Smasharoo wrote:
Wait? What? You seriously think that Obama sitting on the fence for 6 months doing nothing constituted a "firm stance"? He only got involved after France and England basically told him they were going to act without him if he didn't man up and grow a pair. He did everything he possibly could to be as uninvolved in that conflict as possible. And yeah, it bit us.
How? How did it 'bite us'?
Um... Benghazi attacks? Really? You don't see how western forces basically sitting back and playing air war while leaving the ground support and armament of the rebels to such sound folks like Qatar (and other "interested parties") might maybe have resulted in greater influence in the country by said "interested parties"? We more or less left a vacuum and were somehow surprised when it was filled by folks who don't like us much. In June, NATO was ready to write the entire thing off as a stalemate and was moving towards some sort of cease fire half solution (sound familiar?). The only reason the rebels eventually won wasn't because of the US or NATO but because of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood funding and supplying the rebels.
We were ready to let the rebels wave in the freaking breeze, promising humanitarian aid. Extremist Muslim groups were offering arms and support. Guess which group gained influence in the region as a result?
And then we did the same exact thing in Syria. With more or less the same result. What's the old saying about failing to learn from history?