- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
February 2012 Archives
On the eve of the "Friends of Syria" conference in Tunisia last Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated her firm belief that there will be a "breaking point" for the Assad regime, and that an increasingly capable Syrian opposition will find the arms not only to defend themselves, but to "begin offensive operations." Is it time for the U.S. and the rest of the international community to begin supplying those arms to the Free Syrian Army, as a way to hasten the breaking point for the Assad regime? Having definitively sided with the Syrian opposition against the Assad regime, can the international community simply stand by -- as Syrian civilians are killed by the hundreds and even thousands -- and retain its credibility? Conversely, might arming the opposition only increase Syria's descent into an all-out civil war that destabilizes not only Syria, but potentially the entire region? Will arming the opposition to halt a humanitarian disaster draw the U.S. and its allies onto a slippery slope that eventually leads to a full-scale military engagement, as happened in Libya?
8 responses: Paul Sullivan, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Wayne White, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Paul D. Eaton, James Jay Carafano, Michael Brenner
President Obama laid out a new defense strategy and now a budget that has the full backing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chairman Martin Dempsey, but is one that hawks still argue is insufficient, or even dangerous, for national security. Will hawks be able to take on the Joint Chiefs and get the changes they want? Or will the brass wall prove too strong to break? How do you see the fiscal 2013 defense budget year playing out?
3 responses: Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael Brenner, Gordon Adams
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta caused a PR headache for the White House when he told reporters the U.S. would end its combat mission in Afghanistan in 2013, a year earlier than had been thought. The administration has since been trying - with little success - to walk back the comments.
Do you think Panetta is right to want to end the combat mission next year, and can that be safely done? Does setting a timetable embolden the Taliban? What goals should the U.S. try to accomplish before withdrawing - and, crucially, what can be realistically done?
7 responses: James Jay Carafano, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Joseph J. Collins, Michael Brenner, Wayne White, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Steven Metz
