This afternoon, the website Real Clear World has published an article entitled "Four Bad Arguments Pushing the US into Syria's War." According to the author Greg Scoblete, these arguments are:
1) It is in America's national security interest.
2) America has a moral obligation to stop the bloodshed.
3) We need the "good guys" to win.
4) They used chemical weapons.
It is nice to see that the war in Syria is finally drawing some attention in the media, but this article is the kind of nonsense which just assumes its conclusion. Let me explain:
The author admits that the overthrow of the Assad regime will deprive Iran of its lone ally in the Arab world and that it will leave Hezbollah exposed and cut off. This is all true, and it is a key reason why the USA should be working to see that Assad falls. But then the article goes on:
But all of the benefits that supposedly accrue from toppling Assad only occur if Syria is able to reconstitute itself into a stable, secure government that rejects Iranian goals and prevents al-Qaeda cells from spawning in its midst. What are the odds of that?
The author just assumes that there is no benefit absent a stable, secure new Syrian government. But that is not the case. If the rebels take control in Syria, Hezbollah (which is fighting against them on the field of battle) will be cut off no matter what sort of Syrian government emerges. Iran will lose its lone Arab ally no matter what sort of Syrian government emerges. If the Assad government is overthrown and gets replaced by a chaotic al-Qaeda related ruling council, the Syrian army will crumble. It will no longer be available to threaten chaos in the region. Those are all important gains.
Now it is true that if al-Qaeda related rebels take control of the country, they will get access to Assad's chemical weapons unless those weapons are destroyed. Beyond that, however, the region will have to deal with an evil and problematic regime in Syria. That, however, is nothing new.
All of this brings us to the fourth argument listed above. Syria has indeed used chemical weapons. Here's how Scoblete puts it:
The administration was willing to let over 70,000 Syrians die by bullet and bomb without a direct intervention. Does a sarin gas attack really change the strategic calculus as far as American interests are concerned? Moreover, what is the administration supposed to do?
Scoblete goes on to talk about how a no fly zone, using special forces or arming the rebels will not work. He raises the spectre of Iraq and Afghanistan and says intervention will not work. Once again, he makes false assumptions; these are not the only choices.
Look, the author is correct when he says that Obama was prepared to sit still and do nothing while 70,000 Syrians were slaughtered. Chemical weapons do not change this. But they should. That is the point; they should.
And America has a clear option: we can strike strong and fast against every chemical depot in the country. We can send air power and special forces into Syria to destroy all traces of Assad's chemical arms. If fighting continues, we can then just leave. America is not the guarantor of peace in Syria. But America needs to protect itself and its allies against chemical attacks. Do we want al Qaeda forces to gain control of chemical weapons? Do we want Assad to give them to Hezbollah? Wouldn't it be better just to destroy the weapons and be done with it?
This is not a perfect option, but none of them are perfect.
The reasons for American involvement in Syria are now overwhelming. Let's hope that at least for once, Obama makes the right decision.
1) It is in America's national security interest.
2) America has a moral obligation to stop the bloodshed.
3) We need the "good guys" to win.
4) They used chemical weapons.
It is nice to see that the war in Syria is finally drawing some attention in the media, but this article is the kind of nonsense which just assumes its conclusion. Let me explain:
The author admits that the overthrow of the Assad regime will deprive Iran of its lone ally in the Arab world and that it will leave Hezbollah exposed and cut off. This is all true, and it is a key reason why the USA should be working to see that Assad falls. But then the article goes on:
But all of the benefits that supposedly accrue from toppling Assad only occur if Syria is able to reconstitute itself into a stable, secure government that rejects Iranian goals and prevents al-Qaeda cells from spawning in its midst. What are the odds of that?
The author just assumes that there is no benefit absent a stable, secure new Syrian government. But that is not the case. If the rebels take control in Syria, Hezbollah (which is fighting against them on the field of battle) will be cut off no matter what sort of Syrian government emerges. Iran will lose its lone Arab ally no matter what sort of Syrian government emerges. If the Assad government is overthrown and gets replaced by a chaotic al-Qaeda related ruling council, the Syrian army will crumble. It will no longer be available to threaten chaos in the region. Those are all important gains.
Now it is true that if al-Qaeda related rebels take control of the country, they will get access to Assad's chemical weapons unless those weapons are destroyed. Beyond that, however, the region will have to deal with an evil and problematic regime in Syria. That, however, is nothing new.
All of this brings us to the fourth argument listed above. Syria has indeed used chemical weapons. Here's how Scoblete puts it:
The administration was willing to let over 70,000 Syrians die by bullet and bomb without a direct intervention. Does a sarin gas attack really change the strategic calculus as far as American interests are concerned? Moreover, what is the administration supposed to do?
Scoblete goes on to talk about how a no fly zone, using special forces or arming the rebels will not work. He raises the spectre of Iraq and Afghanistan and says intervention will not work. Once again, he makes false assumptions; these are not the only choices.
Look, the author is correct when he says that Obama was prepared to sit still and do nothing while 70,000 Syrians were slaughtered. Chemical weapons do not change this. But they should. That is the point; they should.
And America has a clear option: we can strike strong and fast against every chemical depot in the country. We can send air power and special forces into Syria to destroy all traces of Assad's chemical arms. If fighting continues, we can then just leave. America is not the guarantor of peace in Syria. But America needs to protect itself and its allies against chemical attacks. Do we want al Qaeda forces to gain control of chemical weapons? Do we want Assad to give them to Hezbollah? Wouldn't it be better just to destroy the weapons and be done with it?
This is not a perfect option, but none of them are perfect.
The reasons for American involvement in Syria are now overwhelming. Let's hope that at least for once, Obama makes the right decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment