-
Restrain the Abusive Administative State
May 22, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Delivering Serbs to the Wolves
May 21, 2013 | 25 comments
-
The Perils of Intervention in Syria
May 7, 2013 | 37 comments
-
America on Welfare
April 25, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Thursday Is Tax Freedom Day
April 17, 2013 | 5 comments
Another Perspective
Americans for Permanent War: Target Syria
The case against U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his family have turned his government into an essentially criminal enterprise. For more than a year Syrians have been attempting to overthrow the system.
By some estimates 7,500 people have died. Defections from the military have led to creation of a small “Free Syrian Army.” Regime opponents also have turned to terrorism. With no resolution is in sight, the country is sliding toward civil war. Like King Louis XIV President Assad might say, “Après moi, le déluge.”
In America the usual suspects have begun beating the war drums. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham urged arming the Syrian opposition. More recently McCain called for air strikes against Syria and berated the military for its caution in “standing on the sidelines.” Similarly, the Wall Street Journal editorial page urged establishment of a no-fly zone in Syria, waving aside all opposition.
Others have taken up the cry. For example, Matthew Brodsky of the Jewish Policy Center urged military intervention in order to bring about “an end to the violence, the fall of the Assad regime and the creation of conditions for a stable democratic system.” Roger Cohen of the New York Times called for arming the Syrian opposition and establishing “a rough equality of forces.” Steven A. Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations endorsed military action so as not to leave “Syrians to their fate.” Former Obama aide Anne-Marie Slaughter suggested protecting “civilians through buffer zones and humanitarian cordons around specific cities, perhaps accompanied by airstrikes against Syrian army tanks moving against those cities.”
However, mere possession of the world’s most powerful military does not mean that it should be used irrespective of interests, circumstances, and consequences. Observed Marc Lynch on Foreign Policy online, “Risky, costly foreign policy decisions can not simply be taken to express moral outrage.”
The Journal grandly declared that “the U.S. has a strategic interest in Syria’s future,” but where is that not the case? A who’s who of neoconservative analysts wrote an open letter asserting that “The Assad regime poses a grave threat to national security interests of the United States,” but what interests are those?
Syrian support for Hamas and Hezbollah is a problem for Israel and Lebanon, not America. Damascus is allied with Iran, but that relationship is inconvenient, not threatening, to the U.S. Assad’s collapse would weaken Iran, but making Tehran feel more encircled would increase its incentive to pursue nuclear weapons.
Cohen desires “payback” for Syria “allowing al-Qaeda fighters to transit Syria to Iraq.” However, the Iraq invasion put U.S. troops on Syria’s border with talk in Washington of enforcing regime change in Damascus. The Assad regime responded rather as Washington had by supporting armed insurgents in Cuba, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua. The U.S. might have claimed a casus belli at the time, but not now, months after leaving.
Humanitarian instincts urge action. But war is no delicate tool for sculpting new societies. War means killing and destroying. The consequences usually are far worse than expected — remember Iraq’s famous “cakewalk.” Even the “best” American interventions are not particularly good, like Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and Somalia, which left ethnic cleansing, violence, instability, and terrorism in their wake.
There is no good answer in Syria. No doubt Assad should go. However, last year’s homegrown Egyptian revolution has turned ugly. The military authorities look little different than the Mubarak apparatchiks they replaced, Islamists captured the vast majority of parliamentary seats in recent elections, Coptic Christians have come under increasingly violent attack, and Israel is less secure.
The results of recent Western military intervention are even worse. George W. Bush’s “splendid little war” against Iraq wrecked that nation, setting off a conflict that killed perhaps 200,000 people, wounding and otherwise traumatizing far more, forcing as many as half of Iraq’s Christians from their homes, many to Syria, and empowering Iran. Intervention in Libya prolonged the civil war, killing thousands of Libyans, and so far has resulted in human rights violations, occasional armed conflict, enhanced Islamist influence, and an international market in stolen weapons, with liberal democracy still but a faint hope for the future.
The outcome could be far uglier in Syria. The Assad regime has real support. Despite some defections, the military and security forces remain largely united. Many Syrians still support Assad as the lesser evil.
The Alawites know that a successful revolution would threaten not just their privileges but their lives. Christians, Druze, and other religious minorities fear increased persecution, as in Iraq and Egypt. Rima Haro, a Syrian Christian and Middle East expert now living in Sweden, said: “It will be Iraq or Egypt all over again.”
Kurds are divided, with some tacitly backing the government, which for years supported the Kurdistan Worker’s Party and its attacks into Turkey. Many middle class Sunnis, especially in business, back the regime and stability over their co-religionists and revolution. The stage is set for a potentially bloody civil war.
