U.S. Military Intervention in Syria Is a Really Bad Idea

self-determinationFreedomHouse/Foter.comIn a column for USA Today, senior Brookings Institution fellow Michael O’Hanlon argues for a US-led Bosnia-style military intervention in Syria, pinning his call to the “surreal” but “appropriate” debate over whether the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons. O’Hanlon writes that the U.S. intelligence-verified use of Syrian chemical weapons would necessitate, at the minimum, U.S. missile strikes against the perpetrating units, citing Barack Obama’s “red line.” That red line, it ought to be noted, was shifted to the “systematic use” use of chemical weapons. The president also said just a few days ago that the international community would have to be “confident” of that use. Despite other interventionist machinations, then, Obama does not seem intent on lobbing cruise missiles into Syria just yet. The president is wise to be cautious and ought to be much more so, especially considering the government’s renewed internal debate over whether to arm Western-backed factions in the Syrian rebellion.

In his column, O’Hannon acknowledges the “do something” strain of politics in the pro-interventionist urges for Syria, but seems to believe having an idea for an “exit strategy”  is enough “to get beyond the impulse just to ‘do something.’” Of course, it ought to go without saying that George Bush and Iraq war supporters thought they had an exit strategy too. O’Hannon’s proposed exit strategy is of the same vein as Joe Biden’s 2006 proposal for a kind of soft partition of Iraq. Like Biden, O’Hannon looks to the Balkans for a solution to Syria, and specifically Bosnia as the ”best first draft.” He compares the atrocities in Syria to those in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the collapse of Yugoslavia where a US-led intervention hit Serbian militias in the war zone to force a peace treaty (the Dayton Accords). O’Hannon acknowledges the situation in Syria is complex (because the insurgency is more “fractured”) but believes that American support for the rebels now and during an eventual Syrian reconstruction, as well as “pledges of international participation” would be enough to surmount that and wage a successful U.S.-led military intervention to finally topple the Assad regime. O’Hannon envisions an ethno-centered split of Syria to provide Assad’s Alawaites (sans Assad, naturally) territory along the coast and the Kurds territory in the north.

cultural/historical zones, click for moreColumbia UniversityBut the situation in Bosnia then is completely different from the situation in Syria today. The two are both former territories of the Ottoman Empire and, indeed, seem to be wracked by the same underlying ethnic tensions that have been suppressed by decades of strongman rule (in Yugoslavia Tito, in Syria the Assad family; also seen in Iraq post-Saddam). Yet the situation in Bosnia was confined to the former Yugoslavia. The ethnic lines of division crisscrossed that post-World War I construct but didn’t reach far beyond it. Not so in Syria, where the ethnic lines of division crisscross the entire Middle East. The ruling Alawites fall under the umbrella of Shia Islam, explaining in part Iran’s support of the regime, while the country itself is majority Sunni, like most of the wider Muslim Middle East (other notable exceptions are Iran, next door Iraq and the tiny island kingdom of Bahrain).

Further, in Bosnia, the U.S. took the lead as part of the role it adopted for itself during and after the Cold War as Western Europe’s military brains and muscle. The European Union did not exist in the early 1990s, but the project of European integration was already decades old. And politically, Europe was united in regards to the situation in Yugoslavia. Seeking to build a precedent in post-Cold War Europe, the United States took a military lead welcomed by Europe. Not so in the Middle East, which is neither as economically/politically unified as Europe was even in the early 90s, and where there is no consensus on the idea of the U.S. as the military muscle in the region. It is challenged both in the capitals of the Middle East and in Washington. Even the perception of consensus on a U.S.-led intervention in Syria is a mirage. We need look no further back than the 2011 intervention in Libya (which was a U.S.-led intervention spurred by Europe; how little things change). The president and European leaders touted the support of the Arab League. Yet when the intervention started, it faced criticism from the Arab League for its intensity, walking back previous enthusiasm. Yet the Middle East today is not the military lightweight Europe was (and largely is). The United States does billions of dollars’ worth of arms business with Middle Eastern countries (and not just Israel at all).

