The American Spectator : No to Intervention in Syria

Text Size

No to Intervention in Syria

By Doug Bandow on 6.8.12 @ 6:09AM

America is fighting too many wars already.

The cry for military intervention in Syria is rising to a fierce crescendo. Ivory tower warriors are demanding action. But the U.S. needs peace, not more wars.

Bashar al-Assad should go. Despite his Western education, he obviously inherited his father’s repressive genes. Indeed, the regime is a family enterprise, with relatives holding other key positions. Far from being an agent of “reform,” as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once declared, he is willing to destroy his nation to retain power.

So far he is succeeding, despite global condemnation. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney declared that “it is far past time for the United States to begin to lead and put an end to the Assad regime.” Naturally, he offered no credible means of doing so. Unfortunately, additional United Nations observers, diplomatic negotiations, and economic sanctions are unlikely to trigger a voluntary departure.

Assad’s brutality does not set him apart in the world today. America’s Saudi Arabian allies are no less committed to preserving their rule. North Korea has established a murderous system of monarchical communism. Central Asia is filled with despots of one sort or another. Until recently Burma fell into the same category.

While the death toll in Syria is horrid, on an international score it remains modest. The casualties from North Korea’s labor camps and Burma’s ethnic wars are orders of magnitude higher. So were the number of dead in Sudan. The slaughter in Iraq —while America was there — was much worse. Millions died as a result of Congo’s agony, and fighting there still flares. Victor David Hanson of the Hoover Institution unkindly asked: “If intervening in Syria is to be a humanitarian venture, why would saving lives there be any more important than saving far more lives from far more dictators in Africa?”

The crisis in Syria unsettles its neighbors, but that, too, is no change. America’s invasion of Iraq blew up one of the region’s most important countries, sending geopolitical shock waves throughout the Middle East. Washington’s threat of war against Iran also is unsettling, as is the Iran-Saudi cold war. Tremors from the Arab Spring have been felt around the Gulf, fostering revolt in Bahrain. U.S. expansion of the conflict in Syria also would be highly destabilizing.

Nor do war advocates have any idea what would follow allied intervention. We’ve seen this story before. NATO intervenes in Bosnia, leaving an artificial country riven by conflict among three hostile groups little inclined to work together two decades later. NATO intervenes in Kosovo, then stands by as its allies ethnically cleanse a quarter of a million members of the now disempowered minority. NATO intervenes in Afghanistan, where the war continues a decade later. The U.S. intervenes in Iraq, setting off a fratricidal civil war which kills a couple hundred thousand civilians and drives millions of people from their homes. NATO intervenes in Libya, extending the conflict and leaving the country in uncertain transition.

Unfortunately, the region routinely features cataclysmic social breakdowns. Washington’s ouster of Saddam Hussein turned Iraq into a sectarian cauldron. Lebanon went through about 15 years of civil war starting in 1975. Yemen has suffered varying degrees of conflict for years. Islamist, ethnic, and other factions have risen in varying degrees in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. Only Saudi-backed repression holds Bahrain together.

While most of those seeking to overthrow the regime might be moderate in temperament, they may win but not gain power. Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post observed: “The problem, as both administration officials and Syrian opposition leaders acknowledge, is that as the fighting goes on — and gets bloodier — democratic liberals in the opposition tend to get pushed aside by Sunni Islamists who are more willing to die for their cause.”

Indeed, the armed rebels already are surpassing the civilian opposition in importance. The United Nations reports that rebels torture and execute captured soldiers and government supporters, as well as kidnap civilians to use for prisoner exchanges or ransom. Al Qaeda or other jihadists likely were responsible for recent bombings in Syria — Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that al-Qaeda operatives “have infiltrated” the opposition.

The Crisis Group reported that the growing separation between armed insurgents and popular opposition “could produce an even more scattered armed opposition (in the absence of a clear collective project) with a more pronounced religious ideological underpinning (for lack of an alternative overarching narrative) and resorting to more extreme forms of violence (in light of the failure of all other options and as the image of a peaceful popular uprising gives way to the reality of a ruthless struggle to the bitter end).” In fact, history is filled with examples of moderate revolutionaries displaced by tougher cadres who possessed more guns — France, Russia, Iran, and Nicaragua come to mind.

No wonder Assad retains genuine popular support. It is driven more by fear of the future than affection for the past, but it is real. Indeed, the atrocious killings in Houla most likely were committed by a pro-regime militia following an earlier rebel attack on a nearby Alawite village. Alawites have been known to wear Christian crosses for protection when going through Sunni villages. With both the regime and opposition increasingly using sectarianism for their respective ends, the situation is likely to worsen. Thus, minorities — Alawites, Christians, Kurds, and others — who make up about a third of the population have good reason to worry about their status in a new Syria. And they have no reason to expect that the allies would or even could protect them from hostile revolutionaries.

Yet Washington elites continue to campaign for war. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, observed: “There is always a military option, but that military option should always be wielded carefully.” But why should there be a military option in Syria? Why go to war when the likely result is more harm than good?

There is no military intervention-lite. The Syrian government deploys a competent military. Providing more arms to the rebels, who already are receiving weapons through Qatar and Saudi Arabia, probably wouldn’t make much difference. No one knows how many civilians want to fight — the majority of army defectors have gone home, not joined the “Free Syrian Army” — and the allies would have to train and sustain any large, organized rebel force.

