
If the administration thinks this is a good idea they are seriously skewed in their thinking. The true “cost” is not money. Do these “Arab countries” care to shed blood of their own father and sons? How about this, we can bankroll their invasion. Let’s see how “dedicated” they really are then.
On a deeper level this idea is far more dangerous and insidious. The Islamic world is fractured by two major rivalries, the Sunni and Shia. The Iran-Iraq war was all about this rivalry and the Syrian civil war is a continuation of this struggle.
So who are the good guys and the bad? If we topple Syria it means we picked sides, there’s no other way of looking at it. The intervention would have morphed from chemical weapons deterrent to something we never bargained for.
Kerry says the US could “do the whole thing, like we’ve done in other previous places” like what other “previous” places? Iraq, which Kerry ran for president with a platform opposing? Vietnam perhaps, where? When did we get so good at invading and taking over other counties that Kerry thinks the US could do this as a vocation as in invade-and-take-over-a-country-for hire?