The Arab League, once again, as in Libya, is calling for regime change, and so they ought to take the lead on it. O’Hannon admits his suggested approach won’t be easy and “will hardly guarantee a great outcome,” but writes that it’s “far more promising than the trajectory we are on.” In Hannon’s mind, that trajectory is an escalating humanitarian crisis and non-action by the United States. In reality, the trajectory appears to be increased Western involvement, despite a lack of international support even for arming Syrian rebels. The solution to Syria ought to come from local and regional stakeholders, like Turkey, which is seeking to build influence in the region and on the global stage, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and/or even Iran or Israel. The American instinct to jump to the head of the line on intervention means it will remain the go-to sucker for “humanitarian crises,” something it can’t afford any more of in blood or treasure.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Warrren||

    Don't you want a healthy state?

  • Almanian!||

    George Bush and Iraq war supporters thought they had an exit strategy too.

    You know who else thought they had an exist strategy....

  • Ed||

    Descartes?

  • Warrren||

    Ya think?

  • ||

    Camus?

  • Warrren||

    Kant?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Hume!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Kierkegaard?

  • ||

    Proponents of the natural family planning?

  • Bardas Phocas||

    O’Hannon should recruit a band of like minded killers and go over and join the fray.

    Otherwise, the red line is 'they use any weapons to attack america'.

  • ||

    ^This.

    That entire shit hole isnt worth the life of one U.S. service member.

    I am looking at all the people who want war in Syria....I dont see any glue on their shoes.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The Arab League, once again, as in Libya, is calling for regime change, and so they ought to take the lead on it.

    Good. Libya worked out beautifully.

    A great example of how to work those ME bastards on the cheap (contrast to Iraq).

  • RyanXXX||

    Even if Libya "worked beautifully", that has nothing to do with whether it was justified or worth it. Worshipping "results" is the MO of Fascists (and Progressives, but I repeat myself)

  • ||

    "Good. Libya worked out beautifully."

    Are you trying to top 'obama is an ardent supporter of the second amendment' ? Almost, but not quite.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The president is wise to be cautious and ought to be much more so,

    Obama's MO.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Please tell me that you are a Byzantine scribe sent from the past to write about Obama's life and times -- that is the only possible explanation for why you are such a uniformly obsequious little choad.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No, that is the standard criticism of Obama. That unlike the "Decider" he mulls over the variations of a situation and acts too late.

  • ||

    Instead he mulls things over carefully for a while, then invariably chooses the wrong course.

    Brilliant.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    O’Hannon admits his suggested approach won’t be easy and “will hardly guarantee a great outcome,” but writes that it’s “far more promising than the trajectory we are on.”

    "We"? Why are "we" on any trajectory regarding Syria at all?

  • Warrren||

    Your job is steal the all the baklava?

    I'm grabbing all the lounge chairs.

  • db||

    "Trajectory" implies you know where you're going. It means you know where you startex, how much power you've applied, and where you will land, with some real mathematical precision. I don't think it's accurate at all in this situation.

  • Warrren||

    I should sober up first.

  • Nazdrakke||

    The Bosnia example overlooks the fact that the war was basically fought out by the time the US intervened. Everyone was at or near the end of their logistical rope by the time we started dropping bomb on them, making it a lot easier to calm things down. This is manifestly not the case in Syria, and only one of the differences and reasons we should keep our hands off of other people's countries.

  • ||

    So you AND Slate writers are morons? Who knew?

  • RyanXXX||

    They dig men of action and fame, that is all. The violence is incidental

  • Raven Nation||

    Over at Zero Hedge there's a post about the chem weapons either being used by the rebels or as an Israeli "false flag." Can't get the link to the story to work but it's still on the front page:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    A top CT site, that one.

  • Raven Nation||

    It strikes me as a very eclectic site: some of their financial stuff is thoughtful and insightful and some of it is just odd.

    The "false flag" part seems crap but the stuff about the rebels using chem weapons doesn't seem ridiculous.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Not at all. We know for a fact that the rebels have taken several military armories. I'm certain that at least one of those armories contain chemical weapons.

  • db||

    What confuses me is why the rebels don't just set the chem weapons aside and bring in some journalists to document how they've renounced chemical weapons, and just look at what Assad has the capability to do to these folks. Of course that wouod be ligical if the rebels didn't think they have some use for them militarily.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm sympathetic to the Syrian resistance, and I would lean towards sending them some weapons.

