No Clear Goal for a Syria Attack
Trying to accomplish what?
While the U.S. appears poised for missile strikes against Syria as early as Thursday in response to the Assad regime's August 21 chemical weapons attacks near Damascus, clarity of mission remains an issue for Obama.
The White House is obliged to act in some way on Syria's unequivocal crossing of the so-called 'red line'. But beyond that the goals of the anticipated campaign are murky. According to the administration, the action will "deter and degrade" Assad without striving for a regime change. Others raise questions about the real effect of taking any military action at all, if it's something the Assad regime can survive.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has been a leading voice on taking action against Syria, has stopped short of U.S.-led regime change in Syria, but has called for purposeful U.S. force that includes arming the Syrian resistance.
"Is this just going to be just a retaliatory strike that has no lasting impact or something that changes the momentum on the ground in Syria?" McCain asked Tuesday.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?