“Humanitarian corridors” and “buffer zones” are all the rage, but would not be self-enforcing. They could be sustained only through military intervention. Nor would this approach resolve the conflict. The Syrian people don’t want to leave their homes. They want a new government.

Page: 1 2 >

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 (115) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Paul Kotik| 6.8.12 @ 6:34AM

It would be helpful to stop using language that treats the several military campaigns the US is conducting as "wars" . They are fronts, or theatres in a single war.

Imagine how silly one would have sounded declaiming on the pros and cons of starting "another war" in North Africa - in 1942.

It's one war. The questions of where, when and how to prosecute it must be considered in that sense.

Having said that, the case for a campaign in Syria at this time is very, very weak. Our strategic goals are being furthered , on balance, by the current state of affairs there. It may be that a tactical opportunity will present itself there, but at present the likely ROI makes it a no-go.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 8:43AM

You are exactly correct when you state that these are FRONTS, to a Bigger Conflagration, although I disagree with your Assessment of the Situation in Syria.

He may not be any more Brutal, than the next guy, but his Geographical Position on the Map, combined with his Butt Buddy relationship with the Lunatic in the Robert Hall Back to School clothes, in Iran, and the Drunks, in Russia, make it Imperative that we take advantage the situation, that the ole Chip off the Block! In Damascus, now finds himself in.

We ARM the Resistance.

What's the problem?

Sometimes, in this World, you only get ONE SHOT. Think - THE RAPIST - Bill Clinton, and his refusal to take Bin Laden off the Sudanese' hands, when they offered him up on a Silver Platter.

911 never would have happened.

We got the Soviets out of Afghanistan for about $50, comparatively, and with no loss of American life.

To turn our heads, and walk away from this GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to send this POS to Hell, and to his Father's side, is an Affront to God. It's like Missing an Extra Point, with no time left in the Game, that would have TIED it, and sent it in to Overtime.

I understand that Doing Nothing, is sometimes the best thing you can do.

THIS is not one of those times.

Paul Kotik| 6.8.12 @ 9:04AM

Your Afghanistan example makes my point, I think. Getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan didn't do us much good, did it? To the contrary, in the event. My caution is based on the observation that it's unreasonable to presume consistency of purpose when making policy for the United States. Our partisan electoral divide means that the ship of state will be put helm over full reverse every few terms. A sound policy is one that is robust in the face of the frequent regime changes we have here.

If we're going to arm anybody in Syria, let it be whichever fighting faction is losing at the time. Updated frequently. The best we can reasonably hope to achieve there is a perpetual black hole, into which external players pour money and arms, and from which nothing at all emerges.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 3:55PM

That's what I said, idiot.

Arm the opposition.

Last time I looked, the Women and Children who were having their THROATS SLIT, were losing.

Unbelievable.

Quartermaster| 6.8.12 @ 6:37PM

But that's not what he said. But, then, I suppose you have a reading comprehension problem and are only able to use insults and profanity in response when some one points such things out to you.

Now, you can feel free to show the low level of your intellect.

Paul Kotik| 6.8.12 @ 6:46PM

I think he has trouble reading.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 8:43PM

That's exactly what you said, Dunb@ss.

"If we're going to arm anybody in Syria, let it be whatever fightimg faction is losing at the time.

Maybe you have a problem REMEMBERING what you just wrote, idiot?

Paul Kotik| 6.9.12 @ 10:30PM

Good Lord, are you stupid.

Still keen on arming the opposition now it's become clear they did the Houla massacre of 90 women and children?

I get the feeling you don't know the Middle East too well. Spent a lot of time there? Speak a couple of the languages?

TLP| 6.10.12 @ 7:00PM

I know SH*T, when I smell it.

And, I SMELL IT, on Assad, and on YOU.

Brooksifier | 6.8.12 @ 2:52PM

"Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney declared that 'it is far past time for the United States to begin to lead and put an end to the Assad regime.' Naturally, he offered no credible means of doing so."

Another reason not to vote for Mittens Romney.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 3:56PM

Hi Clint.

Brooksifier | 6.8.12 @ 4:40PM

Okay, call me Clint, vote for Romney, perhaps elect him-- it wont do you any good.
But if it makes you feel better, vote for Romney in 2012.

******************
Paid For By De Nashunul Romney Fo' Pwesident Committteee
******************

Skippy| 6.8.12 @ 5:39PM

"I agree!"
BHO

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.8.12 @ 9:51AM

Bandow is just another hyper-libertarian, Paulista, Pat Buchanan type, who thinks America is the cause of all the problems in the world (destabilizing the region, etc.). Today's Rothbard-influenced libertarians are just advocating McGovern's old foreign policy views. They've never gotten over Vietnam and are still trying to relive the radical 60s.

Red Phillips | 6.8.12 @ 2:58PM

Vern, if you want to be a globalist interventionist who deludes himself into thinking he is advocating a conservative foreign policy then I can't stop you, but please stop your attempts to deceive. Throwing out McGovern's name is simple-minded guilt by association. The non-interventionism of Bandow, Paul, Buchanan, et al is firmly grounded in republican (small r) thinking. You need to examine your own default globalism.

Occam's Tool| 6.8.12 @ 3:27PM

In this particular fight, both sides deserve to be vaporized There is no good side; both sides are vermin. I am unmoved by the killings on both sides as both sides are vicious savages and the enemies of Western Civilization.