    Most of the objections to doing so, that I read, are garbage. I see two main reasons why we should be reluctant to help the resistance:

    1) It could provoke the ire of Hezbollah.

    Since elements of what coalesced into Hezbollah attack our marines in Lebanon circa 1982 (from faulty memory), Hezbollah has not attacked American targets specifically.

    Hezbollah is in Syria now, and they're fighting the Syrian resistance like mad to try to keep Assad in power for the sake of Iran. If we became suppliers to the resistance, there is good reason to think Hezbollah may take significant action against American targets--for the first time since 1982.

    2) Constitutional objections

    I get a little tired of hearing my fellow libertarians whining about how this or that military action was unconstitutional after the fact. The time to insist that the president (and Congress) must follow the Constitution on declaring war isn't after the president is already waging an illegal war.

    If you want the president to follow the Constitution, then the time to start insisting on that is right freakin' now.

  • johnl||

    So we should prevent unconstitutional wars by declaring war against everyone?

  • Ken Shultz||

    No, I'm saying that whining about it after the fact is pointless.

    If the president is considering taking an action without Congressional approval, and we think that's unconstitutional, then that's an excellent objection to whatever Obama's cooking up.

    Make that objection now!

    Not after the milk's been split.

  • RyanXXX||

    Good to know you're on the side of John McCain and Lindsey Graham on this issue

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't know what their positions are, but if their positions were that we should get rid of the income tax, social security, and medicare, I wouldn't disagree with them just because they're John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

  • RyanXXX||

    They've been the loudest hawks on Syria since day 1. They argue for arming the rebels and establishing a No-Fly-Zone, which I imagine would be used like the one in Libya as a cover for an offensive bombing campaign against Assad.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Like I said, I'm not about to change my position just because someone I don't care for has the same opinion.

    Broken clocks tell perfect time twice a day, and when they're right, why should I reset my watch?

    It may very well be that we came to the same conclusion for different reasons, too. As you can see, I don't give a damn about the chemical weapons--I care about what's in our best interests.

    If they used chemical weapons, and helping the rebels isn't in our best interest? Then I'm not about to argue in favor of something that isn't in our best interests just because someone used chemical weapons--so why talk about chemical weapons in the first place?

    If you're going to object to this--why not do it for good reasons instead of irrelevant ones?

    Because John McCain wants to do something--is not a good reason to oppose it.

  • RyanXXX||

    "Because John McCain wants to do something--is not a good reason to oppose it."

    Actually, I think one could do pretty well simply by opposing the things he supports and vice versa.

  • Jordan||

    Not our business. But even if it was, it's not as if the Syrian resistance is morally that much better than the government forces.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think it is our business.

    Iran has a nuclear program and a long rang missile program, and I'm not willing to depend on mutual assured destruction to save us from the Iranians like it worked with the Soviets.

    Everything Iran is doing suggests that they see the perseverance of the Assad regime as crucial to their security, and any time the Iranians lose something that's crucial to their security, that's probably a good thing for us.

    And if Iran thinks the Assad regime is crucial to its own security, who are we to argue with them?

  • RyanXXX||

    How about you read something ABOUT Iran, warmonger?

  • DJF||

    “”””’Iran has a nuclear program and a long rang missile program, and I'm not willing to depend on mutual assured destruction to save us from the Iranians like it worked with the Soviets.”’’

    So mutual assured destruction was OK when facing the Soviets who murdered millions and who had ten thousand nuclear weapons pointed at us, but its not OK when facing the Iranians who might, possibly, could be, have a nuclear weapons program.

  • RyanXXX||

    But they make Ken feel unsafe with their turbans and beards so now we have to attack Syria, or something

  • Ken Shultz||

    "But they make Ken feel unsafe with their turbans and beards so now we have to attack Syria, or something"

    Yeah, it's about turbans and beards...

    You were doing better when you were talking about McCain.

    Is it impossible to criticize helping them for fear of provoking a conflict with Hezbollah?

    Do you not really care about the Constitution?

