‘No Kill’ Zones Coming to Syria?
show comments
  • gs

    1. The complexity of Slaughter’s proposal had me furrowing my forehead. She obviously is Way Smarter Than Me. If Slaughter were asked how her choreography is to be enforced on the participants in her scheme, no doubt I would not understand her answer.

    2. A skeptic might suspect that the country’s cognitive elite frames issues in an unnecessarily complex manner in order to aggrandize itself.

    3. “Syria is not Libya.” A skeptic might claim that this is a withered fig leaf covering Slaughter’s quadrupling down on a failed policy.

    4. I searched Slaughter’s article for the phrase “national interest”. In vain.

  • Brendan Doran

    Turn off your telly then ms slaughter.

    And her so called plan is called taking sides in a civil war with NO good guys. Good as in on our side.

    Our government has been captured by 15 year olds.

  • Stephen

    Ms. Slaughter and her ilk have been the primary authors of our all too romantic and sentimental foreign policy: No more wars conceived of as social work. Enough.

  • I don’t see what is so hard to understand. A “No-Kill” zone is just like a “No-Gun” zone. You declare it and pass it though the UN and that’s that. Even those necessary, but not terribly bright chaps, who staff the United States Army understand that much. Just look at Ft. Hood.

    Taking another tack, is this ‘good’ Liberal Interventionism? As opposed to the ‘bad’ kind as practiced by Bush and the Neo-conservatives. It does seem different in so far this new kind apparently focuses on humanitarian issues while the neo-conservative variety was more concerned with promoting democracy and he rule of law. I confess my instinct has always been to support liberal interventionism, but experience has made me more cautious. I remember when Clinton went into Bosnia I was enthusiastic, but an Austrian friend from Vienna was adamant we should let the situation alone. I was surprised and a bit put off. I think i would listen a lot harder today.

  • Kohl Haas

    More fantasy from the group of female Ivy-League lawyers running our foreign policy. Just about the least qualified to do so. Dealings with people such as Ahmadenijad and Assad have no rules and no referee (judge). We need Tony Soprano as Sec. State.

  • Mr. Neal

    I still like Ms. Slaughter’r title :”How to stop the butchery in Syria”. I hope she got the Irony….

  • LarryD

    Russia and China have vetoes on the Security Council. The General Assembly is more made up of dictatorships than not.

    And providing arms to the rebels means entering into a state of war with Syria’s official government. Putting troops on the ground to enforce anything is an invitation for the Syrian government to shoot at them, and make that an open war.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.