I agree that Assad deserves to die, TLP, but I am not sure the other side is better; they may be worse, like in Libya. The problem is that we are dealing with scum. The solution is massive destructive raids when necessary and minimal attempts to "support democracy" as there is nothing to work with until sharia is destroyed.

William R| 6.8.12 @ 3:59PM

Another mass murdering Jew. By the way, it was 45 years ago today that your country murdered 34 Americans and wounded 171.

http://video.google.com/videop.....7114591367

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 4:02PM

What's your point?

70 years ago, Germany, and Japan, we're Slaughtering our Troops.

Idiot.

William R| 6.8.12 @ 5:08PM

What's my point. ToolJob advocates mass murder on this forum all the time.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 8:47PM

I advocate Mass Murder of anyone who is indiscriminately Murdering everyone on the Planet who doesn't believe that their Pedophile Messiah, is the one true GOD.

What's wrong with that?

Warrior| 6.8.12 @ 4:12PM

William - using the word Jew as a pejorative does not further the discussion and quite frankly is offensive to us gentiles as well. Jesus was a Jew and a Rabbi. Disagree with the good doctor as you wish, but do so with a reasonable argument.

William R| 6.8.12 @ 5:09PM

No, what's offensive is come clown calling for Mass Murder in the Middle East. You don't appear to be a very good Christian.

Skippy| 6.8.12 @ 5:40PM

There is nothing wrong with mass murder, as long as the proper mass gets murdered.

Paul Kotik| 6.8.12 @ 6:51PM

Pity you weren't aboard the Liberty yourself.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 8:49PM

Pity you weren't in the TWIN TOWERS on 911.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 4:00PM

As far as I can tell, the Opposition to ASSAD, has not agreed to be Monika Lewinski, to Iran's Bill Clinton.

I'm just saying.

Like I said, earlier.

This is NOT THE TIME, to do nothing.

A Dead Assad, in the hand, is worth two in the bush.

C'mon.

Quartermaster| 6.8.12 @ 6:40PM

A dead Assad will further destabilize the Levant. I detest Assad, but we really have no dog in this fight and need to stay away.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 8:53PM

So, according to you, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Hirohito, we're Stabilizing?

WTF is wrong with you.

Of every Muslim Country in the Middle East were to be turned to GLASS?

There wouldn't be one Conflagration in the world.

Think about that, as you watch the tapes of 911, and Danny Pearl.

Paul Kotik| 6.8.12 @ 6:50PM

I think the best policy is to do nothing unless it looks like one faction ( there are more than two, you know) might be put out of the fight. Then, we should provide that faction with just enough help to keep it going and put one of the other factions on the defensive. Lather, rinse, repeat. There's no reason the status quo can't be prolonged for a very long time.

The Syrians, of course, are free to come to their collective senses at any time.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 8:56PM

And, according to YOU, the Nazis, and Imperial Japan,were free to come to their collective senses at any time, as well.

Do you even READ the things that you write?

Paul Kotik| 6.9.12 @ 10:32PM

What in the world do you mean? This doesn't make any sense.

I get the feeling you have't much personal familiarity with the Middle East. Spent much time there? Fluent in a couple of the languages?

TLP| 6.10.12 @ 7:08PM

I don't need to live there, or speak their Filthy Language.

They are Bloodthirsty Murderers. They Kill THEIR KIdS, other people's KIDS, and they'd slit YOUR KID'S THROATS, if they ever got the chance.

Again.

Do you even READ the SH*t, that you WRITE?

Bob K| 6.8.12 @ 11:41AM

In 1942 the citizens of the United States knew we were in a war and supported it by volunteering their services, their lives and their honor. They accepted without rancor the Draft. The press in the United States supported it almost unanimously. The political questions over it had been resolved by then.

That is not the case today. It was not the case in Korea, nor Vietnam either. It was not the case in the Balkans and it is not the case in the Near East. And the Media, to a large extent, does not support it.

And until these political questions become resolved there will never be a consensus of agreement that we are in a war.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 4:04PM

We're in another COLD WAR, Bobby.

Or, hadn't you noticed?

Quartermaster| 6.8.12 @ 6:41PM

Much of the cold war wasn't very cold, TLP. Or hadn't you noticed? I can take you to a number of "cold war" graves if you need any coaching on the matter.

Bob K| 6.8.12 @ 7:19PM

Call it what you want TLP. Your designation is meaningless. George Orwell first used the phrase in 1945 and 1946 to describe the status of things after WWII ended, stating that Stalin was in a "Cold War" with Britain and in 1947 Bernard Baruch used it again and you aren't them.

Ostensibly that "cold" war ended in 1989.

No "hot" war was declared by our elected officials against any country in the Near East so convincing the electorate that we are in a cold war now won't be possible.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 8:59PM

"That ColdmWar ostensibly ended in 1989."

No shit.

I'm talking about THIS ONE.

China, Russia, Iran, Syria.

Are you really this stupid?

Apparently, you are.

Bob K| 6.9.12 @ 1:52AM

No, we aren't in a cold war with Russia and China you nitwit. But in case you haven't noticed we have been fighting scattered little hot wars in the Near East and the Balkans since Bush the Elder was President. Every damn one of them undeclared too! And we have been spending a fortune doing it while we have also been slowly evolving into a socialist economy at home. If you think that the American electorate is going to vote to spend more money on half assed wars, and foreign aid than it does on Americans you have your head in a place that the sun doesn't shine.

