According to Obama, the point of the strikes was to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again. Well, if Russia's proposal comes to fruition and goes off without a hitch, it will effectively do what the US wanted, without having to incur further casualties. So I say this is the way to proceed. Now, if the US's intentions within Syria were not about stopping the use of chemical weapons, and the whole chemical weapon attack was just an excuse for military action, then I could see the US trying to discredit this initiative and pushing for military action anyways. From my personal perspective, it seem to me that the US could care less about the plight of the Syrian people and are just using the chemical weapon attack as a way to bring about a regime change.
Personally I feel that revolutions should come from within if the goal is to end up with a stable nation that stands for the people. If the US interferes and helps the rebels, obviously Washington is gonna start calling their favors. The US isnt going to spend millions helping rebels and then just hand them the nation and complete control all willy nilly. Whomever is placed in power will be a staunch US supporter who will more likely than not end up making policies that are more beneficial to the US than his own people.
Also lets not forget the anarchy that will ensue if the Assad government is toppled. I'm not saying that Assad is a great leader or any such thing, but under him there is some semblance of order. Look at Iraq, the US says its free...but how much better is it now? Yes Saddam was a terrible dictator, but atleast back then you knew what not to do to minimize your chances of being tortured/killed. Now Iraq is a free for all. It doesnt matter who you support, or what your views are, you can blown up just walking down the street. Is it worth it? I guess only people living in that situation will know.
I think that Assad and other dicatators should be toppled, but revolutions that are given and not earned, rarely end very well.
Log in to comment