We have just learned from a New York Times’ article (Dozens of U.S. Diplomats, in Memo, Urge Strikes Against Syria’s Assad,
by MARK LANDLERJUNE 16, 2016) that the State Department set up a « dissent channel » during the Vietnam war as a way for employees who had disagreements with policies to register their protest with the officials without fear of reprisal.
A number of State Department employees have signed a document critical of U.S. policy on Syria. 51 of these retired diplomats or midlevel officials have been put aside. By wishing the U.S. to have a tougher policy as regards to Assen Ben Assad they seem to be out of touch with reality.
John Kerry and other top officials act on the advice of his military commanders, who have a global vision of the Middle East, and who know that the moderate oppposition that they have trained will never refuse to negotiate because they have no fighting or negotiating power.
The memo does not take into consideration the arrival of the Russians whose well thought-out air strikes have completely changed the outlook on the ground. ISIS is now on the defensive which is also the case in Irak and could lead to its overall defeat.
There have been negotiations with the presence of the moderate anti-government people but do they really exist? Throughout history, negotiations that have had any success have come about when one of the parties had won the war.
The memo concludes by a link with intervention and “moral obligations”. Other countries have used the same words, for example in Libya and left the country in a state of anarchy.