American military action would not change that. A no-fly zone would be ineffective against a government that has not used helicopters or aircraft. Washington would have to become a direct combatant, launching attacks on the ground against tanks, artillery, army formations, government installations, and even leadership positions.
About the Author
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (Transaction).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (63) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Doug Bandow
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/12/americans-for-permanent-war-ta
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- What’s in a Name?
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
aware| 3.12.12 @ 6:34AM
"...have turned his government into an essentially criminal enterprise."
Has there ever been any other kind of "government"? They just have a particularly unsophisticated one. They should learn its less obvious and bloody to steal through inflation and oppress through a progressive income tax. That way the goose doesn't know its being squeezed. Throw in farce "elections" and the goose is convinced it is in control of the squeezing.
By the way Doug, how's the Koch takeover of Cato going? Pretty soon you won't be writing stuff like this there. The "domesticating" of Cato that started with expelling the Rothbardians in the 90s is just about complete.
Jack in Wi.| 3.12.12 @ 7:56AM
Doug Bandow is the best writer here. It is about time that we put an end to this foreign adventurism. We have no business telling Syria, Iraq, Afganistan, Venezuala or anyone else what kind of goverment to have. We can lead by example, but keep our money and out troops defending this country. For 100 years we have been sticking our noses in other people businesss and all it had let to is a mountain of debt and blood. The world would be a better place, in my opinion if Woodrow Wilson had kept his campaign promises and kept us out of war.
Zombie Reagan| 3.12.12 @ 10:11AM
Mr Bandow, we've missed you! A voice of sanity in the NeoCon wilderness!
Vern Crisler| 3.12.12 @ 2:30PM
Bandow is just another libertarian blame-America-firster.
Zombie Reagan| 3.12.12 @ 4:49PM
You mean "America Firster." As opposed to you, an Israel Firster. Time for a new tax on you people to pay for all these wars you want? No more free rides to the Middle East battlefields. Not that you fight, anyway. It's always the poor, ain't it?
Vern Crisler| 3.12.12 @ 9:01PM
Anarchist troll.
aware| 3.13.12 @ 6:03AM
Neocon warmonger.
pty| 3.12.12 @ 6:41AM
I oppose these "liberal wars" such as Barry's Libya, Egypt and now possiblly Syria.
But I also oppose Moooooslim immigration into our country, so while I don't want us to get involved in Syria, I also don't want Syrians (or Eguptians or Libyans or Pakistanis) coming to our country to set up mosques.
That said, I'm a defense hawk and proud of it. Bandow is a pie in the sky libertarian (really lib-tard) who is afriad to call himself s liberal/leftist. He's the kind of fool who has a "Department of Peace" bumper sticker on his car.
Zombie Reagan| 3.12.12 @ 10:11AM
Racist bastard.
Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 2:49PM
Actually you might be surprised to learn how many individuals from those countries and a couple others have been apprehended at our southern border. Many are Spanish speaking yet from places like Libya or Yemen. Does anyone really think they are crossing illegally to do those landscaping jobs Americans won't?
Zombie Reagan| 3.12.12 @ 4:50PM
Prove it, racist Bastard II.
Skippy| 3.12.12 @ 5:33PM
Color me racist bastard III.
The Bruce| 3.13.12 @ 4:17AM
http://articles.latimes.com/20.....c-20110127
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGdl9banSjg
The Bruce| 3.13.12 @ 4:18AM
http://www.wnd.com/2010/05/156441/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010.....an-border/
I can post dozens more, if you like.
Clint| 3.12.12 @ 6:58AM
Our American Warriors Are Not To Be Used As Cannon Fodder And Our National Treasure Is Not To Be Pissed Away Policing The Globe For The Chickenhawk In Chief, Obooboo.
Vern Crisler| 3.12.12 @ 2:34PM
Obama's problem is that he shares the foreign policy views of libertarian twits. However, he'll lose votes if he becomes a libertarian surrender-monkey, so his foreign policy ends up confusing allies.
Zombie Reagan| 3.12.12 @ 4:54PM
I'll take a libertarian to a racist, war-mongering Fox news conservative any time.
Vern Crisler| 3.12.12 @ 9:02PM
Take them to Mars along with yourself.
aware| 3.13.12 @ 6:09AM
Actually Bammy shares his view with you, warmonger. But nice how you try to muddy the waters like a good little 5th columnist.
al222| 3.12.12 @ 7:27AM
this one's easy: stand back and root for a long bloody, Islamic-sapping tie
loulou| 3.12.12 @ 10:58AM
Ditto.
