Obama, Syria and the Aspin Doctrine

From Discourse DB
Revision as of 12:15, June 16, 2013 by Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Item |author=Doyle McManus |source=Los Angeles Times |date=June 15, 2013 |url=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-syria-obama-clinton-2013061...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) Doyle McManus
Source Los Angeles Times
Date June 15, 2013
URL http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-syria-obama-clinton-20130616,0,6767132.column
Quotes-start.png Obama was left with two unpalatable options: escalate or accept defeat. Doing nothing might have led to irreversible results, the collapse of the rebels, so he chose to escalate — but only a little and with a vow to put no U.S. boots on the ground. Some critics will still warn that he has stepped onto a slippery slope that leads to direct military intervention. But that's where the Aspin Doctrine comes in. There are plenty of examples of the United States aiding one faction in a civil war, only to disengage if our client army failed (Ronald Reagan's Contras in Nicaragua, for example). Quotes-end.png

Add or change this opinion item's references

This item argues for the position United States should intervene on the topic Syrian civil war.