And the contacts we have with Russia and China is called Foreign Relations not Cold War, you buffoon!

Abu Nudnik| 6.8.12 @ 3:05PM

Correct. A front. The only good reason I can see is to be able to secure a more northerly attack route against Iran. I assume that was the reason for the request to send troops through Turkey. Had the US been in Syria at the time, the vote in the Turkish parliament might have been different. The Turks do not want a Kurdistan and that's a card the US can always play.

Abu Nudnik| 6.8.12 @ 3:05PM

excuse the double-click.

Mistral| 6.8.12 @ 6:58AM

It is certainly a war: a war to destabilise potential enemies in American eyes. Behind the scenes the war-mongers of the US industrial-military complex have teamed up with global financial interests to destabilise one country after another with EU consent and complicity.
To call for dialogue between the conflicting parties is absolute hypocrisy following several years of aiding and abetting rebellious groups dissatisfied with their own governments. Clinton symbolises such humbug. The objective is to destabilise and govern. Saudi Arabia complies because they gain substantially from this alliance of convenience - oil sales; spread of wahhabism and allied military protection.

The shibboleth of disseminating voting democracy is but that. It should be obvious to most people with any political sense that many cultures will never adapt to this form of government. Even in the western states voting democracy is a euphemism for elitist predominance and new politically dominant dynasties financed by powerful economic interests. POTUS manipulated this process to his advantage in the last presidential election where voter fraud and intimidation was rife, ACORN leading the way. The power of the vote has been ridiculed by successions of governments promissing the moon and delivering the ultimate financial wreckage we experience today. Belief in popular democracy is naive in the extreme. It is a myth.

Dai Alanye | 6.8.12 @ 10:12AM

Here we go again with the myth of a fabulous war-generating military-industrial complex combining with an equally fabulous war-generating global financial power group. Yes, both these have their interests, and are quite willing to promote them by reasonable and unreasonable means, but it reeks of paranoia that either -- especially the financial group -- actively promotes wars. At present the foremost global promoter of war is aggressive Islam, primarily aiming at the West.

As for the penchant for parliamentary democracy that our State Department continually displays -- correct! But we should want representative government of whatever form and by whatever means, if for no other reason than to rid the world of warmongering dictators. Universal suffrage, however, is not necessarily the way to achieve this.

Regarding Syria, transforming them from a surrogate of Iran into almost anything else would certainly favor short-run American interests, and probably wouldn't hurt in the long run. It goes without saying that a means short of direct military intervention is preferable.

Mistral| 6.8.12 @ 1:57PM

Here we go again with the naive, indoctrinated customary mistaken view that USA is right no matter what. Iran has been mediatised as a demon-type - this is a media fantasy exploited by the establishment to enable the Americans to do as they please where ever they wish in the world. The paranoia is that of the industrial-military complex that convinces most docile ill-informed Americans that there is a omnipresent devil out to destroy the American way of life. Too late - the rank political corruption in the American political and financial establishment has done that for you already. The dysfunctions are within, not without.

It is the height of stupidity to imagine that scores of costly American military outposts will protect American security. It is utterly illogical to throw billions of dollars at such a wasteful enterprise when they are needed at home. Economic weakness is worse internally than any enemy without.
As for Mahomatens waging war on the west explain why the USA has given so much military aid to the Saudis and others. This argument is fallacious. It is China that is more of a threat to Americans than Mohamatenism. When all is said and done it is the foreign military policies of USA that exacerbate an ever-worsening situation. The USA does not stand for freedom. It stands for materialism; greed and both direct and indirect interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign states.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.8.12 @ 2:18PM

"is the foreign military policies of USA that exacerbate an ever-worsening situation."

Yep, the old McGovernite view of world affairs.

Red Phillips | 6.8.12 @ 3:01PM

See my reply above.

Vern, why are you such a globalist?

Occam's Tool| 6.8.12 @ 3:32PM

Red: you know, it is impossible to conceive that a bunch of Saudis could take flying lessons in the US and bring down multi-billion dollar structures with civilian airliners. It is impossible to conceive that nuclear waste products could be put in lead lined containers in cargo ships and the cargo ships could then explode. It would be impossible for the Saudis to have terrorists attend flying schools and fly planes into nuclear reactors in the US.

Every one of these scenarios is obviously impossible.

Red, what does it take for you to realize someone wants your children dead?

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 4:06PM

It takes his Children to be Dead.

Thus is the way, with Liberals.

Red Phillips | 6.8.12 @ 4:17PM

"Thus is the way, with Liberals."

TLP, I know you aren't calling me a liberal. Click on my name, take a look, and then come back and apologize. Thanks.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 9:04PM

I don't need to click on your stuff.

If Occum thinks you're a Dumb@ss?

That's good enough, for me.

Red Phillips | 6.9.12 @ 12:22AM

Occam may think I'm naive (I doubt he thinks I'm dumb), but he knows I'm not a liberal. Why don't you take my challenge. It might do you some good.

TLP| 6.9.12 @ 8:11AM

Like I already said: I don't care who you are, and I don't care what's in your Bibliography.

Don't care.

The question remains: "What's it gonna take for you, to pull your Head outta your Ass, and realize that these MFers will NEVER STOP trying to Kill everyone, and their Kids, who refuse to get on Bended Knee for their Amber Alert Prophet with the 9 year old Wife?"

I stand by my answer.

