Is the Clock Ticking Down to Syrian Intervention?
show comments
  • Mrs. Davis

    Obama would be crazy to intervene. All he will do is bomb, no boots on the ground. He will not seize the initiative to drive to victory; he will lead from behind.

    But once he starts bombing, he will have picked a side but be unable to control it. It will be as bad as Libya or worse, but this time people will pay attention and it will cost him the election.

  • Our relatively easy “success” in Libya (I’d disagree with that assertion, but still…) has convinced more than a few people in D.C. — particularly those looking for ANY political advantage for the President right now — that a similar intervention in Syria would end in a similar manner, perhaps while even heading off an Israeli attack on Iran.

    But Syria is a completely different scenario, and we could get sucked into a nasty quagmire very quickly. This is dangerous territory, and the one thing that each side has in common is that they both hate our guts. The chicken hawks had best think twice before rolling the dice here.

  • I am not sure the clock is ticking down all that compellingly. Rather it would seem to me that any president facing an election would prefer to keep the pot boiling and not risk intervention. Again regardless of party it would better if America doesn’t intervene directly and finds more effective ways to wage proxy war against Iran which has been able to wage proxy war for years with impunity because of its alliance with Syria. Encourage the Gulf Sunnis to finance the rebellion and Turkey to provide a safe haven without actually invading. I think it is in our interests to preserve Syria as a buffer between Turkey and Egypt -not have a new Ottoman empire. That said, sometimes dictators seem to go on and on like Zombies – eg Mugabe or Saddam himself. But I think we are unlikely to see an intervention before the election.

  • Kenny

    U.S. intervention would be crazy.

    Syria is not worth the cost.

  • Here is a good link on Syrian tribes which as in the rest of the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southwest Asia, continues to be a major obstacle to liberal society:

    http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/

  • Fred

    Ulysses, Anyone who uses the term “chickenhawk” automatically forfeits the right to be taken seriously.

  • Fred, your argument makes no sense.

    I know wounded war veterans who use that term regularly. Why don’t you walk up to one of them and tell them that they shouldn’t be taken seriously? I’d love to see how that plays out.

© 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.