Condoleezza Rice Says the US Should Intervene in Syria


Credit: Department of State/wikimedia

Last night, former Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told CBS Evening News that the U.S. doesn't have the option of doing nothing in Syria:

There is no doubt that it is time for the United States to make clear that it is going to engage in this effort to stop the difficult situation in Syria and to prevent its further spread, it's already spreading across the region. So, the United States doesn't have an option of no action.

Rice went on to highlight the number of players involved in the conflict in Syria:

When you have Iranian fighters in Syria, when you have Hezbollah in Syria, when you have the Syrians shelling the Beqaa valley in Lebanon, when you have the Israelis taking out Syrian installations because they fear for Israeli security you have a very serious situation on your hands and the United States really doesn't have an option to sit on the sidelines.

All of the above sound like great reasons for not getting involved in the conflict. I have written before about how the complexity of the situation in Syria provides some of the best arguments against intervention.

In her CBS appearance Rice doesn't once mention the fact that Assad's opposition includes fighters with links to Al Qaeda, an issue that those arguing for intervention in Syria have yet to adequately address. If a no-fly zone put in place or weapons are sent to rebels in Syria there is no way to guarantee that this wouldn't benefit jihadists.

Thankfully, Rice's thoughts on the situation in Syria are not shared by most Americans. A Gallup poll published on May 31 shows that 68 percent of Americans do not believe that the U.S. should use military action in Syria even if economic and diplomatic efforts fail.  

Watch Rice's comments on Syria below:


NEXT: China Big Winner in Iraq Oil Boom

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.

  1. Really, we should either get out completely and leave it to the powers in the region to deal with, or, if that's just something we think we can't do, then we should intervene in limited ways without getting into nation-building and other things we aren't very good at.

    1. We should stay out of the Middle East or we should annex the Middle East. We've decided that conquest is evil, so we just fuck around in other countries hoping they'll somehow become clones of us. I believe that our current "enlightened involvement" around the globe is more evil that conquest ever was.

    2. Nah. It should be all-or-nothing.

      1. It probably will be. If we continue our economic decline while retaining a military far beyond any other military, the imperial option will eventually become too tempting to resist. After all, pillage. And tribute.

        1. No, imperial isn't harsh enough. That's only most-or-nothing.

          1. I'm not a professional ethicist, but I believe it may be immoral in our culture to simply vaporize our opposition and the people living among them.

            Please do not take this as an expert opinion. Consult a certified ethicist.

            1. "Consult a certified ethicist."
              Like the Prez?

              1. No, like Tony. If he is unavailable, call shriek.

            2. Pro Lib, you just made the "all" list.

              1. I did issue a disclaimer. Not valid in some states. Void in Vermont.

  2. Pick a winner there and stand behind them, until it's time to pick a new winner and stand behind them.

    1. If we can't leave, one option would be to propose and back the restoration of the Ottoman Empire.

      Or the Byzantine Empire if you want to go totally classic.

      1. I like the first plan. Do that and then we can just sit back, put our feet up and watch the peace and prosperity unfold.

        1. I see absolutely no flaw in the plan.

          1. This is about your lifelong dream to be a Janissary, isn't it?

            1. No, I just want to be entertained. I find the idea of a restored Ottoman Empire entertaining.

      2. Roman Empire pre-split?

        Or Macedonia Empire? Or Persian Empire?

        Or both those last two, to balance each other out?

        1. No, any unification of Europe is a bad thing.

          1. Thats what they said about Germany, and its been nothing but peace from them for the last 150 years.

            1. That was about economic stimulas. The French immediately bought millions of white sheets to cut up into easy to wave flags.

  3. Because the last five times we got involved in a land war in Asia worked out so well...

    1. We're very good at blowing up shit and toppling governments. And, when we conquer industrial nations, we've even had success at nation-building.

      Neither capability seems of much use in the Middle East.

      1. """And, when we conquer industrial nations, we've even had success at nation-building.""

        It was not really the US doing the nation building in those cases since they already knew how to build one.

        1. Exactly. We apparently can impose a political system on a sufficiently affluent and industrially developed country. But nobody else.

          1. We apparently can impose a political system on a sufficiently affluent and industrially developed country who unconditionally surrenders.


  4. I'm watching the tea party groups testifying before the House about IRS targeting. Fucking Sander Levin's so ancient one of his pages is like in her 60s ahahahaha

  5. So Mr. Feeney, your solution is to surrender American Glow-ball Leadership?
    If we aren't neck deep in the shit, how can we call ourselves Hegemons?
    And if we can't call ourselves Hegemons - we can't get it up.

  6. Yes, we should follow Condoleezza's advice since she did so well in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    1. And in anticipating the 9/11 attacks as NSA Director.

  7. Since both sides in the fight seem to be equally evil I say let them fight it out and if and only if the winner wants to deal with us then we can deal with them. Nothing is more precious than liberty won by ones own hand, otherwise it's just warfare welfare and we all know how that never works.

    1. Let them fight it out, and if we don't like the winners, shoot them and let the losers try again. Broadcast it all as SURVIVOR:Middle East. Winner gets a country, loser gets capped. Ratings gold.

      1. I have read that some think that Syria could degenerate into a widespread Shia-Sunni war, and I thought, "Hmmm, that might not be the worst thing...."

  8. I saw that news program last night and couldn't believe my ears. CBS has evidently just hired her. Why don't they just fire her? Shouldn't they??
    And to think, of the three evening news programs, CBS is best! Less evil is still plenty evil!

  9. I love the certainty with which the "get involved" crowd speaks, as if the option to Assad can only be better than him. Why? Obama bleated about "Mubarak must go" and the Brotherhood took over; is that an improvement? He did the same re: Qaddafi and no one knows what Libya will resemble. We're always convinced that replacing the current bad guy is an improvement in an of itself.

  10. Condi would be a perfect GOP presidential candidate!


    1. She speaks Russian and is an accomplished piano player.

      That is more than you could say for Obama.

  11. "Then Col. Rice laced up her combat boots, put on her helmet, and said 'I'll jump first. Who will follow?'"

    1. Some people are valuable for their courage and prowess in combat, others for their keen intellect and moral leadership. Rarely do you get both in one person, like McCain for instance.

  12. On the one side, you have a brutal dictator that's supported by such lovely outside organizations as Hezbollah. On the other side, you have a group of rebels that includes Al-Qaeda. That's totally clear-cut, so what are we waiting for?

    As for arming the rebels without having some of those arms fall into the hands of any Al-Qaeda, that should be easy, what with all that Fast & Furious experience. The government is expert at dangling arms near vicious crooks without actually letting the vicious crooks get a hold of any of them. Nah, no need to hesitate on that score.

    Then there's the question of cost. With the enormous surplus the government has been running, what's a few extra billion for the next several years going to matter? Oh, wait, that's an $18 trillion DEBT, not surplus? Ah, that's okay, China will loan the money.

    Finally, we need to look at the benefits. We know from experience that we'll be hailed as liberators and the folks there will feel eternally grateful. Iraq and Afghanistan are proof of that? Wait, what's that? It's NOT the case? That's OK -- it will still be worth it because Syria is sitting on top of such an unbelievable amount of oil! Wait, what? They don't have much oil? It's actually dates and figs that they export? OK, cool, I'm sure there are some good dessert recipes that make use of those ingredients, so from a cost/benefit standpoint, getting involved there is no-brainer.

  13. Nuke it from orbit, its the only way to be sure.

  14. What use are this army and all these munitions if we never use them?

  15. Sure, Condy. Are you willing to be the first paratrooper we drop into the country?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.