What Is U.S. Syria Policy? Any Link to R.F.K. Assassination?

What is the U.S. administration's actual Syria policy these days? In the good old days Syria was simple an enemy of U.S. Middle East interests as a foe of Israel and ally of the Soviet Union. Times have changed of course and we are left with the Obama administration policy of fanning the flames of civil war and mass bloodletting.

It is difficult to imagine that the present Syrian Government could simply retire to sailboats and enjoy the afterglow on the golden Mediterranean pond. The Alawites and perhaps Christians too would likely experience the usual sort of purges that follow decades of civil enmity. Maybe it would have the potential for being a former Yugoslavia, yet a regime change and new Sunni Government probably would not treat their former rulers as friends and neighbors. Hafez al-Assad took power in 1970 and his son rules today.

It seems to me as an American rather wicked to drive any nation toward civil war and blood purges even if they can sing it away with 'we didn't start the fire' media prop. The secular Baa’th coup in Syria in 1963 allowed the Alawites to take power. The Sunni comprising 74% of the population are The Alawites probably did not send Sirhan Sirhan to assassinate Robert Kennedy.

True Sirhan Sirhan is Syrian and the Syrians had a regime change in 1963 the year J.F.K. was killed and might have seen it in their stars as good luck (it seems like another weird conspiracy theory though), yet that is probably coincidence alone.

If it isn’t and if there was some sort of hidden Alawite Syrian plot record in the Assad archives probably it will never survive the chaos of fires of the civil conflict ahead that could ensue if the Syrian Government is transitioning through its protracted decline and fall process today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Syria

The U.S. Government these days seems to be moving closer toward the kind of New World Order butch hegemony that regards democracy as rule by corporate concentrated wealth elites. Perhaps a Sunni takeover of Syria would end the Iranian influence and weapons trafficking routes to the Sunni Palestinian territories yet it is more likely that it would accelerate the affiliation of the Sunni ((orthodox) Moslem world and the rise of a Sunni Caliphate. Incidentally the word 'Caliphate' means successor. The west too under the Next Bush, Clinton or new corporate pick may emerge as a Caliphate for-itself as time rolls by.

The U.S. State Department has consistently failed to provide the public some sort of insight into what they expect a post-revolutionary Syria, Libya or wherever to be. The public cannot have a blind trust on foreign policy since the protracted Gulf and Afghan nation building. An out of civil control foreign policy is far too costly to the United States itself in lost opportunity for development as it goes into an economic hold pattern in order to support the Defense Contractors.

On that point I wanted to remark on the base realignment and closure round ahead and how if effects Alaska. Some of the state's Congressional delegation want to freeze the F-16 and F-22 deployment locations so the base at Fairbanks can stay open instead of sending it's plains to Anchorage wear they would be closer to intercept Chinese warplanes should they attack. Russia isn't too likely to squadrons of attacking aircraft next year, and it might be more cost effective to establish dog sled racing from Alaska to Moscow and an Alaska-Russia sailing society with lots of ports on the northern littoral instead of war gaming.

Actually it might be fun to have a Moscow to Fairbanks jet aircraft race around pylons each year for civilians including used fighter aircraft. ESPN might televise it and the race could be viewed by satellite as well.

Returning to Syria; It seems probable that an embattled Assad regime will fight to hold on while the Moslem Brotherhood expects N.A.T.O. to intervene eventually in order to have a base closer to attack Iran if necessary in order to defend against Iranian nuclear proliferation. Syria hasn't got oil so that can't be an incentive.

The Government may not be able to support a nice government in every nation around the globe. The means to an end as important as the end for-itself in cases where a lot of civilians perish. Is it a good idea to continue to stimulate a possible Syrian blood bath down the road ahead? Aggressive war is evil, yet aggressive proxy conflict seems to be more acceptable amidst some diplomats. Perhaps the real human costs of change should be evaluated as well as the end. In the future perhaps democratic individualism will be inevitable globally if concentrated wealth and power are set aside by technological diffusion.