War in Syria: Madness on the Potomac

Doug Bandow The United States faces no serious military threats today, yet is constantly at war. Syria is the latest target. Traditionally Washington did not look for wars to fight. The government’s duty was to protect the American people from conflict. Measured on this scale there is no cause for intervening in the Syrian imbroglio. The regime has little capacity to harm the U.S. or resist the overwhelming retaliation that would occur in response to any attack. Syria’s chemical weapons have little more utility than high explosives and nothing close to the killing capacity of America’s many nuclear weapons. The possibility of radical Islamist insurgents gaining control over territory is more worrisome, but is most likely in the event of U.S. intervention against the Assad government. The conflict is destabilizing, but friendly states should deal with the consequences. Of course, the Syrian civil war is a tragedy, like many others throughout history. Civil wars may be the worst, often with few genuine good guys. The rebels are united only by their opposition to Assad. The strongest factions appear least interested in a liberal, democratic future for Syria and most interested in using Syria to attack Americans. Nor is the contest likely to end after the first extended round. If Assad survives, he still may never reestablish his control over the entire country. If the rebels win, they are likely to engage in a new round of fighting for dominance. Moreover, there is likely...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: Health Medicine and Bioethics Commentators Authors: Source Type: blogs