The ever-clueless Republican establishment organ the Weekly Standard didn't mention the Muslim Brotherhood or al-Qaeda, of course. Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly give the impression that the anti-Assad forces in Syria are Western-style pluralist democrats, as they were advertised as being in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. Yet even though the rebels are clearly established as pro-Sharia Islamic supremacists in all three of those countries, the Weekly Standard hasn't learned a thing. In fact, the Weekly Standard hasn't learned a thing even from the spectacular failures of the Wilsonian democracy projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, and still clamors for more Wilsonian adventures, heedless of how they actually aid the establishment of Sharia states that will be inveterate, immovable enemies of the United States and of freedom.
"Syria and Obama's Strategic Box," by Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly for the Weekly Standard, July 27 (thanks to Maxwell):
Why hasn’t President Obama intervened militarily in Syria? After all, this is a president who issued a directive last year stating that a “core” national security interest of the United States would be to prevent mass atrocities of precisely the kind Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is now unleashing on his own people. And this is a president who, to his credit, helped remove Muammar Qaddafi from power. Certainly, overthrowing Assad, cutting Syria’s ties to Iran, and putting an end to its destructive role in Lebanon is far more important to American security interests than the campaign to end Qaddafi’s rule in Libya ever was....
These recent news stories out of Syria have absolutely nothing to do with Obama's failure (so far) to intervene militarily in that country, but they abundantly establish why he shouldn't: