Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
(Washington Post) Aaron David Miller - The idea that Syria was anyone's to win or lose, or that the U.S. could significantly shape the outcome there, is typical of the arrogant paternalism and flawed analysis that have gotten this country into heaps of trouble in the Middle East over the years. Since this conflict began in early 2011, all of the military options for intervention have been heavily skewed toward risk rather than reward. The Assad regime had firepower, allies (Russia and China blocking actions in the UN Security Council; Iran supplying money and weapons), determination to do whatever it took to survive, and succeeded in keeping much of the Alawite military, security and intelligence forces intact. To blame this crisis on Washington is to fail to understand the cruel nature of the Syrian tragedy and the limits of U.S. power and our national priorities. The U.S. is coming out of the two longest wars in its history, in which the standard for victory was never "can we win?" but "when can we leave?" The writer is vice president for current initiatives at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.2013-01-02 00:00:00Full Article
Syria Isn't America's Fault
(Washington Post) Aaron David Miller - The idea that Syria was anyone's to win or lose, or that the U.S. could significantly shape the outcome there, is typical of the arrogant paternalism and flawed analysis that have gotten this country into heaps of trouble in the Middle East over the years. Since this conflict began in early 2011, all of the military options for intervention have been heavily skewed toward risk rather than reward. The Assad regime had firepower, allies (Russia and China blocking actions in the UN Security Council; Iran supplying money and weapons), determination to do whatever it took to survive, and succeeded in keeping much of the Alawite military, security and intelligence forces intact. To blame this crisis on Washington is to fail to understand the cruel nature of the Syrian tragedy and the limits of U.S. power and our national priorities. The U.S. is coming out of the two longest wars in its history, in which the standard for victory was never "can we win?" but "when can we leave?" The writer is vice president for current initiatives at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.2013-01-02 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|