US military action against Syria right now is a strategic error of the first order

[Recursion]

If this goes forward, it will be comparable to the invasion of Iraq, I fear.

Bookmark and gloat if I'm wrong.

[TwilightGardener]

1. What should the international response be to the deployment

of chemical weapons to kill large numbers of people? That, I don't know. But as far as I know, we're not invading Syria.

[atreides1]

4. Not invading

But it's still an act of war, unless the cruise missiles release flowers!

[FarCenter]

9. We did nothing when our ally, Saddam Hussein, used chemical weapons on the Kurds.

They were also used by Iraq against Iran, and we did nothing.

There is a precedent for doing nothing.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. I recall many posts from you insisting that Republican Hagel was going to oppose any

action in Sryia, this is why we had to have a Republican, you said "If Hagel actually supported military intervention in Syria, I'd be shocked." And you had tons of material about how Israel hated him because he'd make peace in the ME and cut military programs and on and on and on and on.
Hagel seems very much on board and eager, not a word from him against intervention, not a word from you about being shocked.
Republicans like war. Hagel is a Republican. He's supporting intervention.

[bullwinkle428]

2. This.

K&R.

[JaneyVee]

3. I'm not against military action, only US military action. And the only way

Any country should put boots on the ground in Syria is if its to handcuff Assad and march him to trial.

[The Magistrate]

5. Depends On The Scale, Sir

I do not think any overt involvement is wise, mind, but a thing can be a mistake without being a catastrophic disaster. Invading Iraq was certainly a catastrophic disaster, and readily foreseeable as such.

[Recursion]

7. You know, sir, as well as I, that the one tends to lead to the other

Invading Iraq was comparable to Varus losing the legions (Van Creveld agrees). Action against Syria does not have to be that disastrous, but runs the risk of it, to no concrete advantage anyone can point out.

[The Magistrate]

8. To Put It Coldly, Sir

The worst risk this action runs for the United States is that it might end the conflict. U.S. interests, at least as conventionally calculated, are well served by a continuing battle that ties up Assad's regime and Hezbollah, and draws jihadis away from Iraq and North Africa.

I can see only one solid U.S. interest in the thing, and that would be to destroy or capture the sarin stocks Assad possesses. Hardly something one would want to see in the hands of any body likely to succeed him, nor something he could be relied on to refrain from using more widely if defeat loomed near, or in revenge if riding high....

[Recursion]

11. I would suggest you expand your imagination

Suppose this literally destroys the Ba'athist regime in one fell swoop.

As far as that goes, good riddance.

But now, we have Sunni Arab rebels in the west and Kurds in the east who has as yet had no contact with one another.

What happens to the Kurds is the great unanswered question of Great Power diplomacy in the middle east, and this conflict may make that ambiguity no longer sustainable. If that happens, no bets are safe.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. Are we talking invasion or airstrikes?

The two situations are not much analogous IMHO. It is a stretch IMHO to compare every potential use of military force with an actual invasion of a country under false/misleading pretenses.

[Harmony Blue]

12. How will the chemical weapon stockpiles be secured

if Syrian command and control and other military targets are taken out by cruise missile strikes? And directly targeting the chemical weapon stockpiles is a bad idea.

[Recursion]

14. Good point (nt)

[cali]

13. yeah, that has the potential to be worse than Iraq. quite a bit worse.

[wild bird]

16. +1000.

It has the potential of igniting the whole region and a possibility of it spreading beyond the ME.

I wonder what the Doomsday clock is set at right now?

[Adrahil]

15. We won't be invading.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. I agree with you fully.

Pretty rare.

[Recursion]

19. War has a way of doing that

Believe me, I'd rather be disagreeing with you over trivial shit