"'The Assad regime has been diabolically bad for Syria,' Julie Bishop said at the UN. [...] Indeed so. [...] [W]hich makes Bishop's remarks bizarre. 'However, we're dealing with reality and the fact is we need a political solution.' She went on to say 'the reality is President Assad is still in Syria, the reality is Russia is backing President Assad... We can have some optimism that Russia's involvement is positive' [...]"
So writes Elliott Abrams in No peace in Syria until Assad regime is deposed in The Australian of 1/10/15.
Abrams' appended bio reads:
"Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign relations in Washington. He served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser in the administration of George W. Bush."
How reassuring. The bloke who gave us regime change in Iraq!
As you'd expect from a supporter of Jewish State in the Levant (JSIL), Abrams is big on the Sunni/Shia divide:
"To Sunnis, the Alawite Assad regime is a Shia force backed by Shia militias - sent to kill Sunnis."
He concludes his piece thus:
"The question for us is, do we step back and allow this [mass killing and amazing brutality in Syria] or do we give Syrians the wherewithal to fight for their country? Even now... non-jihadi rebels control parts of the country. They could do better if they had real help instead of the small and embarrassing efforts the US and a few other countries have made. The surest way to keep Islamic State alive and growing is to do a deal with Russia and Iran and keep Assad in power. Under those circumstances it will continue to recruit Sunnis, and its narrative (as well as that of Jabhat al-Nusra... the al-Qa'ida affiliate) will continue to be 'help us, only we are trying to fight for Sunnis.'... [W]e should recognise that Assad is a gift to the worst Sunni terrorist groups. Peace in Syria cannot come while he is in office."
Even now... non-jihadi rebels control parts of the country. Can you spot them by the flowers in their hair?
Abrams has real form.
He's one of the neocon (more correctly, ziocon) brigade (Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and the rest), who were instrumental in bringing down Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 2003, and dividing the country along sectarian lines.
And didn't that work out well? For Israel (the point of the whole exercise) yes, but Iraqis...
Anyway, let's return to those heady days of shock and awe to see how we got here.
Back then, thanks to Abrams and his mates, the US had a DIRECTION: topple Saddam, empower Iraq's Shiites, and unleash Shia death squads on Iraq's Sunnis.
But guess what? Out of the blue, entirely unforeseen, Shia Iran was in like Flynn! WHOOPS!
Time for a REDIRECTION: Undermine Iran by mobilising Sunni (Wahhabi brand) Saudi Arabia against Iran's allies in Syria (Asaad) and Lebanon (Hezbollah). Great idea - just as long as Saudi-funded, Sunni (Wahhabi brand) jihadis were giving Assad and Nasrallah curry, that is.
But guess what? Out of the blue, entirely unforeseen, OMG! What's this? In Iraq and Syria too! Wahhabi ISIS???!!! SHIT!
Time for another REDIRECTION: Hello, Iran?
OK, got the picture?
Now here's Abrams, as deputy national security adviser, one of the boosters of the DIRECTION and co-author (along with Dick Cheney & Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security adviser) of REDIRECTION No. 1, taking issue with our part in REDIRECTION No. 2. What this bozo doesn't seem to realise is that, whether it's Jules or Tanya at the foreign policy helm, we'd follow the US to Hell and back if asked. Hell, even if we weren't asked.
For the full picture, I recommend Seymour Hersh's The Redirection (newyorker.com, 5/3/07)