When it hits YOU, and when it's TOO LATE, then you will understand.

But, then, it'll be too late by then, won't it?

Red Phillips | 6.8.12 @ 4:21PM

Occam, you have yet to explain to me how bombing far off Muslim nation states prevents dirty bombs from going off in American ports.

Besides, you are babbling about Saudis. The Saudis are ostensibly out allies. Not even the most hawkish neocon is advocating we attack the Saudis.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 9:07PM

Actually, you're wrong.

Wiping out every Muslim on the Planet, is the ONLY WAY to insure that a Dirty Bomb never enters this country.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Red Phillips | 6.9.12 @ 12:19AM

"Wiping out every Muslim on the Planet, is the ONLY WAY to insure that a Dirty Bomb never enters this country."

Dude, are you intentionally trying to make interventionists look like raving blood-thirsty maniacs? There are something like 1.1 billion (with a b) Muslims in the world. What you are advocating is a genocide orders of magnitude greater than any in history. Wiping out about 1/7 of the world's population. You can not possibly be serious.

Christians should be interested in sending missionaries to the Middle East, not bombing missions.

TLP| 6.9.12 @ 8:26AM

As the last line in the Book, that the Grey Wizard - Gandolph - reads in the room inside the Dwarf's Mountain, makes clear: "They are COMING."

Would I sacrifice 1/7 to save the other 6/7?

Of course. We make these kinds of choices all the time. They're called AMPUTATIONS.

Women have their Breasts removed, all the time. Diabetics are always having one appendage or another, removed, to SAVE THE REST.

In 1945 Harry Truman saw the WISDOM in Killing 200,000 to Save 1,000,000.

Herds are Culled, all the time.

Cancers are removed, all the time.

This is NO DIFFERENT.

And, besides.

They love Dying. They Kill Themselves all the time. They kill their Kids, all the time. They Kill other people's Kids, all the time.

Maybe you should RE-WATCH the Danny Pearl Video?

This is not how HUMANS act.

Why can't you see all these things?

Occam's Tool| 6.8.12 @ 3:29PM

Iran IS a demon-type. They are vermin who murder Americans wherever possible, and deserve a hetacomb of deaths ass kicking, at the least.

It's cheap to break things, expensive to nation build.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 4:09PM

Our Fathers, and their Fathers, Firebombed Dresden, bombed Berlin in to the Stone Age, Firebombed Tokyo, and NUKED Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we call them THE GREATEST GENERATION.

So, what's the problem?

Mistral| 6.9.12 @ 12:39AM

On the contrary it is your propagandist American media that has brain-washed you into swallowing this garbage.

TLP| 6.9.12 @ 8:28AM

Who the Fck are you, and how do we get you back under your Rock?

MelvinNC| 6.8.12 @ 7:52AM

As a retired US Marine Grunt. We do not need to sent US Forces into that God forsaken Country of Syria. There no reason whatsoever in why we should be in there. That big eared jug head is going to send our forces into Syria with the same rules of engagement that we have in Afghanistan? The Syrians can shoot at us but we can't shoot at them without first going through a litany of rules from Uncle Leon Panetta.
Not only will we be fighting the Syrians, we will be fighting Iranians, the Russians, and the Chinese, because all of these Communist Countries are supporting Syria.
We have a President who is trying his darnedest to dismantle our military, cut military benefits, get rid of military retirement, cut weapons modernization, and procurement and he and the DoD are still sending our forces into combat with both hands tied behind their backs.
What is he going to bomb Syria with, breast feeding mothers from the Air force. Our military has gone form an organization that kills and breaks things that commanded respect throughout the world and now has been reduced to a bunch of lab rats for social re-engineering experiments.
Right now our Country isn't fit to fight a war, the people aren't behind our forces, jut listen to Majority Leader Harry Reid, "This war is lost." People, Harry's utterance speaks volumes in why we should not sent our forces into Syria. Let the UN do it. Hahaha the UN the largest bunch of fornicating bung holes that ever scammed a US taxpayer.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 4:13PM

I said it, before.

One Bullet could have prevented a World War, and a HOLOCAUST, back in the 30's.

One Cruise Missile, could put an end to another one, if we just had the will.

This isn't Rocket Science.

We need to LEARN from History.

Quartermaster| 6.8.12 @ 6:46PM

It's easy to make such judgments in hind sight. Far harder to predict where things will go.

The informed already are aware that killing Assad, no matter how odious, will simply destabilize the Levant more than it already is. If you really are a supporter of Israel, and are informed of the internal situation in Syria, then you know that going after Assad is a very bad idea.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 9:13PM

One thing at a time.

Killing Assad is the OBVIOUS choice.

Then the Mullahs in Iran.

It's time to put the Fear of OUR GOD, back in these MFers hearts, again.

Peace through Strength.

It works every time it's tried.

JimH| 6.8.12 @ 8:27AM

Some Americans have a compulsion when seeing a fight to pick a side, to see good guys and bad guys. This is not a new phenomenon. Read H.L. Mencken’s coverage of a Cuban revolution. Sometimes it is a situation where the enemy of my enemy…. as our support of the USSR in WWII. Despite Assad being an ally of Iran it is not clear that this is the situation here.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 4:14PM

It isn't?

What do you require, to come to a Conclusion.

Wake Up!

Quartermaster| 6.8.12 @ 6:47PM

I think he already is. The question is, if you are awake, what on earth are you smoking?

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 9:15PM

That's it?

That's all you've got?

Pathetic.

Paul Kotik| 6.9.12 @ 10:33PM

I get it! It's that you're 13-14 years old. Right?

TLP| 6.10.12 @ 7:13PM

No. It's that you are living in a Dream World.

I look FOREWARD to the day YOUR FAMILY has their Heads on a Pike, for the Greater Glory of the Religion of Peace.

That's what it always takes, for Dumbfcks, like you, to OPEN YOUR EYES.

Louis Jenkins| 6.8.12 @ 8:53AM

Suicides by US military personnel have reached an average of one a day in Afganhistan. Does Panetta and his scum want more than that? Our military needs a rest and refit, not more abuse and down grading. Stay out of Syria.

Stkman| 6.8.12 @ 10:13AM

"he is willing to destroy his nation to retain power." Are we talking about Assad or Obama?

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 4:15PM

Both.

2Anglico| 6.8.12 @ 10:33AM

As the author points out, there are lots of countries killing their own people. At least 2 of them are permanent members of the Security Council. Who's next, North Korea? Syria has been stirring up trouble sine the '60s and before. What national interest of the U.S. is served by sending troops now? Syria and its minions attacked and killed Marines in Lebanon and we did nothing. Why now?
History shows that as bad as he is, Assad will likely be succeeded by worse.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 4:17PM

Who asks we need to SEND TROOPS?

Just ARM the opposition.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Russia, and Iran are Arming Assad.

You can't be that Stupid.

aware| 6.8.12 @ 6:53PM

Like how the smart guys like you did with Osama in the '80s? What could possibly go wrong with a plan so easy to understand?

Even if we are arming and training future enemies, it's all good for the military/industrial complex, right? As with all agencies of the State, making work seems to be the point of work for them.

You serve a useful, though tiny, part in that process.

Paul Kotik| 6.8.12 @ 6:54PM

The various opposition factions seem to be doing okay right now. If one or all of them start to crumble, then sure, maybe we should toss them enough to let them rumble back. But not enough to win.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 9:18PM

The various factions seem to be doing okay, right now?

Tell that to all of the Women and Children who just had their THROATS SLIT.

WTF is wrong with you?

cicero| 6.8.12 @ 10:58AM

Muslim regimes tend to change by means of violence, death, or self-exile. We have no dog in the Syrian fight, and should act accorddingly. It was at least arguable that our incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were part of a larger war. Whether we sould still be in either is to be debated. However, intervening with our armed forces on the basis of Humanitarian Concerns is silly.
People have been killing one another in order to gain power since time began. We should allow the civil war to conclude, and recognize whoever wins. The only value Syria has to the U.S. is its potential for pumping ooil. If we were to exploit our, even that value would diminish to the point of negligibility.
Since the end of W II, the U.S. has sent its military into harms way to fight for ties. That is sinful. If we are going to use our military, the criteria should be America's defense,however the politicians can convince the populace as to what that is, and the tactics must be to kick the stuffings out of whoever chose to challenge us, and get our, leaving them to pick up their own pieces. There must be severe consequences to kicking dirt on Superman's shoes.

Occam's Tool| 6.8.12 @ 3:33PM

Cicero,

precisely correct. mess with the USA and "die slain."

Occam's Tool| 6.8.12 @ 3:33PM

Syria has armed and supported terror groups that have killed Americans.

Quartermaster| 6.8.12 @ 6:51PM

Yes, that's true. So why didn't we kill him, then put another strong man in place to hold the rest in line with the proviso we'll kill him to if he crosses us.

That, my friend, is not interventionism. That's simply good sense. Now is not the time to go after Assad. All we will do is destabilize the Levant and get no benefit for ourselves.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 9:20PM

Yeah. We don't want to destabilize a regime that's Slaughtering Women and Children by the THOUSANDS.

That would be UNAMERICAN.

wombat1| 6.8.12 @ 11:46AM

Well said, Mr. Bandow, and high time, too!

WE need to remember that many of the people who are sobbing victims today were dancing in the streets when they heard of 9/11. If todays' sufferers, Sunnis, had the chance, they would be perpetrating the same outrages on the Alawis, Christians et al. We have no friends there, and probably never will. If they want to gut each other alive, let 'em. At least they won't be setting up training camps to strike at us while they're busy with that.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 4:21PM

The Enemy of my Enemy, is my Friend, Period.

Nobody ever said this was easy.

You roll the dice, and you take your chances.

An opportunity to be rid of IRAN'S number one BUTT BOY, is not something to walk away from.

What's wrong with you people?

Quartermaster| 6.8.12 @ 6:53PM

We're just not into bath salts like you are. Our brains are being used for their intended purpose and aren't being clouded by the drugs you are ingesting.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 9:22PM

Yeah. Stay away from those Bath Salts.

Fortunately for you, you're head is so far up your ass, you don't have to worry about such things, do you?

nathan| 6.8.12 @ 12:19PM

I'm sorry there's also just this TINY little Constitutional issue too? I mean correct me if I'm wrong (I can see everyone standing in line! LOL) but Syria hasn't attacked us, has no plans to attack us, has not harmed any Americans (those who enter the country looking for trouble don't count) so our basis for attacking them under the Constitution is exactly what? Those of you who favor throwing cruise missiles at them, you wouldn't care to cite the article of the Constitution that authorizes that would you? Madison's famous quote still applies doesn't it? I cannot undertake to point to that article of the Constitution that allows me to spend my constituents' money on behalf of . . . . benevolence. He was talking about social welfare spending but he and Washington (remember his farewell address?) would probably oppose attacking countries not at war with us for humitarian reasons. And I think the Constitution probably requires a declaration of war for things like this? Granted we've been ignoring that little detail since Pearl Harbor but still last I looked the Constitution is the law of the land and applies not just to things like the ACA but also attacking countries that don't attack us first?