    Again, if you're going to criticize arming the rebels, why not criticize something legitimate?

    Hell, I make better objections to arming the rebels than most of the critics I'm reading, and I'm presently leaning towards helping them!

  • Ken Shultz||

    I didn't say it was okay.

    But I'm not sure the people running Iran are always as rational as the Soviets were.

    We shouldn't assume that just because mutual assured destruction worked out one way with the Soviets (and Reagan and Gorbachev in power), that it'll all turn out the same way with us and the Iranians.

    No, I don't want mutual assured destruction, but I think it'll be a lot less of an easy going time with the Iranians than it was with the Soviets.

  • grey||

    I'd agree with KS insofar as Iran's nuke program and nuclear non-proliferation is of great importance to every individual on the planet earth. Forget nationality or any collectivism. If there is any US action, this seems the only compelling motivator. It's where non-intervention and nuclear non-proliferation intersect that my principles are tested. I'm not weighing in either way, rather in a state of constant internal debate.

  • DJF||

    How about the objection that Syria is none of the US business and if you want to fight and die for Syria or even spend money there go for it, just leave the rest of us out of it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Unfortunately, I think Syria is out business for a number of reasons. Primary among them is the Assad regime's relationship with Iran.

    That relationship disappears once Assad is gone. That's why Iran has Hezbollah in the streets of Syria fighting toe to toe with the Syrian resistance.

    That's why Iran is spending so much money arming the Assad regime and sending them so much money to fight.

    Iran is scared to death of what might happen if Assad falls.

  • DJF||

    If you want to go fight Iran then pack your bags and go fight them, leave me out of it.

    And after you slay the Iran dragon, what is the next enemy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh, I'd rather not have to fight Iran at all, wouldn't you?

    It often seems to be the case that vicious dictatorships aren't vicious because they want to be. They're vicious because that's the only way they can hold on to power. If they want to hold on to power, they have no other choice than to be oppressive, etc.

    And if that's the case with Iran, Iran must be scared to death of its own people. I'd love to see the Iranian people rise up and challenge the government the same way the people of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria have done.

    I certainly don't want to go to war with Iran. But the strategy where they build long rang nuclear missiles and point them at us and our allies, and we just go on like nothing is different?

    That's unacceptable from a libertarian standpoint if you assume that if government has a legitimate purpose, its purpose is to protect our rights--from foreign threats among other things. But I don't want to fight Iran. And that's one of the reasons I'd like to see them weakened by losing Syria as an ally.

    And I'd love to see the Arab Spring on their Persian doorstep.

  • DJF||

    “”””But the strategy where they build long rang nuclear missiles and point them at us and our allies, and we just go on like nothing is different?”””

    There are countries right now who have long range nuclear missiles and are pointing them at us, and we just go on like nothing is different. In fact we have most favored trading status with one of them even though they murder their own people and threaten their neighbors, the place is called China

    “”””And I'd love to see the Arab Spring on their Persian doorstep.”””

    So instead of just taking over an embassy, you want one burnt down with the ambassador inside? Do you have nay idea of who will take over in this “Arab Spring” especially since most Iranian’s are not Arab.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "In fact we have most favored trading status with one of them even though they murder their own people and threaten their neighbors, the place is called China"

    You don't really think our relationship with Iran is like our relationship with China, do you?

    I'd love it if was, though. In fact, if it weren't for our strategy of making Iran burn through all its current account surplus, I'd suggest we make a trade agreement with Iran.

    If China went to war with us, it would be devastating to their economy. There would be riots in the streets over the economic fallout. The communist party would probably fall. IF ONLY Iran were like that!

    "So instead of just taking over an embassy, you want one burnt down with the ambassador inside? Do you have nay idea of who will take over in this “Arab Spring” especially since most Iranian’s are not Arab."

    You missed the headline where thousands of protestors in Benghazi chased the terrorist militia that attacked our consulate out of town and burned their headquarters--because those bastards killed our ambassador.

    Have you noticed the trouble the MB has been having since they took over the government of Egypt?

    Ruling a country is easy when you're out of power. You can blame the U.S. for everything! Once you're the guy in charge, all those problems are suddenly yours to solve. The MB is practically coordinating with the U.S. government now. They're mellowing before our eyes.

