Syria Regime Change

Jay Carney insisted Obama is not considering regime change as an option in its response to Bashar Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people.



Charles Krauthammer points out that it's pointless to attack Syria if the goal is not regime change.

From Noel Sheppard, MRC:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It’s precisely because of all of those unknowns that if you're going to cross the line, you're going to cross the Rubicon and enter into the war by killing people, by launching cruise missiles as the administration is clearly about to do, that is do something, not just as an expression of outrage, you know, as a kind of a show of Obama’s conscience. If you're going to actually cross the line, with all of the possible consequences you’ve outlined, which could be serious, then have a strategic effect.

We don't hear that. We heard Carney say this isn't about regime change. Well then it’s a pointless exercise. If it’s going to be an attack, what it should be aimed at, as General Keane was explaining, having the objective of weakening the regime, of stopping Assad who is now winning this war, and giving the rebels a chance of winning or weakening Assad.

Imagine the effect on the rebels who have been abandoned. Nobody’s helped them up until now. And the word now from Washington loud and clear is the Americans are going to act. This is a country that took down the Taliban in 100 days, took down Saddam in Iraq, who had been in power 30 years, took him down in three weeks. We have the capacity to take away the air assets of this regime. If we are going to have an attack, it should be aimed at that, and if it’s not, we shouldn't be doing anything.

I agree with Krauthammer.