Washington and Allies Watch Impotently as Danger Grows in Syria
show comments
  • Shia Persians and Sunni Arabs have been killing each other for 1400 years. Syria is a proxy of this ongoing war. Putting America, or any Western country, in the middle of it will only waste American lives. It won’t change one thing on the ground. These people want to kill each other. Let them alone to do so.

  • The experts caution us that Syria is not Libya, and examining their evidence I have to agree (Russians have a base there, their air defenses are superior to those of Libya, dense population centers with close-in fighting vice strung out supply lines and convoys in Libya, sectarian splits, minority Alawites literally fighting for their lives…).

    Even if it means bringing Islamists to power, I believe we should help tip over that regime, but not with ground troops.

    If Assad falls and people hostile to his regime take over, it cuts off Iranian access to the Levant, potentially choking off Hezbollah and other proxies, maybe giving Lebanon some breathing room, and it screws the Russians.

    What’s not to like?

    Of course I’m being simplistic. We would need the Turks and others to help create safe enclaves for when it tips over.

    The world’s a messy place, ain’t it?

  • Kenny

    Yes, by all means, the U.S. should watch Syria.

    But we should not engage in any military action ….unless that action is in defense of true national interest, which right now it’s not even close to being the case.

    Action we can and probably should take now on Syria is 1) boycott the country, 2) seize their government assets in the U.S., 3) identify and label Syrian elite as criminals to be arrested if/when they try to set foot in the West, and 4) end all student exchanges and other visas to America.

  • Gerald

    I’m sorry, but I don’t see a reason for U.S. involvement in Syria. We clearly do not have a useful idea as to an effective strategy for the ongoing tribal/factional/religious conflicts in the Middle East, and our experiences with Iraq, Afganistan, Egypt, Kuwait, Iran, Lybia et al should be a lesson in the ineffectiveness of Western concepts in this arena. With the increased oil and gas reserves in Canada and the United States, and our experiences of the past decades – why should we be involved in Syria? In what way is this important enough to justify military involvement? Diplomacy has already failed, and subsequent efforts only demonstrate its impotence.

  • Jacksonian Libertarian

    “weak, unbalanced, and foolish”

    The Obama Administration in a nutshell.

  • Cunctator

    “Washington may have belatedly recognized the dangers faced in Syria, but it hasn’t developed a policy.”

    If this is true, and I suspect that it is, it represents an idictment of the Obama administration stewardship of US foreign policy. That the regional power in the Middle East, where one of Washington’s closest allies is to be found, has no policy speaks volumes about the sheer incompetence of Hillary Clinton et.al.. It is simply mind-boggling.

  • rkka

    “If Assad falls and people hostile to his regime take over, it cuts off Iranian access to the Levant, potentially choking off Hezbollah and other proxies, maybe giving Lebanon some breathing room, and it screws the Russians.

    What’s not to like?”

    Oh, I don’t know, subjecting the Syrian people to the sort of bloody anarchy that has befallen the Libyan people since the murder of Gadaffi?

    Yes, yes, you’re prepared to endure unlimited suffering to be inflicted on others, but don’t expect the rest of us to like it too.

  • rkka

    And don’t think for a moment that Lebanon, that you’re so touchingly concerned with, won’t follow in the event of a Syrian descent into anarchy.

© 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.