  • DJF||

    “”””You missed the headline where thousands of protestors in Benghazi chased the terrorist militia that attacked our consulate out of town and burned their headquarters--because those bastards killed our ambassador.”””

    Yeah right, armed terrorists run out of town by protesters. Was anyone captured? No. Anyone charged with anything? No. How hard would it be to burn down a building and then claim that you have run the terrorists out of town? Especially when the town is declared to be too dangerous for even the FBI to investigate.

    At best all it was is a turf war between Libyan factions.

    Here is the link to the NYT story on the supposed running the terrorist out of town, the author is the same guy who earlier reported that the attack on the consulate was because of the film. You need to remember that most of the information we are getting about “Arab Spring” is propaganda.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09......html?_r=0

    The same SULIMAN ALI ZWAY supplied the false information that the film caused the attack

    http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2.....tians.html

  • Ken Shultz||

    Looks to me like he was reporting the information he had at the time. Barack Obama himself was effectively blaming the attack on that stupid YouTube video--he certainly didn't want it to look like anything bad could have happened because of his own administration's incompetence about a month before the election.

    Why would he report something other than what he was being told by the Obama Administration at the time?

    Because this guy reported the information he was given at the time, that means any further events that he reported on didn't really happen?

    Here's some photos of the protests before the protestors stormed the Islamist militia HQ responsible for the attack:

    http://www.businessinsider.com.....012-9?op=1

    I'm looking for some America-hating, and I'm not seeing it anywhere.

    Incidentally, I find the narrative that Benghazi is actually full of America hating Islamists harder to believe than the one about the counter protest against the Islamists--wasn't it Gaddafi's promise to slaughter the people of Benghazi that prompted Obama to join with the Europeans in attacking Gaddafi's forces?

    Didn't I see the people of Benghazi dancing in the streets when we announced that we were joining the fight to protect them from Gaddafi's forces, who were making a bee line to Benghazi punish the fuck out of them for rebelling?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....f_Benghazi

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you look closely at those photos, you'll see someone holding a sign that reads, "Chris Stevens was a Friend to all Libyans".

    Yeah, they're harboring some real anti-American hatred there.

  • DJF||

    """"Here's some photos of the protests before the protestors stormed the Islamist militia HQ responsible for the attack:""'

    I don't see anyone storming any Islamist militia HQ, I just see maybe 50 people standing around holding signs, half of them in Arabic.

    If they stormed a militant HQ where are the bodies, where are the prisoners? Where is the proof that they even stormed anything?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Have you seen this report?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ttdD2Zdmzg

    You're not one of those people who thinks the moon landing was a hoax, are you?

  • Ken Shultz||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5JYzaOqzNU

    Have you seen this report, too?

    You're not one of those "truthers", are you?

  • RyanXXX||

    Why should we care about Iran?

    There are a ton of assumptions in your post. Do you believe Iran is an actual threat to the United States? You sound like a full-bore interventionist, if not a neocon

  • Ken Shultz||

    Most people would recognize pragmatism as the opposite of what they think of as "neocon".

    And perceiving Iran's nuclear and long range missile program as a threat to the security of the United States (and its allied) is hardly the definition of either a "neocon" or a pragmatist.

    Was recognizing the Soviet Union as a security threat a neocon thing to do?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You know, the alternative to bombing, invading, and occupying another country isn't sitting on [our] hands and breathing through our noses. Sometimes it behooves us to help people--that aren't very nice people. And IF IF IF that's in our best interests in Syria, then that's what we should do..."

    There isn't anything "neocon" about that statement. It's the opposite of what most people are thinking of when they use the term "neocon".

  • nonluddite||

    I'd be willing to pitch in as well...does FedEx deliver over there?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Beyond those two objections, I'm kinda sick of hearing people talk about chemical weapons and terrorists.

    Whether we help arm the Syrian resistance shouldn't have anything to do with whether Assad used chemical weapons--just like WMD shouldn't have had anything to do with whether we invaded Iraq.

