The comments on this Pro-intervention Op-Ed by Bill Killer (h/t atidd) are giving me a bit more faith that people “get” the problem with intervention in Syria. It appears that more than a decade of War has finally begun to make people weary of military intervention, however well-intentioned. Here’s a few examples:
So we eliminate Assad’s ability to retaliate against its rebel citizens, then what is left? From what we read, the Christians and Alawites support Assad, and will be killed off by the rebels. The best financed groups come from Iraq, so how do you suggest we counter that?We might have been able to prevent this in the first place if we were able to get Assad to leave, but Russia squelched that. I suspect the Chinese do not want anything to do with it, they are not particularly fond of Islam. No matter who ends up running the country, it will be a majority Islamic faction.
Considering the atrocities carried out by Assad there will be brutal retaliation, as we have already seen. What we can not tolerate, we have no ability to stop. We are seeing the end of a brutal oppressive regime, the retaliation will be just as brutal.
All we can do is hope we can contain this civil war to Syria.
What is our national interest here? Syria was already being run by a despot hostile to ourselves and funding terrorists. Those opposing him are themselves affiliated with al Qaeda (or at least those with any chance of overthrowing him are). So who are we protecting and what are we preventing?
[Keller’s Op-Ed is] [a]n excellent example of how we get drawn into the military option. No matter how disastrously Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan turn out to be for us, there are never any real consequences to those who suck us in. Those who ought to exercise a proper caution lose their courage fearing that they will get blamed for the human costs of civil wars in other countries while knowing that as long as they show proper machismo there will be little criticism of their sending fellow citizens (younger ones) to become casualties in futile endeavors in foreign lands.
Here are a few questions I have after reading this. Where in this analysis is there room for non-militarized intervention? Why must engagement in Syria take the form of military action? Can’t you possibly think of other ways of ending the conflict? Is it really realistic to think that military intervention can result in the quick fall of Assad and his replacement with an interim authority if Russia, China, and other continue to support Assad? Who will be in this interim government and what legitimacy will they enjoy locally?
Long winded nonsense.
We need another war and it’s expense and social turmoil at home like we need more NRA and tax cuts for the rich. There is no longer justification for constant application of US military all over the Earth, THAT is the lesson of Iraq and as we are seeing, Afghanistan.
Useless military buildup is an area where Democrats need to learn from Libertarians. The Defense Dept has been bankrupting America for decades, chancing bogeymen, while the Middle Class is far more scared to death of not being able to retire than the consequences of a conflict in Asia Minor.