When U.S. interests are best served
This view is reminiscent of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s infamous position regarding the Iraq-Iran war; that American interests are best served if both combatants lose the war. The proponents of this “cynical” view as described by many analysts, believe that U.S. strategic interests requires depleting the resources and capabilities of the Syrian regime, helping the extremist Jihadists to sink deeper in the Syrian quagmire, and trapping Iran and its ally Hezbollah in a long drawn out war of attrition.
This cynical approach became more credible when theWashington Post revealed on Oct. 2nd the true objective of a limited clandestine CIA program to provide light weapons to the rapidly losing ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels. According to U.S. official quoted in the report the CIA’s mission “has been defined by the White House’s desire to seek a political settlement, as scenario that relies on an eventual stalemate among warring factions rather than a clear victor.
The historian Luttwak must have been thrilled when he read the following sentence in the Post’s article, “As a result, officials said, limits on the agency’s authorities enable it to provide enough support to help ensure that politically moderate, U.S.-supported militias don’t lose but not enough for them to win.”That view was given an intellectual veneer when the historian cum military analyst Edward Luttwak wrote in a New York Timesop-ed last August that “a victory by either side would be equally undesirable for the United States,” therefore “a prolonged stalemate is the only outcome that would not be damaging to American interests;” and the best way to achieving that objective “is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning.”