    I'm sick of hearing the objections about how the Syrian resistance has terrorist elements in it, as well. It is entirely possible that it could be in our best interests to arm the rebels--even if there are terrorists among them. And doing what's in our own best interest is what arming or not arming the Syrian resistance should be all about--not whether so and so used WMD, and not whether so and so is a terrorist.

  • RyanXXX||

    How about the fact that it just isn't our fucking business, Ken? Or that we have no right to prolong the bloodshed and chaos by arming people we would call Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Iraq? Or the fact that supporting them will likely lead directly to the genocide of Alawites and any other non-Sunni Muslims in the country?

    Who's "interests" are you talking about? Removing Assad will not change your life or mine in any way, except for the chance it makes it more likely for us to attack Iran.

  • RyanXXX||

    BTW, the "whether so and so is a Jihadist" very much relates to whether it is in America's national security interests or not. I don't understad how you can pretend to think the two issues are separate

  • Ken Shultz||

    I suppose because the strategy worked so well during the Cold War--among other things.

    You know, the alternative to bombing, invading, and occupying another country isn't sitting on hands and breathing through our noses. Sometimes it behooves us to help people--that aren't very nice people. And IF IF IF that's in our best interests in Syria, then that's what we should do...

    Just like we did in Afghanistan, which, despite recent common assumptions--was wildly successful in helping to break down the U.S.S.R.

    This is the way its done. You help people when it's in your best interest to do so--even if they aren't people you like.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Just like we did in Afghanistan, which, despite recent common assumptions--was wildly successful in helping to break down the U.S.S.R.

    You realize Charlie Wilson's War was highly fictionalized, right? And you also realize that the actually Charlie Wilson is currently burning in Hell, right?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *actual

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you don't think the Russians getting bogged down in Afghanistan contributed significantly to the Soviet Union's demise, I don't know what to say...

    I will say this!

    Communism doesn't work for a number of reasons, and when it fails economically, there are two major ways the communists deal with it.

    1) Mass starvation

    Stalin did it to the Ukraine. The Chinese experienced it. They still do it periodically in North Korea--if North Korean can starve a few million people to death, periodically, without fear of repercussion, then North Korea can perpetuate its broken economic system indefinitely.

    2) Expansion

    If you can expand into neighboring countries and claim more resources than it costs you to wage war, then you can postpone the inevitable economic collapse. This is partially what the Soviet Union was trying to do in Afghanistan. They wanted to get closer to some other objectives, too, but after Afghanistan, it became clear that expansion wasn't going to solve their problems.

    They were trying it all over the world, too. Central America, Angola, everywhere they could.

    Being such a big expansion fail, Afghanistan was huge for the Soviet collapse.

  • DJF||

    And how much will the trillions wasted in Afghanistan push the US to collapse?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I was against invading Iraq, and I think we should get out of Afghanistan, but we invaded Afghanistan in a legitimate war of self-defense.

    It was time to declare victory and go home--at least once OBL was dead.

  • RyanXXX||

    Nope. Non-intervention unless America itself is threatened is the only moral and acceptable foreign policy. This meddling you advocate is unseemly

  • RyanXXX||

    and destructive, BTW

  • RyanXXX||

    So are you also a fan of the Contras, Pinochet, etc?

  • Ken Shultz||

    We made mistakes. Some of the things we did actually weren't in our best interest.

    It's possible to make mistakes in those assessments. Life is a marginal analysis, and what was a good idea yesterday may be a rotten idea today.

    Do I think challenging the world wide expansion of communism was a good idea?

    Yeah!

    Do I think it's better when other people are fighting our battles for us--as opposed to Vietnam/Iraq style invasions and occupations?

    In lots of ways, yes.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    As I mentioned before, there are several groups that should be the next in line to intervene in Syria, before we do (if at all).

    There is no reason that American blood be split for yet another ungrateful population when the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the United Nations haven't done shit.

  • Gladstone||

    U.S. Military Intervention in Syria Is a Really Bad Idea

    Understatement of the year.

  • dinkster||

    I see the anti war left is hard at work.

  • Gladstone||

    Obama is going to war for TEH PEEPULZ and Human Rights and internationalism while BOOOOSH went to war for his corporate masters.

  • WomSom||

    But teh US loves to play "World POlice" lol, its what they do!

    www.Total-Anon.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement