Last week, the New York Times had an excellent article on how defining clear-cut "moderates" in Syria is a near impossible feat, one asking for trouble:
“You are not going to find this neat, clean, secular rebel group that respects human rights and that is waiting and ready because they don’t exist,” said Aron Lund, a Syria analyst who edits the Syria in Crisis blog for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It is a very dirty war and you have to deal with what is on offer.”
....
The Syrian rebels are a scattered archipelago of mostly local forces with ideologies that range from nationalist to jihadist. Their rank-and-file fighters are largely from the rural underclass, with few having clear political visions beyond a general interest in greater rights or the dream of an Islamic state.
Most have no effective links to the exile Syrian National Coalition, meaning they have no political body to represent their cause. And the coalition’s Supreme Military Council, which was intended to unite the moderate rebel forces, has all but collapsed.Nancy Pelosi did not go in full whipping mode to get Democrats on board, but she certainly pressured them to back the president's new war.
The resolution in question, offered as an amendment by Buck McKeon (CA-25), passed 273 to 156. 159 Republicans and 114 Democrats voted for it. 71 Republicans and 85 Democrats voted against it.
In other words, a majority of both parties just voted for war.
I go through the roll call votes here.
No comments:
Post a Comment