I wish I had more time to get into this at the moment, but before we do Libya Part II (or is it Kosovo Part V?), count me with Dan Pipes, and against Elliott Abrams and Zuhdi Jasser, in opposing intervention in Syria. More to say when I can.
I can imagine scenarios where we successfully intervene in Syria, but not with the current administration in charge. It would have to be part of a larger strategic initiative across the whole region and involve years of committment (like a "global war on terror" or something). But Obama's only strategic concerns involve getting reelected.
If Republicans were to try to push him into intervening in Syria, I imagine Obama would watch it fail and then blame the Republicans (like he always does).
Best things we could be doing in that region right now involve helping Israel and hurting Iran. Actually "hurting Iran" might be the most direct way to help the Syrian opposition.
We don't do it ... we facilitate any player with the standing and the will to send the Syrian Baath into final days.
Come what may, ... Syria as composed is worse than what will come. What do you think will happend to this Shia sect Baath, when Sunni Syrians reclaim the mantle?
Toss the fragmentation into the crystal room and watch the shards fly-bloody Levant, crisis Iran and the hell Sunni's can bring to sects and inflammed Shia.
But do you have the courage to acknowledge that your position is the same as Obama's. Will you support Obama's decision not to intervene militarily in Syria?
The following piece, External Link, offers compelling arguments about how Obama's meddling in the ME has been motivated by sympathy with the Muslim Brotherhood and its aims. The analysis is disturbing while at the same time quite credible. It explains Obama's selective and peculiar responses to assorted citizen uprisings while ignoring others. Obama's and his State Department's agitation and interference in internal or civil unrest raises a lot of skepticism about what his ultimate game plan is.
Obama is on the wrong side of history in re to his decisions in Egypt and Libya, opening the door to oppressive regimes and the growth of the caliphate. We had better not become engaged in Syria, for the blowback in international relations on several levels will be disastrous.
I'm a big, big fan, Mr McCarthy, but ... the way you phrase this, it almost sounds like a general anti-interventionist argument - lumping Libya, Syria, Kosovo all together. I know that can't be what you mean. But to quote (I think?) Jonah Goldberg on the general subject of interventionism: it really just depends on the situation, doesn't it? Whether Syria should be a locus for intervention, and if so, what kind of intervention, seems to me to be something that should be run through the usual cost-benefit analysis. If there's a low-cost, low-risk opportunity to help topple a horribly dangerous regime, I wouldn't oppose it on the grounds of some kind of purist principle regarding non-intervention.
According to the concepts of Samuel P. Huntington, the Syrian struggle is currently an intra-civilizational contest. The USA, by interfering, would cross the "faultline", and convert it to a civilizational clash. We've already done that numerous times in the Middle East, with so far very dismal results, engendering Muslim antagonism everywhere we've gone, while building several "Islamic Republics" with our exported democracy.
It seems to me that Huntington's principles should at least be strongly considered, when trying to judge whether to interfere in Dar al-Islam.
Hear hear, Mr. McCarthy. We shouldn't go anywhere near that place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can imagine scenarios where we successfully intervene in Syria, but not with the current administration in charge. It would have to be part of a larger strategic initiative across the whole region and involve years of committment (like a "global war on terror" or something). But Obama's only strategic concerns involve getting reelected.
If Republicans were to try to push him into intervening in Syria, I imagine Obama would watch it fail and then blame the Republicans (like he always does).
Best things we could be doing in that region right now involve helping Israel and hurting Iran. Actually "hurting Iran" might be the most direct way to help the Syrian opposition.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe don't do it ... we facilitate any player with the standing and the will to send the Syrian Baath into final days.
Come what may, ... Syria as composed is worse than what will come. What do you think will happend to this Shia sect Baath, when Sunni Syrians reclaim the mantle?
Toss the fragmentation into the crystal room and watch the shards fly-bloody Levant, crisis Iran and the hell Sunni's can bring to sects and inflammed Shia.
No Americans needed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut do you have the courage to acknowledge that your position is the same as Obama's. Will you support Obama's decision not to intervene militarily in Syria?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf not too cumbersome, see my blog at External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"More to say when I can."
Andrew McCarthy, Foreign Affairs Expert. My thighs are quaking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe following piece, External Link
, offers compelling arguments about how Obama's meddling in the ME has been motivated by sympathy with the Muslim Brotherhood and its aims. The analysis is disturbing while at the same time quite credible. It explains Obama's selective and peculiar responses to assorted citizen uprisings while ignoring others. Obama's and his State Department's agitation and interference in internal or civil unrest raises a lot of skepticism about what his ultimate game plan is.
Obama is on the wrong side of history in re to his decisions in Egypt and Libya, opening the door to oppressive regimes and the growth of the caliphate. We had better not become engaged in Syria, for the blowback in international relations on several levels will be disastrous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm a big, big fan, Mr McCarthy, but ... the way you phrase this, it almost sounds like a general anti-interventionist argument - lumping Libya, Syria, Kosovo all together. I know that can't be what you mean. But to quote (I think?) Jonah Goldberg on the general subject of interventionism: it really just depends on the situation, doesn't it? Whether Syria should be a locus for intervention, and if so, what kind of intervention, seems to me to be something that should be run through the usual cost-benefit analysis. If there's a low-cost, low-risk opportunity to help topple a horribly dangerous regime, I wouldn't oppose it on the grounds of some kind of purist principle regarding non-intervention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAccording to the concepts of Samuel P. Huntington, the Syrian struggle is currently an intra-civilizational contest. The USA, by interfering, would cross the "faultline", and convert it to a civilizational clash. We've already done that numerous times in the Middle East, with so far very dismal results, engendering Muslim antagonism everywhere we've gone, while building several "Islamic Republics" with our exported democracy.
It seems to me that Huntington's principles should at least be strongly considered, when trying to judge whether to interfere in Dar al-Islam.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse