A request, as I seem to be missing the thread on intervention in Syria ...

[non sociopath skin]

Could someone please send me a link to any reliable source which outlines the proposed targets and assumed outcome of proposed Western intervention in Syria.

It seems to be curiously absent from public statements and I would have thought that it was rather relevant.

The Skin

[tjwmason]

1. The target is Assad's desire to use chemical weapons

Dave says that it's possible to attack his desire without intervening in the broader conflict, and so naturally we should trust him on this one.

[T_i_B]

2. The thing that worries me....

....is how glib many of the assurances are from the pro-intervention camp.

After all that's happened in the last 10 years, people cannot be expected to swallow glib statements that intervention in Syria won't turn out like Iraq & Afghanistan and that we won't end up aiding Al-Quaida or their allies. It's hardly unreasonable to recall all the false statements made to justify the Iraq war and we all remember how that turned out. Especially when prior to last weeks vote we were in an even bigger hurry to intervene then we were in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[non sociopath skin]

3. Exactly!

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the aims were stated - essentially regime change - and boots were firmly planted on the ground. And both have proved disasters.

So what is this one about? Are Barack and Dave expecting Assad to come out with his hands up saying "Fair cop, guv. You got me bang to rights there!"

And the Jihadi factions to say, "Well, as you've saved us from Assad, we'll step aside and enable the formation of western-style parties so we can all enjoy paliamentary democracy and live happily ever after"?

Incidentally, isn't it depressing that the only thing the GOP and the Democrats have agreed on in the last five years is bombing the beejasus out of the Levant?

The Skin