As a progressive, my plans for Syria do not include bombing the hell out of them. It’s a pity this thread hasn’t included a more closely-read critique of the author’s extremely UNprogressive analysis. This includes her ludicrous estimation of rebel force composition, and somewhat slippery implication that if you object to heart-eating Jihadis you are playing into Assad’s hands (my anti-islamist credentials are impeccable, by the way, and honestly acquired, going to back to my support for the Soviet Union’s defence of the Afghan revolution – an admirable endeavour, long ago drowned in blood by the CIA and their Jihadi mercenaries, for which the author would have had, I suspect, scant relish). Her bizarre insistence that the slogan “Hands Off Syria” somehow mischaracterizes the nature of the struggle, and her blasé attitude to the immeasurable suffering an American attack would engender, indicate both a sneaking regard for U.S. imperialism and make her professed concern for the Syrian people somewhat suspect. What particularly sets my teeth on edge, however, is the insufferably prescriptive tone of the piece, and her insistence (expressed on twitter) that people who disagree with her should keep silent, and thus do obeisance to her self-declared monopoly on discourse: having been raised in Chicago and educated in Georgetown may have something to do with this arrogance.