Dave Williams| 3.12.12 @ 2:41PM
Yep....build a fence around the place, throw in all kinds of weaponry, and let 'em go at it. Muslims killing muslims...what's not to like?
Zombie Reagan| 3.12.12 @ 4:51PM
Another racist bastard heard from. This site is full of em. Like I stumbled on a Klan rally.
Skippy| 3.12.12 @ 5:34PM
Dave: I like it!
Zombie Zero| 3.12.12 @ 9:14PM
Your bigotry of those born out of wedlock is appalling.
Shamus| 3.12.12 @ 7:38AM
Assad wouldn't last long if the US decided to take him off. The larger problem is Iran, as Syria's only real importance is as an Iranian proxy. It's not clear what policy might actually work in that regard.
Prester John| 3.12.12 @ 7:43AM
I've noticed that ever since 1/20/09 all the "War is not the answer" signs have disappeared.
I wonder what happened to them?
Bob K.| 3.12.12 @ 10:58AM
The liberal Obamabots have put them into storage until the next Republican administration.
Chico Escuela| 3.12.12 @ 11:10AM
That's because Obama keeps WINNING them.
Unlike Bush who started wars, then fell off his bike while eating pretzels.
Shamus| 3.12.12 @ 12:39PM
Obama is winning the war on prosperity.
Paul Kotik| 3.12.12 @ 3:17PM
Obama has won zero wars, but is winning his war on America.
Leveut| 3.12.12 @ 10:18PM
The Iraq pullout was according to the agreement Bush negotiated.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.12.12 @ 3:35PM
Don't be fooled by the socialist on the left or the right. Elite ruling class socialist from both parties love sending the country warriors off to war. Hayek in "Socialism and War" explained that a planned economy is required to win the war. Then the socialist claim that since it worked so well during war, we should have a planned economy in peacetime.
Moreover, as liberals policies destroy the economy and job markets, they need a "Bokonon" to blame for the misery.
Alice Moore| 3.12.12 @ 9:06AM
I agree with Mr. Bandow. There could be worse leaders than Assad.
Any positive change in a society comes from within. History shows that. A good example is the Magna Carta.
numbatdog| 3.12.12 @ 9:13AM
I agree Doug. Let them go at it. As long as it's contained within Syria, it's none of our business.
The only certainty about intervening to help one side is they will spit in your face as soon as they have secured power.
Old Soldier| 3.12.12 @ 9:25AM
How about we remember how it was done during the Cold War (in Afghanistan for example)? You don't waste your own men and money when others are perfectly willing to fight your enemies.
Smuggle in what the insurgents need. Besides lots of assault rifles, the rebels need some anti-armor capability (just as the Afghans needed anti-aircraft missiles to fight the Russians). It should be an easy thing to supply them with lots of relatively cheap LAW's or AT-4's. (Not like Assad has the latest in armor)
Once Assad can't move around armored columns to bully the rebels, he is in real trouble.
Bob K.| 3.12.12 @ 11:03AM
That won't be easy to do with Assad's close ties to Russia and the presence of the Russian Naval Base in the Syrian Harbor city of Tartus.
Old Soldier| 3.12.12 @ 1:46PM
Long borders with Turkey and Iraq make it easy. Screw the Russians.
Ryan| 3.12.12 @ 9:32AM
The Syrian conflict is almost a good opportunity to let militant Islamists just shoot at each other. The question here is in how much can anyone protect innocent noncombatants in the situation. That's one issue of non-interventionism I have come to be uncomfortable with - protection of the people not carrying guns.
Preventing genocide is in everyone's interest, in a sense.
Bill| 3.12.12 @ 10:33AM
I always thought the Left was big on the United States staying out of military interventions into conflicts that are entirely confined to a country.
If we're going to have ongoing warmaking, why don't we hit Iran in order to knock out their nuclear weapons capacity? In that effort, we could actually find a bunch of allies, because there are lots of nations waiting for some leader to take the reins of such an effort. I guess that's asking too much from the present leadership.
Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 2:45PM
The Left is Bill until they are in power. Then they think every humanitarian issue is solvable by the use of American Militaty. They forget that the military is designed to make War, not police riots and form nations.
It would not take an invasion or war to eliminate the Iranian nuclear potential. Should have taken action five or six years ago. Cancer treated early is curable. Any action there should be swift, overpowering and massivly destructive. Maybe the good Iranians who themselves are hostage to the tyranny that governs them (sound familiar) can act as they attempted to a few years ago. They are a decent rational people unlike the rulers over them.
