Replies

Let’s make it clear from the outset that I know nothing about Syria that you probably don’t. I am not an expert on international relations or the Middle East or nerve gas. I have never been to Syria and had no desire to visit even before the situation there got uber-crazy.
But being a reasonable person who has lived thru a host of US wars and conflicts and military actions, I know a bad “strike” idea when I hear it.
Let’s stipulate some facts. Bashar al-Assad, who actually graduated from medical school and was trained as an ophthalmologist, went off the rails shortly after being named President of Syria in 2000. His latest atrocities against those who oppose him rank right up there or exceed other recent Middle Eastern despots and indeed the worst in history. Children are apparently among his victims in equal numbers to adults.
Al-Assad is off-the-charts scary and brutally vile. If he only did half the things he is accused of, he deserves to die a la Hussein or Bin Laden. The world would certainly be better off for his absence.
But there is a huge difference between assassinating one maniacally evil dictator who has, so far, confined his slaughter to his own country, and launching an “attack” that will further destabilize the most volatile region of the world.
“Attack” sounds kind of acceptable these days, like an NFL team attacking a zone defense with a crossing route or Orkin attacking a swarm of invading ants with some kind of chemical that we would rather not understand. But it is just a euphemism for bombing and drone strikes and other forms of killing that aren’t surgically precise or necessarily “clean” at all (meaning more civilian casualties including people we are ostensibly trying to protect). If this approach worked, why didn’t we use it in Iraq or Afghanistan and save thousands of young Americans the return trip home in body bags?
It is understandable and commendable that America wants to help out the rest of the world, especially in such a hideous situation as now exists in Syria. Our hearts, rightfully, go out to every good person in that country. And there are many of them. But the truth is that those people who are under siege are not awaiting US military help. They are not fans of the US. Their culture and religion and ideas are not standing by for us to fix them.
Just as we didn’t fix Korea, Vietnam ,Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya or Eqypt. Just as we are surely going down a path of greater intervention to achieve our objectives, including the use of American military forces on the ground. A good friend of mine, who is a West Point graduate and fought two times in Iraq, said, “This is just the beginning of another unwinnable conflict. Welcome to Haliburton Three.”
Is there ever a point at which it would make sense to intervene in Syria? Perhaps. But anti-war candidate Obama has made a legacy via war and political assassination. The other conservatives can’t help but join this attack party. They don’t want to look “soft.” It feels so much like Iraq and the consensus that developed. It feels like a boost to the economy. And darn, we haven’t started a new war in a few years.
But how will it feel in one year or three years? How will it feel when the planes land from Damascus with dead US soldiers and thousands more maimed? How difficult is it to imagine that this is going to turn out well?