Washington Foolishly Tilts Towards War in Syria

Doug Bandow The bitterest fights tend to be civil wars. Today, Syria is going through such a brutal bloodletting.  The administration reportedly has decided to provide arms to Syria’s insurgents. It’s a mistake. This kind of messy conflict is precisely the sort in which Washington should avoid. Despite the end of the Cold War, the U.S. armed services have spent much of the last quarter century engaged in combat. At the very moment Washington should be pursuing a policy of peace, policymakers are preparing to join a civil war in which America’s security is not involved, other nations have much more at stake, many of the “good” guys in fact are bad, and there would be no easy exit. Military action should not be a matter of choice, just another policy option. Americans should have something fundamental at stake before their government calls them to arms. No such interest exists in Syria. Intervention against Damascus means war. Some activists imagine that Washington need only wave its hand and President Bashar Assad would depart. However, weapons shipments are not going to oust a regime which has survived two years of combat. Intervening ineffectively could cost lives and credibility while ensuring heavier future involvement. There is no serious security rationale for war. Damascus has not attacked or threatened to attack America or an American ally. America’s nearby friends, Israel and Turkey, are capable of defending themselves. Another concern is the conflic...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: Health Medicine and Bioethics Commentators Authors: Source Type: blogs