Bob K.| 3.12.12 @ 10:55AM
Well, clearly we will have to find something for the troops we are now going to be forced to pull out Afghanistan to do; thanks to that mass murder of civilians by an US Army Staff Sargent.
Our foreign policy seems to be based on the concept of "Don't just stand there, do something!"
albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 3:54PM
In my experience (which is 30 years of government service between state, federal and military) that is the motto of many in government (not just the foreign policy apparatus). While doing nothing can often be the right thing, and is also often less expensive, little credit is given to those who let problems work themselves out.
The impulse to get involved and “fix” things (whether or not they are broken, and whether or not the “fix” is an improvement) is at times seemingly irresistible for an eager bureaucrat. While often is done with good intentions, we all know what the highway contractors paving the road to hell are able to make long stretches with that mix.
As far as Syria goes, though I favor a strong foreign policy that is willing to use military force as one of the means to advance our interests, I am not unsure that allowing Al Quaeda and their surrogates to attrit Iran, Syria and their surrogates (and vice versa)doesn’t accomplish this, at least for now.
loulou| 3.12.12 @ 10:59AM
Syria isn't bothering us. Libya wasn't either, for that matter.
Fisker Conservative| 3.12.12 @ 11:05AM
Syria is a perfect example of where we just don't get involved. Ignore the TV images. Those scenes are identical throughout the world several times in the course of a year, just on other continents, in other places. (like Sudan, Ethiopia, hey, for that matter, Monterrey or Juarez, Mexico)
The world does not revolve around the USA. We are not its center and its go-to resource for fixes, airstrikes, air recons, negotiations, endless hot air, hand-wringing or peace accords pow-wows.
The countries around Syria have to help Syria solve this; we don't. Ignore it.
Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 2:40PM
And that is exactly the error The Left makes. They set policy based on emotion rather than on reason and national interest. Such situations as we see in Syria or not amenable to imposed solutions from the US.
Chico Escuela| 3.12.12 @ 11:08AM
Republican chickenhawk warmongers have to ENLIST before they open their mouths about war, war, war anymore.
ENLIST or STFU !
Paul Kotik| 3.12.12 @ 2:45PM
Really? So in your world the 90% of military personnel who never fire a shot in anger are somehow wiser about national security policy?
War doesn't teach soldiers about war. War is a complex subject. War teaches soldiers about soldiering. Soldiering and national security policy have as much to do with one another as fly fishing does with gill netting.
Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 3:39PM
Don't worry about Chico. He clearly needs more time in escuela. Although when I think about what they teach these days...
As Marcus Aurelius said, "Don't waste time bantering words with idiots or barbarians."
Bill| 3.12.12 @ 3:48PM
Do you happen to know if there's a website that lists the conservatives who enlist versus the lefties who do?
I bet the conservatives carry the day for all branches of the armed services, don't you?
Bob K.| 3.12.12 @ 11:12AM
A similar view here from "Asia Times."
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NC10Ak02.html
Tired Taxpayer PRM| 3.12.12 @ 12:42PM
I agree, stand on the sidelines and root for a bloody tie.
Support either side until they hit parity and let them kill each other.
PTY-“But I also oppose Moooooslim immigration into our country, so while I don't want us to get involved in Syria, I also don't want Syrians (or Egyptians or Libyans or Pakistanis) coming to our country to set up mosques.”
Absolutely!
cicero| 3.12.12 @ 2:10PM
What we are seeing is another government change in the Muslim world. History shows that these things are rarely peaceful, and usually fatal to the sitting head of state. If we just leave them alone, they will end up with the new leadership that they deserve. If we get involved, we will end up with death andd destruction, and a huge tab. No matter what we do, they will do whatever they are resolved to do anyway. The only importance the Arab world holds for the west is oil. If our leadership didn't have their heads tucked firmly twixt the cheeks of their hindsides, we would be marginalizing that by drilling our own. That would force the universal price of a barrel low enough that the desert would once again see its wars fought with simitars, while its brave warriors would again be riding camels. They can't even make the bullets they need for their ancient kalishnikovs.
cicero| 3.12.12 @ 2:10PM
What we are seeing is another government change in the Muslim world. History shows that these things are rarely peaceful, and usually fatal to the sitting head of state. If we just leave them alone, they will end up with the new leadership that they deserve. If we get involved, we will end up with death andd destruction, and a huge tab. No matter what we do, they will do whatever they are resolved to do anyway. The only importance the Arab world holds for the west is oil. If our leadership didn't have their heads tucked firmly twixt the cheeks of their hindsides, we would be marginalizing that by drilling our own. That would force the universal price of a barrel low enough that the desert would once again see its wars fought with simitars, while its brave warriors would again be riding camels. They can't even make the bullets they need for their ancient kalishnikovs.
cicero| 3.12.12 @ 2:12PM
What we are seeing is another government change in the Muslim world. History shows that these things are rarely peaceful, and usually fatal to the sitting head of state. If we just leave them alone, they will end up with the new leadership that they deserve. If we get involved, we will end up with death andd destruction, and a huge tab. No matter what we do, they will do whatever they are resolved to do anyway. The only importance the Arab world holds for the west is oil. If our leadership didn't have their heads tucked firmly twixt the cheeks of their hindsides, we would be marginalizing that by drilling our own. That would force the universal price of a barrel low enough that the desert would once again see its wars fought with simitars, while its brave warriors would again be riding camels. They can't even make the bullets they need for their ancient kalishnikovs.
Paul Kotik| 3.12.12 @ 2:41PM
I have no fundamental objection to busting up a bunch of stuff in Syria.
I don't see any good reason to do it, though. Things in Syria are just fine as they are now, from the point of view of our security interests. A troubled, self-absorbed Syria with plenty of bloodletting is a Syria that's less able to facilitate trouble abroad now, and will be far less able to do so in the future. Why, 7,500 dead Syrians is the equivalent of a couple of brigades.
JesusFC| 3.12.12 @ 8:52PM
Amen brother Kotik.
Leveut| 3.12.12 @ 10:19PM
I might be amenable to supporting bombing Syria if I could be assured that idiots like MeCain and Graham were in the drop zones.
Steve| 3.12.12 @ 11:39PM
Excellent article. Getting involved in Syria would be idiotic, and cost America millions of dollars and who knows how many young American lives. Enough is enough.
POST American| 3.13.12 @ 12:50AM
-----------------------RED ALERT!----------------------
CATCH
'ARREST Angelina Jolie for War Crimes'
-InfoWars online
10 MILLION views after 48 hours.
"-----Jolie wraps herself in children while
playing the Globalist whore across the planet.
---SHE IS A MONSTER! -------A MONSTER!!!"
--Like Clint Eastwood ---Tom Hanks ---George
Clooney et al ---yet another
CFR sourced 'EYE----CON' ---job serving
the POST American demoralization
and EUGENICS age-enda.
----MONSTERS
ESSENTIAL VIEWING!
----------------SEND IT TO EVERYONE!
BEST VIDEO of 2012!
Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 3.13.12 @ 4:12AM
Mr. Bandow I must commend you on this column and your truly "fair and balanced" assessment of the delicate situation that exists in Syria. I am an American who is Russian Orthodox and I support Assad. I know if Assad goes then as you said the Alawites, Druze and Christians of the nation will be in grave danger at the hands of the "peace loving and democracy loving" Sunni (and increasingly Wahhabist Islamist) opposition. As you correctly pointed out Assad took in Iraqi Christian refugees who had been ethnically cleansed from Iraq in the wake of the US invasion and under the noses of the United States military which did nothing to help. As you have also stated Al Qaeda's Ayman Al Zawahiri has called for "Jihad against the Assad government" and the Wahhabist Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are actively supporting the opposition as is the NATO member and Islamist led government of Turkey which is harboring the terrorists. From the beginning of the protests in Syria the opposition has had this slogan, "Christians to Beiruit and Alawites to the Wall!" now if that doesn't tell the Americans and the West that the opposition intends on carrying out a campaign of ethnic cleansing and maybe even genocide if Assad falls I don't know what does. Russia is rightfully standing by Assad and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill recently met with the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarch in Damascus. The Iranians (who view themselves as defenders of Shia Islam) know that Shia Alawites and other Shia Muslims in Syria face fierce persecution from Sunni Islamists if Assad goes and they too are rightfully backing Assad maybe even with troops on the ground in Syria. As for America and the West they are more to blame for the current Civil War in Syria than anyone else. The Obama administration continues to pursue the Bush doctrine of regime change for any government it doesn't like and I believe that they have been behind the opposition and hence the uprising from the very beginning with lots of support from Saudi Arabia and Qatar who wish to remake the Middle East in their own intolerant Sunni Wahhabist image where there is no place for Arab Christians, Alawites, Druze and especially no place for Shia Muslims.
Kevin Gutzman | 3.15.12 @ 12:18PM
Louis XIV didn't say "Apres moi, le deluge." That was Louis XV.
Kevin Gutzman | 3.15.12 @ 2:34PM
Next up: Jeffrey Lord argues on TAS's site that a Syrian intervention would be consistent with James Monroe's foreign policy.