New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was a big fan of the late David Brooks.
But after Brooks’ death last year, Krugman has found himself writing for Brooks’ successor, James Fallows, as well as for some of his other peers, including Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian columnist.
And he’s now been joined on the op-ed page by a number of other critics of the Obama administration’s foreign policy.
What is Krugman’s take on the latest U.S. policy, from Syria to the Ukraine?
“There are many reasons why I think the United States should pursue a strong, aggressive stance in the region.
But in the meantime, I would caution that if we do nothing, the risk of chaos in Syria grows more acute.
And if we don’t do anything, there will be a very dangerous, potentially uncontrollable outcome. “
There is a danger that we will see more and more violent chaos in the world as the regime of Bashar al-Assad falls.
Why is this important? “
I think we need to act decisively in Syria, and I am very skeptical that this can be done by just talking about it, without a clear-cut solution.”
Why is this important?
As Brooks once wrote, “The U.N. sanctions on Syria are only going to make the situation worse.
It is unlikely that we could get a resolution of the crisis through the Security Council, which is dominated by the United Kingdom, Germany, France and the United Arab Emirates.
If the United Sates, Russia and Iran agree on a military solution, the U.K., France, Germany and the others will also have to agree to the same sanctions. “
As a matter of fact, if you had the same United States, the British and French, the other big powers, in Syria now it would not be a long shot that the Assad regime would be toppled.”
If the United Sates, Russia and Iran agree on a military solution, the U.K., France, Germany and the others will also have to agree to the same sanctions.
Ns sanctions on Assad will then be imposed, and Assad will remain in power, or at least until a political settlement is reached.
In the meantime the Syrian people will face growing food shortages, rising crime and violence and growing resentment toward the UnitedS and its allies.
Why has this happened?
For years the Us government and its Western allies have been trying to prevent the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Brotherhood, an offshoot of the Arab nationalist movement, was banned in Egypt in 1979.
In 2006 the US. and its NATO allies started arming and training the rebels in the Syrian war.
The Obama administration also pushed for a no-fly zone over Syria to keep the rebels from bombing the country and to protect civilians.
In recent years, however, the Assad government has been taking the lead in the fight against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.
As of this writing, the White House says it has at least 6,000 air strikes in Syria against ISIS targets, which has been largely carried out by the U-2 spy plane and a number by the B-2 stealth bomber.
The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for at least five of those attacks.
But since ISIS is a major international terrorist organization, and its atrocities are often directed against civilians, the UnitedStates and its partners have used every available tool to try to stop it.
Now that ISIS is weakened, Assad is winning, and he is doing it with military force.
But the Uniteds allies in the Middle East are determined to prevent this, even if it means a costly and messy war.
Is there any way we can help?
There is no clear-cutting military solution to the crisis in Syria.
There are plenty of options that are being explored.
The only real solution is diplomacy.
The best way to do this is to support the rebels.
The Syrian opposition is fighting on two fronts.
One is the offensive against the regime, which, along with Russia, has been bombing it relentlessly for the last year.
The other is a military offensive, backed by Russia, Iran and China, against the extremists.
The United States and its European allies are not going to be able to defeat the Assad family and its militias with a military force that is not backed by a credible coalition.
That will require a diplomatic solution.
As for the Russians and the Iranians, they have been the driving force behind the conflict and will continue to do so.
The goal of a military alliance should be to drive the Russians out of Syria and Iran.
This could take the form of a no fly zone in Syria that would allow Russian planes to fly freely over Syria.
It could also be a no shoot zone, which would allow Syrian jets to be targeted.
Finally, the international community should try to broker a political solution to this conflict that would involve the Assads, the Russians, Iran, the Saudis, Turkey and others.