The floor again is open for discussion. And please no name calling? I've heard them all by now so don't waste your time.

CJW| 6.8.12 @ 2:08PM

You are correct that the Constitution requires that Congress declare war, but both parties, especially the Dems ignore this, and the public seems to have accepted that the US should intervene wherever there is some perceived threat.
Korea, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, bombing of Serbia, Libya, Central Africa, Somalia, Lebanon, all done by presidentila action. At least Bush 41 obtained Congresionnal approval for the Gulf War, and 43 for Irqaq. Obma has expanded the presidential powers by using drones wherever the targets may be so that national boundaries no longer matter.

Quartermaster| 6.8.12 @ 6:58PM

I think Grenada is debatable. There were apparently American Citizens in danger in Grenada. Vietnam and Korea were also such that we had interests at stake because of Stalin's, in the case of Korea, imperialism, and the real possibility he could make war pay, and Vietnam to contain communist imperialism in SE Asia.

The left largely neutralized us at the end of Vietnam, but the Soviets were sufficiently damaged they weer unable to go much further, and were forced to begin retrenchment in the 80s, and collapsed in '89. Vietnam and Korea both played a large part in that.

Truman and LBJ both got Congressional permission to engage in those wars. I have a problem with them not having the word "war" in straightforward declarations because of what that means for the country itself, but they did get congressional approval.

CJW| 6.8.12 @ 9:29PM

You are correct about Grenada, that was an emergengy because of the American students in danger.
The Gulf of Tonkin resolution, if that was your reference, was not a congressional authorization for the Vietnam War. Even LBJ gave up using that as the reason for the war.
I do not recall any congressiona approval of Korea, we went under a UN resolution. Was there something else?
The left did more than neutralize us. The Dem congress in 1974 cut off all aid to South Vietnam effective Jan 1 1975. North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam in Jan 1975 and it was over by March 1975.

Occam's Tool| 6.8.12 @ 3:40PM

If violence is forseeable, the courts have held that physicians are responsible for mounting a good faith effort to stop it from occurring. Pre-emptive strikes against rogue states building nuclear capacity is a reasonable preventative step. The FFs built in a LOT of wiggle room for National Security. I agree about going to Congress about it IF PRACTICABLE, but there are things Presidents need to do sometimes.

In short, nathan, I thing Nation Building with jihadist primitives is a bad idea. Preventative killings, however, may be very cost efficient and useful, especially with non-state entities.

With regards to Syria--- we need to stay out of because both sides are anti-American vermin, and intervention on either side will be expensive and useless, like building a castle out of over saturated oatmeal. But if destroying Syrian armed power would serve a useful purpose, sure, do it pre-emptively. This ain't tiddlywinks or beanbag.

Now, feel free to call me a genocidal maniac. I, too, have heard it all before, and care less.

Occam's Tool| 6.8.12 @ 3:41PM

I'm sorry, the point of my opening line was to demonstrate that in the field of medicine, pre-emptive interventions have been part and parcel of practice forever, and I see no reason why Statecraft should be different.

Occam's Tool| 6.8.12 @ 3:41PM

Sorry: "I think Nation..."

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 4:25PM

Nathan had NO PROBLEM with his favorite Muslim killing Khaddafi, even though he was not attacking us, even though he never even CONSULTED CONGRESS, let alone, get a Declaration of War.

Are you alright, Occam?

You don't sound right.

Quartermaster| 6.8.12 @ 7:01PM

Mr. Tool is quite alright and seems positively sane in comparison to you. He's also quite right in what he says.

If Iran does test a nuke, then I say bomb it back into the stone age. Otherwise, leave it alone and wait for the next uprising of her people and don't waste it like the Kenyan did the 2009 uprising.

CJW| 6.8.12 @ 7:02PM

I agree that if a psychiatrist, psychologist or other similar has a reasonable basis to believe his patient will harm another, he has a duty to notify the police and possible victim. The police then act.

We know there are a number of countries, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, Egypt, that are or maybe be a threat to us. Bush said this when he named the Axis of Evil and was ridiculed. We should have a Congressional debate on authorizing action against the suspected countries rather than leave it up to one man, the president.

Iran has been working on a nuclear program for years so it is no surprise and is not an emergency that requires immediate premptive action decided by one man. Maybe a congressional declaration of war might stop them.

I am not against premptive war to protect us but the countries with the nuclear programs are known to us, and we should have that debate wheter to attack them in Congress, as provided for in the Constitution. This is not a case where there is an emergency and the president has to act without congressional approval. If Congress and the nation are for the attack, then attack and win.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 9:26PM

Yeah. Syria didn't attack us like Khaddafi did, when Hussein went into Libya.

Good point, Dumb@ss.

Marie| 6.8.12 @ 1:17PM

I predict a no fly/drive zone for Syria. Raptors on their way.

Paul Kotik| 6.8.12 @ 6:55PM

That would be interesting. Syria has a rather sophisticated and dense air defense system.

