Blurred Red Lines
Paint Dries in Syria
show comments
  • gabrielsyme

    Great. Obama, having lost the opportunity either to intervene decisively against Assad or to leave well enough alone, is now using Syrian lives to make political gestures. At this point, arming the supposed “moderates” within the opposition can only serve to drag out the war, resulting in more deaths. Of course, that’s the optimistic view- if we’re lucky the weapons will make their way to one of the al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria.

    Truly, Obama has a unique ability to arrive at the worst possible outcome.

  • lukelea

    History and recent American experience show that this part of the world is ungovernable by Western liberal standards. So what is the point in our intervening? To get a new strong man more in keeping with our (and Israel’s) interests?

    But is Bashar al-Assad so bad in this regard? Does his allowing Iranian arms to flow through to Hezbollah represent a mortal threat to Israel or just a thorn in her side?

    Saddam supported suicide bombers in Israel, and we took him out. But look at the cost benefit ratio. How many Israelis were actually killed as a result of Saddam? Two or three? Ten? I can’t remember, but the number was small. Was putting a stop to that worth a trillion dollars and thousands of American casualties? Are the Iraqi people better off now than before? Anyway, from everything I read, the wall between Israel and the West Bank has been the real reason such attacks have diminished.

    Maybe I am off base here, but I just can’t see the point. Somebody please explain.

© 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 and affiliated sites.