Dave Williams| 6.8.12 @ 1:24PM

Build a wall around the place, toss in all our surplus weapons, and let the muslim savages fight it out among themselves. If Syria is very, very lucky, 2,500 years from now, they'll have the same freedom and sense of self-government that Athens had 2,500 years ago.

Mistral| 6.8.12 @ 1:59PM

Well said Dave - better to let them do just that and everyone will get just as much thanks.

cicero| 6.8.12 @ 2:40PM

Nathan; You are correct. For some reason, our congress and executive officer believe that they can spend our money on any endeavor that makes them feel good, whether it is allowed by the Constitution, or not. What was all that money about that was given to the families of those who died on 9/11? There is no provision in the Constitution for Congress or the President to indulge in charity. What is it about our Presidents who go all over the world and hand out our money, because they feel the cause is good? Obama promised $2 billion to the Brazilians to develope their off shore oil fields. Bush promised to rebuild New Orleans. Clinton decided to liberate one side of a civil warr from the other. It goes on and on. However, you will notice that none of these Santa's ever go into their own pockets.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 4:27PM

WTF are you talking about?

Are you sure you're on the right page?

Quartermaster| 6.8.12 @ 7:03PM

Time for you to get off the bath salts and go into rehab, TLP. You'll feel far better afterwards.

TLP| 6.8.12 @ 9:28PM

Yeah. Stay away from those Bath Salts.

Fortunately for you, you're head is so far up your ass, you don't have to worry about such things, do you?

Cobalt| 6.8.12 @ 6:37PM

Israel and Syria have fought four major wars.

Hezbollah and Hamas get aid from Syria, with the of support of Iran.

Before Israel deals with Iran, Syria must first be dealt with, in order to boost the security of Israel.

"The Real Reason to Intervene in Syria"

By James P. Rubin / Foreign Policy

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a.....a?page=0,0

Mistral| 6.9.12 @ 12:45AM

One has to laugh at such a dumb and useless policy as to send the military into Afghanistan ignoring all the other failed attempts over history. Worse still to imagine this creates security thousands of miles away. Even worse than that is how the obsequious and corrupt EU follows suit in this nonsensical policy. To stretch credibility further again massive funds have been squandered propping up a completely corrupt regime in such a backward outpost. There is not one molecule of intelligence in American foreign policy.

Mistral| 6.9.12 @ 12:48AM

To compound this reckless foolery, American military-industrial dictators want to continue their policies of disregard for the territorial sovereignty of other nations by invading Syria. This is imperialism gone mad with POTUS making the decisions without reference.

Patrick B. | 6.9.12 @ 1:01PM

Outstanding! I wish we would just mind our own business. While I would love for the USA to be the world police (if we could solve the problems) the reality is that each time we step up not only do we end up doing most of the work but we also end up with a bigger mess then what we started with. In terms of USA blood being spilled and the dollar amount its just not worth it.
If rebels need training and they align with our beliefs then send in our SF guys to train them. After all that was to be their primary mission. Training other people to fight so we don't have to.

Robert| 6.9.12 @ 8:53PM

Reading all these comments, to those of you advocating involvement in the revolution in Syria, several thoughts come to mind. #1, Be careful what you wish for. As in Egypt and Libya, the most ruthless of factions will seize power in Assad's demise. Sayria WILL become another Sharia state. #2, does anyone here realize you are playing Iran's chess game? While Iran moves his pawns around the chessboard to defer the West's attention from the movements of its king, we fret over which pawn should be taken out. Russia and Iran are masters of this game of distraction. Sadly, we haven't learned that we pay attention to the pawns at our own peril while the king moves unhindered towards his nuclear goal.

#3, This entire mess would never have happened were Syria not seen by Iran and Russia as a proxy to distract the US and Israel. Iran, Russia and to a lesser extent China are using the strategy not only to distract but also to deplete the US of wealth and will in their ultimate goal of destroying the US and Israel as forces of good in the world.

Only through accomplishing this end can they achieve hegemony over the world. If I might redirect a tired Iranian cliche, Iran is the Little Satan. While Iran is using Syria as a proxy, Russia -- the Big Satan -- is using Iran as its proxy in an even larger diversionary chess game.

That's how the world works!

Paul Kotik| 6.9.12 @ 10:35PM

Good for you. There is, indeed, a big picture.

I would encourage you to include India in your thinking. It's a huge blind spot in the mainstream of American geoplitical analysis.

Bob K| 6.10.12 @ 10:00PM

A hundred years or so from now Historians will look back on the 20th Century and realize that the most significant event that occurred in it was the Americanization of the World.

They will shake their heads in wonder over how Americans would obsess over the idea that an unworkable economic philosophy like Communism practiced in backward countries like Russia and China would be a threat to take over the world EVEN AFTER IT HAD DIED in those countries because it did not work and because their peoples never believed in it.

They will wonder how so many Americans could miss the obvious!

They will marvel at the prescience in the words of John Quincy Adams in his 4th of July Speech in 1821, less than 50 years after the founding of the United States: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." Because this would involve the United States "beyond the powers of extrication, in all the wars and interests and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition.....She might become the dictatress of the world. she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

They will wonder how America screwed up so badly!

Mistral| 6.11.12 @ 2:09PM

While I agree with much of what you say, Robert, Israel is not a force for good in the world and neither is the USA.